After oil, shale and isolationism

There has been much talk of the decline of US influence. Conservatives & Neo-Cons blame Obama for being indecisive, or weak. Liberals blame the poisonous legacy of George W Bush.

There are probably a gang of centrists somewhere blaming the unique circumstance of one following the other.

One of the reactions to the fallout from US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been 'frack baby frack'. The call for energy independence.

While there are environmental concerns, and green campaigners must despair at the continued reliance on fossil fuel implied, there is a seemingly powerful logic for the US to pursue the shale revolution.

Firstly shale promises to all but eliminate US dependence on the permanently unstable middle east. This is a persuasive argument not just for anyone who favours an isolationist approach to world affairs, but a big slice of Americans who do not want to see their army deployed abroad if at all possible.

Secondly, shale holds out the possibility of a new boom in well paying manual jobs, not just in the actual drilling industry, but also the related supply chain. Manufacturing jobs. This is a vital issue for a whole swathe of Americans. Blue collar people in particular, both Democrats and Tea Partiers

Thirdly, while shale oil and gas are fossil fuels, and there is a risk of groundwater contamination, dependence on coal is inevitably reduced. Exploitation of shale resource will help reduce the US carbon footprint. This may not satisfy people with green issues at the top of their agenda, but it brings many people on side who think Global Warming is an issue, but are somewhat vague on the actual details.

Fourthly, there is a group who may mot think burning fossil fuels is a mortal sin, but still want to preserve what is left of the wilderness, huntsmen, outdoors type people, as well as some environmentalists. They might be happy to avoid drilling up Alaska .Still achieving the goal of relaxing the ban on drilling in the arctic without actually doing so. Namely producing more energy at home.

Fifthly there is the balance of payments.

Last, but by no means least, there is the corporate constituency.

Looking at the list above, the combination of local activists concerned about groundwater combined with people opposed to any extension of fossil fuel dependence were never going to prevail. Perhaps we should take a bit of time to think about that. If poisoning the water supply is not a slamdunk argument, are we inevitably doomed?

Moving swiftly on to the issues that do matter in the society we have built, the arguments for exploitation of shale, both strategic and economic speak of a stronger America.

But what about unintended consequences. Those lamenting declining US influence might wonder what this has to do with shale, but a key plank of global dominance has been the longstanding alliance with Saudi Arabia. Formed at the end of WWII, this alliance is centred on a simple construct, security for oil. Saudi Arabia, coupled with ally Kuwait, acts as a swing producer in the OPEC oil cartel, keeping the price of oil at an acceptable level. In return the US guarantees the security of the Saudis in particular, and the gulf in general.

But the foundation of that deal is now shaking. The invasion of Iraq took place in the face of Saudi opposition. Whatever the intentions o the US, turning a neighbour with whom the Saudis share a border into an Iranian proxy (at best) or even a failed state is not conducive to security, which is the US side of the bargain.

The invasion of Iraq was dubbed as part of the response to the 911 attacks. If it was, it was severely misguided, but it should always be remembered that 15 of the 19 hijackers (not to mention Osama bin Laden himself) were Saudi citizens. So the effect of the Iraq war can be exaggerated, even before then many Saudis were desperately unhappy with the relationship of mutual dependence.

So the US is no longer the guarantor of security it was. If it also no longer needs the oil, the arrangement of 'security for oil' looks dead in the water.

Not everyone will lament the end of that arrangement. But the Middle East remains a massively important strategic location. It is not Obama's perceived 'weakness' which adds to the perceived 'incompetence' of George W Bush, but the indisputable fact that the US is no longer the biggest customer.

The gulf Arabs have been trading for centuries, if not millennia. America's capitalists surely must understand the importance of not offending your biggest customer. Nowadays that means don't mess with China.

The flip side of America's new found energy independence is a loss of influence in the Middle East. You will find rentaquote Neo Cons lamenting Obama's weakness on the one hand while calling for energy independence on the other. They won't tell you that energy independence might be a cause of declining US influence.

The real question for America is 'Does it really matter?'. What is US influence in the Middle East for, if not to guarantee oil supply? Is the focus of world trade moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Whatever the political class may think, or pundits tell you, most citizens of the US would swap any amount of world influence for a return to the days of steadily rising incomes.

Perhaps the effects will be felt more in the Middle East than in America. In the Gulf, in Egypt, perhaps even in Israel.

Ukraine, war or appeasement?

The Western world looks at Ukraine like a slow motion train crash.

Here is a country in Europe on the borders of the EU being slowly dismembered.

We do nothing.

Problem is, what can we do? The options are pretty simple.

We do nothing, and hope that Putin's Russia will then be, in the words of Bismarck, a 'satiated power'.

We tool up for war, knowing this will be a confrontation between Russia and the West.

We keep on talking, indulging in a game of bluff. Pretending that we will actually do something.

All of the above include the ever present, nearly always ineffectual, economic sanctions.

Almost everyone thinks that nothing is unacceptable. And I can understand why. Appeasement does not have a good track record anywhere, let alone central Europe. But is the 'do nothing' option really appeasement? I'm not so sure. Appeasement generally involves a lot of talking. Plenty of diplomacy, and the crafting of an agreement which reflects whatever facts on the ground an aggressor has created.

It is really the third option that is appeasement.

In the final analysis there is only one question. Are we prepared to send our sons and daughters to die in the name of Ukrainian freedom? It is a stark question because we face a stark choice: the alternative to doing nothing is to fight.

For me the answer is no. I am not prepared to die for Ukrainian freedom. Nor to send my children to.

It appears that Russian is prepared to sacrifice her children in this fight. There is no amount of diplomacy, sanctions, negotiations, agreements which can bridge this gap.

We can acquiesce with words of condemnation. It may seem weak, but it is at least honest. Endless rounds of talks to legitimise a limited annexation of Crimea, Donbas, Mariupol etc. that is what appeasement looks like. That is what Chamberlain did in Munich.

All the talk of agreements and ceasefires in Minsk. All our threats of arming Ukraine, committing ourselves to Ukrainian freedom, unless we are prepared to sacrifice our children, it is nothing but a game of bluff.

Sometime great poker players can win a game of bluff. Perhaps Merkel or Obama fit that mould. But no one, however great a player, can truly win a game of bluff when the other side is for real.

I really don't think Mr Putin is bluffing. Everything he has done so far is a bit more extreme than we Westerners expected. He really does mean to recapture a slice of his near abroad.

We may not be prepared to intervene to stop him, but neither should we legitimise that with an agreement in exchange for a commitment to stop at some new, arbitrary border.