Will it be Moslems for Jews and Ukraine for Sudetenland?

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 01 January 2005 12:33.

Because I see gathering ethnic instability in my homeland and throughout Europe and try to calculate the consequences I’m a bit of a sucker for prediction in general. A particularly fascinating example of the species appears in the Telegraph today.

The always thought-provoking Niall Ferguson offers the vision of a new authoritarianism in Russia. The parallels he draws between Hitler’s Germany and what is emerging in Putin’s Russia are arresting: a weakened parliament, media control, a developing state control of the economy, a disregard for private property rights and the rule of law …

Most alarming of all are the relentless war against Chechnya, which is throwing up reprisals of unimaginable evil, themselves met with still greater force, and Putin’s declared interests in Russian enclaves abroad, of which eastern Ukraine is but the largest.

Here’s a flavour of Ferguson’s logic …

Born in 1919 in the wake of Germany’s humiliating defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic suffered hyperinflation, an illusory boom, a slump and then, starting in 1930, a slide into authoritarian rule, culminating in 1933 with Hitler’s appointment as chancellor. Total life: slightly less than 14 years.

Born in 1991 in the wake of the Soviet Union’s humiliating defeat in the Cold War, today’s Russian Federation has suffered a slump, hyperinflation and is currently enjoying a boom on the back of high oil prices. Its slide into authoritarian rule has been gradual since Putin came to power in 1999. Is it going to culminate - 14 years on - in a full-scale dictatorship in 2005? That is beginning to look more and more likely.

But by all means read the whole piece. Then file it away in some mental compartment and recover it in two years to see whether this prediction game is really worth a light.

Tags: World Affairs

Comments:

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:19 | #

Perhaps I was to too hard on Niall Ferguson, in a previous thread. A year, or so, past he toured “the rubber chicken circuit”, here in America, promoting his books.

He was riding the Iraq war fever and was banging the drums for American Empire. Then he came out with an interesting, but flawed book - according to many reviews - about American History.

All said, though, I like him. But if Empire is so beneficial he should propagandize his own countrymen first. I think they were much more successful at that sort of thing than we will be.

(That is a cut at America, not Britain).

Posted by Arcane on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:41 | #

Geoff,

Ferguson did write a book about the British Empire that glorified it. It was called Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 23:17 | #

Hello Arcane:

I really don’t disagree with Ferguson’s view of the now historic British Empire. I’ve always considered it a light of progress to the natives they managed, and yes, an invaluable structure of order for the world.

The entry of America onto the global stage is an unfortunate tragedy, both for the US and its European neighbors. I suppose it was inevitable?

Well, we helped to weaken the old Empire so I guess the US is responsible, in some part.

Yet, what I don’t like about Ferguson is the advocacy of American Empire - now. I know its naive to want to return to an older pre-WWII America - yet I prefer to live in the past, the future is so bleak.

Posted by Arcane on Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:14 | #

Geoff,

It was inevitable after we became involved in WWII. The amount of power we had relative to everybody else after it dictated our now-permanent abolition of isolationism, for better or for worse.

I can’t say I always agree with Ferguson, either. I like him and find him to be extremely intelligent, but he seems to be really grasping for something controversial right now.

Posted by Seamus on Tue, 04 Jan 2005 01:19 | #

“The amount of power we had relative to everybody else after it dictated our now-permanent abolition of isolationism, for better or for worse.”

Strange, I thought that the reason we had to abandon isolationism was the threat of Soviet expansionism, and that were it not for that threat, our unprecedented power would have made it even safer for us to keep to the Western Hemisphere.