a shadow Cold War ?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

It seems almost unbelievable that what is emerging in the region which formerly was occupied by the late Soviet Union -Kiev, may be becoming a flashpoint of conflicting power tests of regional interests, hiding an agenda of a subtly universal power play,aimed at destabilizing the growing acceptance of a new status quo, of world Capitalism?

 It is equally hard to believe, that Putin, a former KGB colonel , would instigate this sort of political opening, without very real awareness of the consequences, before initiating it. The question remains of his motives.

 Playing a North Korea type overture with attempts at blackmail, is equally deemed unworthy of a major power. Then what could be his designs, if not perhaps to reform a system, which perhaps backlashed, from a period of testing the waters ,sort of speak ,from twenty years of adherence to open markets,to gain time to reform an economically disadvantaged society, while keeping a close eye toward any opportunities to re activate the old guard?

 Is it possible, that the events of the past few days signal a backward slide, incrementally setting the stage toward a resurgent status quo, and the re-emergence of a new Cold War?
2

I don’t think the cold war was ever about ideology, ideology is just an excuse, we’re spreading communism, we’re spreading capitalism, we’re spreading Christianity, we’re spreading Islam, etcetera. It’s about empire. The Russian empire didn’t collapse, at least not entirely, they’re still kicking. Personally, I hope they both collapse, and we manage to erect something better in their ashes.

3

Sometimes I wonder if it’s all just a game.

Are America, Europe, Russia, China, all the big players, being propped up by the same consortium of international bankers and corporations? The more they fight one another, the more we lose, the more they fight one another, the more alike they become, to the point where, one can’t tell the difference between east and west.

4

You are implying ideology to be sort of a game, likened to chess ,using Clausewitz type outmoded strategies of propping up structural deficiencies ? If so the problem is trying to look between the fine print of the declarations and public pronouncements.

But increasing numbers are becoming aware of game theory of how similar types of rhetoric have by now established patterns which , arguably , can be discerned by more and more of the world population.

5

Yes, we’re becoming more conscious of how the elite play their little game, how religion and now how ideology are being used as an excuse, a pretext, or human rights or whatever, safety and security, for imperialism. The game has become more sophisticated, the elites have had to up the ante. They may even be in control of multiple sides, playing them off against one another, controlled opposition, false flags, problem, reaction, solution, I mean, at the end of the day, it’s banksters and corporations that run everything now, not nation states, Obama and Putin are subordinate to the Rothschilds and co. Governments need an enemy the way psychiatrists need a disorder, if there’s hardly any disorders, or hardly any worth treating, you manufacture them, or exaggerate existing ones, these motherfuckers are fucked up, the reason why they have to do all this shit is because, they too are feeding their addictions, to money, and to the things money can buy, it’s one big cluster fuck, where we’re all deceiving one another and allowing ourselves to be deceived. In truth, one can live like Diogenes, or nearly so, n be just fine. Let’s not play their games. Consumerism is the new religion, the elite have also bought into it, the idea that more is always more, so they have to come up with ways to keep us working running on the hamster wheel, keep sucking us dry as much as they can, at the expense of the earth itself, it’s a conundrum. Man is greedy, he’s always sophisticating things, materially, scientifically, socially, technologically, competing, collaborating, it’s in our nature to do so, but we must do so carefully, cautiously, we must not sacrifice necessities for luxuries the way we are, we must learn to be more appreciative and content. We don’t need big government, consumerism, globalization and all the rest of it, we don’t.

Let me hear you say - kill your idols, smash them to pieces, material, social and spiritual alike. Immortality and supreme happiness are not around the corner. We can improve life, but only so much, there’s limits. They’re deceptions, delusions, mirages, illusions…

Ultimately, only time will tell if such information will lead to a revolution in consciousness or not. Genes mutate for better or worse. With man, the meme nearly becomes the definitive factor in determining our species survival. The iconoclasts job is akin to that of a forest fire, preparing the way for new seedlings. Secular
(trans)humanism, the idea that humanities triumphant ascendency is inevitable, if we all just play along, in its Marxist, Randist and its Hitlerian manifestations, is merely another variation on a theme, a theme that’s nearly as old as civilization itself, an
anti-nature theme. Man has become infatuated with itself, its production, particularly western man, we’re suffering from a sort of collective narcissism. Disorders aren’t merely confined to individuals, they may infect and afflict races, ethnicities, species, which is why we’re in need of psycho-sociologists, ones capable of holding man to higher standards than the contemporary norms of the day. Species normally perish because they’re unable to satisfy their needs, in the state of nature, where critical resources are often scarce and hard to come by, so our instincts are geared to such a state, but occasionally, a species is able to bite off more than it can chew, perishing due to atrophy, gluttony, if you will, overpopulation, resource depletion, etcetera, a conflict, a rift develops between its instincts, intellect, if it has any, and its environment. Perhaps never has a species bit off more than it can chew than we in the previous two centuries, and grave, dire consequences will ensue as a result, assuredly, no matter how much we tweak our technology, no matter how efficient and proficient we become.

6

“Shadow cold war” is kind of redundant. It was always just like this.

7

It may have been always like this, but it may be getting to the point where people Wiill find differences in the way strategy has changed actual engagement. In particular the level of blustering to prop up ideology is different from the cold war of the post world war, inasmuch as ideologues do not talk about cliches such as imperialism and colonialism any longer.

This is a significant shift, and the current subterfuge, if it can be called that is the war on terror. However even this concept has lost some of it’s credibility based on diminishing returns of increasing usage.

A leveling off of strategic thinking may cause a real crisis of ideology as a consequence. When this happens, ideology may shift away from the usual philosophical justifications

8

I think the crisis in Ukraine, as well a the ascendancy of China are both lessons in the school of “beware that you might get what you wish for”.

At least since Nixon and the time that followed China has been encouraged to join the happy band of capitalist, and the rich in the West have rubbed their hands and made packets whilst the working people have lost jobs and got themselves into debt.
Russia as accepted democracy and we now see the advent of the Oligarchs, nuevo-millionairres that have mimicked the fat-cats of the West. They have stolen the assets of the Russian people to enrich themselves, and have more power concentrated in the centre than they ever had under a Soviet system.
Right now with Russia also in the happy family of capitalists who serve their own interests; Europe is utterly dependant on imports of fossil fuels. Talk of sanctions is is nothing but hot air.

What we the west have nothing in the way of a leg upon which to stand. We can no longer attack them for being undemocratic or communist. But still it seems not to matter.
Worst still the west is forced to support the illegitimate rebel leadership of Ukraine whose members have achieved their rule with violence and revolution. Meanwhile in in Crimea the democratically elected body have unanimously voted to leave the Ukraine and their junta, and to hand over to Russia who they feel more represent their ethnicity. Further to that they have offered a referendum to decide the issue.
That’s the trouble with democracy. You encourage it here and impose it there and what happens? People choose their leaders - just like Palestine chose Hamas!

At least this week has given us the biggest laugh of the week with Kerry’s descent into utter hypocrisy. Genuinely I thought he was apologising for Iraq, when I switched over the TV in the middle of his interview.

John Kerry, United States Secretary of State said;

“You just don’t invade another country on phoney pretexts to further your own country’s interests.”

Ummm, you don’t ??
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, Granada, Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan.
19thC actions from the 20thC and 21stC USA.

9

It may very well be, that that’s what’s going on. However, dynamically, the vantage point of power shifts through changing contexts may reveal another scenario. It may very well be a deception of the highest magnitude, a preset staragem orchestrated to establish a new frontier if a necessary firewall of social fear, in order to legitimise the increasingly soft underbelly of the 'system '. It may be a preplanned cursory excursion into the realm is high finance, where all big players are conducting a theatre of the absurd no one may really uunderstand .

 With  the war on terror having mostly been resolved. A new  antithesis  had to  be constructed, for the sake of a dealing with  the hidden dialectic of presumed pseudo Marxism.  It may be a decpnstruction, an insurance policy, purported to set off  a minor tremor as a way to ensure that th major faults be de pressurized,