The hidden exchange.
Without knowing it, Putin triggered a change of approach in international politics that he probably did not know he could change. I am referring to the belief (paradoxically born with the Soviet Union and its collapse) that trading with a dictatorship sooner or later creates a middle class that transforms it into a democracy.
This belief had its basis in the eighteenth-century revolutions and in the role played by the so-called "third estate". Since the (successful) revolutions were made by the third state, while the failed ones (the communist ones) came from the working class, the most philosophical historians had started to say that it was the third state to guarantee or fight for democracy, human rights. and civil liberties.
(Actually, in history we also find many different examples, but forget it: historians do not use logic).
Thus it was easy to create Östpolitik in Germany, that is, for Willy Brandt it was easy to justify his commercial opening towards the USSR by saying that trading with them would bring down the USSR.
The collapse of the USSR seemed to prove Willy Brandt right, and so we proceeded with the next hard bone. The China.
The USA wanted a new, huge market because they feared (rightly) that the growth of the EU would turn it into an impregnable fortress for corporate America, and therefore they wanted a greater outlet, while now the arrival of Putin was beginning to steal even Russia to the appetite of the "masters of the universe". (which would then be the American version of the Russian oligarchs: it is time to start calling people like Musk, Bezos, Tuckerberg and others "Oligarchs of the network")
China was chosen by the US for several reasons:
- The previous myopia of the US administrations had prompted the US to support Pakistan, leaving India to arm itself mainly from the Soviet and then Russian military industry.
- Allying with a dictatorship means securing fifteen / twenty years of alliance, while a democracy can change its mind with the vote a few years later.
- It was more comfortable for maritime traffic, and there was no danger that its growth would affect Europe more than the USA.
The problem began with Tiananmen Square, when China made it clear that in any case, trade or not, the "third state" would not have the possibility to effect a change of regime. To this the globalists replied "but yes, but we will take longer, China is so big, but in the end the regime will collapse",
The coup de grace against this ideology is the fact that in the end, the same story that has been repeating itself for 6/700 years has returned to Russia.
The last part of the last century divided the "experts" and "advisers" into two factions: the protectionists "we close the borders to the products of dictatorships" and the globalists "but if we trade with them they will become democracies. Do you see what happened in the USSR? ”.
The globalists are obviously weak now, because they have ZERO examples to cite to give strength to their theory. There are no places where it has worked. The European globalists, who are faced with the Visegrad blockade, are also weakening a lot in the debate.
This century begins with a change. And now the factions are now three, only now the protectionists say "we should subordinate trade to democracy, the rule of law and human rights", while the globalists do not know what to answer. The third faction that is emerging is that of traditional historicism: “those countries are dictatorships because their culture / ethnicity obliges them to be such. It is so now and forever ”. For now, the third faction is allied with the protectionists.
The only ones who have understood this change so far are the Chinese. Not for nothing are they refusing to create visible military alliances of "those who show that trading with dictatorships brings nothing but trouble".
The Indians have also understood this, who after siding with the alliance of Pacific democracies are holding a rather skeptical attitude towards China and Russia. Modi's snatch from Putin is a change not to be underestimated. performance in the border wars they have underway, but that's another chapter).
On the other hand, little is said about it in the European press. Although it is clear that the change has happened here as well. And it happened all the more where he was born. Today no German intellectual dares to affirm that ÖstPolitik had solid reasons anymore, and especially no one dares to affirm that the right attitude towards an autocrat is “throw money to the problem”.
The first to pay the price is Orban. After decades of abuse, the EU discovers it is time to stop throwing money on the problem. They understood that even with money, Orban's country does not become more democratic, and therefore now they will stop suddenly. When they were scratching Syrian children on the border letting the fascist volunteers do it, they didn't lift a finger, but now the wind has changed.
Others are not understanding. And these are the ones that will give us problems.
First of all, internal problems. It must be understood that commercial relations with Russia will never return to the same as before, not so much for political reasons, but for GEO-political reasons. Once the world of commerce (which also includes ship insurance, container rental, rail, ship, port, etc.) is structured under the new paradigm, even if trading with Russia will be possible again, it will be possible again. tremendously difficult , and certainly much more expensive.
The parties that will continue to take sides in favor of China and Russia still do not understand that insurance companies are changing the costs for ships to / from Russia, that the world of containers is punishing trade with China, and that supply chains chains are much more complex than they think. Ultimately, that is, if the whole world adapts to the idea of block trade, hardly a single country will be able to escape the new "rules".
Of course, it will perhaps be possible to trade gas with Russia, but guarantees will be needed. On an international scale, the "guarantees" are written like this: I pay 5 years, that is, five years after receiving the goods. If you do the prick, I block five years of payments.
But it is still a system that reaches full capacity in five years, and presents very serious problems in the first two or three years.
But the problem with this paradigm shift is that no one talks much about it in the newspapers, so industrialists and entrepreneurs continue to talk in terms of "when will normal again", without realizing the change.
Every change has pros and cons. Not being aware of the change means losing the “pros”, ie the opportunities, and still being impacted by the “cons”.
So it would be better to wake up, in my opinion.