Apologies for a longish post. I was thinking whether it was too early to post this, or whether I should post it at all. I used to be active in the Cowshed many years ago. Then it seemed like an engagement on ideas. I sparred with EGB a lot. In retrospect I think we both got things right and both got things very much wrong. But it was about the big ideas: individual vs collective; religion vs secular; the role of the state; and the impacts wider society. I stopped posting as in my view it became, as did much of social media and newspaper comment pages, less and less about debate on the big ideas. You might say so what? Fair enough - but I think that what has happened in Ukraine in the last week has changed everything. I believe that there are a number of things arising that need us to engage with the big ideas. I've listed some of what I think these are below and would really welcome Bouncers thoughts on these and the bigger assertion that everything has changed?
- What is the role of the state vs individuals. Britain is a very open economy. Investors from abroad can buy companies and property. We have golden visas (as do many European countries). Are we OK with this? Is the danger of restricting access to the economy potentially financial and isolationist?
- The old post cold war assumptions are gone. I never thought that I would see something like the Ukraine in my lifetime. When I've looked at conflict before, whether I thought it was justified or not, I could generally understand a rationale for it. I'm stumped with this. And that makes how we respond very confusing.
- How do we engage with Russia and China? Since the seventies, the western approach as been a mix of deterrence and engagement. The engagement piece being based on a view that bringing Russia and China into the wider world market would bring prosperity, an emergent middle class and an engagement with the wider world that would break down barriers. The significance of the emerging middle class is that most political change and indeed revolutions, have been middle and professional class driven (I'm sure Big G and Moaty will have views on this). Instead what has happended is that China has become economically powerful (with huge disparities of wealth) but with no related liberalisation. Any flickering liberalisation in Russia was quickly doused too. So what, if anything do we do about this? It was credible to say nothing - but last week may have turned that on its head.
- NATO is right back at the top of the agenda. Biden is much more supportive than Trump and there appears to be demand from non-Nato countries to join. There is a strong strand of opposition to Nato in Scotland - does that still stand? Is Nato actually a threat to Russia? After last week maybe it should be?
- The EU - I think the events of the last week are fundamental for the EU. The immediate change is providing funds for military support. Unherd of before. Then the questions about who should join. Longer term, there has been criticism of the unanamous vote position from people like Donald Tusk. That may go, which does change the dynamic of membership. Other commentators are suggesting closer integration and a unified fiscal policy. What does this mean for the EU and for those here who want to rejoin?
- Energy security - we have really laudable decarbonisation objectives. But given where we are with renewables at the moment and the need to underpin these with other energy sources, does this put oil and gas extraction back on the agenda, rather than rely on foreign sources. And what role for nuclear power?
- And finally, nuclear weapons - what do we do about them?
When I was twenty I knew the answer. Now I struggle with the questions! Even more so after the last week. Have I got the questions right and what else do Bouncers think is back on the table for debate?
Really interesting Archie and I’m glad you posted it. For what its worth one of my great frustrations in all of this has been the ways its reinforced the ‘us’ and the ‘them’. Seems to me that in many ways its only when things happen to those that are broadly put in the ‘us’ bracket that people care enough. To give a few examples, on the Ukraine thread G pointed out the hypocrisy of the nations of central and eastern Europe welcoming ‘our brothers’ with open arms while just a few years ago the same leaders spoke of being invaded by people fleeing war. Truss celebrates people going to fight while just a few years ago people going to fight Isis were criminalised. Sport come out against Russia yet just a few years ago fined clubs for waving ‘political’ flags, ie Palestinian flags. Christ Robbie Fowler was fined for supporting people being locked out of their workplace due to it being ‘political. My kids have been asking about war a lot, and despite often talking about global politics it almost seems as if war only exists in many minds when it is close, or it happens to people ‘we’ perceive as being more like ‘us’. My quick responses to your question, helped by the fact I’m on strike and bored.
- What is the role of the state vs individuals. Britain is a very open economy. Investors from abroad can buy companies and property. We have golden visas (as do many European countries). Are we OK with this? Is the danger of restricting access to the economy potentially financial and isolationist?
On the first point, I think the pandemic more than anything in my lifetime re-emphasises the importance of the state. But I am conflicted about the state, seems to me its often both the cause of problems and the potential solution to them, so how we engage with the state is complicated, engage and try to change or accept its immutability? I also think this question ties back to age old questions about positive and negative liberty.
On the 2nd point, this is nothing new but still disgusting. When Hong Kong returned to China only those with certain amount of money were allowed to come here, and large corporations are able to circumvent visa regimes through inter-company transfers. I also think more rich people isn’t exactly what we need, despite all attention being on migrants and minorities, the least integrated group in society is the rich, different neighbourhoods, schools, shops, restaurants, past-times etc. And surely for those who disagree with me, the capitalists, a lesson of the US is that people with little are more likely to innovate. The creative tension is what works?
- The old post cold war assumptions are gone. I never thought that I would see something like the Ukraine in my lifetime. When I've looked at conflict before, whether I thought it was justified or not, I could generally understand a rationale for it. I'm stumped with this. And that makes how we respond very confusing.
I’m not sure I understand the rationale for many conflicts to be honest, or to put it more glibly, isn’t it all about power? Hasn’t it always all been about power?
- How do we engage with Russia and China? Since the seventies, the western approach as been a mix of deterrence and engagement. The engagement piece being based on a view that bringing Russia and China into the wider world market would bring prosperity, an emergent middle class and an engagement with the wider world that would break down barriers. The significance of the emerging middle class is that most political change and indeed revolutions, have been middle and professional class driven (I'm sure Big G and Moaty will have views on this). Instead what has happended is that China has become economically powerful (with huge disparities of wealth) but with no related liberalisation. Any flickering liberalisation in Russia was quickly doused too. So what, if anything do we do about this? It was credible to say nothing - but last week may have turned that on its head.
I think this is all tied into stagnating living standards here. As wages stagnate the desire, even need, for more cheap consumer products heightens and enhances the power of some states and corporations. (this is also tied to issues of energy security below). So i do think a more equal society where people can afford 'bread and roses' undercuts some of the problem here. While its not a solution to the here and now, learning and acknowledging mistakes also matters, supporting Yeltsin, for example, despite clear ‘deficiencies’ allowed a moment of possibility in Russia to be lost. I also think we have to look at Russia and China alongside the rise of populist nationalism in Europe and the US too, maybe there is a symbiosis there.
- NATO is right back at the top of the agenda. Biden is much more supportive than Trump and there appears to be demand from non-Nato countries to join. There is a strong strand of opposition to Nato in Scotland - does that still stand? Is Nato actually a threat to Russia? After last week maybe it should be?
I know some will baulk here but I still think I’d disband Nato. As a supposed defensive alliance its move east has precipitated and given an excuse to the expansionist despots of the world. Its easy to see it as a military wing of economic imperialism if you look hard enough. I’m also not sure its shown any utility in this crisis, unless you think Putin would have attacked other nations had they not been nato members?
- The EU - I think the events of the last week are fundamental for the EU. The immediate change is providing funds for military support. Unherd of before. Then the questions about who should join. Longer term, there has been criticism of the unanamous vote position from people like Donald Tusk. That may go, which does change the dynamic of membership. Other commentators are suggesting closer integration and a unified fiscal policy. What does this mean for the EU and for those here who want to rejoin?
The EU, for me, remains fundamentally a neo-liberal entity, or set of entities. The social chapter was a pathetic sop that has meant little for most people. In that though there may be a possibility. If the EU goes full steam ahead with integration as a response to this crisis, then there may well be possibilities of furthering the rights agenda against the interests of big business. I think the EU has to be looked at as ‘state-like’ and as such there are opportunities to re-shape it, but to do so requires huge reforms, not least of which are democratic reforms, and this also of course requires the support of the right wing populists mentioned above. This was always, for me, the folly in arguing to stay in a reformed EU in 2016, it was never explained how you reform in system of qualified majority voting. How so socially liberal demands get past Orban et al?.
- Energy security - we have really laudable decarbonisation objectives. But given where we are with renewables at the moment and the need to underpin these with other energy sources, does this put oil and gas extraction back on the agenda, rather than rely on foreign sources. And what role for nuclear power?
I read recently that had renewables been subsidised in the same way as fossil fuels then we would likely be producing far more than can be consumed. And if we are to discuss security, energy or otherwise, we have to bring in the issue of climate change. Maybe a kind of martial plan for the climate is needed.
- And finally, nuclear weapons - what do we do about them?
Abolish, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
