It’s just a suggestion. I can’t support it with scientific facts, or with exact figures as I’m unable to prove with certainty the participation of man in the global climate warming. Nevertheless, the claims of the outbreak of World War III, due to conflicts over access to areas rich in oil prompted me to reflect on this. So, if science and technology created electric engines, especially in the 21stc, such as trains running on magnetic levitation, wind power and solar energy, why is oil still so significant and what is more likely to escalate conflict? Why does the whole world still have to fight for something that is almost replaced already? Isn’t that absurd? When I write word “absurd”, what comes to my mind is politics, and then the lobbying, corporations, banks, politically correct slogans such as “1% vs 99%,” etc.
Aren’t we in the alleged global conflict of oil just because of large corporations that do not want and cannot come to terms with the changes? Isn’t the fact that the project DESERTEC has been “suspended” because of the lack of profitability? However, this project has not been calculated for profit or loss, but on the benefits of political stabilization of the region.
So today, there is inflammation and a departure from traditional energy sources and the gradual transition to renewable sources. If you count the profits from the exploitation of oil, but thrown into the balance sheet also the wars in the Middle East and Africa, and losses counted today amongst a country’s debt, the threat to Western societies resulting from the terrorism arising from these wars, and we consider the greater majority of the population that does not participate in direct profits from trading oil, it turns out that it is a source of very scarce supply for the vast majority of societies.
There are many socially beneficial but unprofitable projects- almost all basic science is like that. But a more unprofitable and so drastically conflicting and perhaps completely unnecessary enterprise than the “War of Oil” is hard to even imagine.
As an observer and researcher of world politics, I have a growing conviction that a lot of things that happen now are created for the needs of conflict and the struggle for influence, and therefore power and we – ordinary people are tools to create and participate in these conflicts.
Powerful corporations, having their entire structure built on the basis of various institutions and interests in one way or another, with the industry dependent on oil, are responsible for the fact that these terribly bloody and devastating conflicts are ongoing. Add to that politicians who are addicted to, bought by or not competent enough to fight negative lobbying. For this, banks related to the corporations and politicians take advantage of our money and finance the war for oil.
The whole system, thus created, is now impossible (as, unfortunately, I believe) to change in the short term, therefore the war for oil is under way and even now threatens global conflict.
Another problem is political leadership, whose country budget depends (at their own request) on oil – like Putin’s. They believe have no choice but to fight for oil, or for the higher price of it, and expand their sphere influence. Others are afraid of their unpredictability and try to limit those “opportunities” for them.
In the Middle East, where the axis of “Oil wars cross mostly, the Kurds are used as pawns in the “competition”. They also trying to use that situation and enter the scene as a state and for this purpose, they will do almost anything. Currently, the complicated “Kurdish issue” becomes the epicenter of the war, where the actual substrata is Oil. The problem is not, that Kurdish areas are richest in petroleum, but: 1. they are deeply in conflict with Turkey, 2. necessarily want to become a state, 3. the West is, as usual, very ambiguous and 4. Russia wants to use them against Turkey. 5. You can add more to this – ISIS, Iran, the war in Syria, GCC states seeking, as Iran is doing, for influence in the same places, and that Israel, which has weapons of mass destruction and would not hesitate to use it if they will predict seriously danger for their existence.
Thus we have presumption and conditions for World War III – now it is essential that the West starts to pursue a rational policy – not avoiding problems, but measuring them. The problem for now – is to bring Turkish and Kurdish leaders to negotiations, which would take over the main argument from the hands of Putin. That would provide a strong and stable –pro-Western- ally, significantly reduce tension in relations with Turkey, but also with Iraq, Iran and Syria. Finally, it would stem escalating violence and then we could look for a second step to decrease the conflicts. That would be the stabilization of the Middle East and settling the relations with Russia (with the general condition there has to be true independence of Ukraine).
But all that would be possible if we refuse to use oil and other energetic resources as a main bacground of all actions. There is a strong need for a good Strategy for security in the Middle East and for decreasing the terrorist threat in Europe. But we can create it and use it only when we choose reasonable politicians not depended on corporations and banks.
Donald Trump in the context of this article seams the worst possible choice.
For the correction I would like to thank to Sarah: