Cold war 2.0

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

Democracy is only threatened when the people I don't like win... He says to himself ironically.

Not directed at you but at the article, and specifically in reference to the USA portion of the article (the rest is beyond the scope of what I'd be prepared to discuss in depth).


For a while we had a unified enough country that we could all buy into a somewhat similar view of what America was. This agreed upon view was those norms that have eroded. Mass immigration has only eroded them further. With the electorate increasingly breaking into tribal and sometimes racial blocks. We were already eroding the norms on our own, but immigration has served as a catalyst increasing the rate of a chemical reaction that was already occurring. The less we have a shared culture, the more we are able to dehumanize each other and the more we are able to justify wielding the sword of gov't against our domestic foes.

The article reflects this, but mistakenly labels the problem as an erosion of democracy when what its referring to is a war that is probably as old as the country itself who's most recent iteration is at least several decades old.

Ok, but I think I have to say a few things here.

You perhaps aren't ready to discuss the part outside of USA but that was kinda the point of the article. It says that 3.8 billion people should cast their votes around the world in 2024, and out of that US makes only 0.3 billion. What means that stakes are pretty high and in the next new year we could be living in one pretty different world. Plus to tell you the truth in articles like this one "democracy" generally stands for "USA friendly" when it comes to global issuse, but journalist are hiding that with smooth and politically correct language. Therefore if all those people around the world would decide to massively vote against US or at least neutral you guys will be over your head in problems. Possibly to the point that it doesn't even matter who is even running in 2024 for WH. You just don't seem to realize that USA can be voted out globally. US is showing itself as the leader of the world and currently the world is in complete mess. What means that voters may decide to try something else instead (especially since many of them are literally starving). After all some of us are being slammed with anti US propaganda on daily basis, even in MSM. So if USA decides to put someone unlikable at the top level(s) that can cause some snowball efects globally. Therefore in 2024 many could vote in fashion that isn't US friendly. In other words many of those 3.8 billion people will have the option on the ballot to dump Democrats, Republicans, US as a whole and possiblly even the Capitalism itself.


However these are things that typical US citizen is never really exposed to as a dynamic. All of this is exactly why I claim that the world is basically one big game of electoral college. Therefore at this point we are playing US vs. China round. So general elections in US are basically just primaries for the global showdown that will follow. For decades US was certain to win this "global college" but that just isn't the case anymore. What is because many races are getting tight or they even spill over. I mean at this point it is obvious that at the other side is Xi/Putin 2024. I mean you live in the "safe USA" area so you don't really recognize that there is one more extra level of the game. However me that I am in "lean US" area I am quite aware of the top level in this game. Especially since my races are competitive and Communists can win state wide races from time to time (directly or by pretending to be something else). After all many other states around are "lean China", so there is a fair amout of turbulence in this part of Europe when it comes to basics. Thefore everything is arond toss up zone and it isn't fully clear how my 2024 vote will look like. In other words if turbulence in the US will be strong it is possible that I will start to live in "lean China" zone. While in the case that there is no EU all of that would be a reality long time ago. What is basically why I am paying attention to all of this is the first place. Since the races are competitive at the most top level that can exist. Which is "Should there even be a democracy, or market for that matter ". In US these kinds of things are basically in the doman of abstract academic debate. While in some other places stuff like that can be on the ballot litterally.


This is about what that article was really about (especially since it wasn't writen in US from what I understand) .
However if you live in USA you don't really experience the final level of the game, since you are in very safe dirtrict on that level. In other words just about everything you have written in your post can be linked to the fact that there is open competition on the top level of the game. From mystical trolls, misinformation, pushing refugees at your borders, proxy wars, trade wars etc etc. In other words if you rise enough hell the other side many get lost in the primaries and general election. What means that it wouldn't have competitive race on the global level (and that is those other 3.5 billion people from the start of the story). You are in the safe district on the global level but consequences of losing in the game globally are starting to get into your daily life. What is causing drama within your district, while people are starting to grab for straws. In other words very competitive and dramatic primary that is comming from instability usually means lossing at the general level (the same is between general and global level) What is especially the case if the other side is totally solidified politically (what is evidently the case here since on the other side there are dictators). In other words this is exactly why I said that ending the cultural civil war in USA would be really smart thing to do. Since you could lose on the global level if the ship isn't stablized. In other words what USA is collectively doing on the global level is campaign of Democrats from 2016 ... and the odds are that this will result with similar debacle and tears. Plus the result will probably be equally irrivesable. That was basically the point of that article once you get to the bottom of things.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm pretty sure if Ukraine gets abandoned to the point the whole country is taken over by Russia, Taiwan can kiss their independence goodbye as well. China won't wait around a decade for the US to repatriate their semiconductor industry either.

But there is a price to pay for leadership incompetence and the bi-partisan dysfunction the US has been experiencing since the Trump era. Five or so years from now (when hopefully the current clowns will be dead or at least out of politics) there will probably be some unpleasant hindsight.

This is why i said that loss of Ukraine would have serious snowball effects on USA. China is waiting to see how elections in Taiwan will end in two weeks from now. Therefore if pro independence vote wins it is quite possible that they will invade the island. Since current global mess is basically ideal time to do so.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Iranian warship enters Red Sea as tensions rise
In other words we are basically a button away from WW3.



Stoltenberg: Sweden will join NATO by July

France closes embassy in Niger

Biden’s foreign policy headache in 2024

Party vote provides slight relief for Germany’s troubled coalition

‘Seething’ Putin hammers Ukraine with massive missile and drone attacks

Somalia rejects Ethiopia deal with breakaway Somaliland

South Korean opposition leader Lee Jae-myung stabbed in neck

 

[The Cat]

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ok, but I think I have to say a few things here.

You perhaps aren't ready to discuss the part outside of USA but that was kinda the point of the article. It says that 3.8 billion people should cast their votes around the world in 2024, and out of that US makes only 0.3 billion. What means that stakes are pretty high and in the next new year we could be living in one pretty different world. Plus to tell you the truth in articles like this one "democracy" generally stands for "USA friendly" when it comes to global issuse, but journalist are hiding that with smooth and politically correct language. Therefore if all those people around the world would decide to massively vote against US or at least neutral you guys will be over your head in problems. Possibly to the point that it doesn't even matter who is even running in 2024 for WH. You just don't seem to realize that USA can be voted out globally. US is showing itself as the leader of the world and currently the world is in complete mess. What means that voters may decide to try something else instead (especially since many of them are literally starving). After all some of us are being slammed with anti US propaganda on daily basis, even in MSM. So if USA decides to put someone unlikable at the top level(s) that can cause some snowball efects globally. Therefore in 2024 many could vote in fashion that isn't US friendly. In other words many of those 3.8 billion people will have the option on the ballot to dump Democrats, Republicans, US as a whole and possiblly even the Capitalism itself.


However these are things that typical US citizen is never really exposed to as a dynamic. All of this is exactly why I claim that the world is basically one big game of electoral college. Therefore at this point we are playing US vs. China round. So general elections in US are basically just primaries for the global showdown that will follow. For decades US was certain to win this "global college" but that just isn't the case anymore. What is because many races are getting tight or they even spill over. I mean at this point it is obvious that at the other side is Xi/Putin 2024. I mean you live in the "safe USA" area so you don't really recognize that there is one more extra level of the game. However me that I am in "lean US" area I am quite aware of the top level in this game. Especially since my races are competitive and Communists can win state wide races from time to time (directly or by pretending to be something else). After all many other states around are "lean China", so there is a fair amout of turbulence in this part of Europe when it comes to basics. Thefore everything is arond toss up zone and it isn't fully clear how my 2024 vote will look like. In other words if turbulence in the US will be strong it is possible that I will start to live in "lean China" zone. While in the case that there is no EU all of that would be a reality long time ago. What is basically why I am paying attention to all of this is the first place. Since the races are competitive at the most top level that can exist. Which is "Should there even be a democracy, or market for that matter ". In US these kinds of things are basically in the doman of abstract academic debate. While in some other places stuff like that can be on the ballot litterally.


This is about what that article was really about (especially since it wasn't writen in US from what I understand) .
However if you live in USA you don't really experience the final level of the game, since you are in very safe dirtrict on that level. In other words just about everything you have written in your post can be linked to the fact that there is open competition on the top level of the game. From mystical trolls, misinformation, pushing refugees at your borders, proxy wars, trade wars etc etc. In other words if you rise enough hell the other side many get lost in the primaries and general election. What means that it wouldn't have competitive race on the global level (and that is those other 3.5 billion people from the start of the story). You are in the safe district on the global level but consequences of losing in the game globally are starting to get into your daily life. What is causing drama within your district, while people are starting to grab for straws. In other words very competitive and dramatic primary that is comming from instability usually means lossing at the general level (the same is between general and global level) What is especially the case if the other side is totally solidified politically (what is evidently the case here since on the other side there are dictators). In other words this is exactly why I said that ending the cultural civil war in USA would be really smart thing to do. Since you could lose on the global level if the ship isn't stablized. In other words what USA is collectively doing on the global level is campaign of Democrats from 2016 ... and the odds are that this will result with similar debacle and tears. Plus the result will probably be equally irrivesable. That was basically the point of that article once you get to the bottom of things.

To quote Robert Frost "Nothing gold can stay".

The unipolar world is dying and the multipolar world is being born. I frankly don't think there's anything we can do to stop it.

More to the point I (and many Americans) are tired of being in the game of pushing the western system "democracy" everywhere.

If people want to vote themselves into some other arrangement, or cozy up to other powers that's their choice.

I think people should have ultimate control of their destiny regardless of the consequences.

Those countries that stay western should do so of their own choice.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm pretty sure if Ukraine gets abandoned to the point the whole country is taken over by Russia, Taiwan can kiss their independence goodbye as well. China won't wait around a decade for the US to repatriate their semiconductor industry either.

But there is a price to pay for leadership incompetence and the bi-partisan dysfunction the US has been experiencing since the Trump era. Five or so years from now (when hopefully the current clowns will be dead or at least out of politics) there will probably be some unpleasant hindsight.

I think the timeline is important. If Ukr is willing to come to the bargaining table with Rus sooner rather than later (with battle frontlines roughly where they are today) while they still have some semblance of a military Russia should be willing to agree to what they already have.

If it drags on becoming more costly for Rus and completely diminishing the Ukr military apparatus, there's no reason they would decide to stick with the current land taken (absent some crazy threat from the US). If Ukr has no ability to fight back and Rus has sacrificed much more than it already has, they have every incentive to take every bit they can.

I would also mention that we had debt limit fights under Obama, and no ability to regulate the market to lessen the global financial crisis under Bush. The disfunction didn't just magically appear the instant Trump took office.

 

[Virtual ghost]

To quote Robert Frost "Nothing gold can stay".

The unipolar world is dying and the multipolar world is being born. I frankly don't think there's anything we can do to stop it.

More to the point I (and many Americans) are tired of being in the game of pushing the western system "democracy" everywhere.

If people want to vote themselves into some other arrangement, or cozy up to other powers that's their choice.

I think people should have ultimate control of their destiny regardless of the consequences.

Those countries that stay western should do so of their own choice.

In pure theory I can agree. However there are problems with this idea.

First is that US needs market access to drive it's massive economy. So if countries start to go different ways that will quickly short circuit USA. Just losing the reserve currency of the world would be a massive blow even in domestic economy. Debt clock says that the sum of all debt in USA is 104 Trillion. So paying off that with losing foreign markets and resource control ... I don't think this will work.


The second problem is already mentioned propaganda that could really speed up the moving of various countries away from the US and it's core allies. Therefore the problem is will people truly get to decide their fate. Once USA retreats various local elites can basically declare autocratic rule and/or feed the people with how China is great (while coup is also an option as the news suggest). Plus there is the problem that loss of certain countries can short circuit economy of some of your core allies. What again threatens to short circuit the US economically. I know that this isn't pretty thought but I am fairly sure that we are all in a bind here.


The problem is that we are slowly going towards unipolar world, the only catch is that this pole wouldn't be USA (multi polarity is basically just a transition phase). In other words this global college is quite similar to electoral college. Since it has this winner takes all dynamic in it. Therefore I am pretty sure that this wouldn't end up as you hope it will. I would actually like that things are more simple but I am afraid that this just isn't the case. Therefore the odds are that the only way out is full speed ahead. Every other strategy will probably get stuck in the mud as it seems.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think the timeline is important. If Ukr is willing to come to the bargaining table with Rus sooner rather than later (with battle frontlines roughly where they are today) while they still have some semblance of a military Russia should be willing to agree to what they already have.

If it drags on becoming more costly for Rus and completely diminishing the Ukr military apparatus, there's no reason they would decide to stick with the current land taken (absent some crazy threat from the US). If Ukr has no ability to fight back and Rus has sacrificed much more than it already has, they have every incentive to take every bit they can.

I would also mention that we had debt limit fights under Obama, and no ability to regulate the market to lessen the global financial crisis under Bush. The disfunction didn't just magically appear the instant Trump took office.

Negotiations yes, but collective west has to stand behind the Ukriine at the table. Since that is what will give Ukraine the negotiating power. If Ukraine has no negotiating power the odds of peace making deal with current borders are basically none existent.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Negotiations yes, but collective west has to stand behind the Ukriine at the table. Since that is what will give Ukraine the negotiating power. If Ukraine has no negotiating power the odds of peace making deal with current borders are basically none existent.

I can't see why we wouldn't be happy to stand behind them.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

In pure theory I can agree. However there are problems with this idea.

First is that US needs market access to drive it's massive economy. So if countries start to go different ways that will quickly short circuit USA. Just losing the reserve currency of the world would be a massive blow even in domestic economy. Debt clock says that the sum of all debt in USA is 104 Trillion. So paying off that with losing foreign markets and resource control ... I don't think this will work.


The second problem is already mentioned propaganda that could really speed up the moving of various countries away from the US and it's core allies. Therefore the problem is will people truly get to decide their fate. Once USA retreats various local elites can basically declare autocratic rule and/or feed the people with how China is great (while coup is also an option as the news suggest). Plus there is the problem that loss of certain countries can short circuit economy of some of your core allies. What again threatens to short circuit the US economically. I know that this isn't pretty thought but I am fairly sure that we are all in a bind here.


The problem is that we are slowly going towards unipolar world, the only catch is that this pole wouldn't be USA (multi polarity is basically just a transition phase). In other words this global college is quite similar to electoral college. Since it has this winner takes all dynamic in it. Therefore I am pretty sure that this wouldn't end up as you hope it will. I would actually like that things are more simple but I am afraid that this just isn't the case. Therefore the odds are that the only way out is full speed ahead. Every other strategy will probably get stuck in the mud as it seems.

We're net importers already (1.63 trillion in, and 2.73 trillion out) and I don't see the world deciding to stop selling us stuff.

Of our top export markets China is only the 3rd largest at 151 billion all the rest are close allies unlikely to stop trading.

Of the things we export the largest is Petrol and petrol products at 221 billion, cars at 55 billion, and integrated circuits at 51 billion. We're also a huge exporter of food.

Of those things China would only be likely to stop importing our cars which they already tariff at 15%.

I think we can afford to lose selling cars to China.

Your reserve currency point is well taken, but that's unlikely to occur at more than a glacial pace for a good time yet.

With regards to our core allies, I think we all can see the writing on the wall at this point and are preparing for the eventualities that are coming. As example in 2020 the US and Japan entered into the US Japan trade agreement (USJTA) in the face of likely future troubles with china. We can't insulate them from all shocks, but we can prepare and they will be better placed to withstand whats coming than most of the world.

As to your last point I think its fundamentally wrong. Only China has even the potential to contend for the top spot, but they have demographic and economic concerns which will preclude them from replacing us. They also don't really have a blue water navy able to sail more than 1000 miles away from the coast, which would preclude them (at least for the time being) from being able to conduct true power projection.

The world we are entering into isn't one where the US will be supplanted by another unipolar power. What we will see is just a diminishing capacity of the US to dictate everything everywhere across the globe. We're going back to regional powers and spheres of influence. Eventually a power will rise but that's not likely within our lifetimes.

Our allies, with diminished US capacity, will have to fund and develop real militaries (and navies) again which I think in the end will be a good thing for them.

Sorry to put a smiling face on a shitty situation but, it is what it is.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The Ukraine war and now Gaza have seen the explosion in the use of explosive drones.

With this guided attacks have been democritized. I've seen this likened to the invention of the tank in the impact it will have on future battlefields.

We are gonna see fast fpv drones with a fragmentation device everywhere, and made in the millions. If we can't invent a man portable electronic area denial device to attach to our infantry units, using infantry outside of vehicles is going to be an increasingly dicey proposition.

Imagine an infantry units in mountainous terrain where vehicles can't follow just getting decimated by whoever has longer range anti personel drones.

There will also be larger ones as drones increase their carrying capacity. Think about flying a jdam through a headset.

This has been talked about already in the MSM, but we have a short attention span and I don't think we've really internalized how much and how fast things are changing.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I can't see why we wouldn't be happy to stand behind them.

Of course, but in my opinion that is the key element of the story. For which I didn't get the impression that it is 100% on the table. Since without that nothing will happen in that regard.

Why?

The real problem is that I am not 100% sure that Russia will be willing to negotiate. After all that would be western logic towards solving the problem. In other words this is the logic that says that attack on Ukraine doesn't make any sense ... but here we are. Russian rulers through history didn't have a problem in trading millions for *something*. Therefore I am not sure that here will be any different. The problem is that Slavs in general kinda enjoy in the wars with mass destruction (as a Slav I dare to say that). Actually this factor is exactly why Ukraine is still standing, while most other countries would have lost everything if they had Ukraine's cards. So if Russia senses that China and their satellites will fuel the war the honest negotiations are under question. Not to mention that war in Europe suits China on a number of ways. Therefore what I am trying to say is that if there was a genuine will for negotiating that would probably happen by now. The problem is that doing that means loosing towards classic Slavic logic. This is cultural argument but I think that here this stands. So if Putin starts to negotiate he will become loser that negotiated peace after taking about 10% of Ukraine is 2 year war. In other words he will be remembered as a loser and thus I am not sure he will have the desire to stop here. Especially since the west has evident collective and economic discomfort over the whole situation.


I really hope that I am wrong.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

This is a video by what sounds like an eastern European that I think you may like.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Iranian warship enters Red Sea as tensions rise
In other words we are basically a button away from WW3.

Really, that was the case when they started going after commercial shipping. Once that happened, things were going to escalate. The question, I suppose, is how much.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Of course, but in my opinion that is the key element of the story. For which I didn't get the impression that it is 100% on the table. Since without that nothing will happen in that regard.

Why?

The real problem is that I am not 100% sure that Russia will be willing to negotiate. After all that would be western logic towards solving the problem. In other words this is the logic that says that attack on Ukraine doesn't make any sense ... but here we are. Russian rulers through history didn't have a problem in trading millions for *something*. Therefore I am not sure that here will be any different. The problem is that Slavs in general kinda enjoy in the wars with mass destruction (as a Slav I dare to say that). Actually this factor is exactly why Ukraine is still standing, while most other countries would have lost everything if they had Ukraine's cards. So if Russia senses that China and their satellites will fuel the war the honest negotiations are under question. Not to mention that war in Europe suits China on a number of ways. Therefore what I am trying to say is that if there was a genuine will for negotiating that would probably happen by now. The problem is that doing that means loosing towards classic Slavic logic. This is cultural argument but I think that here this stands. So if Putin starts to negotiate he will become loser that negotiated peace after taking about 10% of Ukraine is 2 year war. In other words he will be remembered as a loser and thus I am not sure he will have the desire to stop here. Especially since the west has evident collective and economic discomfort over the whole situation.


I really hope that I am wrong.

I hope you are as well.

I can't comment on Slavic war lust as I'm not slavic or have the requisite knowledge.

The best I think we can do is gamble, and hope negotiations stick.

Hopefully after negotiations, western Europe can militarize enough to prevent Russia's next attack (which hopefully never comes). They will certainly rebuild their war making ability in the mean time.

 

[Virtual ghost]

We're net importers already (1.63 trillion in, and 2.73 trillion out) and I don't see the world deciding to stop selling us stuff.

Of our top export markets China is only the 3rd largest at 151 billion all the rest are close allies unlikely to stop trading.

Of the things we export the largest is Petrol and petrol products at 221 billion, cars at 55 billion, and integrated circuits at 51 billion. We're also a huge exporter of food.

Of those things China would only be likely to stop importing our cars which they already tariff at 15%.

I think we can afford to lose selling cars to China.

Your reserve currency point is well taken, but that's unlikely to occur at more than a glacial pace for a good time yet.

With regards to our core allies, I think we all can see the writing on the wall at this point and are preparing for the eventualities that are coming. As example in 2020 the US and Japan entered into the US Japan trade agreement (USJTA) in the face of likely future troubles with china. We can't insulate them from all shocks, but we can prepare and they will be better placed to withstand whats coming than most of the world.

As to your last point I think its fundamentally wrong. Only China has even the potential to contend for the top spot, but they have demographic and economic concerns which will preclude them from replacing us. They also don't really have a blue water navy able to sail more than 1000 miles away from the coast, which would preclude them (at least for the time being) from being able to conduct true power projection.

The world we are entering into isn't one where the US will be supplanted by another unipolar power. What we will see is just a diminishing capacity of the US to dictate everything everywhere across the globe. We're going back to regional powers and spheres of influence. Eventually a power will rise but that's not likely within our lifetimes.

Our allies, with diminished US capacity, will have to fund and develop real militaries (and navies) again which I think in the end will be a good thing for them.

Sorry to put a smiling face on a shitty situation but, it is what it is.

This could be how it will be but this is fairly optimistic scenario. In other words I see some darker paths as well. For example I mentioned that massive US debts exactly since the biggest problem is perhaps in USA itself. Also will ether party be willing to accept 2024 results ? Therefore if in this domain you have cracks that pretty quickly snowballs on international stage. Especially since it is hard to do deals with the country that is bipolar and you are never sure with who you are talking to, in other words this is testing patience even if you have plenty of it.


Plus with China there is one problem. They may have certain demographic problems BUT they have 4.2 times larger population than US. So they can physically out work you even with demographic problems. After all US has those problems as well. Plus as China is spreading across the third world it is getting plenty of young people as workforce. Also you would be surprised how many deals even your core allies have with China (or their satellites). So I don't see all of this as sure victory for the west. This is going to be a serious struggle in my book even if the west wins in the end.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This is a video by what sounds like an eastern European that I think you may like.

I posted that last Friday in this thread.
The channel is Polish if I got things right (since I post their videos fairly often due to pretty high quality of content).

 

[Virtual ghost]

Really, that was the case when they started going after commercial shipping. Once that happened, things were going to escalate. The question, I suppose, is how much.

We will just have to wait and see.
However with this new factor of their ships you really have all the elements for major escalation.

 

[Red Herring]

Climate change not only leads to more extreme weather but also to more slowly changing weather, i.e. long periods of draught or rain (high and low pressur areas moving more slowly across the map due to the melting of the poles, IIRC). It has been raining for weeks around here to the point where dikes have become completely soaked and have to be fortified with sandbags and there is talk about evacuation. Not in my village, fortunately, but near where my 76 year old mother lives. She'll probably be fine but this is an urgent reminder that shit's getting real.

The last federal election was in part swayed by insufficient government reaction to similar floods in another part of the country.