From 'The Man who broke the Bank of England' to Afghanistan and the Ukraine War - the rise of Proxy Wars

To understand the present one needs to understand the past. Media and money play a role in both shaping conflicts and shaping our perception of them.

1. The man who broke the bank of England

Multi-billionaire George Soros is a polarising figure. To some, he is a tremendous force for good in the World, to others he is the devil incarnate. The one undeniable fact is he is a tremendously powerful figure: when he speaks all the 'great and the good' listen attentively; the Bill Gates, Tony Blairs, Bill Clintons, George Bushes and Klaus Schwabs

George Soros at the World Economic Forum, 2011. Credit World Economic Forum

of the World all pay careful attention. He is best known as the 'Man who broke the Bank of England' in 1992, exploiting Black Wednesday to make a billion in profit in one day.  In recent decades however, Soros has rebranded himself as a philanthropist (rather like Bill Gates) through his Open Society Foundation. Apparently he is now someone who's sole aim is to improve life for everyone.  Maybe. In earlier times he was known, and saw himself, rather differently.

'I am basically there to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.'

In 1997 Soros was the driving force behind aggressive speculation on the Thai Baht, helping to create a financial crisis across South-East Asia. This crisis dramatically pushed up food prices for the poorest and forced countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia to accept IMF restructuring programmes. Millions fell below the poverty line. One study estimates that at least 10,400 committed suicide as a result.

When interviewed on CBS's 60 Minutes Soros was asked about his perceived role in the financial collapses that extended from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan across to Russia. Rather than deny his responsibility he responded thus:

'I am basically there to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.'

Clip for CBS’s 1998 interview with George Soros where he is asked about the 1997 Asia Crisis

2. How to build a media narrative for a proxy war, a little history

Back in 1998 former US Presidential Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski revealed that the US Government had 'set a trap' for the Soviet Union a decade earlier. In mid-1979 the CIA secretly began arming the Mujahideen, who were attacking the Soviet-backed Afghan Government, supplying them with newer and better weapons. In December Russia responded, sending troops in to support the Afghan Government. The USA then told the World that they had only started supplying weapons AFTER Russia invaded. Like well trained poodles the BBC, CNN etc dutifully reported this as fact. If social media had been around then it's highly likely Facebook would have been full of people rebranding their profiles "I stand with Afghanistan'.  Western media were glowing in their praise of the mujahiddin. CBSs star journalist Dan Rather was embedded with the mujahidin. He accused the Soviets of ‘genocide’, comparing the Russian leader to Hitler (now where have I heard that recently).

President Ronald Reagan sitting with Mujahideen leaders in the Whitehouse in 1983.

The Mujahideen were portrayed as ‘holy warriors’ fighting an ‘evil empire’ (sound familiar?).  Sanctions were applied against Russia. In reality, of course, the US Government did not a flying f*ck about Afghanistan or the people there (as we all would learn a couple of decades later). The sole purpose of arming the Mujahidin was to weaken Russia and the Soviet Union. To create their ‘Vietnam’.  Russia became bogged down in a decade long war that dramatically weakened it, playing a major part in the breakup of the Soviet Union shortly after. Brzezinski was later asked if the creation of Al Qaeda by the United States funding and training the mujahiddin was worth it. His reply: for the break-up of the Soviet Union and collapse of Russia – yes!  And that of course was the goal all along. To asset strip Russia and remove the only other superpower, giving the USA total dominance.

3. Shock Doctrine

In December 1991, the long term goal of the USA was acheived, the Soviet Union collapsed. Gorbachev - the reformer - was gone, and Boris Yeltsin was now the new president (since June that year). Enter our old friend George Soros. Now George is quite openly no fan of communism (to put it mildly) and is very happy with the changes, quietly pulling strings in the background.  Yeltsin is the darling of the West: alcoholic, permanently drunk and easily manipulated. Propped up by Clinton to keep him in power, little things like illegally dissolving Parliament then sending in tanks when Parliament objects and re-writing the constitution to give himself more power are easily overlooked because Yeltsin believes in the Free Market.  Then in comes the ‘Harvard Boys’, the World bank and the IMF. Privatisation of state assets becomes the only game in town, the ‘loans for shares’ scheme lead to the rise of oligarchs. Former Harvard economist and then Deputy Secretary of State Larry Summers used his influence at the Treasury to funnel large amounts of money in the form of IMF loans to the cash-strapped Yetsin administration. Loans, of course, come with conditions and those were that Russia must open up to unrestricted foreign imports, against which the Russian-based manufacturers could not complete. Russia is asset-stripped and its bankrupted. Inflation hits 2500%. To service its debt, Russia must sell off almost all its gold (even prior to Yeltsin, when the USSR broke up Russia sold off 2/3 of its entire gold reserves during 1990-1991, and all of its foreign currency holdings, simply to service its debts, according to the Los Angeles Times). The ruble becomes virtually worthless and people lose all their savings, everything is sold off to foreign investors and Russian oligarchs. Between 1990 and 1994, life expectancy in Russia fell by an astonishing five years. These are the results of the Free Market ‘Shock Therapy’ most notably documented by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine. Russia is reduced to a near third world economy ruled by gangsters and oligarchs. The USA’s global domination was now unopposed. Full-spectrum dominance, as they liked to call it.

Inflation rates in Russia: 1993-2022 (from Wikipedia)

4. The rise of the ‘hard man’

Not everyone was happy however. Ordinary Russians were suffering badly. Things had to change. Enter Vladimir Putin. The ex-KGB hard man. Putin cracks down hard on the oligarchs.

Vladimir Putin taking the presidential oath along side Boris Yeltsin. Credit: www.kremlin.ru

Some flee to Europe, notably London where you can launder money through property, superyachts and buying football teams.  Putin gradually rebuilds the Russian economy, to the point where it no longer has any real national debt and has large gold reserves once again. When Putin came to power in 1999, the per capita GDP was a mere 1,300 USD.  By 2013 it had risen to nearly 16,000 USD per capita.  By any standards a phenomenal achievement. Russia had once again become, along with China, one of the only countries capable of standing up to the USA, strong enough and large enough to refuse to obey Washington’s instructions.

Russian gold reserves, 2000 to 2018. Putin became president in May, 2000.

Meanwhile, the complete subjugation of Europe can be seen in comparison of the treatment of Julian Assange, and Europe’s blind obedience to the USA; compare with Russia’s refusal to ‘bend the knee’ to the USA and hand over Edward Snowden after the US cancelled his passport.  More recently Germany, in the full knowledge that the USA was behind the bombing of the Nordstream pipeline, a piece of European infrastructure much of the construction costs were made by the German Government, and on which Germany’s economy was very much dependent. Prior to the destruction of Nordstearm Germany refused to escalate the war in Ukraine by sending German Leopard tanks to Ukraine. After Nordstream was destroyed germany meekly capitulated and duly sent Ukraine the tanks, against the wishes and interests of their own people. Many people have argued that much of Western Europe has been reduced to little more than vassal states of the US Empire, frequently acting in the interests of Washington , even when that harms their own country's interests.

5. The rise of the proxy wars

But back to George Soros.  George made an awful lot of money by predicting the financial future, and he also likes to make predictions about global politics.  In 1993, very soon after the fragmentation of the Soviet Union, George wrote an essay for his Open Society Foundation, in response to this collapse, entitled: Toward a New World Order. The future of NATO.  From the title of the essay, one can conclude that this is either a man with huge delusions of grandeur, or a man who yields enormous power in the shadows, maybe both (in his autobiography he wrote about fancying himself as ‘some sort of God’; he called it ‘a disease’ but later stated he now ‘felt comfortable about it since I began to live it out’). returning to his essay on the New World Order, one section stands out as particularly prescient:

‘the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act.’

So, George seems to be suggesting it would be a great enhancement to NATO to use young men from Eastern Europe – former Soviet States – as cannon fodder who then come home in body bags, while NATO countries, the USA, Great Britain, Germany, France, provide weapons and training, in order to achieve NATOs (i.e., the USA’s) goals. If one looks at Ukraine, NATO countries have most certainly supplied weapons and training (plus billions of dollars) while it is young Ukrainians who have returned in body bags. While not a former USSR state, neither is Israel a member of NATO. There’s a strong argument that we are currently in a time of proxy wars, where Western powers attempt to keep their citizens from protesting too much about both military casualties and atrocities against civilians by employing other countries to do their dirty work. In March 2022, during an interview about the Ukraine War, Hillary Clinton stated on MSNBC:

"Remember, the Russians invaded Afghanistan back in 1980, It didn't end well for the Russians....but the fact is, that a very motivated, and then funded, and armed insurgency basically drove the Russians out of Afghanistan…… I think that is the model that people are looking toward"

Essentially Clinton was stating that the U.S. funding and arming Afghanistan in succeeded in defeating Russia. The consequences of arming the Mujahidin were, of course, the rise of Osama bin Laden and Al Queda. Joe Biden went firther the very same some, basically clarifying that’s the US’s aims were to overthrow Putin. The U.S. economic model requires that there can be no peers. A strong Russia (or China) cannot be tolerated. Thus we have escalating proxy wars both in Ukraine and the Middle East. How long this can be maintained before Western populations, sick of the carnage, force change or these proxy wars escalate in to direct conflict remains to be seen.