hotel-rwanda.com

Chapter 124: Business as Usual: The Economics of Complicity

London, 1937. In the hushed, deeply carpeted office of a City of London bank, a senior partner named Alistair Heathcoat dips a fountain pen into an inkwell and signs his name with a confident flourish. The document he has just approved is a substantial, multi-million-pound loan to a German industrial conglomerate, a sprawling chemical and pharmaceutical giant by the name of I.G. Farben. Heathcoat is no fool. He reads the newspapers. He sees the newsreels from the continent, with their increasingly vast and menacing parades of new German tanks and aircraft. He knows that I.G. Farben, the creator of synthetic rubber and synthetic fuel, is a key, indispensable component in Hitler's massive and openly declared rearmament program. He knows exactly where this money is going.

Yet, the loan is good business. The interest rates are solid, the German industrial guarantees impeccable. Over lunch at his club, amidst a fog of cigar smoke and the clinking of brandy glasses, he dismisses a younger colleague's anxious, moralistic questions. "My dear boy," Alistair says, a thin, condescending smile on his face, "you are confusing the messy business of politics with the clean, rational business of finance. It is the very essence of sound foreign policy. When goods and capital cross borders, armies do not." He warms to his theme, the established gospel of his class and his time. "Furthermore, by tying their economy to ours, by making them dependent on our capital, we gain leverage. Our interconnectedness is the greatest possible guarantee of peace. It will moderate them. It will bind them to the civilized world. Mark my words." He truly believes it. He believes in the civilizing, rationalizing power of money.

Düsseldorf, Germany - 2015. In the sleek, minimalist, glass-and-steel boardroom of a German industrial giant, the CEO, Klaus Reiter, is making a forceful presentation to a group of skeptical officials from the Economy Ministry. He is lobbying, with the full weight of German industry behind him, for Chancellor Angela Merkel's government to grant the final political approval for a massive, geopolitically explosive new infrastructure project: the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The project would double the flow of cheap natural gas directly from Russia to Germany, bypassing Ukraine entirely. The meeting is taking place just one year after Russia's illegal seizure of Crimea and its first invasion of the Donbas. The government officials, backed by their Green party coalition partners, are nervous. They speak of the danger of increasing Germany's already significant energy dependency on an openly aggressive and revanchist Moscow.

Klaus Reiter dismisses their fears with the confident, slightly impatient air of a global captain of industry dealing with naive politicians. "Gentlemen, with respect, this is a purely commercial project," he insists, gesturing to a complex chart of projected gas prices and industrial cost savings. "It has nothing to do with geopolitics. This is about providing German industry with a critical competitive advantage for the next fifty years." He then pivots, seamlessly, to the grander, almost sacrosanct vision of German foreign policy, the doctrine of Wandel durch Handel—"Change through Trade." "For thirty years," he argues, "this policy has brought us peace and prosperity. By binding Russia's economy to ours, by making them a dependent supplier of our energy, we transform them into a stable and reliable partner. We enmesh them in a web of mutual interest. It is the surest path to security and stability on the continent."

The officials, facing immense pressure from the powerful German industrial lobby and wedded to the comforting dogma of their own foreign policy, nod their reluctant approval. The pipeline, the steel artery that will fill Putin's war chest with a hundred billion euros over the next decade, is green-lit. The logic, timeless in its appeal and fatally flawed in its premise, is exactly the same as it was in the London club in 1937: the comforting, liberal illusion that the autocrat who is openly and methodically sharpening his sword can somehow be pacified, civilized, and moderated by a well-filled purse.

The Discourse 124: The Opiate of Commerce

This chapter analyzes the critical role of economic complicity and wishful thinking in enabling aggression, arguing that the policy of appeasement in both eras was not just a diplomatic failure, but was actively fueled and sustained by powerful economic interests who subscribed to the fatally flawed belief that business could be divorced from geopolitics, and that commerce would inevitably moderate regimes driven by ideology.

Trade in Service of Tyranny was the direct, quantifiable result, regardless of the stated intention. In the late 1930s, despite Hitler's rearmament, his open territorial ambitions, and the increasingly brutal nature of his regime, Western nations, including Britain, France, and the United States, continued to trade extensively with Nazi Germany. This provided the Third Reich with crucial foreign currency reserves and strategic raw materials—such as tungsten, oil, and rubber—that were indispensable for building the Wehrmacht's war machine. This is a direct parallel to the period between Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and its second, full-scale invasion in 2022. During these eight critical years, instead of implementing a crash program to end their energy dependency, European nations, led by Germany, deliberately and dramatically increased their reliance on Russian oil and natural gas. This policy, rationalized under the benign-sounding doctrine of Wandel durch Handel ("Change through Trade"), had the diametrically opposite of its intended effect. The immense influx of European hard currency—estimated at over a trillion dollars in that period—did not moderate the Kremlin or bind it to a peaceful European order. It funded Putin's massive military modernization program, allowed his regime to build up a nearly $600 billion war chest of foreign reserves to sanction-proof his economy, and gave him the strategic leverage of a loaded economic gun pointed at the heart of Europe.

The Phenomenon of Elite Capture further solidified this economic complicity, creating a powerful class of Western stakeholders with a deep financial interest in maintaining the status quo. In the 1930s, this took the form of influential networks of pro-German businessmen and aristocrats in Britain and America who either genuinely admired Hitler's anti-communist stance or saw immense profit in the German rearmament boom. In the modern era, this process has been far more direct, transactional, and corrosive. The most glaring example is the case of former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who, shortly after leaving office where he had signed off on the first Nord Stream pipeline, took a multi-million-dollar board position at the Russian state-owned energy giant Rosneft, effectively becoming Putin's highest-paid and most prominent Western lobbyist. He was not an outlier, but the most visible symbol of a widespread European political and business elite that had become deeply, financially, and psychologically invested in the Russia relationship. These captured elites acted as a powerful internal lobby, consistently arguing against tougher sanctions on Russia after 2014 and championing new projects like Nord Stream 2, ensuring that the artery of cash to the Kremlin remained wide open.

The Catastrophic Misreading of Intent lies at the heart of this generational failure. Both the 1930s policy of "business as usual" and the 2010s doctrine of "Change through Trade" stem from a fundamental liberal delusion: the projection of Western commercial logic and values onto regimes that are openly driven by a completely different, zero-sum worldview. The Western belief was that economic interdependence creates a shared, rational interest in peace, stability, and mutual prosperity. The reality was that both Nazi Germany and Putin's Russia viewed this very interdependence through a predatory lens of power politics. They saw it not as a bond of peace, but as a critical strategic vulnerability in their decadent, profit-obsessed democratic adversaries. It was a tool of leverage that could be exploited to deter a response when they finally decided to launch their wars of conquest. The "purely commercial project" of the pipeline was, for the men in the Kremlin, a purely geopolitical one from its very inception, a brilliant success in making their primary victim's most powerful neighbor a willing accomplice in their own strategic strangulation.