Generational Dynamics World View News

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
Navigator
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

Xeraphim1 wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 3:25 pm

While I don't doubt that China wouldn't mind having NK tie down US forces, I do have to wonder how blatant they would be.

One thing I didn't see mentioned in the modelling is the fact that one of the first actions of the US (and allies) in any war with China would be an immediate distant blockade. Anything coming to/from China by ship would be stopped. China is already a major oil importer and while it has a strategic stockpile, that would only support the country for about 45 days (I think that's the figure) and that is without having major military operations which sucks up fuel in vast quantities. It would also stop the majority of raw material imports which would shut down a huge swathe of China's workforce. While China has been moving up in the value chain in manufacturing, it still has a huge amount of low level processing. Come a war and you'll have tens of millions out of work because no materials are coming up on top of the tens of millions out of work because there would be no exports. Another thing to consider is that a China at war with the West may be an irresistible target for India. I could see at least threatening moves toward Aksin Chin and parts of Tibet.

As for surprises, I also question how well it is modelling the networking abilities coming into being now. A common comment from pilots transitioning to the F-35 is how as soon as they power up they have access to much more information than they ever did before. Israeli pilots have said that from the parking apron they have a god's eye view of the entire region. Greater sensor integration will only improve this and the West has a huge advantage. This compresses the SEAD/DEAD cycle because of the ability to use stealthy forward craft to locate targets and hand off weapon release to platforms out of range of retaliation. I expect that air defenses will last for a much shorter time than is modelled which will allow air assets to move to interdiction and direct support more rapidly.

Mostly this goes back to my earlier comment that inherent bias in the game design will affect the results. I have no direct experience with any of the games by this company, but based on earlier war games I would not doubt that it's true.
I think that as they go for Taiwan, they will reinforce and then fully back the North Koreans. Ultimately, they want to go at Japan, and Korea is the gateway to Japan.

Of course we would blockade China. They (and Russian) oil production will have to go only to military customers once war starts. I know the Chinese have been stockpiling strategic materials in preparation for this.

As for unemployment, the Chinese would move to a war economy, moving to direct command/control of all production. Plus mass conscription.

India moving on China while the Chinese are engaged might be something that happens. But it can easily backfire too. India/Pakistan troubles are always ready to break out, and with both having nukes, it could quickly become the biggest mess in the world.

I know that you believe that the tech edge of the West is what will allow us to quickly be victorious. If I was China, I would have EMP weapons ready to go at the outset (to take out unhardened electronics - which is most everything). I would also have teams ready to attack Airbases, whose security is rarely what it should be. I had a long conversation with an officer with first hand knowledge of what happen at Camp Bastion (Taliban infiltration attack by about 15 fighters got to the flight line and took out about 10 AV-8 Harriers and a C-130). This was a base in an active war zone. I think it will be even easier (and more effective) if airbases in peaceful countries are hit.

I also agree with the Design Bias bit, and I think I brought this up in the original article. As I did the fact that the aggressor usually has a number of surprises in store for the defenders, that can put quite a kink in defense plans.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Cool Breeze »

Racist post removed.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 1327
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Cool Breeze »

Navigator wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:25 am
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 3:25 pm

While I don't doubt that China wouldn't mind having NK tie down US forces, I do have to wonder how blatant they would be.

One thing I didn't see mentioned in the modelling is the fact that one of the first actions of the US (and allies) in any war with China would be an immediate distant blockade. Anything coming to/from China by ship would be stopped. China is already a major oil importer and while it has a strategic stockpile, that would only support the country for about 45 days (I think that's the figure) and that is without having major military operations which sucks up fuel in vast quantities. It would also stop the majority of raw material imports which would shut down a huge swathe of China's workforce. While China has been moving up in the value chain in manufacturing, it still has a huge amount of low level processing. Come a war and you'll have tens of millions out of work because no materials are coming up on top of the tens of millions out of work because there would be no exports. Another thing to consider is that a China at war with the West may be an irresistible target for India. I could see at least threatening moves toward Aksin Chin and parts of Tibet.

As for surprises, I also question how well it is modelling the networking abilities coming into being now. A common comment from pilots transitioning to the F-35 is how as soon as they power up they have access to much more information than they ever did before. Israeli pilots have said that from the parking apron they have a god's eye view of the entire region. Greater sensor integration will only improve this and the West has a huge advantage. This compresses the SEAD/DEAD cycle because of the ability to use stealthy forward craft to locate targets and hand off weapon release to platforms out of range of retaliation. I expect that air defenses will last for a much shorter time than is modelled which will allow air assets to move to interdiction and direct support more rapidly.

Mostly this goes back to my earlier comment that inherent bias in the game design will affect the results. I have no direct experience with any of the games by this company, but based on earlier war games I would not doubt that it's true.
I think that as they go for Taiwan, they will reinforce and then fully back the North Koreans. Ultimately, they want to go at Japan, and Korea is the gateway to Japan.

Of course we would blockade China. They (and Russian) oil production will have to go only to military customers once war starts. I know the Chinese have been stockpiling strategic materials in preparation for this.

As for unemployment, the Chinese would move to a war economy, moving to direct command/control of all production. Plus mass conscription.

India moving on China while the Chinese are engaged might be something that happens. But it can easily backfire too. India/Pakistan troubles are always ready to break out, and with both having nukes, it could quickly become the biggest mess in the world.

I know that you believe that the tech edge of the West is what will allow us to quickly be victorious. If I was China, I would have EMP weapons ready to go at the outset (to take out unhardened electronics - which is most everything). I would also have teams ready to attack Airbases, whose security is rarely what it should be. I had a long conversation with an officer with first hand knowledge of what happen at Camp Bastion (Taliban infiltration attack by about 15 fighters got to the flight line and took out about 10 AV-8 Harriers and a C-130). This was a base in an active war zone. I think it will be even easier (and more effective) if airbases in peaceful countries are hit.

I also agree with the Design Bias bit, and I think I brought this up in the original article. As I did the fact that the aggressor usually has a number of surprises in store for the defenders, that can put quite a kink in defense plans.
If anyone does use nuclear weapons, my guess is that it is a regional use of Pakistan and India. Then the NWO begins as the world claims that "we can't have that anymore" and we all need to get together for peace and prosperity, of course with a one world currency/economic system. Led by you know who, Navi.

Guest

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Guest »

I don't know why the US doesn't fly over a few extra squadrons of planes and base them in Eastern Europe till the Russian return they're troops back to camp. Minimal cost compared to a war. I doubt the Russian S400 anti air defence is as good as claimed. The RAF and USAF have been probing it for the past 2 years they must know it's weaknesses by now.

Xeraphim1

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Xeraphim1 »

thomasglee wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:48 pm
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:13 pm
Guest wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:37 am


A Russian might see NATO in Ukraine as a bit like a Russian Defense Pact in Wales.
Russians refuse to ask why all the countries that used to be part of the Russian Empire/USSR/Warsaw Pact want to join NATO. They refuse to accept that the one common feature is Russia. If Russia didn't have such shitty policies and shitty relations with its neighbors, they'd have no interest in NATO.
Many join NATO because of economics only.
They join the EU for economics. They join NATO for security guarantees, mostly against Russia.

Xeraphim1

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Xeraphim1 »

DaKardii wrote:
Thu Jan 13, 2022 6:49 pm
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:40 am
You're proving my point more than yours.
How so? How is joining the CSTO and the Eurasian Union not a sign of Russian influence?
Your points show that that Nursultan (and now Tokayev) run a tightly controlled administration that strictly limits Western influence. That supports my own arguments, not yours.
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:40 am
Except there are no indications of external influence. In fact, just about all reporting believes it was totally due to internal conditions. The only people saying otherwise are Tokayev and Russia, both of which have incentives to point the finger somewhere else.
And this administration doesn't have the incentive to actually do what Tokayev and Putin are accusing it of doing?
Does it really? Is fomenting unrest in Central Asia really to the benefit of the US when the primary beneficiaries of that would be Russia of China? There aren't calls for liberty of democracy; it has been lower gas prices and curbs on the official corruption. The US has no real influence in any of the Central Asian states and no real ability to even do so. Occam's razor suggests that that the real cause is exactly what everyone (except Putin and Tokayev) have been saying; a sudden increase in gas prices and a long simmering discontent over corruption.

And do you really think the Biden administration could even find its ass with both hands let alone do what you're claiming?
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:40 am
No, there is no such consensus. There are a few people with a theory that not only has not been proven, many more people reject it. The fact that you like the theory does no not make it confirmed. The US has spent little time or effort on Central Asia and when it has, it's always been for limited aims such as supporting supply in Afghanistan. If anything, the US has tacitly conceded Central Asia to Russia.
Heartland Theory has been an important component of US geostrategy for the entirety of the post-WWII era, and especially post-Cold War. Also, I can't help but notice that Brzezinski (the godfather of modern Heartland geostrategy) wrote that the most "dangerous" potential alliance within the Heartland was one between China, Iran, and Russia. Guess which three countries are often singled out as the cause of America's foreign policy woes by what is our de facto state media? You guessed it: China, Iran, and Russia. Now ask yourself, is that just a coincidence?
Just because you like the theory doesn't make it so. China, Iran and Russia aren't allies; at best they are co-belligerents whose interests intersect at various points. They all have very clear and very strong differences and oppose each other on other points.
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:40 am
It actually is in US interests to offer protection because that deters aggressors. Europe spent around 100 years at war with itself. No member of NATO has ever gone to war with another one. I'll allow the various Greece/Turkey conflicts, but they've always been resolved short of war. It also has damped down the perceived need to other countries to develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves because the US has provided guarantees. This Pax Americana has led to great prosperity for the world and for the US.

And no, the NATO treaty is not unconstitutional because it was ratified by the US Senate as provided in the US Constitution.
No, it's in US interests only to protect itself from aggressors which directly threaten its national security. The vast majority of the world's conflicts don't fall in that category.

Also, Congress cannot ratify a treaty which effectively nullifies its own powers granted under the Constitution. Such accessions are null and void by default, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
That's a facile view of the world. What is a direct threat? Only someone pointing guns or missiles? What about threats to trade partners? How about the cold war? Should the US have left Western Europe to its fate against the USSR? How about China and Taiwan? How about Japan and South Korea? None of these would have been "direct" threats to the US but the impacts on the US would have been huge. How about WWI and WWII? Should the US have sat back and let Nazi Germany and the USSR fight it out until one of they got nuclear weapons and incinerated most of Europe?

I think your view of what is an actual threat could use some more thinking. Now, if you wanted to say that the US has at times gone overboard and gotten involved in actions that weren't necessary, I could agree with you there.

In approving the NATO treaty, Congress did not nullify its own powers. At most you could say that it deferred certain decision making powers to another agency which Congress does all the time domestically. However, consider what Article 5 of the NATO treaty actually says:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Note the such action as it deems necessary

Also note Article 11:

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

I think your argument has failed.

Xeraphim1

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Xeraphim1 »

Navigator wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:25 am
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 3:25 pm

While I don't doubt that China wouldn't mind having NK tie down US forces, I do have to wonder how blatant they would be.

One thing I didn't see mentioned in the modelling is the fact that one of the first actions of the US (and allies) in any war with China would be an immediate distant blockade. Anything coming to/from China by ship would be stopped. China is already a major oil importer and while it has a strategic stockpile, that would only support the country for about 45 days (I think that's the figure) and that is without having major military operations which sucks up fuel in vast quantities. It would also stop the majority of raw material imports which would shut down a huge swathe of China's workforce. While China has been moving up in the value chain in manufacturing, it still has a huge amount of low level processing. Come a war and you'll have tens of millions out of work because no materials are coming up on top of the tens of millions out of work because there would be no exports. Another thing to consider is that a China at war with the West may be an irresistible target for India. I could see at least threatening moves toward Aksin Chin and parts of Tibet.

As for surprises, I also question how well it is modelling the networking abilities coming into being now. A common comment from pilots transitioning to the F-35 is how as soon as they power up they have access to much more information than they ever did before. Israeli pilots have said that from the parking apron they have a god's eye view of the entire region. Greater sensor integration will only improve this and the West has a huge advantage. This compresses the SEAD/DEAD cycle because of the ability to use stealthy forward craft to locate targets and hand off weapon release to platforms out of range of retaliation. I expect that air defenses will last for a much shorter time than is modelled which will allow air assets to move to interdiction and direct support more rapidly.

Mostly this goes back to my earlier comment that inherent bias in the game design will affect the results. I have no direct experience with any of the games by this company, but based on earlier war games I would not doubt that it's true.
I think that as they go for Taiwan, they will reinforce and then fully back the North Koreans. Ultimately, they want to go at Japan, and Korea is the gateway to Japan.
I'm not so sure about Korea being a gateway since any invasion of Japan would be an amphibious one. While the sailing distance is shorter from Korea, I don't know that it would make much difference. Either Japan has enough munitions in which case the invasion fleet is at the bottom of the ocean, or it doesn't meaning China could use use commercial craft. It's a lot easier to embark from your home port than possibly blown up foreign conquests.
Of course we would blockade China. They (and Russian) oil production will have to go only to military customers once war starts. I know the Chinese have been stockpiling strategic materials in preparation for this.

As for unemployment, the Chinese would move to a war economy, moving to direct command/control of all production. Plus mass conscription.
China's entire strategic petroleum reserve is enough to supply China for about 40 days. Russian pipeline deliveries supply less than 10% of China's needs while domestic production covers maybe 40% so you're talking having oil availability cut in half at the time where usage spikes. Lots of aircraft, ships and land vehicles increasing their usage by as much as 1000%.

China already has a hybrid economy with heavy state control so there isn't a lot to be gained there. The real problem is that the most needed items would be high tech ones which are mostly under quasi-private ownership. Trying to exert greater control might be counterproductive, not that it would necessarily stop the government. mass conscription is out. China moved to a professions Western style army in the 1990s. It would find a bunch of rifle toting peasants as useless as the US would.
India moving on China while the Chinese are engaged might be something that happens. But it can easily backfire too. India/Pakistan troubles are always ready to break out, and with both having nukes, it could quickly become the biggest mess in the world.
While Pakistan is a Chinese satrap, that doesn't mean that the generals are stupid. If India gave them the warning that they either stay out of a China-India war or their country gets flattened, I think it's at least possible they might sit it out. Pakistan has no hope of stopping an Indian invasion without nuclear weapons and the generals know that.
I know that you believe that the tech edge of the West is what will allow us to quickly be victorious. If I was China, I would have EMP weapons ready to go at the outset (to take out unhardened electronics - which is most everything). I would also have teams ready to attack Airbases, whose security is rarely what it should be. I had a long conversation with an officer with first hand knowledge of what happen at Camp Bastion (Taliban infiltration attack by about 15 fighters got to the flight line and took out about 10 AV-8 Harriers and a C-130). This was a base in an active war zone. I think it will be even easier (and more effective) if airbases in peaceful countries are hit.

I also agree with the Design Bias bit, and I think I brought this up in the original article. As I did the fact that the aggressor usually has a number of surprises in store for the defenders, that can put quite a kink in defense plans.
The use of EMP weapons is always a tactic people suggest would be useful because it would shut down a huge chunk of national infrastructure. The problem is that once you let the nuclear genie out of the bottle it's really hard to shove it back inside. China is just as vulnerable to such an attack and the US has even greater ability to deliver it. People and countries do stupid things all the time, but I have to think someone is going to mention the problems to the person suggesting such an action.

As to attacking air bases, it might not be that easy to get teams into foreign countries before hostilities begin. China is somewhat homogeneous racially speaking and doesn't have a lot of people who would fit in different countries. American may not be able to tell Chinese and Japanese apart, but Chinese and Japanese people certainly can. The US is actually better equipped to do this because it has a much more diverse population to draw on. It might be easier if you're talking about hitting bases in the US, but I question the agility of China or any other country to operate such a force. The US security organizations are pretty good at their jobs.

Xeraphim1

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Xeraphim1 »

Touching on Russia's future again, mostly to offset the Russia Stronk! posts:
Russia’s defense industry might not survive an invasion of Ukraine

The most recent full-scale exhibition of Russian military hardware was at the Nov. 2021 Dubai Air Show, where the subject of whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would decide to have his troops mount an invasion was a popular one among the Russian delegation. This was the largest contingent of Russian defense industry representatives to ever attend this event, with a number of serious players attending in hopes of breaking through in the regional market.

But, uncharacteristically for weapons makers, these defense sector representatives — including executives from component business units and large aerospace holding companies like Rostec — were not anxious to see the effectiveness of their systems demonstrated in a war between Russia and their neighboring former Soviet republic. Nor could they generally see merit to Putin deciding to use military force to further dismember the Ukrainian state.

Instead, Russian defense industrial firms are concerned that a war with Ukraine would create a sanctions regime isolating Moscow’s financial institutions from the world banking system. Such a development would torpedo their recent ambitions of dramatically expanding their market into the Middle East. It would also likely be fatal to Russia’s defense R&D sector, which badly needs investment to grow some of their newest programs, like the Su-75 Checkmate single-engine fighter.

Beyond self-interest, these same industry officials also expressed concern over the negative consequences for the domestic situation in Russia as a whole — to the point of projecting scenarios that could threaten the Putin regime’s survival. Ironically, it was Putin’s concern about how to appear as a decisive strongman and enhance the chances of his survival during a time of economic downturn that led to Moscow’s initial acts of aggression against Ukraine in 2014.

“Putin was able to buttress his reputation as a Russian patriot by taking back Crimea,” said one of the representatives from a large Russian missile firm exhibiting at Dubai. “There have been people pushing for decades for this territory to be returned to Russia, which he was able to do by taking advantage of the chaos and uncertainty within Ukraine at the time.”

“Both occupying Crimea and the subsequent invasions of the Donbas helped enhance Putin’s image with the Russian ‘man on the street’,” said the same missile firm rep. “But in the intervening years these incursions into Ukraine have had progressively negative outcomes.”

Since 2014, the costs to Russia’s defense sector have been mounting. Dozens of Ukrainian factories and research facilities that either produced components or carried out R&D programs for Russia’s defense-industrial complex and space program severed their relations with Moscow after the seizure of Crimea. This has significantly increased Russia’s cost for producing new weapons systems and space hardware. Western sanctions, including a ban on all advanced technology component exports to Russia, further exacerbated the issue.

Russia’s space industry, which was already in a poor financial condition, was dealt a body blow in the process. These sanctions have “seriously slowed the development of Russia’s space program,” according to Pavel Luzin, a Russia-based analyst for the Jamestown Foundation in Washington.

Ukrainian industry representatives — who until 2014 worked hand in hand with Russia’s defense industry and remain tied into that community — told Breaking Defense that the same sanctions are now also adversely impacting the ability of Russian firms to manufacture basic electronics subsystems of most weapons platforms. This has led to delays in producing radar sets, seeker heads, avionics, electronic warfare modules and other key components.

“These disruptions are probably only the beginning,” said one Ukrainian defense firm director. “Shortages of electronic components are causing production bottlenecks around the world for any item you would care to name — from automobiles to washing machines to missile systems. Russia’s problem is that in their case the supply of these components that have US content is not just subject to a delay of five, six or eight months. It is a permanent embargo — and these consequences become far worse if Putin decides to invade Ukraine and a more robust sanctions regime is put into place.”

While the Biden administration has not made public what sanctions are on the table should Russia cross the border, Washington clearly views the economic threat as key tool for dissuading Putin from military actions. A senior administration official, speaking on background Jan. 8, told reporters the US will “impose severe costs on Russia through financial sanctions [and] export controls that target key industries.”

In summary, Russia’s defense enterprises continue to shrink in number; those that are left have constant problems with suppliers. The ability to address issues of attrition of equipment is becomes more challenging by the month. Today Putin can expend the resources and put the wear-and-tear on weapons system to deploy to the Ukrainian border and threaten the West. The question is whether that will still be possible five years from now.

To be clear, there is little doubt that if Putin decides to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, that Russia’s military will steamroll the Ukrainian forces.

The number and type of military hardware that Russia has deployed look like preparations for an overkill, overwhelming combination of military force that could raze large swaths of the former Soviet Republic. Among these are 15 or more medium range Su-34 bomber aircraft that would normally only be employed against a peer competitor like the US. But Russian military publications openly talk about using this platform and other systems to completely flatten Ukraine’s armed forces, which is mostly equipped with weapons at least one generation older than anything in Moscow’s arsenal.

One late December Russian article stated “as for the air defence, the S-300 PT/PS and Buk-M1 complexes that remained in Ukraine are much inferior to modern versions of these systems in service with the Russian troops. Ukrainian electronic warfare systems are also outdated and can become easy prey for Su-34 aircraft and Ka-52 and Mi-28 helicopters. The first strike by Russian troops could be directed at Ukrainian airfields, air defence systems and command posts. Moreover, the air defence of Ukraine is unlikely to hold out longer than a day against the Su-34 fighter-bombers of the Russian Air Force.

“The fact is that the Ukrainian military aviation is not capable of providing adequate resistance to the Russian aircraft, and the entire burden of defence can fall on these imperfect air defence systems. In service with Kiev are obsolete technologies in the form of MiG-29 and Su-27 [aircraft] devoid of modernisation and modern weapons.”

Even a short, full-throated incursion into Ukraine could be devastating for Kyiv. A year after the 2014 invasion of the Donbas region, Marshal of the Polish Senate and the former Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski told the Munich Security Conference that even if hostilities were to cease, the expense of re-building the destruction of these Eastern regions would “turn Ukraine into a failed state.” An invasion on the scale that the current Russian deployments indicate could be several orders of magnitude worse – making Russia a permanent international pariah.

In an act of unprecedented escalation with the potential for devastation on an unimaginable scale, a recent New York Times report, citing US sources, claims Russia has considered deploying tactical nuclear weapons to the border with Ukraine is an option. “As if having Chernobyl on our territory is not enough,” said one retired air force officer here in Kyiv who once served with a Soviet air interceptor unit charged with taking out US nuclear bombers in the event of a conflict.

Aside from the issues raised by the defense industry representatives, there are real concerns for Moscow should an invasion of Ukraine be okayed.

In the background, Russia’s economic and social ills continue to mount as the world enters the third year of the COVID crisis. Some estimates are that Russia has experienced 800,000 or more deaths since the virus began to spread through the country. Statisticians who have kept track of COVID deaths nation by nation now state Russia’s total has surpassed the United States, in terms of total losses, and that only Peru and Bulgaria have suffered more per-capita deaths.

Even these numbers do not tell the entire story. Russian officialdom is not known for transparency or accurate statistical data that would ever put the state in a bad light. Official state numbers are that some 1,200 people are dying each day from COVID, but Aleksei Raksha, a former government demographer who was pushed out of the Russian statistics agency, states that the real number is probably closer to 4,000.

The Russian population’s distrust of the state apparatus and a refusal to comply with quarantine regulations or vaccine mandates has added to the crisis of confidence in their government. This highlights the weaknesses of the Putin system — where presidential orders are only partially implemented, if at all.

Almost a decade after the revelations in US Embassy cables that up to 60% of Putin’s orders were not being followed, Putin himself has recently complained publicly that today only about 20% of his decisions are fully implemented, with the rest being ignored or circumvented.

Russia is a nation “beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labour productivity remains dismally low, and its once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate,” wrote the well-known Russian historian Stephen Kotkin.

“The methods Putin used to fix the corrupt, dysfunctional post-Soviet state have produced yet another corrupt, dysfunctional state,” he concludes. “Personal systems of rule convey immense power on the ruler in select strategic areas—the secret police, control of cash flow—but they are ultimately ineffective and self-defeating.”

For years Putin has played dual roles of being the strong Russian leader who is a national hero on one hand and the rogue or renegade ruler who does not recognize the legitimacy of Western norms in military affairs on the other. In the process he seeks to restore Russia’s “proper place in the world order,” which means (along with the PRC and others) he prevents the United States from being an unchallenged superpower.

This has worked for him thus far by vacillating between making up his own rules in the international community, discarding the rules by which nations have conducted relations in the post-war period, and criticizing the US and other nations for not abiding by these same rules that he himself refuses to recognize the legitimacy of.

This kind of maneuvering builds up multiple contradictions over time — of a type that may eliminate the possibility of continuing to operate in this manner. This crisis with Ukraine may be the test of whether or not the clock has run out on this long-running strategy.

The last addition to this list that Putin needs, said one former fighter designer now acting as a consultant “is a steady parade of body bags coming home from the battlefields in Ukraine. Russian families have lost more than most of those outside of the country can imagine — adding the loss of their sons in a war with Ukraine that has dubious justification could be a tipping point.”

DaKardii
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by DaKardii »

Xeraphim1 wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:52 pm
Your points show that that Nursultan (and now Tokayev) run a tightly controlled administration that strictly limits Western influence. That supports my own arguments, not yours.
You originally said foreign influence, not Western influence. So you used a term that was far broader in scope than the term you're using now. That's why I brought up the CSTO and the EAEU. Because it's very clear from Kazakhstan joining those organizations that Nursultan did not pursue a policy of strictly limiting Russian influence.

On the other hand, you are correct that he strictly limited Western influence. But since he didn't strictly limit Russian influence, the situation on the ground proves my point.
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:52 pm
Does it really? Is fomenting unrest in Central Asia really to the benefit of the US when the primary beneficiaries of that would be Russia of China? There aren't calls for liberty of democracy; it has been lower gas prices and curbs on the official corruption. The US has no real influence in any of the Central Asian states and no real ability to even do so. Occam's razor suggests that that the real cause is exactly what everyone (except Putin and Tokayev) have been saying; a sudden increase in gas prices and a long simmering discontent over corruption.

And do you really think the Biden administration could even find its ass with both hands let alone do what you're claiming?
We both agree that Biden is incompetent. But the bureaucracies that have done much of the real work for the last few decades are not. They are more than capable of making up for the competency deficit in the White House.
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:52 pm
Just because you like the theory doesn't make it so. China, Iran and Russia aren't allies; at best they are co-belligerents whose interests intersect at various points. They all have very clear and very strong differences and oppose each other on other points.
I don't like the theory. I despise it actually, because it's been used to cause so much harm. Not just be the US, but also the British and the Germans.

Yes, I did say "Germans." Heartland Theory also influenced the ideas of Karl Haushofer, who in turn was a major influence on Nazi Germany's foreign policy towards Eastern Europe in general and the USSR in particular. Hell, Haushofer was a mentor of both Rudolf Hess and Hitler himself, and it was Haushofer who coined the term Lebensraum. So Heartland Theory is not only contributing to the current situation, it also (indirectly) contributed to the mass genocides which occurred on the Eastern Front of WWII, including the Holocaust.

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/20 ... eopolitics

As for Americans who were influenced by Heartland Theory, besides Brzezinski, look to people like James Burnham, George Kennan, John Foster Dulles, and Henry Kissinger.

https://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2 ... d-warrior/
See Kissinger, Henry, (1994). Diplomacy, New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 814.

Oh, Heartland Theory is also an influence on modern Russian foreign policy too.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/ge ... iny-putin/
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:52 pm
That's a facile view of the world. What is a direct threat? Only someone pointing guns or missiles? What about threats to trade partners? How about the cold war? Should the US have left Western Europe to its fate against the USSR? How about China and Taiwan? How about Japan and South Korea? None of these would have been "direct" threats to the US but the impacts on the US would have been huge. How about WWI and WWII? Should the US have sat back and let Nazi Germany and the USSR fight it out until one of they got nuclear weapons and incinerated most of Europe?

I think your view of what is an actual threat could use some more thinking. Now, if you wanted to say that the US has at times gone overboard and gotten involved in actions that weren't necessary, I could agree with you there.
I get it. You don't think I have a definition of a "direct threat." I'll admit, there are a lot of so-called "experts" who say what I say about American interests and then fail to establish what those interests are. So, I'll do it for them.

My definition of a "direct threat" is any threat to our soil or to countries which directly border us by land or by sea. By this definition, the most important region to our national security is the Northern Pacific region. Why? Because that region is the only thing keeping China from directly invading US soil.

That's why its so important that we maintain good relations with Russia and not push it into China's arms. Russia, along with Japan, would be able to guarantee that we have countries serving as "barriers" between our territory and Chinese territory.
Xeraphim1 wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:52 pm
In approving the NATO treaty, Congress did not nullify its own powers. At most you could say that it deferred certain decision making powers to another agency which Congress does all the time domestically. However, consider what Article 5 of the NATO treaty actually says:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Note the such action as it deems necessary

Also note Article 11:

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

I think your argument has failed.
I agree that Article V's language is vague enough to be open to alternate interpretations regarding Congressional war powers. That's why I said that our membership is arguably unconstitutional, as opposed to saying that it is just unconstitutional.

FullMoon
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:55 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by FullMoon »

This is a very interesting conversation. Much better than name calling.
Maybe missing a bit from it is the social attitude. We're watching the world go nuts. Strategy works well for the sane individual but insanity is where we're heading at full speed ahead.
What do you think of strong Russian aggression happening together with, or preceding somewhat the Chinese. Our priorities are not aligned socially with military engagement. Afghanistan was a preview. That's just for next month to Sept timeframe. What's the chances it happens this year?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests