Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

by **Navigator** » Thu Jan 15, 2026 7:33 pm

The most immediate situation is that in Iran. I will post on the Russia situation later, when I have more time to write.

Iran is controlled by a bunch of religious fanatics (the Ayatollahs) and their henchmen (the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - IRGC). The paramilitary arm of the IRGC is the Basij. Iran reports that Basij numbers about 250,000, but others more reasonably estimate 1-2 million.

From an Australian News Outlet: "Completing the training in Basij is a prerequisite to receiving social privileges… financial bonuses, loans on favourable terms, discounts on religious trips to holy places, social welfare or access to universities," the Journal of Modern Science reported last year.
"Depending on their rank, Basij members also receive financial compensation."

Both the IRGC (600-700K soldiers) and the Basij have no qualms about shooting anybody (I would hope their immediate family is the exception, though I doubt it at this point). They would massacre MILLIONS of other Iranians if that's what it would take to protect their power/priveledge/compensation.

Popular demonstrations only work when the soldiers/police/paramilitary are unwilling to shoot the demonstrators. This is what happened in the Philippines, Eastern Europe and even Russia. It is not what happened in China or multiple times already in Iran. The same probably goes in Cuba, and most likely in Venezuela.

Unfortunately, those opposing these regimes will have to take up arms and start killing the oppressors. This means clandestine activity such as ambushes and assassinations. Arms have to be provided to them in order to do this. And it takes years for these insurgencies to have a chance at overthrowing the established power.

Also, unfortunately, such revolutions are generally led by the underclass who are comfortable with breaking the law. The "middle class", well to do people with careers, are usually extremely hesitant to join such movements. So, if/when the revolution is successful, you can end up with rather unsavory characters running the government. Plus, the revolution has made it acceptable to challenge authority, so the new government has difficulty quelling anarchy.

Basil Liddel Hart, one of the great military theorists of the 20th century, pointed out that guerilla wars and insurgencies generally led to the destabilization of the country so affected for generations. He pointed to what happened in Spain after the Napoleonic Wars, and France post WW2, when in both situations, most of the population of those two countries had been involved in insurgencies against an occupier.

At this point, I don't think there is an alternative outside of supplying arms/ammunition to anti-government forces in Iran. It may soon come to that in Venezuela, where Maduro also set up a pro-Maduro paramilitary.

Iran is NOT going to have a peaceful "orange type" revolution and turn into a US ally anytime soon. It will take quite a while to get rid of the IRGC, and Iran has no democratic tradition to speak of. The best I can hope for is that Iran is neutered by an internal bloodbath.

by **tim** » Thu Jan 15, 2026 1:24 pm

Multiple places in the world where a spark at any time can kick off the coming war.

https://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg ... 200613.htm

As I've written a number of times in the past, I do not expect WW III to begin with some major attack, such as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan or Japan or a missile attack on the United States. Those acts would come later. Major wars begin with small events. In a generational Crisis era, when public levels of nationalism and xenophobia are very high, a small event can be a match that lights an explosive fire.

World War II did not begin with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, nor did it begin with the invasion of Poland.

As I've described in the past, World War II began in 1937 with the Marco Polo Bridge incident. The Marco Polo Bridge is about 15 km south of Beijing in China, and was so named because Marco Polo praised the bridge in the 13th century. In 1937, both Japan and China were deep into generational Crisis eras, and the Japanese and Chinese people really hated each other. On July 7, a small group of Japanese soldiers, stationed near the bridge, took a roll call and found one soldier missing. The Japanese accused Chinese soldiers, also stationed near the bridge in the city of Wanping, of abducting the Japanese soldier. A brief clash was won by the Japanese. There were negotiations, and the situation was settled quickly. (The "abducted" soldier had merely gotten lost in the woods.)

So the two sides negotiated a settlement, but both sides then brought in reinforcements. Within a month there was full-scale war, leading to the Japanese "Rape of Nanking" shortly thereafter.

by **Trevor** » Tue Jan 13, 2026 7:51 pm

If Russia does indeed become our ally, I doubt it'll be until after war has already broken out. Between 1939 and 1941, the Soviets collaborated with the Nazis, planning to split Eastern Europe between them. In fact, if not for Soviet supplies, the German war machine could never have been so successful. Had the USSR chosen to act against them in 1939, Germany could not have launched Barbarossa.

I don't see NATO being an ally. I've been skeptical for a long time and seeing what's happened over Ukraine has made me doubtful they'd do anything once China attacks. Invoking Article V is likely to get a response of: "Screw you, you're on your own!" They'd gotten so used to us being most of the burden that doing it themselves isn't an easy process. It'll take years, if not decades, to establish a truly independent defense industry.

I'm even starting to wonder if this war would look like 1914 and 1939. Russia isn't likely to take much more territory without transitioning to total war, but the energy isn't there among the Russian public. 8% of GDP is about as much as they can muster, and it's still heavily dependent on Chinese components. It's a war they tolerate because they have no other choice, not because this is seen as an existential conflict, however much propaganda tries to convince them. Right now, it's easier to go along because protesting is going to end in death or imprisonment. There's no real threat to Putin's power as things stand, at least so long as the war doesn't hurt those who matter.

There are enough desperate people in Russia willing to take the risks for financial opportunity, and with year-round conscription, they can continue sending cannon fodder. However, this isn't enough unless Ukranian defenders refuse to fight on a large scale. With the kill ratio at roughly 2-1, Ukraine shows no indication of collapse anytime soon, regardless of what Pro-Russian voices are hoping for.

I'm considering the possibility this won't look like the First World War or the Second, because the necessary societal cohesion for total war may not be possible under our current conditions. This can change, of course... but it could end up looking like the Thirty Years' War: a low-intensity world war that lasts a generation. If anything, this would be worse than the alternative because surging nationalism at least allows a society to function. With the Thirty Years' War, all its major participants collapsed into civil war by the end of it, and a war like it would likely do the same to us.

by **tim** » Tue Jan 13, 2026 11:23 am

John originally predicted that Iran would be our ally in the coming world war, as the younger generation is pro-western and doesn't share the worldview of the generation in power that was aging and dying off.

A generational awakening period - Iran is where America was in the 60's.

I remember when John was talking about this around 2008 when lots of people thought this idea was crazy.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... ing-mayhem

Update(0953ET): President Trump on Tuesday morning has called on Iranians to keep protesting in the streets, where clashes with security services have spiraled and turned violent - but in some locations have waned. He's told Iranians to "take over your institutions" - which is essentially a call for coup or armed insurrection.

Trump further said he has canceled all meetings with Iranian officials, after yesterday's reports that the two sides were looking to jump-start diplomacy of official contacts if Tehran leaders cooperate, and don't kill any protesters. But now Trump is doing his typical thing of quickly ratcheting pressure to the max. He's reiterated that HELP IS ON THE WAY - suggesting military intervention could be imminent, in the following Truth Social statement.

by **tim** » Tue Jan 13, 2026 10:39 am

Navigator wrote: Sun Jan 11, 2026 1:43 pm
FullMoon wrote: Sat Jan 10, 2026 8:25 pm
DaKardii wrote: Sat Jan 10, 2026 5:21 pm Link to the monologue below. Keep in mind that it is over 40 minutes long.

https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-mono-jan-7

During the monologue, Carlson implies that China will be our main adversary in this war. He also says Russia is the key to determining who will win. Which is why Trump abandoning NATO/Ukraine and making nice with Russia should take top priority. If Trump fails to break Russia away from China, we will lose. Only if he succeeds will we have a chance.
John's analysis as to the Russian side was correct. It depends on how much they and Europe can make amends. At current levels that will take a long time and certainly be in China's favor. The European/Russian rivalry would be best wound down. There is no existential conflict between Russia and Europe. Europe got themselves into a hole by doing similar but much worse than we did. We have lots of options but what have they. We cut their pipeline and they don't even have cheap energy now.
I think that Tucker Carlson is completely in the tank for Russia. The idea of making Russia into a US ally against China is ludicrous. Russia is an aggressor and a full on partner with China.

I have always disagreed with John's take on Russia, and after Putin's invasion of Ukraine I believe that John changed his mind.

European/Russian rivalry is not going to wind down. It is only going to get worse. After the Ukraine, Russia wants the Baltics. Then they want their influence in Eastern Europe back. Russian ambitions are all aimed westward. Russia may actually cede territory in the far east to China in return for assistance in getting more European lands. I believe we will see this when WW3 starts.

During the last fourth turning Russia was our enemy at first. During the Russian Revolution 5,000 American Army troops were deployed in Russia. Russia was allied with Germany while carving up Poland and Russia attacked Finland. On paper Russia and Germany were allies and Russia was our enemy. Germany was always planning on conquering Russia for "living space". Which is not that different from how China views Russia today.

Russia and China have historically been enemies and even if this war ends up with them being allies it will be temporary. The Sino-Soviet split during the cold war suggests how this will happen.

Its right here in the open for everyone to see. Once again, nothing new under the sun. Similiar to how Adolf Hitler wrote of taking Russian lands in his book before the war began even though he had an alliance with Russia on paper.

https://www.newsweek.com/china-is-slowl ... a-11180044

Is China Planning a Russian Land Grab? What to Know

DEC 10, 2025 AT 04:00 AM EST

Recent moves by China reveal it has not forgotten the territory lost to the Russian Far East during its "Century of Humiliation." This has raised speculation that the world’s longest border may be ripe for Chinese encroachment, even as "no limits partners" Beijing and Moscow appear increasingly aligned on the world stage.

Chinese Map Alterations and Border Disputes

The Chinese Ministry of the Environment in 2023 moved to dictate that new official maps must depict cities in this area, such as the Siberian city of Vladivostok, with their official names. Another change was to portray an island at the confluence of the Ussuri and Amur rivers, subject to a long-running dispute and a border agreement in 2008, as entirely Chinese. An uptick in Chinese purchases of farmland and decades-long leases across the border has also raised eyebrows.

Strategic Partnership and Power Imbalance

Meanwhile, Chinese nationalists openly call for the return of territory forcibly transferred to Tsarist Russia by a weakened Qing dynasty during the 19th century. These calls are not echoed by Beijing, which has downplayed the map changes while regularly touting the importance of ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who stood in the place of honor at Xi’s side during the June V-Day military parade in Tiananmen Square.

The alliance also shows cracks that will only be worsened by the coming war:

https://thediplomat.com/2023/03/cautiou ... ia-border/

Cautious Contact on the China-Russia Border

Amid great power competition, life in the China-Russia borderlands reveals the paradoxes underpinning the Beijing-Moscow friendship.

In eastern Russia there is no question over where borders lie: Several outstanding Sino-Russian territorial disputes were finally settled in 2008, and Putin is in no position to revisit this topic today. But this border also remains troublesome, despite signs in early 2023 of its reopening and a wider relaxation of China’s pandemic restrictions. The February 1 meeting between Suifenhe and Ussuriisk officials proposed increasing cross-border commercial traffic, but left unanswered questions over when Russians’ visa-free cross-border access to China would resume. At the time of writing in late February, no conclusive answer has yet been provided on this subject.

This slowness to reopen despite supposedly limitless China-Russia friendship can be read as a sign of a discomfort on each side with too much unregulated contact among people. Once the border does reopen fully, moreover, the current international situation could lead to further complications.

by **FullMoon** » Sun Jan 11, 2026 7:55 pm

Actually invading Greenland would activate NATO against the US, which would be a disaster of monumental proportions. NATO is still extremely important, especially in the face of Russian aggression. I think we should tone down the anti-NATO rhetoric a notch or two. Trump has been successful in getting the Europeans to increase defense spending somewhat, and the fear of Russia, especially for Poland and northern Europe is motivating them as well.

Let's just look at the balance of power within NATO. What kind of structure governs it and what kind of war fighting weapons and knowledge that they have. Are we more than 50%? Probably. Do we control everything in it?
"Taking" Greenland would be a symbolic gesture. What it means what will happen is like a Trump move. We don't know.

by **FullMoon** » Sun Jan 11, 2026 7:51 pm

I have always disagreed with John's take on Russia, and after Putin's invasion of Ukraine I believe that John changed his mind.

I think John didn't change his schedule of allies vs axis. He did have a vitriolic hatred of Putin it seemed. He didn't change his prognosis because individual actors aren't a part of the equation.
That said, I said that the prolonged proxy war has perhaps changed the viewpoint of the Russian general population. I've heard that whereas before they were European leaning, now they're quite unhappy with Europe. I doubt that they want more conflict because they've already stated publicly and correctly that they'll just wait out the European's as yet another psychotic policy is instituted. They are a landmass governed by idiots and lunatics. Great friends I tell ya. You might as well be a card carrying liberal democrat and you still would be centrist compared to that place. Let's understand that even if Russia went absolutely nuts as suggested and did something obviously foolish like carrying the war past Ukraine, actually suggesting this is obviously not going to happen.
Russia would be an excellent candidate to ward of China from the vast and resource rich border that they share and should also be a big help with the ME when that starts to spillover. Europe will have a hard time dealing with them we should already see as self evident.

by **Navigator** » Sun Jan 11, 2026 1:43 pm

FullMoon wrote: Sat Jan 10, 2026 8:25 pm
DaKardii wrote: Sat Jan 10, 2026 5:21 pm Link to the monologue below. Keep in mind that it is over 40 minutes long.

https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-mono-jan-7

During the monologue, Carlson implies that China will be our main adversary in this war. He also says Russia is the key to determining who will win. Which is why Trump abandoning NATO/Ukraine and making nice with Russia should take top priority. If Trump fails to break Russia away from China, we will lose. Only if he succeeds will we have a chance.
John's analysis as to the Russian side was correct. It depends on how much they and Europe can make amends. At current levels that will take a long time and certainly be in China's favor. The European/Russian rivalry would be best wound down. There is no existential conflict between Russia and Europe. Europe got themselves into a hole by doing similar but much worse than we did. We have lots of options but what have they. We cut their pipeline and they don't even have cheap energy now.

I think that Tucker Carlson is completely in the tank for Russia. The idea of making Russia into a US ally against China is ludicrous. Russia is an aggressor and a full on partner with China.

I have always disagreed with John's take on Russia, and after Putin's invasion of Ukraine I believe that John changed his mind.

European/Russian rivalry is not going to wind down. It is only going to get worse. After the Ukraine, Russia wants the Baltics. Then they want their influence in Eastern Europe back. Russian ambitions are all aimed westward. Russia may actually cede territory in the far east to China in return for assistance in getting more European lands. I believe we will see this when WW3 starts.

by **Navigator** » Sun Jan 11, 2026 1:38 pm

tim wrote: Tue Jan 06, 2026 11:06 am
‘Greenland belongs to its people’: European leaders unite over Trump’s threats to annex territory

European leaders urge Trump to respect Greenland’s borders

Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland

While I certainly am fully in agreement (and then some) regarding Trumps actions vis a vis Iran and Venezuela, I am deeply worried about his rhetoric concerning Greenland, and NATO, as well as his significant reduction in the US backing of Ukraine.

Yes, Greenland is strategic. We have a base there (Thun). We could offer to greatly bolster our presence, and pay Greenland/Denmark for the privilege. We could even buy Greenland (btw, Truman tried to do this shortly after WW2). Hopefully Trump's rhetoric is meant to have one of these things happen.

Actually invading Greenland would activate NATO against the US, which would be a disaster of monumental proportions. NATO is still extremely important, especially in the face of Russian aggression. I think we should tone down the anti-NATO rhetoric a notch or two. Trump has been successful in getting the Europeans to increase defense spending somewhat, and the fear of Russia, especially for Poland and northern Europe is motivating them as well.

by **Navigator** » Sun Jan 11, 2026 1:28 pm

tim wrote: Sat Jan 10, 2026 12:30 pm https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/e ... -a-wartime

Edward Dowd: Trump is Building a Wartime Command Economy Without Declaring War

"This is a test run. He is setting precedent to apply this model across sectors..."

Trump is building a wartime command economy without declaring war.

He’s not trying to reform the defense sector. He’s preparing to subsume it. Strip the optics. What he’s doing is establishing direct state control over strategic capital flow using loyalty pressure, populist framing, and fiscal levers.

He’s not negotiating with defense executives. He’s declaring them subordinate.

This is a test run. He is setting precedent to apply this model across sectors:

•Energy will be next.
•AI after that.
•Healthcare eventually.

The pattern is simple. Any industry touching sovereignty, logistics, or frontier technology will be absorbed under mission-state logic. Private firms will still hold the equity, but the state will dictate the capital structure, production cadence, and narrative frame.

Buybacks are forbidden. Dividends are conditional. Salaries are capped. Output is mandatory. Time is compressed.

It’s a shift from incentive alignment to compliance enforcement. From persuasion to control. From “make defense great again” to “you now work for me.”

No modern president has dared cross this line because it exposes how thin the veil of corporate independence actually is when national purpose is invoked.

Trump just crossed it.

And the deeper layer: this only works if he’s confident the military, capital markets, and the public will comply. That’s the real signal. He knows they will. Or he knows enough of them will that the others won’t matter.

This is how American Caesarism starts.

Not with tanks in the streets.

With cash flow commands.

I applaud Trump going after the defense contractors and putting them on notice. But I don't think he is going to put all of industry/commerce under executive control.

Unless there is a real shooting war, in which case EVERYTHING will have to be put under some kind of governmental control (and this would be the care regardless of who is president)

Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Generational Dynamics World View News

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Generational Dynamics World View News

Iran

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Re: Tucker Carlson: Trump has become an imperialist because he believes a major war is coming

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Re: Tucker Carlson: Trump has become an imperialist because he believes a major war is coming

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Trump Executive Control