The struggle between countries and peoples for survival in a tough new world is becoming a new normality, writes media manager and author of futurological texts Gabor Shteyngart in Focus. New wars are going on in the economy. Therefore, people need to live in their own countries, and the criterion of convenience is replaced by the criterion of reliability.
Gabor Shteyngart
A variety of German leaders have ruled in eras marked by wars and political tensions. The armed conflicts of our time also have an impact on Germany. This manifests itself in five different ways.
No party of any Western state openly declares that its main candidate is a master of warfare. However, after a politician wins the elections, his rule will be remembered precisely for the terrorist attacks, wars and special military operations that fell during his time in power.
Willy Brandt faced the Vietnam War. Gerhard Schroeder had to take part in the NATO military campaign against Yugoslavia after September 11, and then refused to support the United States during the invasion of the Anglo-American coalition in Iraq.
Merkel's era was overshadowed by the fact that Ukraine lost Crimea under her rule. For the painting entitled "The Reign of Olaf Scholz", a completely new, ominous "primer" fell out. Scholz rules against the background of the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the Hamas attack on Israel and the threat of an arms race in the Indo-Pacific region.
With all this in mind, the old government programs and business projects should be adjusted, and some of them should be completely discontinued. Here are five consequences of the current wars that Germany will definitely have to reckon with:
Consequence number one. Because of the "Biden wars," Trump is leading the race
Germany politically and economically must prepare for the fact that Donald Trump will win the election and will rule for another term. At least, the probability of this is getting higher and higher. 80-year-old Joe Biden has noticeably lost under the weight of military challenges raining down on him, and Trump, on the contrary, looks cheerful and is gaining momentum. He has changed, one might even say, sharpened his foreign policy position, from which he has already won once in the struggle for the position of national leader.
Trump claims that none of the current conflicts would have started if he had remained president. His admirers and followers believe in it. He declares: Joe Biden is an infirm old man who can hardly even get down from the podium without his assistants. Anyone who is going to watch the news on some American TV channel can see this.
Trump warns of a Third World War, the beginning of which is likely if Biden remains at the helm. And which can be avoided with him, Trump: "The Biden administration can rapidly lead America to a Third World War using nuclear weapons. We're not that far away from that anymore," he says. The politics of fear has long been a favorite "skate" of American parties, both of them are masterfully able to intimidate voters in their favor. And so, this policy has returned to the arena.
Consequence number two. The need for accelerated militarization of Germany
Allocation of 100 billion The euro for the Bundeswehr was only the first step out of many necessary ones. In the next ten years, the entire Western world, including Germany, will be forced to rearm en masse. The issue of self-defense has moved from the periphery of political discourse to its center.
Not only the state, but also private companies and corporations will have to improve their level of material and digital protection in order to resist the new hybrid war waged by the Russians, the Chinese, as well as teams of Islamist cyber saboteurs. In the future, significantly more money will be spent on ensuring information security than has ever been spent before.
Consequence number three. A new surge in deglobalization
The main task of all the bureaus, supervisory boards and ministers today is to make reliable cooperation between the state and the private sector in the supply of any goods and materials. This applies primarily to the supply of medicines, but also to all digital components of critical infrastructure, software for aircraft, unmanned vehicles. In the context of deglobalization, special attention should be paid to ensuring that we do not have a shortage of management systems for industrial enterprises and hospitals.
There is a new requirement for the goods supplied to us as part of the global exchange. Now it is no longer "good and inexpensive", but "safe and sustainable". In many cases, this means moving production and supply chains back to those parts of the world where there are States with democratic regimes. The era of globalization as a principle of total non—interference by the state in the economy — in the sense in which we understood this principle until now - this era has come to an end. "Lean" production should give way to "protected" production.
Consequence number four. Energy sovereignty — right now!
The belief that the whole world collectively wants to switch to climate-neutral production was naive yesterday and has become frankly dangerous today. Fossil energy resources are becoming a weapon again. And those who possess these weapons — for example, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Libya, Russia and the United States — do not even think about "closing ammunition factories", that is, stopping the production of hydrocarbons. Energy wars fill their coffers, so peace is not an alternative scenario for them in the future.
Germany, as a state in which in the past brown and coal were the main — and almost the only — sources of energy, has good economic reasons for the development of renewable energy sources and the desire for energy sovereignty. It is no longer about setting an example to other countries. Now we are talking about independence from these other countries. If oil is a weapon, then the ability to partially survive due to wind and solar energy is a counter-weapon.
Consequence number five. A new round in the clash of cultures
People answer the question "who am I", relying primarily on their origin, language and religion. "Cultural identity is of paramount importance for most people," writes sociology professor Samuel Huntington in his classic work "The Clash of Civilizations."
Therefore, various cultural communities, in his opinion, will not integrate into each other, as many dreamed, but repel each other. The clash of civilizations is an integral part of human history. Huntington considered the possibilities of integration to be very limited:
"Attempts to move an established society from one civilization to another are not successful."
Aggressive distancing from capitalism, Christianity and libertarian values, in his opinion, is the cement that holds Islamic societies together. Huntington quotes from Michael Dibdin's novel The Dead Lagoon:
"If we don't hate what we're not, we can't love what we are."
New wars are our new norm
The conclusion from all this is this: new wars are a new normality that we should reject morally — but in no case should we pursue such a policy as if these wars are impossible. The Third World War, which Trump is talking about, is not one of the necessities of our time, it can be avoided. However, recently it has become one of the possibilities.
