Prodigal Son (on the Russian Initiative)

Under our theory of the Syria Crisis as a system crisis, the so-called Russian initiative points to the potential removal of a key, rarely recognized element of the actual case for intervention (and prior case for non-intervention): the element of impermissible defiance of the hegemon, which was absent until “movement on the chemical weapons front” forced a change in President Obama’s “equation.”

Put starkly, as far as the neo-imperial interest is concerned, tyranny on the part of (qualifiedly) sovereign states1 will generally be tolerable, or for practical purposes will have to be tolerated, until and unless it comes to represent such defiance. In other words, vassal states enjoy very wide latitude to oppress and exploit their citizens or subjects until and unless such oppression and exploitation rise to a level that threatens system integrity. Actual introduction of weapons of mass destruction into political-military conflicts has been identified as in itself just such a threat to system integrity, and this foundational precept was the basis for the President’s declaration of the “red line.”

As a practical matter, mere disobedience will often have to be tolerated. Vast cruelty in violation of fundamental norms may be tolerated. The combination will tend not to be, and significant declarations on behalf of hegemonic power in this regard are not to be defied. If they can be ignored, then hegemonic power is in doubt. If they are recognized, the justification for “system self-defense” dissolves.2

Though some may seek to portray the Russian maneuver as somehow contrary to the American interest or the interests of the Obama Administration, implementation would support the system in that it would represent the return to a posture of obedience on the part of the vassal Assad or of his regime. It would be a setback for anti-Assadist rebels on one level, but might be portrayed as serving the interest of Syrians generally in an end to civil war and transition to a political process, in other words to “polity” at all. It is entirely reasonable to consider difficulties given conditions of multi-sided warfare, but even the initial adoption of a process to address such difficulties would already be consequential movement to the end of the Syrian civil war under international observation. If the U.S., Russia, and others were determined to achieve such a result, it would be well within their power. However, they may not come to such a determination for a long time, if ever. In the meanwhile, the short-term relief in particular to the Obama Administration cannot be rejected.


  1. True sovereignty is the possession of global, not separately state-national humanity. []
  2. …and a modern, deeply unsentimental translation of cuius regio, eius religio will be adopted or re-adopted. []

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

5 comments on “Prodigal Son (on the Russian Initiative)

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. that’s merely a retreat …… and if nothing is so unless the hegemon treats it as so, then why can’t compliance be termed defiance and all else be dismissed?

    • If I understand you correctly, that’s not a retreat to formalism, but an acknowledgment that the form of the exercise of power is a relatively independent factor in its successful exercise.

      As for the second part, perceived arbitrary exercise of the power to declare “this” significant and “that” insignificant undermines its own basis, especially for a leader (individual leader or leading nation) whose claim to leadership is grounded in liberal-democratic ideals.

  2. Because there are distinctions, between interventions, otherwise ‘what difference does it make; a remarkably cynical locutions, the weapons are not per se, the main problem, this is why deBaathification was important, albeit poorly executed,

1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Prodigal Son (on the Russian Initiative)"
  1. […] line comments,” this last aspect of the East Ghouta atrocity is rarely taken seriously, yet helps explain the resolution of the immediate crisis. […]

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins