World War III: Alliances Are Forming; Weaponizing Food, Energy

 China has long made clear its intention to become the world’s dominant nation.  To make that happen it must have a powerful military that will be able to frighten nations if necessary and be impervious to any threats from enemies.  It wishes to be the dominant economy in the world with the resources and technologies to form a new world order, with its form of autocratic socialism as a model to be emulated.  As detailed in Forming New World Orders: What World War Three Might Look Like, western nations with their allies, are collaborating in an effort to counter China’s political and economic interests—effectively, a form of economic warfare.

At the time, The West had grown complacent about Russia and its ultimate goals. Not realizing that its leader, Vladimir Putin, had ambitions as grand as those exhibited by China.  Timothy Snyder, in his book The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, warned the world about who Putin was and what he was after.  Somewhere along the way Putin was captured by the writings of an obscure (to westerners) philosopher named Ivan Ilyin.  Ilyin began as a typical young man interested in a just and law-abiding Russian nation but would assume darker views after the First World War and the Bolshevik revolution. 

“…Ilyin became a counterrevolutionary, an advocate of violent methods against revolution, and with time the author of a Christian fascism meant to overcome Bolshevism.  In 1922, a few months before the Soviet Union was founded, he was exiled from his homeland.  Writing in Berlin, he offered a program to the opponents of the new Soviet Union, known as the Whites.  These were men who had fought against the Bolsheviks’ Red Army in the long and bloody Russian Civil War, and then made their way, like Ilyin, into political emigration in Europe.  Ilyin later formulated his writings as guidance for Russian leaders who would come to power after the end of the Soviet Union.  He died in 1954.”

“After a new Russian Federation emerged from the defunct Soviet Union in 1991, Ilyin’s short book Our Tasks began to circulate in new Russian editions, his collected works were published, and his ideas gained powerful supporters.  He had died forgotten in Switzerland; Putin organized a reburial in Moscow in 2005.  Ilyin’s personal papers had found their way to Michigan State University; Putin sent an emissary to reclaim them in 2006.  By then Putin was citing Ilyin in his annual presidential addresses to the general assembly of the Russian parliament.  These were important speeches composed by Putin himself.  In the 2010s, Putin relied on Ilyin’s authority to explain why Russia had to undermine the European Union and invade Ukraine.”

This notion of a “Christian fascism” should be taken seriously.  Putin believes that God is on his side and on Russia’s side.  Consider this quote from a New York Times article.

“President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday reprised his critique of the United States as a declining power that treats its allies as colonies, while declaring itself exceptional and ‘the messenger of the Lord on Earth’.”

Snyder continues.  Fascism was natural order of civilization according to Ilyin—and to Putin, who would provide newspaper articles defining his beliefs and intentions around the time of his 2012 election.  Consider these.

“Writing in the newspaper Izvestiia on October 3, 2011, Putin announced the grand project of Eurasia.  Russia would bring together states that had not proven to be plausible members of the European Union (and implicitly, in the future, states that exited a collapsing European Union).  This meant present and future dictatorships.  In Nazavisimaia Gazeta on January 23, 2012, Putin claimed, citing Ilyin, that integration was not about common achievement, as the Europeans thought, but about what Putin called ‘civilization.’  On Putin’s logic, the rule of law ceased to be a general aspiration and became an aspect of foreign Western civilization.  Integration in Putin’s sense was not about working with others but about praising oneself; not about doing but being.  There was no need to do anything to make Russia more like Europe.  Europe should be more like Russia.”

“In a third article, in Moskovskie Novosti on February 27, 2012…Russia could never become a member of the EU because of ‘the unique place of Russia on the world political map, its role in history and in the development of civilization.’  Eurasia would therefore ‘integrate’ its future members with Russia without any of the troubling burdens associated with the EU.  No dictator would have to step down; no free elections would have to be held; no laws would have to be upheld…In the long run, Putin explained, Eurasia would overwhelm the EU in a larger ‘Union of Europe,’ a ‘space’ between the Atlantic and Pacific, ‘from Lisbon to Vladivostok.’  Not to join Eurasia, Putin said, would be ‘to promote separatism in the broadest sense of the word’.”

Putin’s justification for his invasion of Ukraine did not reference his megalomania or his bizarre view of history and his homeland.  Instead, he created the preposterous claim that Ukraine was dangerous because it was run by Nazis who variously were drug addicts, developing nuclear weapons, or developing bioweapons.  And his Russians seemed to believe this, a display of gullibility only exceeded by the popularity of the QAnon conspiracy in the US.  As his invasion finally seems to be making a bit of progress, he has finally acquired enough confidence in his undertaking to reveal the truth: he wants to create a bigger empire for his homeland to rule.  Any nation he deems to be Russian in character, or in historical association, he has the right to invade and release it from its prosperity.  Any nation freed from the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact should be worried.  This would make Moldova next on his list, followed by Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.  Poland, Hungary, and Romania would be not far behind.  The Baltic trio are NATO countries that would put that organization in the position of fighting a war using its own military forces.  

Putin and others continue to question whether NATO has the will to take major casualties.  Currently they have Ukraine with the incentive to fight to the death, possessing a well-trained, decent-sized army, and willing to fight a proxy war for NATO against Putin.  All NATO has to do is provide Ukrainians with enough weapons support to match what Russia can utilize.  The cost to its countries is money and energy inconveniences.  But will they deliver in what is a brutal war that could go on for a long time?

Putin’s invasion did not begin well, with its forces unprepared and spread too thin.  NATO countries appeared united in resolve to support Ukraine in any way possible.  Thus far that resolve has held, but not with uniform enthusiasm.  A major change in Russian strategy allowed the conflict to turn into one where its advantage in the sheer number of weapons could be a winning tactic.  At best, the Ukrainians are in a stalemate with Russia, but it is not clear its forces can withstand the Russians indefinitely.  The US and its NATO and EU allies have been provisioning Ukraine with military and social aid, but not at the level to match the hardware Russia has available.  Can and will they increase their contributions without cowering from Putin’s threats?

The immediate goal after invasion began was to isolate Russia from the world economy.  This has had some success, but not enough to alter Russia’s behavior.  It is depressing to note that Russia continues to receive economic and political support from a large contingent of the world’s nations.  The Economist included a critical discussion of the related issues.

“Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine to force it to renounce the West and to submit to the Kremlin. He believes that big countries should be free to dominate smaller ones. Ukraine counters that it will choose its own allies. With Western backing, it is affirming the universal principle that all countries are sovereign. Whoever prevails on the battlefield will win a fundamental argument about how the world should work.”

“It matters, therefore, that off the battlefield this is an argument the West is losing. Most of the emerging world either backs Russia over its invasion or is neutral. Some countries depend on Russian arms, others feel a misplaced nostalgia for Soviet largesse, but many see the West as decadent, self-serving and hypocritical. And many more, even if they do not welcome the invasion, see it as somebody else’s problem. As America and the rest of NATO rally support for action against Russia, that is a stunning rebuke. It is also taking the world down a dangerous path.”

“Our sister organisation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, has noted that only a third of the world’s people live in countries that have not only condemned Russia but also imposed sanctions on it. Most of them are Western. Another third are in neutral countries. This group includes giants like India and tricky American allies, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The final third are in countries that are echoing Russia’s rationale for the invasion. The biggest, China, has repeated propaganda claiming that Ukraine has hosted American-backed bioweapons laboratories.” 

Biden has frequently referred to democracies versus autocracies as a framework for understanding world conflicts.  It was not accidental that right before the invasion of Ukraine Putin rolled out Xi Jinping to demonstrate to the democracies of the world that he had the biggest, most powerful autocracy on his side.  It was also meant to demonstrate that the West’s sanctions can’t hurt much if he has friends like China.  China continues to be a friend and there are undoubtedly other autocracies on Russia’s side. 

If the US and the European Union (EU) comprise the nations most likely to impose sanctions on Russia because of the Ukraine invasion, they also consist of most of the nations ready to limit the growth of China’s economic might.  If Russia and China have become allies, then they have united against a common enemy.  This looks like two sides arming for conflict.  Democracies versus autocracies is not a misleading characterization, at least for now.  The combat is already military with Ukraine serving as a proxy battleground; it is already economic with food, energy, and sanctions being the weapons.  If this situation could escalate into something worthy of the label “World War III,” it is likely that nonmilitary conflict might be the most serious and deadliest of the consequences.

Ukraine has long been recognized as country capable of prodigious agricultural production.  Capturing it was one of Hitler’s major objectives in his eastern invasion.  It also was utilized as a cash cow by Stalin as he collected all the produce and exported it to the West to gain funds for industrializing his nation.  Russia is the world’s greatest exporter of wheat; Ukraine is fifth in that category.  Russia’s invasion has virtually eliminated Ukraine’s exports and the world is suffering food shortages and rising prices.  He is fully aware of the increased leverage he would have if he had full control of Ukrainian produce.  Putin is willing to destroy everything in Ukraine except agricultural production.  Food supplies can become an effective weapon of economic warfare.  Russia has much experience is using its vast energy sources as leverage to gain what it wishes.  Energy can also become a powerful weapon of war.

Should the current levels of conflict rise to a stage where other countries must choose a side, it could be that Russia/China would have the greater political support.  That duo, unlikely political allies perhaps, make perfect allies in economic warfare.  China needs a lot of energy that Russia can provide.  Russia will need high-tech goods that China can provide.  Leveraging food and energy supplies can induce considerable political support from needy nations.

The best option for limiting warlike escalation is for Putin to be defeated by Ukraine, using whatever means necessary.  If he defeats Ukraine, he has already suggested that he will move on to further dominations of western neighbors by military means if necessary.  If he is unsuccessful, perhaps the world can at least return to a more stable and peaceful status quo.

 

 

Humans and Other Primates: Learning About Sex among the Sexes

 Frans de Waal has had a long and distinguished career as a primatologist studying the characteristics of species of monkeys and apes.  He has committed recent years to describing what we humans can learn about ourselves from recognizing the similarities and differences with our genetic relatives.  For example, if one wishes to understand what among a human society is based on commonly shared genetic features and what is purely cultural invention, one can conclude a significant genetic involvement when traits are common between us and other primates.  De Waal’s latest book takes on differences between males and females: Different: Gender Through the Eyes of a Primatologist.  We often question the raising of our children and the different characteristics of young boys and girls, worrying that our parenthood is inadvertently imposing traits that might prove harmful to either the children or society.  De Waal addresses that concern by illustrating that all primates, including humans, emerge from the womb with a common set of gender characteristics.  Individual variations from the norm will occur, but there are biologically imposed traits.

“The males’ exuberant boisterousness and displays of vigor explain why young females keep their distance.  It’s not the way they like to play.  This is no doubt why sex segregation marks the play of all primates.  Males generally play with males and females with females.  Their interaction styles are more compatible, and females often retreat from male play initiations.  They do so without any of the gender instruction that takes place in our societies.  In humans, too, sex-segregated play is the rule.  Children all over the world create separate play spheres: one for boys, one for girls.”

De Waal devotes an intriguing chapter to the incidence of same-sex sex in the primate kingdom and compares it to the human species.  He finds some similarities and some differences.

“In all primates, young males seek out males and young females seek out females as playmates, thus creating sex-segregated social spheres that last into adulthood.  These spheres provide great satisfaction and enjoyment, which occasionally spills over into sexuality.  The sharp boundary in human society between the social and sexual domains is artificial.  It’s a cultural invention that, despite moral and religious exhortations, is prone to leakage.”

Perhaps the first observation of animal same-sex sexuality involved penguins about a century ago.  In this species the changing of partners from one gender to the other was so frequent that De Waal considered them to be essentially bisexual.

“There was, of course, a time when we weren’t allowed to reference animal homosexual conduct.  It was too shocking to think about.  That it has occurred in penguins has been known for over a century, though.  The very first report described their behavior as ‘depraved’ and was available only privately, to keep it hidden from a wider audience.”

The penguin experience does suggest a possibly significant difference with humans: there do not appear to be males or females with an exclusive preference for same-sex partners.

“However, it is important to note that so far as we know, there are no ‘gay penguins.’  There is no evidence that these aquatic birds have an exclusive or even dominant orientation to their own sex.”

Homosexual activity is common in primates as well for both males and females

“In 1949 the American ethologist Frank Beach noted that male monkeys regularly mount each other, sometimes achieving anal penetration, while ignoring nearby females…He considered homosexual conduct a basic mammalian pattern.” 

Of the many examples, a notable one involved rhesus monkeys in which the females were more aroused than males during the mating season and expended their excess sexual energy among themselves.

“The rhesus monkey troops that I studied…sex life is arranged so that babies arrive all at once with the first warmth of spring.  To this end, the mating season starts in late September.  That’s when females hang out together and signal that they have sex on their minds.  The males seem to need more time to get ready, but the females warm up for two months of mating by literally jumping on top of each other.”

If evolution produced sexual pleasure to encourage sexual acts and ensure reproduction of species, it apparently saw no reason to restrict that pleasure solely to reproduction.  By 1999, homosexual activity had been documented in 450 different species.  What is intriguing about all this data is that animal species rarely seem to produce individuals that are exclusively homosexual.  Is this an instance where humans display uniqueness?  If so, what is the basis for this uniqueness? 

Understanding homosexuality in humans is critical because many societies have developed an abhorrence towards the practice.  For much of recent history the practice was illegal and many people who considered themselves to be Christians thought it was their duty to punish such people.  Just a few days ago a Christian pastor proclaimed that all homosexuals should be executed.  Those with such attitudes like to believe that homosexuality represents a chosen lifestyle, not a biological imperative.  If one looks at the behavior of other primate species one concludes that homosexual activity is common, but it does not preclude heterosexual behavior in individuals.  To the homophobic this could be interpreted as homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.  Humans exclusively homosexual do not believe choice is involved.  Consequently, there have been efforts to find a biological basis for their behavior.

The neuroscientist Simon LeVay provided a clue.

“Among heterosexuals, a tiny area of the hypothalamus is on average twice as large in men as in women.  Gay men, in contrast, have an area similar in size to that of women.”

Consider the behavior of sheep, in which a finite percent of males seems to be exclusive homosexuals, just as is assumed in humans.

“About one in twelve rams has a strong same-sex sexual preference.  Far from being asexual, these individuals are eager to mount members of their own sex while ignoring nearby ewes.  It is a stable individual trait.  Ovis aries is only the second mammal, after ourselves, in which an exclusive homosexual orientation has been found.”

“As in us, their sexual orientation seems to be reflected in the hypothalamus, which contains a nucleus that is larger in female-oriented rams than in ewes.  In male-oriented rams, on the other hand, its size falls somewhere in-between.”

Is this definitive evidence that homosexual behavior is biologic in origin and is controlled by a tiny speck of brain matter?  The brain is a plastic organ that can modify itself as the demands on it change.  De Waal questions whether it is the brain controlling the behavior or the behavior controlling the brain in this case.  He was surer of a direct connection when a later, more general study was performed.

“It took almost two decades before Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström resolved this conundrum at the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden.  Instead of inspecting the same brain area as LeVay, they focused on more general neural traits, such as brain asymmetry, that have no direct relation to particular behavior.  These brain features are fixed at birth and don’t change with experience.  Nevertheless, they reflect gender and sexual orientation.  Brains of gay men are structurally similar to those of heterosexual women, whereas those of lesbian women resemble those of heterosexual men.  Savic concluded that ‘these differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy’.” 

These results lead de Waal to the following conclusion.

“In short, even though the brain cannot tell us with certainty what sexual orientation an individual has, it does seem to contain a few markers.  Like gender identity, sexual orientation seems to be present at birth or to develop soon thereafter.  It is therefore part and parcel of who we are.  This applies not only to the LGBTQ community but to all humans (and perhaps also to sheep).  Gender identity in general and sexual orientation in general are inalienable, unalterable aspects of every person.” 

De Waal makes that claim, but then proceeds to question its interpretation.  The way the data was presented seems to imply that there are only two options: either exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual.  This seems to be inconsistent with what we know of human behavior.  Science does tell us that bisexual individuals do exist.  Using his own words.

“The term homosexual didn’t exist until the nineteenth century.  Before that, there was plenty of homosexual conduct but no homosexual identity.  Among men same-sex sex was typically age-structured, with older men penetrating younger ones, such as the soldiers of ancient Greece who boosted their bravery before setting off to war.  During certain eras, sodomy was nearly universal, whereas lesbian relationships stayed mostly under the radar but were probably equally prevalent.  In 1869, Karl-Maria Kertbeny, a German-Hungarian author, coined the twin terms homosexual and heterosexual to replace the pejorative labels that he despised.  Since then, at least in the West, language began to promote a dichotomy that was unknown before.  Homosexual activities used to be supplemental to heterosexual ones, often performed by men and women who at the same time were heterosexually married and had families.  This may still be the case, but it is now obscured by the labeling that we have grown used to.” 

This human perspective would make us look much more like our primate cousins in terms of homosexual activities.  That is not inconsistent with the notion that sexual tendencies are associated with physical properties such as brain function.  Even identical twins can possess differing sexual tendencies.  That suggests the differences were developed in the womb or soon thereafter.  There are so many opportunities for mistakes in cell division to occur that alterations between the once identical specimens is to be expected.  One should expect that in this scenario a continuum of sexual variations would develop—as it seems to happen with other primates.

There is still the question of why homosexual activities seem today to be more likely to involve exclusively homosexual individuals.  It is unlikely that such a dramatic transformation could have taken place biologically in a little more than a century.  Only cultural transformations can develop that quickly.  Perhaps de Waal provides a clue when he points out that other primates do not discriminate against members of their species that have uncommon sexual pursuits, nor do they discriminate against members with differing colorations.  As far as we know, only humans have burdened themselves with organized religions.  Such constructs inevitably discriminate between believers and nonbelievers.  If a religion is successful it will try to force all members of society to live according to its precepts.  If one of those precepts viewed homosexuality as a sin punishable by exile, imprisonment, or death, practitioners would be difficult to find.  Individuals who derive no sexual satisfaction other than from same-sex sex would be the only ones willing to risk the discovery of their practices.  Perhaps our traditional beliefs about homosexuality are merely the fabrications of a highly discriminatory society.