The Domestic Political Significance of the Current Wars – Israel-Iran, Ukraine

Publiziert am 26. Juni 2025 von Walter Grobe

Published on June 25, 2025 by Walter Grobe

English translation done by Google, with corrections by the author

Ukraine, Israel-Iran: these two events have something in common that is given too little attention in the public debate. These wars are not just about sovereignty – for example, which parts of Ukraine are under the control of which states, or whether Iran can decide which nuclear program to pursue – but, in my view, the warring parties‘ central concern is controlling their own populations.

And even more: they support each other in this, precisely by waging war against each other.

In the case of Israel-Iran: as much as large segments of the population in Iran desire liberation from the current regime and may fight for it, Israel’s attacks essentially give the regime a boost of legitimacy that it has long since forfeited. There are likely very few citizens who do not desire military defense against such pretensions from a foreign power, as Israel announces with thankfully openness. Israel not only claims control over Iran’s nuclear policy, but also makes it clear that it claims, or already has, air sovereignty over the entire country. Any fundamental internal political development in Iran is now under threat of being targeted with Israeli and/or US bombs, as has long been the case with Lebanon and Syria.

Navid Kermani, a writer with a German passport, Iranian roots, and connections to the country and Israel, notes that the democratic movement in Iran was already severely damaged years ago by the Israeli government’s declaration of support for it. („Süddeutsche Zeitung,“ guest article, June 22, 2025). This strengthened the Iranian regime’s slander that the democratic movement is a tool of Israeli subversion, and that democrats, as Israeli agents, belong to the gallows. Perhaps also worthy of note in this context is the Israeli government’s announcement that it bombed Evin Prison in Tehran; the regime is holding domestic political opponents there.

Kermani also reports from the other side that one of his Israeli interlocutors, who is participating in demonstrations against his government’s Gaza war, is complaining about the Iranian rockets that hit the demonstration site. While this may be a rather small-scale example, the Iranian regime is certainly complicit in driving Israeli citizens who disagree with their government’s extreme violence back under its „protection.“

My thesis: both regimes are working to ensure that no real opposition, no real democratic turnaround, can emerge on the other side; Despite all the raging promises of mutual annihilation, they stabilize each other, or more precisely: they do so through this kind of propaganda. It is unlikely that Iran will abandon its nuclear programs, whatever they may be, and one can assume that it is at least secretly supported in this by others, such as Russia and China. But both the mullahs and Netanyahu have likely pushed domestic criticism into a corner, at least for the time being.

Do we remember the protracted war between Iran and Iraq from 1980 to 1988, shortly after the mullah regime seized power in Iran? The war served both the mullahs, who had just gained a still shaky grip on power, and Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein to consolidate their brutal power structures – and the US, in alliance with Israel, supported both regimes in this. The so-called Iran-Contra affair revealed, among other things, that Israel was also involved in US arms deliveries to the mullah regime, even though the US and Israel allegedly rejected it.

The war was ultimately characterized primarily by the fact that, regarding the border issue, its alleged cause, everything remained the same, but the youth of both countries were forced to murder each other on a horrific scale, and the respective opposition forces were cornered as alleged enemy agents. Only after this war did the mullahs gain a firmer footing.

The Ukraine war is difficult to directly compare with the conflicts in the Middle East, at the center of which is Israel. However, even in the case of the disputes over Ukraine, both the regimes in Russia and Ukraine, whose basic political-economic structures can perhaps be characterized – simplifying – as ‚ racketeered oligarchies‘ perceived as a heavy burden by large sections of the population, have apparently been able to consolidate against their own populations and their democratic demands for the time being – through war.

What does „multipolarity“ mean?

One might want to dismiss the parallels I draw based on these examples as arbitrary and unrealistic. But I won’t let up and simply go higher, to the global level, where, in my view, changes are taking place under buzzwords like „multipolarity“ that, in my view, can best be categorized in a similar way.

The official portrayals of global conflicts are about territories, for example, Taiwan or the division of Ukraine; the deeper issue is whether there are serious systemic differences between rival superpowers like the USA and China, such as between democracy and autocracy, or between aggressor and defender, such that taking sides is unavoidable. Put simply, it’s about one’s own state or group of states offering better opportunities for the future of humanity than their respective rivals or opponents.

The now common term „multipolarity“ suggests that the US has now had to abandon its claim to sole global leadership in light of China’s growing strength, and that perhaps a more peaceful world regime is possible in which the various powers are better balanced. In fact, however, we are not seeing the US and its supporters relinquishing global leadership, but rather expanded bombing campaigns, and no tendency among the Chinese leadership to settle for second place.

Jan Opielka wrote a detailed analysis of this in the „Berliner Zeitung“ of June 24, 2025, which I largely agree with.

Both claim that it is about their own state or group of states („the West“ – „BRICS“) offering better prospects for the future of humanity than their respective rivals. The US, as is well known, has never been particularly reluctant to proclaim its capitalist, exploitative order as the supposed messiah of humanity; the Chinese government, which now also presides over a variant of turbo-capitalism and its international expansion, invokes the historic task of reclaiming China its rightful international leadership, as one of the long-standing leading international cultural nations, if not the true center of the world – after its historic humiliation at the hands of Western imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries.

But what will become of these seemingly mutually exclusive claims when internal conditions are now becoming significantly more similar?

If, in the age of digitally capturing every aspect of life, government control of citizens is progressing at a similar pace in both the West and the East, if there are no longer any significant qualitative differences between a Chinese social credit system and the disempowerment being promoted in the West, for example, through the abolition of cash? If systematic efforts are being made everywhere to transform the responsible citizen of a democracy into a 24/7 controlled work slave and happy consumer?

And even more: when the supposedly fundamentally different government systems in the US, the EU, Russia, and China agree and mutually support each other in international bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO, jointly developing global ‚pandemic‘ and vaccination regimes? When their diplomats meet cooperatively, without being significantly disrupted by the wars they are simultaneously waging against each other, as in Ukraine, or by the planning and gigantic armaments they are simultaneously pushing forward in preparation for further rival wars? When a biological weapons laboratory like the one in Wuhan is jointly operated by the US and China? When a significant portion of the US national debt is still held by China today, and large-scale US-China capital ties continue to be advanced across continents? When the US government lets its own population stare down the barrels of Marines under the pretext of combating illegal migration?

Perhaps we can get closer to reality if we do no longer classify the contradictions between governments, especially so-called systemic contradictions and territorial conflicts such as those between the USA and its Western satraps (EU) on the one hand, and China on the other, as the most important contradictions driving global political developments.

In other words: perhaps we can get further if we classify the contradictions that separate and alienate the systems in both East and West from large parts of their respective populations as no less dynamic than territorial wars.

Very simply, I would say: today, the world, with its more than 8 billion people, is governed by a relatively uniform economic system, in which the capitalist exploitation of human labor and the ruthless exploitation of nature are the universal fundamental law. The various – and certainly fiercely rival – powers face the common problem of maintaining their power in the face of all the social and democratic demands of the majority of the world’s population, and in the face of the destructive results of their own mismanagement. It will not be possible in the long run to continually blame the respective opponents for the catastrophes in order to maintain exploitation and disempowerment in their own spheres.

A scheme like this: the rival systems in East and West, North and South, should be viewed more as the representatives of one and the same global, unsustainable economic-political system than as autonomous, essentially different entities struggling with one another for a better future for the world – I consider such a conceptual model to be useful in light of current developments. In all military confrontations, their common concern is that fundamentally emancipatory developments do not occur, either in their own or in the enemy’s sphere.

Such a scheme would not have been entirely appropriate a few decades ago. However, many people cling to political categories of the past and are less able than ever to grasp current developments.

My own limited horizon allows me, for now, to perceive only hints of real social developments that would be essentially more humane and sustainable than the global regime described. More time and experience are probably needed with its new, brutal and subtle mechanisms of control, seduction, mass destruction, and division. It is a deadly system in which the lives of masses do not count, are deliberately destroyed, and the autonomy and creativity of the vast majority of humanity are fundamentally denied – it is killing itself and will be negated by life.

==============

Technical note regarding the comment function: I had to deactivate it several years ago due to constant misuse for web junk and the like. Therefore, please send comments on my posts to my email address wagrobe@aol.com. I will publish any correspondence containing any factual information as an attachment to my respective post on this page, unless the sender instructs otherwise.

 

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Verschlagwortet mit , , , , , , , , , , , , | Kommentare deaktiviert für The Domestic Political Significance of the Current Wars – Israel-Iran, Ukraine

 Die innenpolitische Bedeutung der gegenwärtigen Kriege – Israel-Iran, Ukraine

Publiziert am 25. Juni 2025 von Walter Grobe

Ukraine, Israel-Iran: diese beiden Vorgänge haben etwas gemeinsam, das in der öffentlichen Auseinandersetzung zu wenig beachtet wird. Es geht in diesen Kriegen nicht nur um die Souveränitäten – bspw. darum, welche Teile der Ukraine unter der Kontrolle welcher Staaten stehen, oder ob der Iran entscheiden kann, welches Atomprogramm er betreibt – , sondern es geht in meinen Augen den beteiligten Kriegsparteien ganz zentral um die Kontrolle der eigenen Bevölkerungen.

Und noch mehr: sie unterstützen einander dabei, gerade indem sie gegeneinander Krieg führen.

Im Falle Israel-Iran: so sehr im Iran große Teile der Bevölkerung die Befreiung von dem aktuellen Regime wünschen und darum kämpfen mögen, die Angriffe Israels geben dem Regime im Grunde eine Auffrischung der längst verwirkten Legitimation. Es dürfte nur sehr wenige Bürger geben, die nicht die militärische Verteidigung gegen solche Anmaßungen einer fremden Macht wünschen, wie sie Israel in dankenswerter Offenheit verkündet. Israel maßt sich ja nicht nur die Kontrolle über die iranische Atompolitik an, sondern gibt deutlich zu verstehen, dass es die Lufthoheit über das ganze Land beansprucht bzw. bereits habe. Jegliche grundlegende innere politische Entwicklung im Iran steht nunmehr unter der Drohung, mit israelischen und/oder auch US-Bomben belegt zu werden, so wie das schon seit längerem gegenüber dem Libanon und Syrien praktiziert wird.

Navid Kermani, ein Schriftsteller mit deutschem Pass, iranischen Wurzeln und Verbindungen in das Land und nach Israel, vermerkt, dass der demokratischen Bewegung im Iran bereits vor Jahren schwerer Schaden zugefügt wurde durch die Erklärung der israelischen Regierung, sie unterstütze diese. („Süddeutsche Zeitung“, Gastbeitrag v. 22.6.25). Das iranische Regime sei dadurch gestärkt worden in der Verleumdung, die demokratische Bewegung sei ein Werkzeug der israelischen Subversion, Demokraten gehörten als israelische Agenten an den Galgen. Wahrscheinlich verdient in diesem Zusammenhang auch die Meldung der israelischen Regierung Beachtung, sie habe das Evin-Gefängnis in Teheran bombardiert; dort hält das Regime innenpolitische Gegner gefangen.

Kermani berichtet auch von der Gegenseite, dass einer seiner israelischen Gesprächspartner, der an Demonstrationen gegen den Gazakrieg seiner Regierung teilnimmt, Klage über die iranischen Raketen führe, die den Platz der Demonstrationen getroffen hätten. Mag dies auch eher ein kleindimensioniertes Beispiel sein: das iranische Regime wirkt durchaus mit, wenn es darum geht, Bürger Israels, die mit der extremen Gewalttätigkeit ihrer Regierung nicht einverstanden sind, wieder unter deren „Schutz“ zu treiben.

Meine These: beide Regime arbeiten daran, dass auf der Gegenseite keine wirkliche Opposition, kein wirklicher demokratischer Umschwung zustande kommen kann; trotz aller wutschäumenden gegenseitigen Vernichtungsversprechen stabilisieren sie einander, oder genauer gesagt: mittels derartiger Propaganda tun sie das. Es ist nicht wahrscheinlich, dass der Iran auf seine Atomprogramme, welcher Art sie auch seien, verzichten wird, und man kann davon ausgehen, dass er darin auch von anderen, bspw. Russland und China, zumindest insgeheim unterstützt wird. Aber sowohl die Mullahs wie auch Netanjahu dürften die innere Kritik zumindest vorerst wieder in die Ecke gedrängt haben.

Erinnert man sich noch an den langdauernden Krieg zwischen dem Iran und dem Irak 1980-88, kurz nach der Machtübernahme des Mullah-Regimes im Iran? Der Krieg diente sowohl den Mullahs, die gerade eben an eine noch wacklige Macht gekommenen waren, als auch dem irakischen Machthaber Saddam Hussein bei der Festigung ihrer brutalen Machtstrukturen – und die USA im Bunde mit Israel unterstützten beide Regimes dabei. Die sog. Iran-Contra-Affäre zeigte u.a., dass auch Israel an US-Waffenlieferungen an das Mullahregime beteiligt war, während USA und Israel es angeblich ablehnten.

Der Krieg war letztlich vor allem dadurch gekennzeichnet, dass in der Grenzfrage, seinem  angeblichen Grund, im Ergebnis alles beim Alten blieb, aber die Jugend beider Länder in grauenhaftem Ausmaß gezwungen wurde, einander umzubringen und dass die jeweiligen oppositionellen Kräfte als angebliche Feindagenten an die Wand gedrückt wurden. Erst nach diesem Krieg saßen die Mullahs fester im Sattel.

Der Ukrainekrieg lässt sich mit den Konflikten im vorderorientalischen Raum, in deren Zentrum Israel steht, schlecht direkt vergleichen, aber auch im Falle der Auseinandersetzungen um die Ukraine haben offensichtlich sowohl die Regimes in Russland wie in der Ukraine, deren polit-ökonomische Grundstrukturen beide – vereinfachend –  vielleicht als ‚vergangsterte Oligarchien‘ charakterisiert werden können, die von großen Teilen der Bevölkerung als schwere Last empfunden werden, sich gegen die eigenen Bevölkerungen und deren demokratische Ansprüche einstweilen festigen können – durch den Krieg.

Was bedeutet „Multipolarität“?

Man mag die Parallelen, die ich anhand dieser Beispiele ziehe, vielleicht als willkürlich und realitätsfern abtun wollen. Aber ich lasse hier nicht locker und gehe einfach höher, auf die globale Ebene, wo sich in meinen Augen unter Schlagworten wie „Multipolarität“ Veränderungen abspielen, die man in meinen Augen am besten in ähnlicher Weise kategorisieren kann.

In den offiziellen Darstellungen der globalen Konflikte geht es um Territorien, bspw. um die Aufteilung der Ukraine oder um Taiwan; es geht tiefergehend darum, ob zwischen rivalisierenden Großmächten wie USA und China gravierende Systemgegensätze bestünden wie etwa zwischen Demokratie und Autokratie, oder zwischen Aggressor und Verteidiger, dergestalt dass man um eine Parteinahme nicht herumkomme. Vereinfacht gesagt, gehe es darum, dass der eigene Staat oder seine Staatengruppe der Zukunft der Menschheit bessere Chancen böten als die jeweiligen Rivalen oder Gegner.

Mit dem mittlerweile gängigen Ausdruck „Multipolarität“ wird suggeriert, dass die USA mittlerweile auf den Anspruch des alleinigen Weltführers hätten verzichten müssen angesichts der wachsenden Stärke Chinas, und dass vielleicht ein friedlicheres Weltregime möglich werde, in dem die verschiedenen Mächte besser ausbalanciert würden. Tatsächlich sehen wir aber keinen Verzicht der USA und ihrer Anhänger auf die globale Führung, sondern ausgeweitete Bombardements, und keine Tendenz bei der chinesischen Führung, sich mit dem zweiten Platz zu begnügen.

Jan Opielka hat in der „Berliner Zeitung“ vom 24.6.25 eine ausführliche Analyse dazu geschrieben, der ich weitgehend folgen kann.

Beide behaupten, es gehe darum, dass der eigene Staat bzw. die eigene Staatengruppe („der Westen“ – „BRICS“) der Zukunft der Menschheit bessere Chancen böten als die jeweiligen Rivalen. Die USA waren bekanntlich noch nie besonders zurückhaltend bei der Verkündung ihrer kapitalistischen Ausbeuterordnung als des angeblichen Messias der Menschheit; die chinesische Regierung, die mittlerweile gleichfalls einer Variante des Turbokapitalismus und dessen internationaler Expansion vorsteht, beruft sich auf die historische Aufgabe, China als einer der seit altersher führenden internationalen Kulturnationen, wenn nicht sogar des eigentlichen Zentrums der Welt, nach der historischen Erniedrigung durch den westlichen Imperialismus im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert wieder den gebührenden internationalen Spitzenplatz zurückzuerobern.

Was aber wird aus diesen dem Anschein nach einander wechselseitig ausschließenden Ansprüchen, wenn mittlerweile die inneren Verhältnisse sich stark aneinander angleichen?

Wenn die Kontrolle der Bürger durch die Regierungen im Zeitalter der digitalen Vollerfassung jeglicher Lebensregung in West wie Ost ganz ähnlich voranschreitet, wenn zwischen einem chinesischen social credit system und den Entmündigungen, die im Westen vorangetrieben werden, bspw. auch durch die Bargeldabschaffung, keine so großen qualitativen Unterschiede mehr zu erkennen sind? Wenn überall systematisch daran gearbeitet wird, den mündigen Bürger einer Demokratie in einen 24/7 gesteuerten Arbeitssklaven und freudigen Konsumenten umzuwandeln?

Und noch mehr: wenn die angeblich so wesensverschiedenen Regierungssysteme in den USA, der EU, Russland und China in internationalen Gremien wie der World Health Organisation (WHO) sich verabreden und gegenseitig unterstützen bei der Entwicklung weltweiter ‚Pandemie-‘ und Impfregime? Wenn ihre Diplomaten kooperativ einander treffen, ohne dass sie dabei wesentlich gestört würden durch die Kriege, die sie gleichzeitig gegeneinander führen wie in der Ukraine, oder durch die Planungen und die gigantischen Rüstungen, die sie gleichzeitig zur Vorbereitung weitere Rivalitätskriege vorantreiben? Wenn ein Biowaffenlabor wie in Wuhan von den USA und China gemeinsam betrieben wird? Wenn noch heute ein erheblicher Teil der US-Staatsschulden von China gehalten wird und große US-China-Kapitalverflechtungen weiterhin über die Kontinente hinweg vorangetrieben werden? Wenn die US-Regierung ihre eigene Bevölkerung in die Gewehrmündungen von Marines schauen lässt unter dem Vorwand der Bekämpfung illegaler Migration?

Vielleicht kommt man der Realität näher, wenn man die Gegensätze zwischen den Regierungen, vor allem solche sogenannten Systemgegensätze und solche territorialen Konflikte wie die zwischen den USA und ihren westlichen Satrapen (EU) einerseits, China andererseits nicht als die wichtigsten Widersprüche einstuft, die die weltpolitischen Entwicklungen vorantreiben,

Mit anderen Worten: möglicherweise kommt man weiter, wenn man die Gegensätze, die die Systeme in Ost wie West von großen Teilen ihrer jeweiligen Bevölkerungen trennen und entfremden, als nicht weniger dynamisch einstuft als die territorialen Kriege.

Sehr vereinfachend möchte ich sagen: heute wird die Welt mit ihren über 8 Milliarden Menschen durch ein relativ gleichförmiges ökonomisches System beherrscht, in dem die kapitalistische Ausnutzung der menschlichen Arbeitskraft und die rücksichtslose Vernutzung der Natur allgemeines Grundgesetz sind. Die verschiedenen – und durchaus heftigst miteinander rivalisierenden – Mächte haben das gemeinsame Problem sich an der Macht zu erhalten gegenüber allen sozialen und demokratischen Ansprüchen der größten Teile der Weltbevölkerung, gegenüber den zerstörerischen Resultaten ihrer eigenen Misswirtschaft. Es wird auf die Dauer nicht möglich sein, die Schuld für die Katastrophen immer wieder den jeweiligen Gegnern zuzuschieben, um in den eigenen Bereichen due Ausbeutung und die Entmündigung beibehalten zu können.

Ein Schema in der Art: die rivalisierenden Systeme in Ost und West, Nord und Süd sind eher als die Statthalter ein- und desselben weltweiten, untragbaren ökonomisch-politischen Systems zu betrachten denn als autonome wesensverschiedene Einheiten, die miteinander um eine bessere Zukunft der Welt rängen – ein solches begriffliches Muster halte ich für brauchbar angesichts der aktuellen Entwicklungen. Bei allen kriegerischen Konfrontationen ist ihre gemeinsame Sorge, dass es weder im eigenen noch im gegnerischen Bereich zu fundamental emanzipativen Entwicklungen kommt.

Ein solches Schema wäre vor ein paar Jahrzehnten noch nicht recht angemessen gewesen. Viele Menschen halten allerdings an politischen Kategorien vergangener Zeit fest und können die heutigen Entwicklungen weniger denn je erfassen.

Mein eigener begrenzter Horizont lässt mich vorerst nur Andeutungen von realen gesellschaftlichen Entwicklungen wahrnehmen, die dem geschilderte globalen Regime gegenüber wesensmäßig humaner und tragfähiger wären. Wahrscheinlich braucht es mehr Zeit und Erfahrungen mit dessen neuen brutalen und subtilen Mechanismen der Kontrolle, der Verführung, der Massenvernichtungen und der Spaltungen. Es ist ein tödliches System, in dem das Leben von Menschenmassen nicht zählt, gezielt vernichtet wird und  den größten Teilen der Menschheit Autonomie und Kreativität von Grund auf abgesprochen werden – es bringt sich selber um und wird vom Leben negiert werden.

(Fehlerkorrekturen: 25.6.25, 21.20h)

==============

Technischer Hinweis zur Kommentarfunktion: diese musste ich schon vor mehreren Jahren abschalten wegen dauernden Missbrauchs für Webmüll und dergleichen. Bemerkungen zu meinen Beiträgen daher bitte an meine e.mail-Adresse wagrobe@aol.com. Ich werde jede Zuschrift, die irgendetwas Sachliches enthält, dann im Anhang zu meinem jeweiligen Beitrag auf dieser page veröffentlichen, wenn nicht vom Absender anders verfügt wird.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Verschlagwortet mit , , , , , , , , , , , , | Kommentare deaktiviert für  Die innenpolitische Bedeutung der gegenwärtigen Kriege – Israel-Iran, Ukraine

Reflections on the world situation on the occasion of the German election and Trump/Musk’s hullaballou – What does „Europe is weak“ mean? Is there also strength in Europe?

Publiziert am 9. März 2025 von Walter Grobe

Published originally in German on February 26, 2025 by Walter Grobe

English translation done by Google, with some corrections by the author

The reflections set out in writing below contain little or nothing in the way of concrete political objectives or recommendations for action. I am simply trying to formulate something about the framework conditions that, in my opinion, cannot be ignored by people who set themselves a humane and progressive political goal.

The federal election on February 23, 2025 triggered a high level of participation among the population. The number of ballots cast was a record and there was a considerable amount of civic activity such as demonstrations on the issue of migration, mostly in favor of or against certain parties.

The outcome did not look like a significant questioning of the previous political framework, the existing parties and their view of the world. However, it seems that more and more citizens are worried about social developments, about their personal future, and hope that by participating in elections and other forms of political activity they can give things momentum in a direction that they believe is the right one.

The ensuing process of putting together a new government, however, promises more economic misery and more foreign policy uncertainty, further rearmament, preparations for war and also domestic political disciplining, such as further restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. For my part, I hope that many more citizens will become active and gradually find a style of political debate in which even deep fundamental differences in opinions and interests do not lead to further divisions, but to clarifications about the real conditions and, on this basis, to more joint democratic action.

What the most frequently used media, such as public broadcasting and most representatives of the parties standing for election, do: blame other parties or other governments and countries for grievances and only discuss a selection of superficial phenomena from the world’s major economic and political development trends, as far as they fit into the current self-promotion – I would like to keep myself as free as possible from this in the following paragraphs.

So first the global fundamentals: the ’social question‘:

… the global development of the relationship between poverty and wealth. It is the final and most important frame of reference for all political events, even for an event that is only of momentary and local importance, such as a federal election in a country like Germany, and it determines to a large extent, often quite directly, what is said and done politically here.

In recent years and decades, and not only in the „West,“ we have seen a seemingly unstoppable tide that guarantees obscene increases in personal wealth (and public influence) for a small upper stratum of billionaires, while the economic adequacy of life is not getting better, and is often getting worse, not just for billions of people in the world’s major poverty zones. Loss of purchasing power, job insecurity and fears of poverty in old age are also becoming noticeable in large, previously relatively secure sections of the population in developed countries.

Not only is human labor being further disempowered by exploitation, but the whole of nature is being subjected to a merciless exploitation for which there can and will be no tomorrow.

China, which has only been integrated into modern capitalism for a few decades, is also undergoing a similar development in principle: after it had rapidly become the ‚workbench of the world‘ since the 1990s and the leadership had apparently secured a certain bonus from a large part of the population through wage increases, participation in urban life and modern civilisation goods, this model is now clearly shaky.

It is actually inappropriate to mention Russia here because it plays in a lower league due to its small population and weak economic base; only its geostrategic position and its military power make it a ‚great power‘ for almost every political conception. Due to its geographical location, its role as the largest country in terms of area and its military capabilities, the foundations of which date back to the time of the so-called Cold War, Russia is a sought-after partner of both the USA and China; it is a kind of wild card in global power games depending on which alliance it is more inclined to. Russia has only about 150 million inhabitants, a little more than a tenth of China’s 1.4 billion or India’s 1.4 billion, and even compared to Europe (over 500 million inhabitants – excluding the European part of Russia) and the USA (340 million), it cannot keep up in terms of economic or finally of military power; I am mentioning it here anyway, mainly because it is currently perceived or publicly portrayed as a superpower between the West and the East (China). There is much to suggest that Russia is dominated by super-rich oligarchs in a similar way to the West or China, and that the government apparatus is also trying to impose comprehensive digital controls on its citizens. I will return to Russia’s real global position below when discussing multipolarity.

In concrete terms, the struggle between rich and poor in all important centers, in the USA, in China, in Europe, and in many other countries, has developed in such a way over the last few decades that capital has become enormously centralized and the economic mass and power of a few conglomerates in the financial, digital und industrial realm continues to grow, so that the gaps between top and bottom are inevitably widening.

The oligarch networks are preparing for the confrontations that they themselves see coming, some of them probably much more clearly than the mass of the population. Systems of digital surveillance of the population are being further developed at enormous expense. This is not just about recording even the smallest movement of the citizen, ostensibly for the purposes of advertising and consumer incentives, but in reality about controlling the opinions, political partisanship, and activities of every single individual, as well as of political and social mass movements.

As if in a negative mirror to this enormous knowledge of the ruling apparatus, the level of knowledge and education in large parts of the population is generally falling and with it the opportunities to articulate oneself and to empower oneself against the power of wealth. The repressive apparatus is being strengthened, the police and secret services are being granted more weapons and rights and the constitutions are being further eroded. For the oligarchic regimes, even the average citizen is virtually an enemy because he could make use of his democratic rights. Books and political programs are being published that massively denounce democracy because the citizen is supposedly too stupid to make the right use of it in his own interest; only his submission to central digital controls that turn the citizen into a cyborg, including implants, can save him from his own incompetence and stabilize the states. Nothing other than a few huge private accounts should remain of the communities.

In principle, these developments are affecting the West just as much as China, for example, which is already showing in practice, at least partly, how this can work with its ’social credit system‘.

What does „multipolarity“ mean in the context of the question of rich and poor?

International politics is an essential part of such efforts by the capitalist oligarchies in the East and West to prevent their impending downfall and to secure eternal life for themselves. Multipolarity, an important buzzword for several years, is now supposed to divide the world into spheres of interest in such a way that the rivalries, especially those between the oligarchs of the USA and China, are balanced and dampened. In addition to and between these two „giants“, several secondary centers are to be permitted, such as Europe. Russia – will you turn more towards the USA again? China: will you fall behind in the rivalry with the USA due to the lack of this ally? Will Europe or an alliance of important European countries actually become more independent in the so-called multipolar world order that is now being hyped everywhere? Can social relations within the respective centers or secondary centers be improved by investing less in armaments and war and more in the internal improvement of the countries?

Both sides, the rulers in the USA and in China, probably see the need to postpone some of the major confrontations for the time being and to strengthen the internal forces, to expand their own economic and military potential and to shape their own populations into ultimately docile tools of exploitation and the coming major wars. In my view, however, multipolarity is only the current form of the struggle between the two for the position of number 1. It has nothing to do with stabilizing the political situation on the globe. Both superpowers basically see themselves as the only possible and legitimate superpower and cannot give up this endeavor despite all the promises of peace. There can be no real talk of a truly balanced division of the globe into fixed dominions and respect for the rights of smaller, less powerful countries and groups of countries.

The Trump-Musk complex is symptomatic here.

As far as can be seen so far, Trump is combining some attempts to temporarily defuse certain major power confrontations such as the one in Ukraine with attempts to strengthen the internal economic base and at the same time to subject the population to increased digital registration and police state discipline. The appointment of the politician R.F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health is propaganda-wise linked to a review of the emergency policy under Biden that was carried out under the label „Corona“, but there is no relaxation, no re-democratization whatsoever in terms of police armament and preparations for civil war. On the contrary. In other places, such as the Middle East (Israel, Palestine, Gaza), there is also no sign of peacefulness. Genocide and displacement are even intensified in Trump’s declarations.

As during Trump’s first term in office, attempts are being made to detach Russia from the firm ties to China that the USA itself had provoked with its previous policy. China, the main rival, is to be militarily and territorially isolated. There are no signs of detente on this front. Under Trump, the USA is by no means giving up its global hegemony. The current homage to multipolarity is a tactical means in a difficult situation. Trump’s gang is trying to clear up some sideshows and win more allies again in order to gather forces, both internal and external, to intensify the fight with China. For its part, the Middle Kingdom is gradually gaining the positions all over the globe that it wants to use to outdo the USA. The traditional self-image of the Chinese elites of being the real center of the world is reviving.

Trump’s concept, which actually seems to bring some advantages for Putin, is at the same time massively directed against the European countries, including against Ukraine, which is actually part of Europe, and against the entire population of Europe. Ukraine is being divided, the larger part – the center and the west – will fall to US companies, which will in future directly control the mineral resources and agriculture. Even if there are actually hardly any rare earths to be had: there are plenty of other treasures; the eastern part remains with Russia. The European states are sitting at the kids‘ table when it comes to such agreements, but are allowed to continue to ruin their ailing economies through huge rearmament programs and politically take up a permanent, militarily charged conflict position against Russia. While Trump’s USA promises the Russians great deals, there is no talk of repairing Northstream2. The USA wants to keep the energy supply, especially for Germany, in its hands.

The impoverishment of large parts of the population – in Europe, too – is being massively accelerated.

The tendencies towards division within the European Union are being promoted no less by Trump; Musk’s media show to strengthen the AfD party (“Alternative für Deutschland”) and his flirting with the equally questionable Italian government seem symptomatic to me.

I would like to try a few paragraphs here about the „weakness of Europe“.

The political weakness of Europe, or rather the governments of European countries and their associations such as the EU, is even more evident than before in Trump’s current concepts under the auspices of the struggle between the USA and China. Trump is only provocatively expressing what the US oligarchs have always done and desired. The US has never wanted and could never have wanted the EU or any other conceivable major alliance of European states to free itself militarily from the US’s dominance in European military relations, and it will undermine this at any time with all means possible. This will not change under Trump’s nonsense that the Europeans are weak because they cannot defend themselves and now they must arm, arm, arm and defend themselves against the Russians. Those willing to arm themselves like Macron or Stamer or Merz apparently still cannot imagine a world without the ultimate military anchor of the USA and are practically begging for it. But Europe also has a strength. However, it is not represented by those who currently control the European countries and especially by an institution like the EU, but rather further ruined; nevertheless, it is a basic fact of the global situation and can also be made use of politically. Incidentally, it is not identical with the number of inhabitants and the economic power. These should not be underestimated: depending on whether and how Russia and Turkey (which in any case do not belong to the European continent for the most part) and some still existing colonies are included, the number of inhabitants is around 500 to 750 million.

What interests me most are the questions of cultural strength and the ability to develop thrivingly.

The question of the „strength of Europe“ is deeply connected to the historical development of the relationships between rich and poor in this region of the world; one could even say that Europe’s political and cultural identity consists in how these relationships have been shaped and fought out over centuries and millennia, and in which current institutions, in which culture and in which approaches for the future this has been reflected.

In European history, for at least 2500 years, social contradictions have been fought through and reasoned out in an enormous variety of approaches and also in historical solutions (i.e. in temporary and, needless to say, internally contradictory solutions), in the most diverse social models.

Throughout all eras, outside and below forms of exploitation such as slavery, feudalism and bourgeois-capitalist systems, other types of complexes, characterized by common property and grassroots democracy, have always been able to survive. The most obvious examples are the medieval village community and the principle of the commons; related to this are the democratic or semi-democratic principles of the city republics, which have not been completely eradicated to the present day, from ancient Greece through the Roman era and the medieval city freedoms. This is an important feature (and there are probably parallels in other cultures and regions).

On the other hand, systems of domination and exploitation such as slavery, feudalism and the capitalist order have been repeatedly shaken by political thinkers and inspirers, by mass movements and revolutions, and when the time was right, conditions that were no longer sustainable were overcome; however, modern capitalism still awaits upheaval.

Although ancient slavery was not directly defeated by the slave revolts, such as those of Spartacus in the Roman Empire, it was gradually overcome in the course of the later decline and collapse of the Roman system through the migration of the peoples and later through reforms within the Christian-feudal „Middle Ages“. The feudal-aristocratic order developed in the centuries before the year 1000 and was the dominant one in Europe for more than a thousand years, but since the 18th century, especially since the French Revolution, it was unable to withstand the demands for political equality of citizens and for the development of productive forces (that happened under often extremely brutal conditions of capitalist exploitation).

This development was only possible due to the simultaneous expansion of European colonialism and the wealth that flowed to European countries such as Spain, England, the Netherlands and France from the brutal exploitation of half the world; and one of the encouraging cultural trends of the last decades in Europe and the USA is that young people in particular are coming to terms with this past and rejecting the continuation of colonial and racist practices today.

At the same time, in honor of European culture, it must be noted that capitalism and colonialism have also been radically questioned from within in the modern era since industrialization. The workers‘ movement in Europe has made the greatest efforts to deal with capitalism since the uprisings in France in 1830, the movements in the British Isles at that time and especially the German movement since the 1860s. Millions have risked and lost their lives for this cause. I consider this to be a very important part of the European heritage and also of Europe’s cultural strength, and the strength of these moments will assert itself again in new forms in the current situation – where they seem almost forgotten, but the problems with which they have grappled have not yet been solved.

The wealth of practical and intellectual exploration of the most diverse forms of human social existence in European history has, to my knowledge, not been surpassed by any other culture, perhaps not even reached. This view does not mean a devaluation of other cultures, because the fact that it has come to this is a concrete product of real developments, not of a superiority that was present early on or would last historically.

In any case, Europe not only has weaknesses as seen by power- and war-hungry oligarchs, but also strengths that can be made use of.

—–

A technical note concerning the commentary function on this website: already long ago I had to disable it because of tons of rubbish, advertisments etc. being constantly uploaded to the website. If you want to comment on my articles, therefore, please write to my e-mail-address krixel@aol.com. I promise to publish, as an annex to the article concerned, any contribution loaded with some element of factuality, except the sender does not wish that.

 

 

 

 

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Reflections on the world situation on the occasion of the German election and Trump/Musk’s hullaballou – What does „Europe is weak“ mean? Is there also strength in Europe?

Selensky, Trump and Europe

Publiziert am 3. März 2025 von Walter Grobe

Selensky, Trump and Europe

Published on March 3, 2025 by Walter Grobe. English translation done by Google, some corrections by the author

The current statements by European politicians and journalists on the scandal between Trump and Selensky seem to me to demonstrate a high degree of lack of connection with reality. They have little to do with Trump’s plans and the problems of our own European situation.

It seems to me as if Trump is deliberately trying to provoke those mentioned to sing „solidarity with Selensky“ or Ukraine and to demand or even initiate further armaments for their support – armaments that would be powerless without the ultimate umbrella of the USA – and to make further declarations of hostility towards „Putin“.

I had previously seen Trump’s design as follows: to decouple Russia from China, to squeeze the juice out of Ukraina,  to maneuver the European states into a position of half war and half peace towards Russia, a position that is ultimately dependent on the USA, i.e. controllable by the USA. This constellation would not significantly hinder the USA in its major business deals with Russia and Ukraine, but in Europe it would permanently ruin the economy, morality and European political cohesion. The reactions so far from Merz, Macron and Stamer (UK) seem to confirm this.

But there are other voices singing in this discordant chorus, whose lead the men mentioned claim.

The parliamentary manager of the party “Die Linke”, Christian Görke, spoke out in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung on March 3, 25 (the newspaper’s headline was „Billions for armaments: Will the Left Party make a deal with Merz?“) and hinted that his party would not completely block a debt package for armaments that Merz would introduce, provided that it also contained promises for „sustainable investments in the future of our country“. This raises the question of how one can talk about sustainability and the future if one bases it on the policy of permanent willingness to go to war.

A full-page advert appears in the daily newspaper „TAZ“ from a company that wants to sell drones for the military (Berliner Zeitung, 03.03.25).

Regarding the AfD, the same edition of the same newspaper notes that this party is „strangely quiet“.

In theory, other geostrategic variants that are more favourable for the people of Europe are conceivable. Not only Ukraine as a whole, but also large parts of Russia are also known to be European. But I am not in the mood to try to prolong the survival of this corrupt and deceitful system, which is corroded from within and heading towards collapse, by giving good advice to European politicians. I am writing the above to mark the extent of the incompetence of these politicians who are now talking about European rearmament, solidarity with Selensky and similar schemes, trying to mislead the public and thereby supporting precisely Trump’s variant of „multipolarity“, which weakens Europe as much as possible, makes it even more dependent on the USA and rejoices in its internal destruction.

The phrases like ‚we need to become more independent from the USA‘, ‚we stand by Selensky‘, ‚we want strategic autonomy for Europe‘, ‚a Europe that emancipates itself from the tutelage of the terrible Trump will become the leading power of the free world‘ etc. are contradicted by reality: these ranting politicians are currently acting exactly as Trump’s plan and the propaganda coup with Selensky in the White House want them to. ( June 06 2025: compare also the article by Norbert Haering

 

—–

Technical note on the comment function: I had to turn this off several years ago because of constant misuse for web garbage and the like. Please send comments on my posts to my e-mail address wagrobe@aol.com. I will publish every letter that contains anything factual as an attachment to my respective post on this page, unless the sender instructs otherwise. Published under General | Tagged with AfD, Die Linke, Europe, war, Merz, multipolarity, Russia, armaments, Selensky, Trump, Ukraine | Leave a comment

 

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Verschlagwortet mit , , , , , , , , , , , | Kommentare deaktiviert für Selensky, Trump and Europe