As we approach the 18 month horizon of Vladimir Putin's botched invasion of Ukraine, it affords us the recognition of what become very evident weeks after the start and can now only be undeniable: that Russia will inevitably be defeated in this war.

So what does Russia's defeat look like?

I have some thoughts:

1. Crimea will eventually be retaken by Ukraine.
2. Russia will be pushed out of the Donbas.
3. An insurgency will advance in Belgorod.
4. One or more additional coups will be launched against Moscow.
5. Inevitable Civil War may befall the Russian Federation.

Inflammatory, I know. What are your thoughts?

_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

> 1. Crimea will eventually be retaken by Ukraine.
> 2. Russia will be pushed out of the Donbas.
> 3. An insurgency will advance in Belgorod.
> 4. One or more additional coups will be launched against Moscow.
> 5. Inevitable Civil War may befall the Russian Federation.

> Inflammatory, I know. What are your thoughts?

If Belarus gets more involved on the Russian side, or if Russia does
something to bait the US or other countries into the fight more directly on
the Ukrainian side, there could be a few other outcomes. If it is the
latter, I suspect those outcomes will be more drawn-out, costly, and deadly.

I think the whole point of this was not to take all of Ukraine but to take
enough land to create a land bridge of Russian territory between the
Ukranian break-away areas and Crimea. I am not even certain they will
manage that without help.

* SLMR 2.1a * Midget soothsayer robs bank! Small medium at large....

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Kaelon to All on Thu Jul 27 2023 07:46 pm

> As we approach the 18 month horizon of Vladimir Putin's botched invasion of >
> So what does Russia's defeat look like?
>
> I have some thoughts:
>
> 1. Crimea will eventually be retaken by Ukraine.
> 2. Russia will be pushed out of the Donbas.
> 3. An insurgency will advance in Belgorod.
> 4. One or more additional coups will be launched against Moscow.
> 5. Inevitable Civil War may befall the Russian Federation.
>
> Inflammatory, I know. What are your thoughts?
>
> _____
> -=: Kaelon :=-
>
> ---
> ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

I pretty much think Russia will fail to achieve its 4 original invasion goals
yet still render Ukraine a non-threat via attrition war.

Which is to mean they won't take a significant portion of territory (because
they lack resources for that) but can render Ukraine into a pseudo-failed
state, just because they have superior firepower and can produce more cheap
gear faster. Wars of attrition get lost by the party who runs out of people or
weapons faster and so far Ukraine is bleeding out population and the NATO
powers are getting disarmed themselves to supply Ukraine with gear.

My guess is Ukraine will end up as a Mark between the West and Russia just
because Ukraine itself won't have resources left to be anybody's ally after thedeal is done. We will have Cold War II because Russians won't trust the West
after the Minsk backstab and the West won't trust the Russians after trashing
an ally.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Arelor to Kaelon on Sat Jul 29 2023 03:52 pm

> Which is to mean they won't take a significant portion of territory (because
> they lack resources for that) but can render Ukraine into a pseudo-failed
> state, just because they have superior firepower and can produce more cheap
> gear faster. Wars of attrition get lost by the party who runs out of people
> or weapons faster and so far Ukraine is bleeding out population and the NATO
> powers are getting disarmed themselves to supply Ukraine with gear.

I definitely agree that this has been a war sparked in part by Russia's demographic crisis, but this is also the same demographic crisis that Ukraine faces. Both have their origins in the Soviet Union's mass-casualties during the Second World War. Invariably, you are correct, that the party who runs out of people or weapons faster ends up losing the war. I don't see how the West will allow Ukraine - which now serves as its proxy to neuter Russia - to run out of weapons, and the morale in Russia (and mass-defections) have led to a neutering of the Russian population advantage.

> My guess is Ukraine will end up as a Mark between the West and Russia just
> because Ukraine itself won't have resources left to be anybody's ally after
> thedeal is done. We will have Cold War II because Russians won't trust the
> West after the Minsk backstab and the West won't trust the Russians after
> trashing an ally.

Reasonable. Considering Putin's obvious tactical game is to render the Ukrainian state "failed", at least economically, he achieves this by rendering the industry of Ukraine largely inoperable. The Special Forces operation to destroy the dam in Donbas and the likely inevitable "disaster" that will unfold in the nuclear power plant, both, should render Southeast Ukraine generally economically inert. While Ukraine will receive plenty of assistance from the West, the limited options for advancement and a truly independent and prosperous Ukraine following Russian savagery will continue a demographic collapse mostly through emigration to a more prosperous West/United States.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Dumas Walker to KAELON on Fri Jul 28 2023 08:30 am

> If Belarus gets more involved on the Russian side, or if Russia does
> something to bait the US or other countries into the fight more directly on
> the Ukrainian side, there could be a few other outcomes. If it is the
> latter, I suspect those outcomes will be more drawn-out, costly, and deadly.

I genuinely think Ukraine, from a vast geopolitical perspective, was the trial-run or beta-test for the next World War. Much like the Spanish Civil War was the practice round for the Axis vs. the Allies in World War II. And yet, unlike Spain, the Ukrainian example has demonstrated that authoritarian regimes are far less stable than they have suggested, and that corruption and mismanagement have placed their armed forces at a tremendous disadvantage. Remember: for China, who has been watching with baited breath, they have never had a successful military conflict with the West in their entire history. They need one to solidify their ascension to global superpower status.

> I think the whole point of this was not to take all of Ukraine but to take
> enough land to create a land bridge of Russian territory between the
> Ukranian break-away areas and Crimea. I am not even certain they will
> manage that without help.

I think if you look at the incremental efforts by Putin - first in 2014 with the seizure of Crimea, and then again at the start of this war in 2022 - the objective has been the complete pacification of Ukraine to maintain a buffer state for Russia against the west. By all measures, he has failed: Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, ending over two centuries of neutrality, and Ukraine really does seem like it will win back most, if not all, of its seized territories.

What comes next for Russia is deeply problematic. I am genuinely surprised that Putin has not been assassinated, or more likely "sent to a hospital in Siberia" and then replaced, because the string of failures Russia has encountered will lead to the emboldened separatism of its many republics (states). Remember: Russia is not ethnically Russian, and the demographic collapse of the Russian People and the Russian Federation as a whole, is largely existential. For Putin, he saw the restoration of the Soviet Empire as a way to forstall this sociopolitical collapse. That's clearly no longer genuinely possible, and with Russia's humiliation, it has become a regional player for the balance of its modern existence.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Kaelon to Arelor on Sun Jul 30 2023 10:09 am

> I definitely agree that this has been a war sparked in part by Russia's demo > bly, you are correct, that the party who runs out of people or weapons faste > defections) have led to a neutering of the Russian population advantage.

Europe has a bad track record when it comes to supporting members of the Union.Everything is songs and parties and praises to the big European family until
something like the 2008 crisis hits and then it is everybody on his own. Greezeis an example people likes to bring to the table.

There is not such a thing as an ally for the likes of us. There are people withshared interests at best. You can bet European countries will stop supporting
somebody as soon as it is no longer profitable or no external stimmulus (such
as the USA forcing their hand) to do so exists.

When you combine the fact that we are self-interested suckers with the fact a
whole lot of European countries have been disarming themselves - ie. we
Spaniards spent our years since Zapatero closing weapon factories and switchingmany of the remaining ones to supply developping countries - it is easy to
imagine once we run out of essential weapon reserves we will switch to eating
popcorn watching the fireworks from afar.

Minister Borrell already warned there isn't much more gear to spare left.

It is therefore plausible that when the conflict ends, leaving Ukraine at
whichever state, the West will declare the result a victory and send some tokenresources for helping rebuilding Ukraine that look good in the photo-ops but
don't fix a thing. The reason is nobody really cares for Ukraine more than theycare for their doormat.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Arelor to Kaelon on Sun Jul 30 2023 03:26 pm

> Europe has a bad track record when it comes to supporting members of the
> Union.Everything is songs and parties and praises to the big European family
> until
> something like the 2008 crisis hits and then it is everybody on his own.

The European Union is a problematic experiment, not least of which is the bureaucratic engine that its member-states really only half-heartedly support. Given the United Kingdom's withdrawal, and the looming rebellions in Eastern Europe (and a not-inconsequential rise of the Far Right in the Mediterranean, especially your native - and my homeland - of Spain), I think the future for the EU political bloc is grim.

NATO, on the other hand, has been an enduring tool that has prevented the Continent from descending back into open warfare many times, and it is part of the central compact between the United States and Europe. The U.S. manages security and defense, and European states ensure there is an economic pay-for-play to keep the engine running. Russia single-handedly revitalized the centrality of this exchange, and given the Five Eyes (Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Philippines, and Australia) likely will join NATO in the next 36 months, it's probably going to remain the governing global security force of our lifetimes.

European competition and collaboration, on the other hand, which you cite often, is a tremendous asset. While the United States has benefitted from its laboratories of democracy in its federalist system, Europe has benefitted tremendously from nation-state-hood and the increasing hyper-competition among the states that only infrequently turns deadly.

There's a lesson in there for both the U.S. and Europe; together, we can drive different forms of competition to ensure Western Civilization continues to dominate the planet for the undeniable future to come.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

>I genuinely think Ukraine, from a vast geopolitical perspective, was the
rial-
>un or beta-test for the next World War. Much like the Spanish Civil War was
he
>practice round for the Axis vs. the Allies in World War II. And yet, unlike
pa
>n, the Ukrainian example has demonstrated that authoritarian regimes are far
e >s stable than they have suggested, and that corruption and mismanagement have

>aced their armed forces at a tremendous disadvantage. Remember: for China, who
>as been watching with baited breath, they have never had a successful military
>onflict with the West in their entire history. They need one to solidify their
>scension to global superpower status.

This is an interesting point. The Spanish Civil War was indeed a trial run
for several of Germany's new war technologies and strategies. It is
possible that Putin (or others) saw Ukraine as a similar test.

>What comes next for Russia is deeply problematic. I am genuinely surprised
hat
>Putin has not been assassinated, or more likely "sent to a hospital in
iberia"
>and then replaced, because the string of failures Russia has encountered will

>ad to the emboldened separatism of its many republics (states). Remember:
ussi
> is not ethnically Russian, and the demographic collapse of the Russian People
>and the Russian Federation as a whole, is largely existential. For Putin, he
a >the restoration of the Soviet Empire as a way to forstall this sociopolitical

>llapse. That's clearly no longer genuinely possible, and with Russia's
umiliat
>on, it has become a regional player for the balance of its modern existence.

If this were the USSR days, I have no doubt that Putin would have been
moved aside by now. You bring up another interesting point, that much of
the territory of Russia includes republics that are not ethnically Russian.
I have found some irony in this war in that one of Putin's supposedly most
ardent supporters is the leader of Chechnya, which in the recent past had a
strong separatist movement and is majority muslim. The current leadership
has apparently gotten rich off of being an ally of Russia. Otherwise, I
would expect that area to be the first to try to break away.

I have not kept up recently with other areas of unrest in the Federation.

IIRC, the Crimea is more ethnically Russian than Ukrainian. Crimea was
moved under the Ukraine SSR by Moscow sometime during the Cold War.

* SLMR 2.1a * PCMCIA = People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Kaelon to Arelor on Mon Jul 31 2023 07:55 am

> The European Union is a problematic experiment, not least of which is the bu > quential rise of the Far Right in the Mediterranean, especially your native
Far-Right influence in Spain after the collapse of the Phalanx is anecdotic.
Politicians use the thread of the far-right the same way grandmothers use
Halloween stories to scare children. The so-called Far-Right party here are
essentially like US Republicans, and I think it is clear they have peaked as a
third-in-line political power and won't ascend much further if at all.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Kaelon to Arelor on Mon Jul 31 2023 07:55 am

> The European Union is a problematic experiment, not least of which is the bu > quential rise of the Far Right in the Mediterranean, especially your native >
> NATO, on the other hand, has been an enduring tool that has prevented the Co > European states ensure there is an economic pay-for-play to keep the engine > n NATO in the next 36 months, it's probably going to remain the governing gl
By the way, I dare say that the existence of the European Union has pacified
the Eurozone more than, say, the existence of NATO, by virtuoe of a known
phenomenom: people who trade among each other is much less likely to start
stabbing each other deliberatedly, because they make more profits from trading.
On the other hand, despite all the cool advertisements on the contrary, it is
quite clear that NATO is mostly the US sending soldiers to fight and die while
the population of the other NATO members scream bloody murder because America
is an imperialist power that must be destroyed, and their respective
governments hold Uncle Sam's coat in the process. I dare say the push to stop
contributing to the NATO in Spain is stronger than any Far-Right imaginary
threat.

I don't think this is the foundation of a strong alliance. It is an alliance
that may hold together but it is feebler than it seems. One of the reasons why
Trump gathered support was that he dennounced (and rightly so) that American
soldiers were coming back in plastic bags while everybody else sat on their fatasses criticising. I have family in the Spanish army, and I have been told that, when they were deployed in the MIddle East, one of the directives they got
was to call for the Americans if anything happened.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Arelor to Kaelon on Mon Jul 31 2023 05:46 pm

> By the way, I dare say that the existence of the European Union has pacified
> the Eurozone more than, say, the existence of NATO, by virtuoe of a known
> phenomenom: people who trade among each other is much less likely to start
> stabbing each other deliberatedly, because they make more profits from
> trading.

There's no doubt that strong trading ties are a deterrent to war, but by no means are they a guarantee against it. Remember that the Weimar Republic / the Third Reich was linked to global trade networks, and the German Empire before it, but both had strong financial incentives to go their own ways.

Similarly, Russia may have made a financially catastrophic miscalculation in invading Ukraine since it lost access to not only the planet's financial systems, but also to the only major loopholes (Swiss banks). It now relies extensively upon criminal networks and cryptocurrency to survive, but it has achieved / restored economic self-sufficiency relatively quickly. The lesson here is that the financial incentive to avoid war only lasts so long as there isn't an overriding geopolitical incentive.

> On the other hand, despite all the cool advertisements on the
> contrary, it is quite clear that NATO is mostly the US sending soldiers to
> fight and die while the population of the other NATO members scream bloody
> murder because America is an imperialist power that must be destroyed, and
> their respective governments hold Uncle Sam's coat in the process. I dare
> say the push to stop contributing to the NATO in Spain is stronger than any
> Far-Right imaginary threat.

The brilliance behind both NATO and the United States' hyperpower strategy, by and large, is that it has created a largely irreversible global financial system that guarantees the United States' centrality. Europe has largely abandoned the expensive raising and financing of armies in favor of much smaller token and policing forces and a much vaster social safety net. This has the net effect of generally ensuring the United States is responsible for Europe's security, and Europe is on the hook for driving revenue across the U.S. system.

Another key element of how the system works can be traced back to the Marshall Plan that largely rebuilt Europe and the earliest foundations of the EEC and the EU. Deficit spending, for the United States, is always profitable because it is in the form of defense and trade guarantees that are directed back to U.S. global industries that drive innovation and security. For every $1 of deficit spending in the United States, there is around $9 generated in net-new revenue for U.S. coffers in the form of trade. Countries that do not play by these rules - and there are many in Asia where this has become an issue - find themselves quickly losing investment from the United States.

> I don't think this is the foundation of a strong alliance. It is an alliance
> that may hold together but it is feebler than it seems. One of the reasons
> why Trump gathered support was that he dennounced (and rightly so) that
> American soldiers were coming back in plastic bags while everybody else sat
> on their fatasses criticising. I have family in the Spanish army, and I have
> been told that, when they were deployed in the MIddle East, one of the
> directives they got
> was to call for the Americans if anything happened.

NATO works because the world funds its collective security and the United States leads it. For the European Union, or individual European states, to actually spend on their own defense, would absolutely wreck their economies and their social safety nets, which are already unsustainable due to the demographic crises most European countries face (chief of which is the sub-replacement birthrates). I see it remaining impenetrably strong because it has essentially created a symbiotic relationship (to put it diplomatically) whereupon much of the world has become client-states to the United States' geopolitical stewardship.

It isn't a bad deal, so long as the United States maintains its end of the bargain and the rules-based liberal world order continues to create predictability so that economies can scale. But it would be a mistake to think of NATO as a purely defensive alliance. It is a global order that has a vast economic interdependent engine that fuels the American military-industrial complex.

And that's exactly how everyone likes it.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Kaelon to Arelor on Tue Aug 01 2023 11:00 am

> Similarly, Russia may have made a financially catastrophic miscalculation in > orks and cryptocurrency to survive, but it has achieved / restored economic >

This is a problem I have with the modern Western style in general: we think we
are the center of the world and we believe we can destroy somebody just by
refusing to be their friend.

I think this problem comes from modern Cancel Culture. We as a civilitation
have discovered we can destroy Jack if we convince enough people that Jack is afilthy fascist so they don't buy stuff from it. The issue is that then we
try to translate this to higher spheres of politics and it just doesn't scale.
The West has this idea that we are the most important people on the planet, so
if we exclude you from Eurovision and our trade systems, your country has no
more entertainment and no more trading going on. This fantasy falls appart
quickl�y once you realize there are more humans living in the Indochina area
than out of it.

RE: Everybody likes the NATO arrangement; there are strong anti NATO movements
in member countries. Since NATO members tend to be (nominally) democracies, I
think this is not to be dismissed. In fact a number of anti-NATO people I can
think of would use your wording as an example of why NATO is to be avoided: it
has NATO members pay protection money/resources so America gets to be the
world's police (actually, the people I think of would rather say it has memberspay protection money so America gets to be an imperialistic power).

The only thing you need to know is that for Spain to get into NATO, it took thePresidential Candidate Felipe Gonz�lez to tell his voters that he would never
support a NATO deal in order to be elected, because nobody wanted to
participate in the NATO. Then he got placed into office and supported the NATO
deal anyway against the will of the voters.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
� Synchronet � Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Arelor to Kaelon on Tue Aug 01 2023 05:12 pm

> This is a problem I have with the modern Western style in general: we think
> we are the center of the world and we believe we can destroy somebody just
> by refusing to be their friend.

It's very clearly a pay-to-play scenario. You want access to western markets? Then, you need to play by our rules. I really don't see a problem with this, and part of our enablement of China's threatening rise is in fact us not following this maxim closely enough. We were very content letting China become our factory, and decided we wouldn't be picky about their authoritarianism and one-party state because, we thought, they'll eventually become a democracy if they work with us.

Definitely a false narrative where China has successfully played the west. NATO, on the other hand, is the logical conclusion of entering and succeeding in the United States' global world order.

If you want access to global markets, you have to play by our global rules: transparency, accountability, rules-based order, which largely replaced the arbitrary zeitgeist of Europe during the 1930s and triumphed over the Soviet ideology in the Cold War. If you want to help write the rules, you need to contribute - first, to the economic system (the WTO, or one of its regional trade blocs, including the EEC and Euro-Zone), and then enter into a political bloc that maintains judicial enforcement of the economic system (for Europe, it's the European Union mandated by Maastricht and successor treaties).

NATO reaches the apex of the economic system by providing a defense bulwark against countries that adopt the U.S. pay-for-play standard: support our military industrial complex (i.e., allow us to invest in U.S. defense-aligned jobs in your territory, beginning with defense industries and concluding with military bases) and you can invest most of your profits into a social welfare cap.

NATO becomes unpopular among jingoistic circles and among pacifists, but it rarely becomes a majority of the accountability-seeking electorate. And as the Russian invasion of Ukraine shows us, NATO is ultimately the pinnacle desire of any country that wants guarantees for its sovereignty and simultaneous participation in the US/EU world order. This is precisely why the Five Eyes (Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines) are primed to join NATO -- if we can still logically call it that -- in the next 24-36 months.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

> Putinism, in essence, is a cult of personality similar to Hitlerism in the Thi
> Reich. In many ways, Vladimir Putin clearly has modeled his confrontation str
> egy after the Fuhrer's. It's surprising given just how unsuccessful the underl
> ng strategy was. It goes like this:

> 1. Value loyalty over competence, always.
> 2. Nurture acolytes willing to protect you (i.e., take the blame).
> 3. Deploy thugs to manufacture cassus belli and/or chaos to control the securi
> narrative.
> 4. War.

It is certainly a surprise that he would model Hitler as you suggest. One
or two reasons he might do so:

1. He thinks he learned from the Nazi mistakes and can do it better (which
could also mean he is crazy)
2. If you study the early roots of the Russian Revolution, and what Stalin
was up to in those years (thugs and chaos), it is possible he believes he is
employing Stalinism rather than Hitlerism. Point #4 would then be covered
by Putin's own dissappointment that the USSR was disolved and, as you
pointed out, many of the USSR's best and brightest came from Ukraine so it
makes sense to try to bring them back into the fold first.

* SLMR 2.1a * You are now entering a School Free Drug Zone.

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

> I don't think this is the foundation of a strong alliance. It is an alliance
> that may hold together but it is feebler than it seems. One of the reasons why
> Trump gathered support was that he dennounced (and rightly so) that American
> soldiers were coming back in plastic bags while everybody else sat on their fa
> sses criticising.

That, and that other countries were supposedly not paying their fair share
of the cost to maintain NATO.

* SLMR 2.1a * IF numcooks > .maxcooks THEN;SET V broth = 'spoiled';END

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Kaelon to Dumas Walker on Tue Aug 01 2023 03:07 pm

Spanish separatists movements are all but quelled. NOne of them were ever
bought with money. Try waving a Spanish flag in some areas near the Basque
community - and I am not saying *in* the Basque community - and they will gang
on you and break your face.

What "worked" in order to eliminate terrorism was to grant terrorists the rightto a political party. Now we have separatists parties (such as Bildu) formed byex-ETA members. They no longer bomb stuff but their goals are the same and
their determination has not diminished the least.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: NATO
By: Kaelon to Arelor on Tue Aug 01 2023 05:05 pm

> NATO becomes unpopular among jingoistic circles and among pacifists, but it > ts guarantees for its sovereignty and simultaneous participation in the US/E > hat -- in the next 24-36 months.

You keep making my case.

Your case is that it is beneficial for Europe and other satellite countries to
pay protection to the USA so the rest of the countries can be Socialistic. In
other words, the claim is that becoming a protectorate is good for the
protectees.

I don't agree this is the state of things, but if it was, then the situation
would be unstable as heck. Protectorate models tend to crumble (and
historically do) because they suck for the protectees.

BUt in this case it is even worse because the protectees that must pay
protection money are activelly becoming poorer and demolishing their economies
in an ordered manner, to the point they won't be able to be Socialistic even
with help. Unindustrialized countries have less ability to pay protection
money.

I am not saying the NATO will collapse because of this effect, but it is a
matter of time that anti-NATO political movements will raise even more because
they want the money used for military bases addressed to Hospitals instead. Thelevel of compromise from certain countries is very low.

The party in power in Spain right now used to run many anti-American campaigns
and has a history of withdrawing military support from hot zones other NATO
members were covering. I expect most members without colonialistic interests tokeep a similar level of compromise.

It looks functional but feeble to me.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Wed Aug 02 2023 08:24 am

> That, and that other countries were supposedly not paying their fair share
> of the cost to maintain NATO.
>

I count "not paying their fair share" as part of "sitting on their fat asses",
but thanks for specifying :-)

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: NATO
By: Arelor to Kaelon on Wed Aug 02 2023 01:00 pm

> Your case is that it is beneficial for Europe and other satellite countries
> to pay protection to the USA so the rest of the countries can be
> Socialistic. In other words, the claim is that becoming a protectorate is
> good for the protectees.

The problem with legacy protectorate models is that contributing to these systems was done in a way that diminished the sovereignty (suzerainy?) of these protectorates. Taxation, for example, is an overt diminishment of the capital capacity of the government and this fiscal burden largely builds resentment among populations and alienates the ruling class.

NATO, and the Marshal Plan that (re-)built Europe after the War, is very different. Virtually none of the NATO member-states contribute the treaty-obligated 2% GDP to expenditures. That's not what funds the operation. Trade does. So thinking of NATO as some sort of classic protectorate model really belies its intended purpose: a trade union with defensive characteristics.

In the United States, significant deficit spending (and the world's largest defense budget) is actually directed to NATO countries for development of industries and technologies that both benefit local consumers (like GPS) and generate nearly ten-fold in military revenues for the U.S. military. The system works so long as it remains pay-to-play, not pay-for-protection. Europe has already decided, fundamentally, it is not interested in its own protection.

If NATO ceases to be a thing, or even worse, if the U.S. pulls out of the region (always a possibility given our xenophobic and aliberal tendencies every couple generations or so), then Europe will be left to smash its institutions, eliminate its social welfare states, and fund costly militaries to thwart Chinese, Russian, and Near-Eastern aggression. And no one wants that.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Russia's Defeat
By: Dumas Walker to KAELON on Wed Aug 02 2023 07:29 am

> It is certainly a surprise that he would model Hitler as you suggest. One
> or two reasons he might do so:
>
> 1. He thinks he learned from the Nazi mistakes and can do it better (which
> could also mean he is crazy)

There is no doubt that Putin believes that Hitler's failure was a failure of imagination, not a failure of design. The central tenet of the expansion playbook - recognize nationhood among ethnic peoples, give them your citizenship through passports, and then intervene in other countries on their behalf - is exactly what Putin has done in Ukraine, Georgia, and elsewhere. It's the Sudetenland Playbook almost verbatim.

> 2. If you study the early roots of the Russian Revolution, and what Stalin
> was up to in those years (thugs and chaos), it is possible he believes he is
> employing Stalinism rather than Hitlerism. Point #4 would then be covered
> by Putin's own dissappointment that the USSR was disolved and, as you
> pointed out, many of the USSR's best and brightest came from Ukraine so it
> makes sense to try to bring them back into the fold first.

Absolutely right. Certainly Stalinism is something that Putin admires, but the bigger problem is the demographic deficit that he needs to solve. First and foremost, the collapsing birthrates and population numbers in Russia (and in Ukraine) are attributed to the demographic collapse of its people stemming from the population inbalances borne from the Second World War (and the ~100M Russians and Ukrainians that died).

Secondly, and this one is far more complicated, recobbling the Soviet Union is a delusional objective that is divorced from the fundamental geopolitical realities with which the Russian Federation is faced. People forget that in the mid-1990s, Russia had a GDP smaller than Denmark's, and it was only through use of the petro-dollar and energy wars that Putin was able to construct a Russian economy that was largely extractive of value, not building said value.

This is not a recipe for any of the constituent former USSR member-states to want to rejoin a Union State under Russia's leadership. Except, of course, for those who have significant economic and political dependency on Russia. Such as Belarus. And before 2014, Ukraine.
_____
-=: Kaelon :=-

---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: NATO
By: Kaelon to Arelor on Wed Aug 02 2023 01:09 pm

> Re: NATO
> By: Arelor to Kaelon on Wed Aug 02 2023 01:00 pm
>
> > Your case is that it is beneficial for Europe and other satellite countri > > to pay protection to the USA so the rest of the countries can be
> > Socialistic. In other words, the claim is that becoming a protectorate is > > good for the protectees.
>
> The problem with legacy protectorate models is that contributing to these sy > ent and this fiscal burden largely builds resentment among populations and a >
> NATO, and the Marshal Plan that (re-)built Europe after the War, is very dif > me sort of classic protectorate model really belies its intended purpose: a >
> In the United States, significant deficit spending (and the world's largest > military revenues for the U.S. military. The system works so long as it rema >
> If NATO ceases to be a thing, or even worse, if the U.S. pulls out of the re > elfare states, and fund costly militaries to thwart Chinese, Russian, and Ne > _____
> -=: Kaelon :=-
>
> ---
> ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

The theory would be sound if the US wasn't sinking deeper and deeper in debt,
due in great part to their military budget. If they were leveraging debt in
order to reap big gains due to their investment, they would not have the
astronomical debt they carry.

I don't see that much investment from American companies here either when
compared to other actors. The ones that carry operations here have a big
tendency to run decoy headquarters in Europe and run the thick of the actual
work in Asia.

What you see on the ground is a massive lack of supplies which suggests
international supply chains are stressed. Peeople needs a prothesic knee
replacement but it takes a month to arrive. People needs an AC coupling but theonly models available are the ones nobody wants to buy. This suggests trading
is not running smooth. If your hipothesis is that the US is recouping their
debt expenses via trading then I have to assume revenue is going low because
suply chains are thin. This reinforces my own hypothesis that the model is not
as tought as thought.

They had to redefine "recession" and now the international market is
overflooded by USDs that used to be circulating in the INternational market andnow are not being used. This kind of supports my hypothesis too.

n fact I dare say that if I had to accept your premises, the NATO Itself would
be under an extreme existential threat, at least as powerful as the one the
Russian population think they face themselves.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

> > That, and that other countries were supposedly not paying their fair share
> > of the cost to maintain NATO.
> >

> I count "not paying their fair share" as part of "sitting on their fat asses",
> but thanks for specifying :-)

Indeed. I missed the implication. :)

* SLMR 2.1a * White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP