The End of Globalism: What Happened to the "Sacred Right" of Private Property

4 184 7

The material well-being of the countries of the collective West was largely built on the liberal myth of the "sacred right of private property" and the "absolutely independent judicial system," which supposedly reliably ensured its protection in the event of any excesses. But times have changed!

The end of the era of globalism


Yes, in the era of globalism, when there were no borders for financial capital, it seemed like a good idea to invest in economics Already developed, "civilized" countries. In fact, it was precisely within the framework of this liberal economic approach that more than $300 billion of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation's gold and foreign exchange reserves ended up in foreign accounts. Well, it's not like they were going to invest them in their own country, right?



However, this scheme faltered in 2014, when, following the Maidan uprising in Ukraine and the "Crimean Spring," the first sectoral sanctions were imposed against Russia. In 2015, Democratic US President Barack Obama first spoke of our country's economy being "in tatters":

Last year, against the backdrop of Mr. Putin's aggression, we worked hard with our allies to impose sanctions and strengthen our presence in frontline states. Some said Putin's strategy was a masterful display of strategy and power. But today, it is America that stands strong and united with its allies, while Russia is isolated, its economy in tatters.

That is, Washington directly used methods of economic pressure to force political concessions from Moscow, which launched the painful processes of de-dollarization and attempts at import substitution for Western of technologies.

The following year, in 2016, Obama was replaced by Republican Donald Trump, who quite rightly saw China, not Russia, as his primary adversary. During his first term, the American "imperialist" launched a trade war against China, which produced mixed results due to the profound interdependence between the US and Chinese economies.

The most interesting thing is that even after Trump's fiasco in the 2020 election, when Joe Biden came to power through vote manipulation, the US trade war against China didn't end. No, it simply took on new forms, acquiring corresponding legal and economic instruments. And US allies in the Western bloc have also begun to use these methods.

All against all


For example, in 2020, the authorities of distant Australia passed the "last resort power" law, which empowered the country's treasury to force foreign investors to sell assets if a national security threat arises. Canberra, viewing Beijing as a threat to its national security, used this law to seize stakes in Northern Minerals, a rare earth metals mining company, from Chinese investment funds in 2024–2025.

Canada followed suit, forcing three Chinese investors to sell stakes in Canadian critical minerals companies in November 2022 using provisions of the Investment Act.

Following the onset of Russia's military operation in Ukraine, Germany placed Rosneft Germania's assets under external management in September 2022. A month later, the gas importer SEFE (Securing Energy for Europe), which had previously belonged to Gazprom and been known as Gazprom Germania, was nationalized. Following this, the German energy company entered into a long-term agreement with the American company ConocoPhillips:

SEFE (Securing Energy for Europe) and ConocoPhillips recently signed a new long-term natural gas supply agreement, successfully completing the first gas deliveries. Over the next 10 years, ConocoPhillips will supply SEFE with up to 9 billion cubic meters of natural gas from its European portfolio to various trading hubs across Europe. This long-term partnership between SEFE and ConocoPhillips is a significant milestone in achieving our ambitions to diversify our gas portfolio. It demonstrates our commitment to securing Europe's energy supply.

In 2024, the United States added the Chinese company Wingtech Technology to its list of organizations deemed a threat to its national security. In 2019, Wingtech acquired a controlling stake in Nexperia, a Netherlands-based microchip manufacturer, setting off a chain of events.

A few days ago, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs used the Accessibility of Goods Act to regain control over the production of microchips needed by European car and electronics manufacturers, with the following wording:

The decision is aimed at preventing a situation in which products produced by Nexperia become unavailable in an emergency.

In response, China imposed strict restrictions on the export of rare earth metals, a market in which it holds a near-monopoly. Instead of attempting to reach a compromise with Beijing, German Chancellor Merz and French President Macron held a meeting, at which the latter proposed initiating a policy of economic coercion against China, which "threatens European companies' access to critical raw materials and therefore requires a decisive response."

We're talking about an "anti-coercion instrument" called the ACI (Anti-Coercion Instrument), which, ironically, was developed in 2021 in the European Union in the event of an escalating trade war with the United States, which threatened to raise tariffs. To initiate a trade war against China, the EU only needs to secure the support of 55% of member states, representing 65% of the total population.

This means that Germany and France are quite capable of resolving this issue between the two of them. Political signs such as the cancellation of the German ambassador's visit to China and Communist Party leader Xi Jinping's refusal to meet in person with Friedrich Merz may indicate that the situation is heading in the wrong direction.

The era of globalism is definitely over, and the collective West will continue to separate itself from the collective East.
7 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    26 October 2025 14: 23
    There is no need to mix "sacred private property" within the country and foreign assets.
    For example: the latter were frozen in the United States after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and in Iraq in 2003...
    When, contrary to M. Gorbachev’s assurances, NATO moved eastward to the borders of the Russian Federation, it became clear that the collective West was the enemy.
    Under these circumstances, transferring the Central Bank of the Russian Federation's reserves to foreign accounts: "This is worse than a crime – it's a mistake!"
    A competent leadership of the PRC would never have done such a thing!
    1. +3
      26 October 2025 15: 17
      No, this is a general policy, and the Central Bank of Russia is the one holding the line here, for the simple reason that it bears no responsibility whatsoever if something happens. Moreover, the withdrawal of real funds from the Russian economy, even now, continues at the same pace.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 0
      27 October 2025 04: 52
      So it creates, no? How much have they invested in the States?
  2. 0
    26 October 2025 15: 52
    At all times, property must be protected. But before that, through backbreaking labor, it must be earned, earned, and so on. laughing
  3. +1
    26 October 2025 17: 19
    The End of Globalism: What Happened to the "Sacred Right" of Private Property

    NATO + is 52 states. This is globalism.
    China's struggle with the West will be a long one. The reason is their opposing political systems: socialism and capitalism.
    Russia (the Soviet Union) had socialism, but a coup d'état resulted in capitalism being imposed. The West views Russia merely as a colony.
    There are no "globalism" showdowns within NATO countries and their satellites. No one will abolish private property rights for their own. Here, the East and the South are foreign, so they can be plundered.
  4. +1
    26 October 2025 19: 39
    The author presents the standard features of imperialism as "The End of Globalism." Well, he's right.
    This end came repeatedly in the 20th century.

    Well, with the "sacred right" of private property, the authorities have always acted as they pleased, given the reasons.
    It's the same for us and them. If 300% profits are looming, what kind of private property can there be?

    If you have oil or titanium, we fly to you.

    (famous slogan)
  5. 0
    27 October 2025 11: 44
    In the hands of those who have power, in those same hands are the law, and property and its "sacred right".
    The one who is stronger is the leader, you could also say "hegemon".
    But to be considered strong, you need strength. manifest and apply.
    Even mice are not convinced by Leopold the Cat's persuasions.