Krystian Kamiński.
On 19 September, the European Commission announced that EUR 100 million of the profits from frozen Russian assets would be spent on rebuilding the Ukrainian energy strategy destroyed by the Russians. Already at the end of August, head of EU diplomacy Josep Borrell said that the EU had already donated the first EUR 1.4 billion of gross from Russia's frozen assets to pay for military supplies to Ukraine. Within the framework of sanctions for launching an invasion of Ukraine, the Union The European, US and G7 countries have frozen almost half of Russian abroad exchange reserves, worth around EUR 300 billion, about half of Russian reserves.
This movement has met with large enthusiasm of Polish political elites, and now they stay the main promoter of the far-reaching usage of frozen assets straight for Ukraine. During the Warsaw gathering with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, which took place on 12 September, head of our diplomacy Radosław Sikorski said that Poland felt that “more decisive action” should be taken in favour of the confiscation of frozen Russian assets. I do not know if Minister Sikorski is aware of the full consequences of what he calls for and that these consequences could blow up the current position of the US and its block.
Capitalism as an economical system, which besides regulates social and political order, began to make in the 13th and 16th centuries in Lombardy, Brabants and Flanders. However, the dominance of European powers over the planet has only become a reality with geographical discoveries that have stimulated capital accumulation on an unprecedented scale with fire and sword. It was this accumulation that led to the momentum of the industrial revolution, which in turn gave fresh military-political advantages allowing the elites of European powers and then the US to intensify colonization and form even more favourable conditions for economical exchange.
The 20th century, as a consequence of 2 planet wars, which may in a sense be called European civilian wars, led to unprecedented dominance of the US, including what Immanuel Wallerstein called the economy-world, that is, shaped by Western capitalism and western political dominance by a strategy that encompassed the full globe. Many years after the war, in 1960 the US economy accounted for 40% of the planet economy. Non-universal dominances were achieved, as after 1945 the challenge was thrown to him constantly The russian Union building its alternate strategy and alternate ecumen. Paradoxically, regardless of the modernist or even futuristic ambitions of Marxist ideology, the USSR and its full block were an industrial incarnation of an ancient form of human organization, which Wallerstein distinguished as an empire-world, that is, a strategy regulating economical processes, including capital accumulation and its allocation mainly through political central decisions and direct administrative order. In this sense, the USSR and its block, especially in the times of Stalinism, alternatively re-enacted what Marx referred to as “Asian production systems” alternatively of pursuing his dreams of “socializing the means of production”.
However, the empire-world in the russian edition lost a large clash with the economy-world. From 1989 to 1991, the center of the second emerged as a global hegemon – the United States. The economy-world is besides a strategy of dominance, accumulation and exploitation, only that the forms of control are much more indirect in it, and the elite in this strategy form equally political and capitalist elites in conditions of dispersal of power. Like Oswald Spengler put it. In the system, even the formal abolition of political rule, which we know as decolonization, did not tolerate forms of political influence and exploitation. erstwhile we look at the case of China, we can besides see that they have never actually become in most colonial territory in a strict sense, although it is clear to everyone, and most of all to the Chinese themselves, that the "stun of national humiliation" was a form of regulation and exploitation.
The triumph of neoliberal ideology, which takes place in the decade preceding the triumph of the U.S. in the “cold war”, produced on its basis, the political canon in the form of the alleged “Dashington consensus” led in the West to the unprecedented emancipation of the capitalist elite towards the political elite. However, exports of industrial production to China and then Southeast Asian countries did not mean a fast failure of advantage due to financialisation economy. The US, the western financial markets, continued to stay the center for the allocation of free capital.
A peculiar pillar of the U.S. elite strategy remained and remained the dollar position. He became the global clearing and reserve. Its possession became a sine qua non of the functioning of the national economy within the economy-world. The space for the total, nomen omen, “free American” in this respect opened the decision of president Richard Nixon to resign from the gold parity. This happened after the end of the 1960s erstwhile discussions about the exchange into gold of 80 billion unnecessary EEC dollars swept across Europe. Washington, through political pressure, explained to Europeans that this was a bad idea. From that minute on, Nixon's decision of the US elite has been given the chance to cover the deficit of payments in relations with abroad countries and its own budget deficit by utilizing the contractual printing press, the right to an already unregulated increase in monetary mass. The dollar has long since ceased to be the currency of any national economy, which would be linked with although comparative coverage in the economy produced by them. The dollar has become the currency of the economy-world that everyone needs and desires, and whose position is guaranteed by the strength of who stands behind that currency – the full power of the Pentagon.
Washington is the king of the planet “beating” his “money” like a medieval king with his mint regale. The bare force was built up with diplomacy, control of key global financial institutions, but besides soft power, including pop culture. All of this produced not only a relation of advantage but besides the credibility of American and wider Western markets and financial institutions, their instruments. So for decades people, companies, countries around the world, even US political enemies, have learned to believe that these are the best markets, institutions and instruments for their free capital.
Of course, the bare force was always delirious in the background. Many commentators point out that 1 of the reasons for the US invasion of Iraq and the demolition of that country in 2003 was Saddam Hussein's plan to decision in the settlements of Iraqi oil to the euro, and this was at a time erstwhile many leading economists and financiers saw in European currency a real threat to the position of the dollar (the euro did not become 1 due to the fact that it was not as political as behind the dollar). Others, and sometimes the same commentators pointed out that in support of the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi and the demolition of the Libyan state in 2011, it was feared that it would fulfill its ambitions of creating a currency for the African Union, a dinar to cover the vast resources of Libyan gold.
The central position of the U.S. in the economy-world strategy was undermined by the self-will of their business elites who unconditionally exported the manufacture to China and the foolishness of neoliberal ideologists, justifying or even glorifying this process. China has proven to be politically tight adequate and imperiled on ideological-cultural influences, soft power USA, that they were able to accept investments on their terms, accumulating on the occasion of globalization know-how, technology and human capital (mass of Chinese students returning loyally from the best American universities). present they have and make their innovations and educate human capital itself. However, the dollar remains the foundation of the financial reign of Americans.
And that's how we go back to the very entrance of this brief argument. It is different as in Poland no 1 sees the possible obsevity of freezing Russian assets. This alone has already undermined the religion of those non-Western states whose globalisation has allowed to financially fatten, which applies not only to China but besides to the natural bonanza of the first decade of the 21st century of the Arabian Peninsula. It has already undermined their religion that their money in the West can bring untouchable profits to them. Meanwhile, profits have already been taken over from Russian assets... and supported by Russia's war enemy. It is possible to guess what these reactions are caused by in non-Western countries whose interests cross sometimes with the West, and which are even more frequently put under the stripe by him due to the fact that he does not fit Western ideological criteria. It is not essential to guess, due to the fact that Bloomberg's agency has already reported that the creditor of this rank, as Saudi Arabia was expected to inform the western states, that they would dispose of their debt if they decided to take over frozen assets of Russia.
Meanwhile, Polish politicians, especially the head of our diplomacy, have been calling for specified a movement for 2 years, repeating it like a mantra. For the reasons I wrote about, the U.S. at this stage, with this balance of strength, will not scope for something that has the rank of a financial atomic bomb. Meanwhile, Radosław Sikorski insisting on this even in the presence of representatives of the American authorities only exposes them to vulnerability to Russia, to confirm by them that they do not truly want to confiscate Russian reserves. Thus Sikorski has for months been breaking off the executives of American politics this delicate veil of ambivalence that would let this step to scare, blackmail the Russians. How to measure the diplomatic competence of Minister Sikorski in this context?
