CCCXIV – Rubles, Rai Stones, and War By Other Means

I am writing this at 10:00am on April 27th, 2022. This is important because in War, the mornings intelligence briefing is obsolete by the time it reaches the hands of the President, and the decisions he’s made in response to that briefing is obsolete because the next intelligence briefing is already on the way with updated information. This is one reason why Truth is always the first casualty of war. So this article will likely be obsolete by the time it publishes.

The news I read this morning went something like this: Russian state Gas corporation Gazprom has cut off Poland and Bulgaria from their supply of Liquid Natural Gas. Poland’s response has been “We are going to be OK”, Bulgaria has responded with “This is a breach of contract.” This is all I know.

All of this is interesting to me because it represents a discussion of Economics and Currency as well as War by Other Means. Lets try to get a feel for what’s going on:

The European Union sanctioned Russia by cutting them off from the mechanisms of Foreign Exchange. This had the effect of making Russia’s supply of foreign currencies useless, and the Ruble useless to other countries.

Russia responded by saying that payments to Gazprom must be paid in Rubles. This had the effect of turning the tables on the European Union–now their currencies cannot be used to pay for Gas, and because they cut Russia out of the mechanisms of Foreign Exchange, they cannot get more Rubles than what they already have in reserve.

The European Union prior to this morning has responded that requiring payment in Rubles is a breach of contract plus a lot of other legalistic hemming and hawing. Russia and the European Union know that if Russia cuts off the gas supply then there will be extraordinary human suffering on a massive scale in Europe–my understanding is that this gas supplies power and heat to most of the population of Europe.

Let’s start by talking about Currency. Why does the denomination of Currency matter? Here in the US, my experience with foreign exchange has been that when I get a Canadian Quarter I can’t use it in vending machines, and in the past when I visited my family in Canada I would come back with a lot of colorful bills that I can’t use. Some banks will accept foreign currencies and exchange them for US dollars, but that is a bit of a hassle. I have the knowledge that I can exchange Canadian bills for US Dollars but I choose not to because I don’t have enough to make it worth the trouble.

When we talked about foreign exchange in my graduate studies, it was treated as a given. There is a calculation you can do to decide whether to “Build or Buy” a given product in a foreign country, so you plug in the inputs and make decisions based on the exchange rate at the time. There was no discussion of the specific mechanism of foreign exchange.

We know based on our discussions here that Currency represents the delegated authority of the sovereign and that the denomination someone uses tells you who their king is because we put the sovereign on the bill (American dollars say e pluribus unum which means “out of many, one”–a perhaps accidental reference to the fact that the people are sovereign in aggregate).

So why does the denomination of currency matter? Because the denomination tells you who is boss; the denomination determines who matters when you make decisions; the denomination determines how challenging a given transaction is.

The EU wants to be boss, so the EU wants gas to be paid for in Euros. The EU doesn’t want to consider Russia when making decisions, and so far Russia hasn’t cared enough since foreign exchange was relatively easy, so the EU wanted to pay in Euros. When the world cut Russia out of the foreign exchange system, that particular sword cut both ways, and made Foreign supplies of Rubles useless. Immediately after this decision, Russia put limits on how much money Russians could send outside the country or even carry with them, because the supply of Rubles suddenly mattered a great deal. This move by Gazprom to require payments in Rubles is a way for Russia to call back foreign reserves of it’s currency, which struck me as a very clever way of turning the tables.

Considering the Economics of the decision allows us to factor the actual gas into the calculation. When Russia was supplying gas, nobody really was motivated to address the Rubles demand–they felt Russia would keep supplying and accept whatever they paid. Russia turning off the supply is simultaneously increasing demand for the gas, and when demand increases we know also that price increases. Poles and Bulgarians who were previously comfortable in their heated and powered homes will clamor for Russian gas at any price if a cold snap strikes. Honestly–I think Russia waited as an act of mercy, supposing that the human suffering would be limited in warmer weather. I don’t know how much warmer it is at the end of April than it is at the end of February, but I am sure it is noticeably warmer in both countries.

Russia in this move has created a domestic popular demand for Russian gas, and Poles and Bulgarians will be advocating on Russia’s behalf in short order, when gas shortages are felt. The price of gas will increase, which will increase Russia’s demand for Rubles, and amplify the difficulty of the decision before the European Union. Russia is turning the economic screws.

Now we can talk about War by Other Means with a complete understanding. I mean by this phrase to invert an old saying I heard somewhere that “War is politics by other means”–now, politics has become war by other means.

If the international order exists in a state of Anarchy, the levers of war are pretty sparse. If Russia has no connections to the United States, the United States has no means of influence over Russia. The Global Order is a way of inventing ways for the United States to be able to influence Russia and conduct a war by other means. Every Embassy, every trade deal, creates a bond which can be leveraged for conflict or to avoid conflict. The world responded to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by isolating them and cutting them out of the global mechanisms that have been invented. But the mistake they made was to cut them out all at once. Now Russia is figuring out how to operate in a globally isolated way, and everyone else has run out of levers. Russia’s biggest levers are it’s gas supply and the threat of war, which it is now using to the fullest extent. And Russia didn’t make the mistake of cutting off the entire gas supply, but doing so selectively. After they see the reaction, I bet they will evaluate the decision and either cut off more countries or negotiate some concessions.

All of this is supremely interesting political gamesmanship, if one completely ignores the massive human suffering the depleted gas supply will cause and the ongoing war in Ukraine is causing. That is where world leaders need to remember their role as custodial sovereigns: the care of their people ought to be the foremost concern, not the preservation of their regime. The war is not a just war, and both sides are in the wrong in their conduct and both sides are victims in their own way. Aggravating human suffering as a bargaining chip is an inhumane act of cruelty.

O Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.

AMDG

CCIII – Peace vs Surrender

When I was younger and political, there was an inspiring speech I discovered by Ronald Reagan called “A Time for Choosing“. In it he said something which struck me: “There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace, and you can have it in the next second: Surrender.”

Let’s explore this idea for a moment. What are the ways we can have peace? Surrender is laying down your arms and ceasing to fight a determined enemy. Further still, Surrender embraces the enemy as brothers. In war, a combatant who surrenders becomes a prisoner first, and when the war is over is either integrated into society or killed. In the Civil War, the Union had many Confederate prisoners of war, who were pardoned on the condition they surrender their arms. A non-combatant who surrenders simply accepts the new regime as their own. A non-combatant who does not surrender has the choice of either taking up arms for themselves and becoming a combatant, or going underground and becoming a conspirator.

What other ways can we have peace? Another perhaps obvious answer is “victory”. Your side wins, peace fills the land because there are no enemies. War has taken a heterogeneous view and made it homogeneous by way of combat and eliminating opposition.

Peace in both of these contexts involves eliminating opposition, either through voluntary submission or military conquest. We talk about Peace in other ways though: We talk about “making peace” with a new reality, or cultivating “inner peace”. In the former, regardless of a persons interior viewpoint, they have decided to cease opposition. This is distinct from surrender because they may or may not embrace the new regime as their own. In the latter case, a person has ended internal turmoil–has created internal homogeneity of disposition–regardless of their exterior circumstances. This is again distinct from surrender because a key element of surrender is embracing the new regime.

From this we can glean that there is a form of peace that does not embrace the enemy but which does end conflict with them. The enemy doesn’t mind either way, because from their perspective they have achieved victory. This is still in keeping with Reagan’s speech: “making peace” or “inner peace” are hard work and cannot be achieved in the next second.

My point here is not political, though. There is a spiritual combat which is going on around us. We often describe Christ as achieving victory over evil, on our behalf. “We know the end of the story” is the refrain–but between now and The End is a whole lot of time under enemy occupation. This is what I refer to when I named this blog the Times Dispatch of Vichy Earth. Earth is enemy territory, occupied by and in collusion with the Enemy. We know there will be a D-Day style landing at the end of time to liberate us. In the meantime, do we surrender to the enemy, and embrace them as our brothers? Do we “make peace” and accept reality while ceasing to fight? Do we cultivate “inner peace” and bring an end to internal turmoil? Or do we accept the alternatives of becoming combatants or conspirators against the enemy?

As lay-people, we are unable to be combatants in this fight. That is a task reserved for Priests and Religious–they are our front-line soldiers. We can become conspirators–working in concert with our Priests and Religious to help achieve their ends. But again–that is a particular expertise, sometimes it would be better to leave that to those skilled in this kind of conspiracy than to attempt it yourself.

So if we decide we do not wish to Surrender, the only options available to us, the hard work of which we can begin immediately, is “making peace” or “inner peace”.

Making Peace involves an acceptance of powerlessness. It is a resolution to wait for Christ, to focus on the things immediately around us. If there is war in some far off country, I can do nothing to help it nor hinder it; if there is a disagreement between my friends, I can do something to help bring it to an end. Making Peace involves accepting, externally, the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Inner Peace involves an internalization of that exterior peace. If there is war in some far off country, it can still bring me inner turmoil even if I have accepted that I cannot do anything about it. Inner peace is ending that inner turmoil. There are multiple ways to achieve this, prayer perhaps being the foremost. But it will take work, and it will take constant work.

The effort is worthwhile because peace is important to happiness. If I have not made interior peace, I will be internally troubled. If I have not made external peace, I will be agitated and irritable. If I Surrender, I will be living contrary to my nature, and so will be both internally troubled and externally agitated.

To borrow a line from the Order of the Mass: May the peace of the Lord be with you always.

AMDG

LXXXVII – Presented With Comment

This is just a fascinating video. It’s topical as well, the beginning deals with the War in Vietnam and the idea of a pre-emptive strike. They cover a lot of ground and I couldn’t possibly comment intelligently on everything contained here, so I’m going to limit myself to the idea of War.

The Catholic Ideal for war is a Just war. This is a coherent philosophy: If we limit ourselves to conflicts wherein we are unambiguously on the side of justice, there can be no dispute, and by the grace of God our victory will be swift. What exactly a Just War is made of is the subject of debate. The idea is related to the Roman casus belli, or Cause for War. Romans were a legalistic society, and so the idea of a unilateral aggressive war was offensive to them. So, their many unilateral aggressive wars had to be pitched with a justification. For Example: During the Gallic Campaign, Julius Caesar instigated a revolt by his mere presence, the revolt allowed him to frame intervention in Gaul as a defensive action.

ZippyCatholic introduced me to the idea that Asymmetrical Force was unjust. Civilians are non-combatants, and so should be excluded from military action. Targeting civilians is thus a heinous offense. The Nuclear Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most heinous of these offenses. The frequent defense of the nuclear bombings (which I myself have used, prior to my understanding Zippy’s idea) is that a land war in Japan would have cost so many more American lives. Maybe that is so, but at least they would have been military combatants with unintentional civilian casualties. All life is sacred, hands down, end of argument. To modify a quip by JMSmith for my own purposes: We are trying to kill so many people on purpose, let’s try to minimize the number of people we kill on accident.

In the Video, William Buckley and Fulton Sheen spend some time discussing the idea of pre-emptive strikes to end wars before they start. Very well! Let’s return to the example of the Nuclear Bombings. Let’s assume two changes in this scenario: 1- That nuclear weapons were available and 2- Someone in the President’s company had foresight enough to be confident their use would work. What if we nuked Japan immediately after Pearl Harbor?

This adds one offense to another. The Nuclear Bombings themselves are a horrendous act for aforementioned reasons. Adding, on top of it, that we made zero effort at the outset to face our enemy and resorted to killing their civilians would be even more heinous.

Consider Zippy’s answer to the Trolley problem. A malfunction on a trolley has led it to careen at high speeds down a track. You are on a bridge overlooking the track, and you see a junction in the Trolley track. On it’s present course, the trolley will strike 5 people. On the other track, if you pull the lever to move the Trolley on the Junction, it will strike 1. Zippy’s answer is that if you do nothing, the 5 people will die by circumstances beyond your control and for which you are not responsible. If you pull the lever, your action will have effectuated the death of the one person, and you will be culpable.

A pre-emptive strike is like pulling the lever. A Just War requires that your opponent has done some misdeed that merits a military response. Striking before they have done that makes you the agressor.

In Syria, President Trump has announced the withdrawal of US troops and the handover of responsibility to Turkey, who promptly announced a unilateral invasion. What debt does the US owe Syria, the Kurds, or Turkey? None. Police Action is not just war unless there is a treaty or alliance invoked to involve the other. Poland and Hungary share such historical ties that they consider each other “brother” nations. But the United States does not have such a relationship with the parties here. Our involvement would be intervention. Intervention violates the apologia used to defend the Nuclear weapons: US Troops are expendable in the name of peace between two different countries. Intervention violates the Just War principle: The United States is involving itself in a war it otherwise would not have been involved in. Intervention violates the prerequisite of Casus Belli: A Desire for Peace does not necessitate commitment to an unrelated war.

AMDG