Spy Poisoning Mystery Stirs the Cold War Cauldron and U.S. Economy
The economy cannot resist all storms, and a major one is brewing on the horizon. The stakes and risks could not be higher. The world has reverted back to the 1950s and 1960s. Analysts, pundits, and ordinary people who still follow the news find themselves discussing the possibility of nuclear conflicts with odd nonchalance.
But, unlike the military duopoly of the Cold War, the modern multi-polar—or, as some might call it, chaotic—world is more volatile and less predictable. The present global security scenario is worse than it was in the period preceding the fall of the Berlin Wall. It also hurts the U.S. economy.
The U.S. has a massive debt and the lower taxes leave no margins to boost military spending. Still, the global situation is such that the defense sector will demand—and secure—more resources, draining them from infrastructure and other economic growth areas.
The risk of military confrontation—in order of likelihood—with Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, and China, was always present. Indeed, had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, the United States would have already been engaged in one of those (Syria) in a bigger capacity than it is at present. You see, many analysts fear that the world is heading closer toward worst-case scenarios. President Donald Trump, who didn’t own casinos in Atlantic City by “chance,” has raised the stakes in two big ways.
Both will alter the U.S. economy’s overall risk picture, but readers have probably already hedged their investments accordingly.
On March 15, President Vladimir Putin assembled the Russian National Security Council to discuss operations in Syria (Ghouta). But the discussion also focused on the dismissal of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the concerted efforts by the United Kingdom, the United States, and France (and NATO, for that matter) over the poisoning of former KGB spy Sergei Skripal—and his daughter Yuliya in Salisbury, near London.
The case of Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy (double agent) that the British government has accused Russia of poisoning with nerve gas, has flash frozen NATO’s relationship with Russia to the Cold War. The British government has formally accused Moscow—and specifically, Vladimir Putin—based on Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Boris Johnson’s account. (Source: “Spy poisoning: Putin most likely behind attack – Johnson,” BBC, March 16, 2018.)
Skripal was released in 2010 as part of an exchange. He was recruited in the 1990s, a period when many KGB agents, as well as other Russian state officials, were receiving their salaries sporadically thanks to then-President Boris Yeltsin’s enthusiasm for capitalist shock therapy—courtesy of Jeffrey Sachs. (Source: “How the Soviet Collapse Enriched a Few and Destroyed Millions,” Telesur, September 6, 2016.)
The Readiness to Blame Russia Should Raise Suspicions
Given the lack of evidence, the facts suggest there’s nothing that demonstrates the British government’s case. Yet, there’s proof that the U.K. and its NATO allies appear eager to use the case to worsen relations with Russia. The international situation now is pure Cold War. NATO has exploited the Skripal poisoning to stress that Russia represents a risk to global security.
The fact that the U.K. has blocked a Russian request for a full UN inquiry into the matter raises a whole other set of suspicions. With Vladimir Putin having won the presidential election again, why would Moscow risk such an incident? Russia had absolutely no interest in playing with fire, or chemistry sets in public arenas, given it’s hosting the FIFA World Cup this summer. Don’t be surprised if a similar incident unveils in New York…
Meanwhile, to underline the new military tensions, President Putin laid his cards on the table during a speech to the Russian nation. He used clear language, denouncing the United States for fueling the nuclear arms race. The U.S. has, indeed, vastly increased the number and power of its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). But, more significantly, Putin accused NATO of expanding eastward, installing ICBM sites in Romania and Poland, not to mention related missile systems like the “Patriot.” NATO also deploys warships in the Black Sea, close to Russian territory.
Putin made it clear that Russia would adopt countermeasures. One of these includes new types of strategic weapons. One is an atomic warhead-equipped cruise missile launched for the air and having a virtually unlimited range and an unpredictable trajectory. Thus, it’s capable of breaching any missile defense. (Source: “Putin reveals new Russian missile that can ‘reach any point in the world‘,” CNBC, March 1, 2018.)
Putin and Russia beat the U.S. to it. American defense contractors are probably working on similar weapons, but Russia has them now. What does this tell us? The U.S. military-industrial complex will see pressure from the Pentagon to catch up to reach or surpass Russia. The Pentagon will make increasing demands on resources to achieve parity.
Can the United States Afford a New Arms Race and New Wars?
The nuclear arms race is in full swing; it suggests that it’s not about quantity, but more and more about the quality of weapons. It suggests heavy research and development costs, the kind that drain public resources. However, no U.S. president can dismiss security concerns; expect a massive drain of resources toward the military, as well as more military confrontations: Syria, Iran, and North Korea are the most likely battlegrounds in the near future, perhaps in the next few months.
Tillerson Firing Means Trump Wants to Hit Iran
On March 13, the world edged closer to World War III. If this sounds exaggerated and ludicrous, that’s because such a prospect should be considered ludicrous. World War III is the war before the war that Albert Einstein quipped would be fought with only “sticks and stones.” Why did this horrific possibility intensify specifically on March 13? Because that was the day President Trump fired Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, replacing him with CIA director Mike Pompeo.
Pompeo has long criticized the Iran deal and he’s eager to pull it back. He’s less hawkish on Russia, but that doesn’t matter. By going after Iran, Pompeo won’t be able to avoid dealing with Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, in the process disrupting Russia’s strategy.
Until recently, as CIA director, Pompeo expressed favor for regime change in North Korea, warning that the regime in Pyongyang is a few steps away from being able to deploy a nuclear weapon against U.S. interests.
Rex Tillerson, a “dove” who favored international trade and who often quarreled with the president over the more controversial decisions (such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital) is out. Tillerson, as an experienced oil man, favored maintaining the Iran nuclear deal and good relations with Moscow. Saudi Arabia, which just acquired at least 45 new “Typhoon” jet fighters from the U.K., also did not see eye to eye with Tillerson because of his objection to the Kingdom’s isolation of Qatar.
Tillerson had a long career in the energy sector and experience dealing with the Gulf states. He showed reason and the ability to balance tricky situations during the Qatar crisis, acting reasonably and protecting President Trump from himself—compensating with reason where Trump exaggerated with “impulsive” (to put it mildly) decisions.
We Are Stumbling into World War III
Russian officials close to the Kremlin have also revealed they have uncovered not-so-covert U.S. plans to attack the government quarter in Damascus, Syria. The Russians said they would not hesitate to respond in kind should any Russian lives (or Russian interests) be affected.
Many forget that chaotic global situations, in a background of arms races and trade disputes, are what caused World War I. In this case, the trigger—the “black swan” event—is unknown, but it could come from anywhere, and Syria is but one of the potential venues where the rare bird might appear.
Trump has turned up the bellicose ante to maximum, appointing Gina Haspel as the next CIA director. The president has chosen two hawks for the price of one moderate pragmatist. Whether you want a harder line or not, it’s clear that Trump has just shifted the center of gravity of his administration’s foreign policy to the far right.
As for the role of CIA director, Trump could not have chosen a more controversial and hawkish figure than Haspel, a career CIA agent and someone who has gathered quite a reputation. Edward Snowden has accused Haspel of playing a key role in torturing suspects and then covering it up. She is said to have personally supervised the torture of a man who lost an eye in the process, waterboarding him 87 times. The man was reportedly innocent.
President Trump has no doubt offered a crucial concession on North Korea. Until recently—though still possible—it seemed as if Trump was ready to launch an attack against the People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Instead, he has suggested a face-to-face meeting with the North Korean Leader, Kim Jong-un.
That would have eased some tensions with key superpowers with a stake in those negotiations, like the People’s Republic of China, if it weren’t for the fact that Trump has also launched a trade war with China—as well as the European Union—as its main target.
The U.S. Economy Cannot Afford More “Warmongering”
The Washington establishment never quite abandoned the idea of Russia as an enemy. The establishment needs a boogieman to justify heavy military and other government spending. Many people with no “skin in the game,” as The Black Swan author Nicholas Nassim Taleb says, continue to seek and expect rents. It’s no wonder the defense sector has grown to such heights.
If that’s what the system has built, you may as well profit from it, so long as it lasts. Until there’s another policy revolution in Washington, this won’t change. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, Trump has not revolutionized anything. He’s just put an accent, to use a euphemism, on processes that were well underway during his predecessors’ administrations.
Trump has inherited their world order, their drone wars, their Middle East catastrophes and adventures, and their nuclear re-armament programs. Trump has also inherited the West’s betrayal of a pledge made to Mikhail Gorbachev at the time that the USSR collapsed: not to expand eastward. It was a simple concept, and NATO has simply abused it, given that it now includes several Baltic States that border Russia directly. Ukraine is the latest and biggest “battlefield” in which this strategy is playing out.
The fact that General James Mattis, whom his subordinates and friends affectionately refer to as “Mad Dog,” is the last “adult” standing in the White House now does not inspire confidence. How long is it before he gets shown the exit and is given the loot bag?