COVID 19: a crisis with unpredictable consequences

Two weeks have passed since the publication of our first evaluation of the COVID-19 crisis and its possible consequences. If anything characterizes this situation, it is the unpredictability and the difficulty in establishing not just a future scenario, but in some ways even in framing and understanding the present. Throughout history, humanity has suffered numerous pandemics, and all of them have had as a consequence, beyond the cost in human lives and health implications, an impact on both the way of life and the economy and, as a consequence of the latter, on the global balance. The paradox is that not everything is a negative effect, since this type of situation, like armed conflicts, brings with it advances in every condition, the result of the need to find ways to defeat the enemy (whether a virus or an army) and to alleviate the consequences of the struggle. And it is obvious to say that in this type of situation there are always those who come out worse off and those who manage to take advantage of it. 

The COVID-19 arrived to a world dominated by globalization, with a dominant power clearly in the middle of a confrontation with another one that was trying to at least catch up with its rival. And with two other peripheral actors immersed, one, in the search for its own path to power or the importance it once had, and the other, trying to reinforce its seams after a hard and painful tear. I am sure the reader will be able to put a name to each of these four actors.

As already mentioned in the previous article, determining the origin of the virus is a difficult and complicated issue and we will probably never know. Among other things, because of the implications of recognizing that its origin is not entirely the responsibility of nature. Even in this hypothetical case, those most affected by its dispersion wouldn't dare to acknowledge it. And if that were the case, it wouldn't matter if his release had been something premeditated or accidental. But this matter, at the point we are at, is almost the least important. What counts is that it is already here, the effects it is causing and those it will cause.

It' s interesting, in order to frame the situation and take us to the approach of the possible scenarios that we will have to face, to make a relation of objective facts: The virus causing the COVID-19 has its origin in China, concretely in the province of Hubei, whose capital is Wuhan. The population of this province is a little more than 60 million inhabitants. China has also been the source of similar viruses such as SARS over the past two decades.

One of the laboratories with the highest level of biosecurity in the world is located in this city. Its origin dates back to 2017 and, with its creation, China managed to become one of the countries with the capacity to research and use the technology needed to combat viruses such as Ebola. However, several scientists showed their reticence towards this facility, which works, (something normal on the other hand), under a great deal of secrecy. Nature magazine even pointed out the risk of lethal germs escaping from the facility.

When the virus began to spread, China's reaction to the advance of the disease, or at least its acceptance by the international community that something serious was happening, was late. This opacity, which is common in the Chinese regime, wasn't only irresponsible, but also served and still serves to fuel all sorts of speculation, however wild it may be. And, precisely in the last few days, the most incriminating theories are taking off, which is not without risk, as will be explained later.

This fact caused that his rival, the United States, with which he was in a relentless economic and technological struggle, took advantage of the occasion to discredit the Asian country, unleashing a very hard information campaign against the regime. In case some people haven't noticed yet, we were already witnessing what is called a "conflict in the grey zone", which, at that time, was being fought on the economic level and in the cognitive domain. Let us recall the famous Gerasimov doctrine already discussed on other occasions in this publication. This doctrine is based in part on what Sliptjenko said in 1999 in his theory on the "Sixth Generation War". According to this, conflicts within the framework of this new modality have three main objectives:

• The military defeat of the enemy in their own territory.
• The destruction of their economic activity and industrial potential.
• The subversion or change of the opponent's political system.

 

But it’s important to point out that in order to achieve victory it’s not necessary to achieve these three objectives. In this new type of conflict, the war doesn't stop, it simply starts and evolves in a continuous way from the preparation phase, varying in intensity and progressively modifying its center of gravity. The desired end state is a weakened, destabilized and isolated society. Gerasimov, based on Slipkenko, proposes in his doctrine the scenario of a permanent state of war as something consubstantial to the existence of nations. He calls it "existential war", and this means that the objectives of war are no longer the physical conquest of a territory. The strategy no longer consists of destruction, intimidation or extermination. Therefore, the use of direct military force is no longer the most important method.

The strategy is transformed into the use of other indirect methods aimed at creating "organized chaos". All this leads to another concept such as "the culture war", which consists of nothing more than creating currents of political, economic and cultural influence. This requires means or ways that provide direct influence on the figures or strata of the opponent chosen as targets (politicians, influential groups, military commanders, sectors of the population...), in order to provoke an internal collapse, or at least a situation of instability. In short, this "low-contact warfare" is interpreted as a way of "making war" using technical elements, actors and methods that minimize direct confrontation. Therefore, the confrontation against an opponent must be understood as a total and continuous war with various degrees of intensity following several simultaneous lines of operations in the different domains, either simultaneously or successively. Having made this point, let us continue with the relation of events. 

As the campaign against China's delayed reaction and lack of transparency intensified, the effects of COVID-19 on the country's economy began to be noted. Strict containment measures and the shutdown of part of industrial production began to reveal their negative consequences.
But these economic consequences were reflected in Europe mainly and in the USA in an unexpected way. The industrial and technological fabric began to suffer from the shortage of components manufactured in the Asian country. Even before receiving the scourge of the pandemic, the West received the first economic blow, even reducing or paralyzing production in various sectors. On 23 January, China announced the construction of a hospital to attend to the victims of COVID-19 and, in a show of capacity, with the consequent propaganda and carefully supplied shocking images, showed its work completed on 3 February. Without a doubt, an admirable achievement. In summary, at this point, the still photo of the events was the next one:

• China: Containing the disease; showing off its health material; countering the campaign against it.
• European Union: Somewhat confused; no precise data on COVID-19, beginning to suffer the effects on the health system of some of its members, with its industry affected by the shortage.
• USA: Trying to make a profit from the situation in China.
• Russia: In part on the sidelines and waiting for events.

 

And this is when a turn of events occurs. At the same time that the virus was beginning to spread in Europe, and with European industry suffering the consequences of the shortage of components from the Asian country, the change in Chinese attitude towards the problem began. Its communication policy took a 180º turn and it began to "sell" its reaction to the disease, announcing its strict measures of confinement, population control and, of course, with the hospital banner built in ten days per flag.

And with that state of affairs, and with the advance of the disease, officially declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March, several EU countries slid dangerously towards the collapse, and not only of their health systems. Italy, Spain, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom, one after the other, entered into a diabolical spiral of exponential expansion of the disease, saturation of health services, shortages of supplies and equipment, and were forced to take measures as drastic as those taken in China.

Faced with this situation, far from acting in a united and coordinated manner, the image given by the EU was that of "every man for himself" when it comes to the acquisition of health material, probably the result of the panic of the respective governments at not being able to act adequately due to the lack of such material. This profile was aggravated by the refusal of some countries to implement the initiative of the so-called "coronabonos" to alleviate, in part, the economic consequences of the disease. The actions of some countries and the discussions regarding economic measures is something that will be remembered in the not too distant future, and is just another element that weakens the foundations of the EU.

It was at this time when China, which was already beginning to emerge from its particular COVID19 crisis, appeared as the savior or benefactor of Europe, sending medical equipment to Italy and tons of medical material to different countries. This support could be part of the Asian country's image campaign to wash away its initial reaction to the disease, and as part of its strategy to position itself before the European Union as a reliable partner or ally. 

It' s interesting not to overlook how Russia made its presence known on stage, "helping" not only countries in its orbit like Serbia, but also Italy. The image of Russian military vehicles displaying their flag on the streets of Rome was shocking. And all this in parallel with the timid response not only from the EU to help its most needy partners, but from NATO itself, which after Spain's request for help was only reciprocated by a minority number of its partners.

But China's next steps have been very subtle, so much so that they have almost gone unnoticed. On the one hand, it has moved from sending aid to selling it outright. Most of the medical supplies needed are produced in the country of origin of the pandemic. And in the words of some leaders and ministers, this supply has become a "Persian market". In other words, Chinese companies are making a huge profit from the need created by the disease.

On the other hand, a little-known but interesting movement has been the massive purchase of oil. It' s true that before the crisis the price of oil was at almost historic lows. But the measures of confinement and paralysis of the European economies have meant a decrease in demand that has further collapsed prices. And only between January and February China has bought more than 150 million barrels, with the objective of reaching reserves of more than billion barrels, which would mean an autonomy of some 85 days, far more than the one currently available to the United States. 

And finally, we have the role of the fourth in discord: America. The United States has gone from leading the initial campaign against China on the occasion of the expansion of COVID-19, feeling somewhat safe from it, to being hit hard by it, causing a deterioration in its economy of even unpredictable consequences, and a human tragedy of much greater proportions than that faced by Europe. This has resulted in the deactivation of the US as an actor with influence in Europe, since its top priority is to solve its internal problem. Given the current scenario, the conclusions are not very encouraging. In the first place, it is important to approach them keeping in mind the brief reminder about the "Gerasimov Doctrine" and the "Sixth Generation War". The most obvious consequence is that the economy that is suffering and will suffer most from the expansion of COVID-19 is the Eurozone, followed by the USA. The EU, as a result of relocation, is today totally dependent on China.

The EU's response to requests for assistance from some of its members and the positions of others has only undermined confidence in the institution, and in the medium term will adversely affect an EU that has just suffered the blow of the Brexit. The idea that is gaining ground and that is part of the information campaign that has been unleashed is that countries with more authoritarian regimes have acted more efficiently in the fight against the disease.

In parallel with this, little by little and week by week, the need for control measures is becoming apparent in our liberal and democratic societies. Increasingly tough measures, many of which would have seemed inconceivable only a few months ago and their approach alone would have led to at least some furious protests. It is not that such measures are not necessary, but they are gradually being internalized. And from there to the next there is only one step, because if it' s used to control those infected with COVID-19, why not use it for other contagious diseases? Or for people with a violent background? To give you an example. Where's the limit? Without even realizing it, we are adopting measures that are typical of those authoritarian regimes we used to denounce, but which "have been more effective in controlling the pandemic".

the international level, there is also a very interesting aspect. China's increasing interest in and presence on the African continent is well known. The appearance of the virus is having a first effect, which is the withdrawal of EU troops from that continent and the suspension of the missions carried out there. This can be seen by the countries that were acting as if they were being left to their own devices. A second consequence, in the event of the disease spreading out of control, may be an increase in migratory pressure towards the EU. In other words, another destabilizing factor in Europe, while leaving the field open to the Asian country in Africa, where it can set itself up, as it did in Europe at the beginning of the crisis, as a savior and benefactor.

Finally, the most disturbing consequence is the drift taken in the last week by the US and followed by France and the UK to directly accuse China of provoking the pandemic from the well-known Wuhan laboratory. These two nations have announced that they will ask the Chinese regime for explanations, implying that the origin of the virus causing COVID-19 is in these facilities, accusations supported by various journalistic investigations. This strategy may be due to the need to find a responsible agent, a common enemy to blame for the evil being suffered, directing the attention of the general public towards that enemy and thus achieving a common front to avoid internal problems and one's own responsibilities. Is this the beginning of another information campaign? Most probably. But there is a risk in following that direction. The reaction of the accused in these cases can be unpredictable and, if the consequences are not well measured, the possibility of a small or medium scale warlike future cannot be ruled out, which, on the other hand, and although it may seem a nonsense, would be a way of reactivating and reinventing the economic system and of putting all the pieces back on the board.

Don't forget then the new theories of conflict already exposed. Originated spontaneously by nature, or by the hand of man, the coronavirus has been the catalyst that has accelerated the confrontation between those powers that aspire to hegemonic control in the world, which is none other than economic control. They have all tried to take advantage of it, and the future couldn't be more uncertain. We keep hearing that after the pandemic our daily life and our way of relating to each other will not be the same, but almost more important is the effect it will have on the world's balance of power.