Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(02-03-2017, 02:32 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2017, 02:23 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2017, 02:18 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-03-2017, 02:14 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]What Chinese expansionism in the Far East has Russia historically been fighting?  Why are you conflating the Mongols (actually led by Ogedai at the time, Genghis Khan having died several years before the invasion of Rus) with the Chinese?

** 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect and attack America
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e170127

Right, so, Russian expansionism, then.  Do you remember the bit where I pointed out that they had actually settled all of their border disputes over a decade ago?

Yeah .... I guess I never really believed that.

https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/20170126.aspx

Your link isn't working for me.  I'm at work, this isn't going to be another one of those white supremacist pages you pulled off the first Google search page, is it?

Here's the whole article:


January 26, 2017: Since 2014 Russia has been making a lot of headlines
but not much else. The economy is a mess and despite government
predictions that the economy can “stabilize” if oil is over $50 a
barrel (where it seems to be headed) and there would be two percent
GDP growth in 2017 (versus a decline of .6 percent in 2016). The
reality is that the real average income of Russians has, as of the end
of 2016, been declining 25 months in a row and the decline
continues. With so many people seeing their income decline corruption
is getting worse, despite vigorous efforts to curb it. The number of
best educated and capable Russians who have left the country since
2014 has now reached 1.5 million. The poor are getting poorer and more
Russians are slipping into poverty. The military is telling its
veteran officers and NCOs that a new benefit for ex-military personnel
is preferential treatment when it comes to getting unemployment
benefits. There is still the implied promise of a government job for
retired officers but, well, you know hard times and all that. And then
there are the foreign cash reserves, essential for buying
imports. Those reserves will be exhausted later in 2017 or in 2018. So
no, the economic news is not good.

The 2016 international corruption ratings show the world that Russia
is not making much progress dealing with corruption and is stuck near
the bottom (131 out of 176 nations rated). Corruption in the
Transparency International Corruption Perception Index is measured on
a 1 (most corrupt) to 100 (not corrupt) scale. The most corrupt
nations (usually North Korea and Somalia) have a rating of under 15
while of the least corrupt (usually Denmark) is often 90 or
higher. African nations are the most corrupt, followed by Middle
Eastern ones. The current Russian score is 29 compared to 40 for
China, 72 for Japan, 62 for Poland and 74 for the United States. A
lower corruption score is common with nations in economic
trouble. Russia has the same score as Ukraine and most of the other
nations that used to be part of the Soviet Union. Do you see a pattern
here? A growing number of Russians (and others who used to be ruled by
Russians) certainly do.

Invading Ukraine and Syria has not helped solve any of the fundamental
problems but have made for great propaganda that sort of distracts
Russians from how much life sucks at home. What went wrong? Russia
entered the 21st century with a new elected government dominated by
former secret police (KGB) officers who promised to restore economic
and civil order. They did so but in the process are turning Russia
into a police state with less political and economic freedom. A
growing number of Russians opposed this and the government responded
by appealing to nationalism. Russia has returned to police state ways
and the traditional threatening attitude towards neighbors. Rather
than being run by corrupt communist bureaucrats, the country is now
dominated by corrupt businessmen, gangsters and self-serving
government officials. The semi-free economy is more productive than
the centrally controlled communist one but that just provides more
money to steal. A rebellion against the new dictatorship has been
derailed by astute propaganda depicting Russia as under siege by the
West. Yet opinion polls that show wide popular support for this
paranoid fantasy has left enough Russians with democratic impulses to
continue leading the struggle for better government and needed
reforms. For now most Russians want economic and personal security and
are willing to tolerate a police state to get it. That atmosphere,
plus the anxiety generated by having troops fighting in Syria and
Ukraine has scared away a lot of foreign investors and many Russian
ones as well. Russia can downplay this in the state controlled media
but without all that foreign and Russian capital the economy cannot
grow. Meanwhile China, the only real threat to Russia, quietly makes
progress in the east. There China has claims on much of the Russian
Far East and is openly replacing Russia as the primary economic,
military and political force in Central Asia.

Non-News And The Thought Police

Since the late 1990s the government has gradually returned the Cold
War practices of declaring all bad news a state secret, especially if
it involves the military or security services. But now there is the
Internet and the government has not been able to suppress the rumors
from spreading and, worse, being compiled, analyzed and revealing a
pretty accurate picture of what is really going on. Corruption is
again becoming a major problem in the military, just as it was before
Vladimir Putin and his KGB whiz kids got elected with the promise to
fix things. The fixes worked for a while but now they are
failing. Again there are reports of bases having their heat and power
cut off because someone stole the money to pay for that. Worse, more
troops are reporting food shortages on bases and the old-timers
remember that was common in the 1990s. Troops also report that many of
the new weapons, especially ships, are accepted into service even
though they have numerous deficiencies. Someone got paid off and the
users are not happy that they may have to pay, with their lives, using
defective ships and aircraft or weapons that malfunction with a
bang. Reporting any of this openly gets you arrested for treason,
thanks to new laws. The government knows all about these bad attitude
problems, in part because in 2013 Russia brought back the old
communist era ideological training for troops and increased use of
informants and opinion surveys to monitor morale and loyalty in the
military. In effect government has returned to using the communist era
"Zampolit" (political officer.) In Soviet times, every unit commander
had a deputy (Zampolit) who represented the communist party and could
veto any of the commanders’ decisions. The Zampolit was responsible
for troop loyalty and political correctness. Sort of a communist
chaplain. In 2010 the Russian Army reintroduced chaplains, something
that the communists did away with in the 1920s. The new chaplains are,
however, expected to report on the loyalty of the troops, to church
and state. Now additional officers are being added to handle
ideological training and monitoring morale. Not exactly the return of
the Zampolit, but a return of most of the Zampolits’ duties. Like
their Cold War era counterparts the Zampolits proved better at
reporting the bad news than dealing with it.

China

Big news in Russia recently were revelations that China had moved some
of their ICBMs to the Russian border. The state controlled Russia
media insisted there was nothing to worry about because these missiles
were obviously meant to evade American ballistic missile defense
systems and, besides, the minimum range for those DF-41 missiles is
3,000 kilometers, which means they could not be used against targets
in the Russian Far East. More astute Russians observed that China
could not win a nuclear exchange with the U.S. but could against
Russia. And China would not want to nuke the Far East, they want to
take control and fill the place with Chinese. Those DF-41s are well
placed to blast Russian nukes and ICBMs far to the west. For many
Russians China is seen as the only real threat to Russia and any
Chinese move out there is nervously discussed in the Russian media (to
calm people down) and privately (to discuss what is really happening
on the Pacific coast).

China has ancient claims on much of the Russian Far East and is openly
replacing Russia as the primary economic, military and political force
in Central Asia. This is made worse by the post-Cold War decline of
the Russian economy. In 1991 the U.S. and EU (European Union) had over
half the world GDP. The Soviet Union had about ten percent and China
two percent. The Soviet Union and its economy was falling apart (hence
the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and had been for decades. By the
end of the 1990s Russia (now with half the population of the Soviet
Union) had three percent of world GDP, China seven percent, the EU 24
percent and the U.S. 21 percent. China began growing at ten percent a
year in the 1980s and kept going. China was still ruled by communists
but had made the bold decision to allow and sustain a free market
economy. The compounded growth really adds up if you can sustain it
over several decades, which China did. By 2015 China was 17 percent of
world GDP, Russia three percent, the EU 17 percent and the U.S. 16
percent. Projections for 2020, even taking into account showed down
Chinese growth, have China with 19 percent of world GDP, Russia three
percent, the EU 15 percent and the U.S. 15 percent. One important
factor in the Chinese GDP growth was the fact that China has more
people than the EU, the U.S. and Russia combined.

Since 2012 China increased spending on infrastructure in border areas
of the Russian Far East (areas near the Pacific Ocean) to make it
easier for Chinese businessmen to operate. This supports the rapid
growth of Chinese trade in the thinly populated Far East and stirs (or
confirms) Russian fears that Chinese businesses will take over the
economy out there. The Chinese have done this before, over the
centuries, with other neighbors. Chinese today are well aware of that
and know that once you control the economy it’s a lot easier to annex
the area to China. Meanwhile Russia continues to have problems getting
Russians to move to the Far East and stay there. Communist and czarist
governments also had this problem and the inability to solve it makes
it easier for the Chinese to take over.

Another aspects of this is China is backing Russia over the Ukraine
matter. Makes sense, as China is also an empire trying to reclaim lost
territories. That some of those territories are currently Russia’s Far
East although these claims are not officially discussed in Russia or
China. That is a problem for another day and currently Russia and
China support each other’s imperial ambitions (as in Ukraine and the
South China Sea) and help each other out to deal with any associated
problems, especially the UN or economic sanctions.

Syria

With Aleppo back in hands of the Assads the war is going in two
directions. The Assad government, backed by Iran, Russia and Turkey
are concentrating on clearing remaining rebels out of the
northwest. That means Hama, Latakia and Idlib provinces, the areas
where the Assads always had the most support. Turkey is intent on
getting any anti-Turk (pro-PKK) Syrian Kurds out of there as
well. Idlib province, west of Aleppo and bordering Turkey, is the main
target and is now receiving most of the Russian airstrikes. There are
still lots of rebels (few of them ISIL) west of Aleppo. Meanwhile the
Kurds, Iraq, the West and the Gulf Arab states want to eliminate the
ISIL presence in Iraq and eastern Syria (namely Raqqa). Russia sees
all this as an opportunity to get start negotiations on a long-term
peace deal. In part this is motivated by the Russian realization that
its alliance with Turkey and Iran is not normal for any of the nations
involved and not likely to last. There have been signs.

Many Turks have demonstrated against and criticized Turkish
cooperation with Iran, Russia and the Assad government of Syria. All
three of these groups have long been seen as enemies of Turkey. In
early January Turkey threatened to withdraw from the temporary
alliance with Russia and Iran in Syria. Turkey was angry at Iran for
tolerating repeated violations of the recent ceasefire deal by Iranian
mercenaries (mainly Hezbollah) in Syria. The Turkish government
justifies the alliance with Iran and Russia in Syria by referring to
increased cooperation with Russia and Iran since the 1990s. But in
Syria the Turks have to deal with the fact that Iran is run by a
religious dictatorship and Turkey and Russia are not. Iran justifies
breaking agreements by blaming it on the many religious fanatics in
its government and military. Russia is willing to ignore that sort of
thing, Turkey isn’t. At same time a growing number of Iranians openly
demonstrate against the alliance with Russia. For decades Russia was
depicted (by Iranian media, governments and personal experience) as a
dangerous enemy of Iran. Russia and Iran also openly disagree over
some key items. Russia openly supports Israel’s efforts to defend
itself from Hezbollah or Iranian missile attacks. Russia is also
willing to have the Americans join in the effort to craft a peace deal
at the conference going on now in Kazakhstan. Iran insisted that the
Americans not show and the new U.S. government was OK with that.

The unusual alliance of Iran, Turkey and Russia is seen by all three
countries as historically unnatural and unsustainable. Iran has long
been fighting the Russians and Turks over who had the most power,
control and influence in the areas where they were neighbors. Each of
the three still have fundamental differences with the other two and
popular opinion in all three nations shows widespread distrust of
these “unnatural” allies. But most Iranians also remember that many
times in the past Iran has made such unstable alliances work, for a
while at least.

Ukraine

Ukraine is recovering from the economic damage suffered because of the
war with Russia and is coming to realize that the biggest problems
Ukraine is facing are internal. Yet despite the continued widespread
corruption in 2016 Ukrainian GDP grew 1.5 percent and is expected to
be three percent in 2017. In contrast 2015 GDP declined 10
percent. But the corruption is still in play and most obvious when it
comes to the growing defense budget. The U.S. is not happy with all
the continued plundering of the Ukrainian defense budget and threatens
to cut support unless the Ukrainian officials stop the stealing and
cooperate with each other for the common good.

Recent opinion polls show that the majority of Ukrainians would now
vote to join NATO and move closer to the less corrupt and more
prosperous West. For the last decade Russia has threated to declare
war if Ukraine joined NATO. Because of this by 2009 the U.S. lost its
enthusiasm for letting Ukraine join NATO, thus leaving Ukraine on its
own to deal with Russian aggression. That led to a popular uprising in
2014 that ousted a pro-Russian (and very corrupt) president of Ukraine
and triggered an undeclared Russian war against Ukraine.

In eastern Ukraine (Donbas) the latest indefinite ceasefire, which
began in late December ended after a few days as the number of
unprovoked attacks by the Russian backed rebels keeps
increasing. Despite that Russia says it is withdrawing forces from in
and around Donbas. This is interesting because Russia is also
withdrawing forces from Syria. Yet the permanent Russian increase of
its bases near the Ukrainian border and near East Europe continues.

January 24, 2017: Russia sent six Tu-22M3 bombers, escorted by four
Su-30SMs, from an airbase in the Caucasus to hit ISIL (Islamic State
in Iraq and the Levant) targets in eastern Syria. Russia has been
working its Tu-22M3M long-range bombers hard over Syria since
mid-2016, flying several dozen sorties from Russian bases to hit
targets in Syria. That’s a lot of work for the ten or so Tu-22M3Ms in
service that have to fly all the way from southern Russia to Syria and
back to deliver a few tons of bombs. While smart bombs were used in
some of the 2016 missions the recent attacks involved unguided (dumb)
bombs. But the Tu-22M3M proved to be effective during its first
sustained combat experience since Afghanistan in the 1980s.

January 23, 2017: The pro-Assad coalition of Russia, Turkey, Iran and
the Assad government held peace talks with the Syrian rebels beginning
today in the Central Asian city of Astana (the capital of
Kazakhstan). Nothing was achieved after two days but the major powers
congratulated each other for getting this far. The U.S. was not
invited when these talks were announced in December but Russia later
asked that someone from the new (after January 20th) U.S. government
attend. In the end the U.S. declined to send anyone. Most of the
rebels were not invited either. Only the FSA rebel coalition was,
because it does not support Islamic terrorism. Three rebel larger
groups (Ahrar al Sham, Fatah al Sham Front and the Kurds) were not
invited, nor was ISIL, the group everyone hates. At the end of 2016
discussions between Russia, Turkey, Iran and the Assad government
apparently agreed to some general terms for such a deal. It would
consist of a ceasefire with groups now in control of parts of Syria
recognized as the temporary ruler of those areas. If the ceasefire
held, there would be new elections. The Assads would not participate,
but only if they were granted immunity to prosecution so the Assads
could go into comfortable exile. All this assumes that ISIL control of
any territory in Syria is eliminated. This is an old proposal, but it
always depended on ISIL not being part of the mix. That is now a
possibility that still doesn’t have enough support within Syria to
work. So far it looks like the Astana talks will produce nothing of
value.

January 19, 2017: In Ukraine police seized several crates marked
“aircraft parts” headed for Iran via air freight. On closer inspection
the aircraft parts turned out to be components for older Russian ATGMs
(anti-tank guided missiles). Iran needs these parts to keep many of
their older weapons operational. Iran is still subject to many
restrictions on the importation of weapons. Ukraine used to be a good
source of such forbidden spare parts but since Russia began trying to
annex portions of Ukraine in 2014 (with some success) Ukraine has been
more dependent on Western support. In return they are supposed to
abide by the many arms export sanctions they used to ignore.

January 16, 2017: In the south (Chechnya) police carried out a series
of raids against an ISIL network and arrested 60 ISIL members and key
supporters. There was some armed opposition and four Islamic
terrorists were killed.

January 14, 2017: In Yemen captured rebel commanders admit (some say
boast) that Hezbollah and Iranian personnel run military training
camps in the north (Saada province) where the Shia rebel tribes have
their ancient homeland. Despite overwhelming evidence of Iranian
weapons being supplied to the Shia rebels the Russian and Chinese
support in the UN blocks any international action against Iran.

January 13, 2017: In Syria the government accused Israel of firing
missiles from northern Israel at the Mezzah airbase outside
Damascus. The explosions were heard in the city and a large fire broke
out. Israel refused to comment but local reports indicate that the
target was recently delivered (by air) long range, satellite guided
Iranian missiles. Several days later Russia broadcast a statement
approving of the Israeli action, pointing out that these missiles are
an obvious threat to Israel and are meant for no one else.

January 11, 2017: The Russian aircraft carrier Kuznetsov and its
escorts arrived off the coast of eastern Libya. The carrier sent a
helicopter to nearby Tobruk and picked up Khalifa Hiftar and two other
senior officers (all in uniform) and took them to the carrier. The
visit to the Kuznetsov was captured on video and broadcast. The video
showed the event treated as an official visit with sailors in dress
uniforms lined up and a band playing the Libyan national
anthem. Hiftar was given a tour of the ship and then held a video
conference (not shown) with the Russian defense minister back in
Moscow. Hiftar has been trying to get Russia to defy the UN arms
embargo and provide pro-Hiftar forces with weapons. Apparently this
“official visit” signaled that Russia was willing to deal and later
reports from Libya indicated that Russia will now supply the Hiftar
forces with over a billion dollars’ worth of weapons. Hiftar is the
head of the armed forces for one of the two rival governments Hiftar
is the most powerful man in eastern Libya. He has cultivated contacts
in Russia, which believes Hiftar is someone who will still wield power
when peace returns to Libya and will be able to help Russia to once
more become the major arms supplier to Libya. Hiftar made two trips to
Moscow in 2016. (June and November). Hiftar visits Egypt regularly and
visited Russia in late June 2016. Hiftar has managed to keep Egypt, a
few other Arab states and Russia providing support. Egypt allows
banned goods (like weapons and ammo) cross the border
unhindered. Russia is known to have printed new currency for HoR
earlier in 2016 and has provided unspecified military support. Russia
also provides HoR with some support inside the UN as one of the few
countries that can veto proposed UN resolutions. Hiftar has recently
visited Egypt and Jordan. Egypt is particularly important because it
is again run by a former general and feels Libya needs the same kind
of leader. But Egypt is under a lot of pressure from the UN to get
behind the GNA, which Egypt sees as too cozy with Islamic conservative
groups. Algeria feels the same way as do many Tunisians.

January 6, 2017: Russia announced it was reducing its military forces
in Syria. By exactly how much is unclear. The Russian aircraft carrier
task force off the coast departed for its home base in northern
Russia. A dozen (or more) Russian warplanes are heading back to
Russia. It is unclear how many (if any) Russian ground troops are
leaving. The Russian air operations in Syria are expensive (in terms
of spare parts and missiles and smart bombs). While it’s great for
these new warplanes and their weapons to get some combat experience,
Russia is still experiencing severe budget problems at home and still
has to deal with their effort to seize eastern Ukraine.

Israel released spy satellite photos taken on December 28 that showed
two Russian Iskander (also known as SS-26 and 9M723K1) ballistic
missile launcher vehicles in Syria (at the base Russia shares with
Syria). These are probably in Syria to be “tested in combat” by firing
a non-nuclear warhead at a high profile target, like the ISIL capital
of Raqqa. Iskander has a 500 kilometer range and is not a traditional
ballistic missile. That is, it does not fire straight up, leave the
atmosphere, then come back down, following a ballistic
trajectory. Instead, Iskander stays in the atmosphere and follows a
rather flat trajectory. It is capable of evasive maneuvers and
deploying decoys. This makes it more difficult for anti-missile
systems to take it down. Iskander began development near the end of
the Cold War and the first successful launch took place in 1996. The
4.6 ton Iskander M has a solid fuel rocket motor and a range of up to
700 kilometers normally carries a 710 kg (1,500 pound) warhead. The
missile can be stored for up to ten years. Russia developed several
different types of warheads, mainly for, including cluster munitions,
thermobaric (fuel-air explosive) and electro-magnetic pulse
(anti-radar, and destructive to electronics in general.) There is also
a nuclear warhead, which is not exported. Guidance is very accurate,
using GPS, plus infrared homing for terminal guidance. The warhead
will land within 10 meters (31 feet) of the aim point. Iskanders are
carried in a 40 ton 8x8 truck, which also provides a launch
platform. There is an optional reload truck that carries two
missiles. Russia ended up only producing the Iskander-M for its own
military. Entering service in 2005, Russia found there were no export
customers for the innovative and expensive Iskander but free publicity
from actual use in Syria might change that.

January 4, 2017: As expected 2016 was the first year where China
launched more orbital missions (22) than Russia (17). The U.S. was
tied with China for the first time with 22 launches. Since 2004 Russia
has launched the most orbital missions but Russia has been having
personnel and equipment problems keeping up. In 2015 Russia was first
with 26 and in 2014 it was 32.

December 30, 2016: In Syria The pro-Assad coalition of Russia, Turkey,
Iran and the Assad government agreed that peace talks with the Syrian
rebels could be held in Central Asia (the capital of Kazakhstan).

So we have a lengthy article from a not too terribly reputable source stating that they are presently supporting each other's imperial ambitions.  Your point is?

(02-03-2017, 03:04 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]> So we have a lengthy article from a not too terribly reputable
> source stating that they are presently supporting each other's
> imperial ambitions. Your point is?

So here's what we have:

• When I provide a Generational Dynamics analysis you ridicule it
  
  
• When I provide a link to a source, you ridicule it
  
  
• You provide completely unsupported opinions and expect them to be
  automatically believed
  
  
• You never provide a link to back up your opinions, even though you
  demand that of others

In other words, you're just a troll.

You should change your handle from "SomeGuy" to "SomeTroll".

What are you talking about?

Quote:When I provide a Generational Dynamics analysis you ridicule it

I didn't ridicule it, I pointed out that it detailed Russian expansionism into NE Asia, opposed by China, and not the other way round.  I mean, it's your article, not sure what you're disagreeing with.

Quote:When I provide a link to a source, you ridicule it

This source?  I don't know, John, maybe don't grab the first link that comes up on a search page.  It didn't even detail what you said it did, the bit about mutual support of each other's imperial ambitions was FROM THE SOURCE YOU PROVIDED.

Quote:You provide completely unsupported opinions and expect them to be

automatically believed

Could you name me an instance of this.

Quote:

• You never provide a link to back up your opinions, even though you
  demand that of others
  

I linked to the Kanuri thing repeatedly, and I had to do it several times before you stopped since you apparently wrote your Boko Haram articles on autopilot.  I don't know if you have the Generational Dynamics comments from the old site archived here, but I am willing to bet I could find links in previous posts.

"Never" is a very long time.

Quote:In other words, you're just a troll.

You should change your handle from "SomeGuy" to "SomeTroll".

In other words, I disagree with you, ask for clarification on something, point out that the links you provide don't exactly prove your point, and you... what, pout?
This is a ridiculous response, John.  I'm not exactly the only one asking why you are absolutely convinced that the 4T sides are going to line up the way you say they will, and not the only one unsatisfied with the few answers you provide.

It's a discussion forum, if you don't want to discuss your positions why respond to comments?

*** 4-Feb-17 World View -- Devastating UN report on Burma shows scale of ghastly atrocities by Buddhists targeting Muslim Rohingyas

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Devastating UN report on Burma shows scale of ghastly atrocities
  
• Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma's government may have to respond to the report
  
• Generational Dynamics interpretation of Burma (Myanmar) atrocities
  

****
**** Devastating UN report on Burma shows scale of ghastly atrocities
****


File photo of Rohingyas fleeing violence (Reuters)

A devastating new report by the UN office of human rights shows a huge
scale of ghastly atrocities committed by Buddhists targeting ethnic
Rohingya Muslims.

For months, Burma (Myanmar) police and soldiers have been committing
ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State by scorched
earth attacks, burning down their villages, and committing massacres,
rapes and other atrocities that have forced tens of thousands to flee
for their lives across the border into Bangladesh.

Burma has tacitly admitted guilt by forbidding any journalists or
humanitarian groups from entering Rakhine State to investigate. As
we've reported in the past, evidence of atrocities keeps leaking out,
despite desperate and laughable attempts to hide them. Human Rights
Watch (HRW) has documented the ethnic cleansing through a series of
"before and after" satellite images. Burma's government agrees that
the satellite images show that Rohingya villages are being burned
down, but they make the laughable claim that the Rohingyas are burning
down the villages themselves in order to embarrass the government.
There have also been dozens of videos showing Burma's police beating
and raping Rohingya civilians, but Burma's government claims that all
of these videos are phony and have been fabricated.

So to get around Burma's restrictions, the UN office of human rights
conducted extensive interviews of hundreds of the tens of thousands of
refugees who had been forced to flee across Burma's border into
Bangladesh, and were living in filthy refugee camps such as Cox's
Bazar. In addition, the UN team interviewed numerous representatives
of UN system agencies, NGOs, health professionals and other experts.

The interviewers heard one story after another of killings, beatings,
rape, sexual violence, shootings, stabbings, and wholesale destruction
of home and property. 52 of the 101 women interviewed reported being
raped or subjected to sexual violence. Seven of them were girls who
had been gang-raped. Some of the raped girls and women were killed
afterwards.

The report contains many personal stories. A woman said, "They killed
the baby by stomping on it with their heavy boots. Then they burned
the house."

A 12-year-old boy said: "I was at home with my 13-year old uncle, when
the army broke into the house. They beat us with sticks, metal rods
and kicks. We were crying, pleading for mercy. An army officer hit me
hard with a metal rod on my right arm, causing severe injury. We were
dragged out of the house, which was set on fire. My uncle, who
attempted to flee was caught, beaten and thrown into a burning house."
Independent (London) and UN human rights report on Burma and BBC

Related Articles

• UN: Burma (Myanmar) committing 'ethnic cleansing' of Rohingyas (29-Nov-2016)
  
  
• Meiktila, Burma, violence has echoes of Kristallnacht (05-Apr-2013)
  
  
• Generational history of Burma (Myanmar) (26-Sep-2007)
  

****
**** Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma's government may have to respond to the report
****

Burma's government has refused to allow any international journalists
or investigators into the region, and has used every possible
disinformation technique for months to deny that the atrocities are
taking place. These include the laughable technique of claiming that
the Rohingyas are killing each other and burning down their own
villages to embarrass the government.

However, this new report has been so devastating that Burma's
government has been forced to acknowledge it. Even so, U Zaw Htay,
the spokesman for Burma's president Htin Kyaw, said on Friday that
they hadn't seen the report, and added, "We will review the report
from the UN and we will respond, either in an official statement or in
an individual response (to questions)."

Later on Friday, the spokesman said, "These are extremely serious
allegations, and we are deeply concerned. We will be immediately
investigating these allegations through the investigation commission
led by Vice-President U Myint Swe Where there is clear evidence of
abuses and violations, we will take all necessary action."

International pressure is building on Aung San Suu Kyi, who is
believed to be the most powerful politician in Burma today. When she
was under arrest for many years by the army, she won the Nobel Peace
prize, and now she's considered to be some kind of human rights hero
(heroine). But this slaughter of Muslims by Burmese Buddhists has
been going on for years, and has become far worse in the last few
months, but she continues to deny that there are serious crimes being
committed.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad al-Hussein said on
Friday, "I did speak to Aung San Suu Kyi about an hour and a half
ago. I called upon her to use every means available to exert pressure
on the military and the security services to end this operation."

We'll have to see whether anything gets done or can get done. This is
a growing problem that will destabilize the region, and lead to new
hostilities, possibly triggering a major regional generational crisis
war. Irrawaddy Times (Burma) and Reuters

****
**** Generational Dynamics interpretation of Burma (Myanmar) atrocities
****

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, these atrocities are
coming out of deep hatred by Buddhists of Muslims, based on numerous
generational crisis wars between the two groups over the centuries.

Every time I post a story about Burma, some commenters apparently get
confused and think that it's the Rohingya's that are killing,
torturing and raping the Buddhists. But no it's not. For the last
few years, the Buddhists have been the perpetrators, and the Rohingya
Muslims have been the victims.

In fact, as I've described several times in the past, the actions
being taken by Buddhists against Muslims today are very similar to
actions taken by Nazis against the Jews. These kinds of atrocities
are standard fare for all regious and ethnic groups.

One commenter in the past pointed out that Muslims conducted
atrocities against Buddhists in previous wars, decades and centuries
ago. That's undoubtedly true. That's part of how the generational
cycle works, with new generations in each side vowing revenge for
atrocities committed against their grandfathers. Each side vividly
recalls the atrocities committed by the other side, but strangely
enough have no memory whatsoever of atrocities committed by their own
grandfathers.

Some people believe that Buddhists are such peace loving people that
they never fight or never rape or never commit atrocities. Any ethnic
or religious group that really lived that way would not survive for
long, but would be exterminated by some other ethnic or religious
group before long. From the point of view of Generational Dynamics,
all religious and ethnic groups act the same way, and in fact use
religion to justify their actions.

The Buddhist xenophobic hatred of Muslims in Burma goes very deep.
The root of the violence is xenophobic attacks by Buddhists led by
Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu and his "969 movement," against the
Rohingya Muslims, including rapes, torture and other atrocities
committed by Buddhists, targeting the Rohingyas. The Rohingyas have a
darker skin than Burmese, and they speak a Bengali dialect.

What is clear is that the current situation is becoming increasingly
dangerous for the entire region.

The Buddhist atrocities started to become significant worse since
October 9 of last year, when nine Myanmar border police were killed in
an attack blamed on Rohingya militants. This was the first act of
violence by Rohingyas in revenge.

CNN has reported on an interview with members of Harakat al-Yaqeen, or
"Faith Movement," who are claiming responsibility for the October 9
attacks, and who are the first armed insurgency to emerge from the
Rohingyas. The leader Atah Ullah said in the interview:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"We, the vulnerable and persecuted people, have asked
> the international community for protection against the atrocities
> by the government of Myanmar, but the international community
> turned its back on us. Finally, we cannot take it
> anymore."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

This armed insurgency is only the beginning. The government of
Muslim-majority Malaysia is furious, and is condemning the government
of Burma, violating the regional rule of not interfering in the
internal affairs of neighbors. And the situation is ripe for
infiltration and recruitment by jihadists, such as al-Qaeda or the
so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh). CNN and Reuters

Related Articles

• Ethnic cleansing of Myanmar's Rohingyas threatens regional stability (30-Jan-2017)
  
  
• Asian jihadists become radicalized by Burma's (Myanmar's) Rohingya slaughter (07-Dec-2016)
  
  
• Thousands of Bangladeshi and Burma Rohingya migrants stranded at sea in southeast Asia (16-May-2015)
  
  
• Militants linked to Myanmar's Rohingyas kill border guards in revenge attack (12-Oct-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Burma, Myanmar, Rohingyas,
Bangladesh, Cox's Bazar, U Zaw Htay, Htin Kyaw, U Myint Swe,
Aung San Suu Kyi, Zeid Raad al-Hussein
Harakat al-Yaqeen, Faith Movement, Atah Ullah, Malaysia

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

(02-03-2017, 01:51 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-28-2017, 04:25 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]>   By the way, my China-Russia article cross-posted in the Breitbart
>   National Security section has drawn hundreds of comments.  As
>   usual, they range from loony to extremely intelligent and
>   well-researched.  Anyone interested in more commentary on this
>   subject should check that out.

>   http://www.breitbart.com/national-securi...k-america/

(01-31-2017, 01:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]>   I looked at your link, though the signal to noise ratio in the
>   comments was not high enough to sift through it thoroughly.

>   I would still be interested in understanding better why you think
>   the sides will work out the way you do.  A link to earlier
>   discussion would be great.  

I've written about this subject so many times that I have no idea what
I could add that's new or different.  Here's a summary behind the
reasoning that I've posted a number of times:

China is very closely allied with Pakistan, which is very closely
allied with the Sunni states.  China and India are bitter enemies, as
are Pakistan and India.  Russia and China have been historic enemies
for centuries, with Russia fighting Genghis Khan's Mongols in the
west, and fighting Chinese expansionism in the (far) east.  Russia is
also extremely xenophobic towards the Sunni Muslims.  Russia and India
are very closely allied, and India is very closely allied with Iran,
as Hindus have been allied with Shia Muslims going back to the Battle
of Karbala.

I'm with you so far.  I don't think it's set in stone, but the "dots" here make sense.

Quote:So if you go through that list and connect the dots, then
the US is going to be allied with India, Russia and Iran, versus
China, Pakistan, and the Sunni Muslim states.

What?  Why?  Why wouldn't the US be allied with China, Pakistan, and the Sunni states against India, Russia, and Iran instead?  None of the dots you mention say anything about the  US.

Quote: Just remember that
Russia was our bitter enemy before WW II, was our ally during WW II,
and was our bitter enemy after WW II.  You can't make judgments from
today's fatuous political alignments to how nations will act when
they're forced to make hard choices in the context of an existential
crisis, a generational crisis war.  These major decisions are made by
the populations, large generations of people, not by a few politicians
when a nation's existence and its way of life are threatened, and
those decisions are usually made by feelings that go back for
centuries.

What feelings dictate the US side?

Also, why isn't the EU included in this analysis?  What side will they be on, or will they split up as tensions between the French and Germans reassert themselves?

(02-03-2017, 06:49 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]> What are you talking about? ... It's a discussion forum, if you
> don't want to discuss your positions why respond to
> comments?

I like to respond to comments. In this case, part of my response
is to call you a troll.

The reason I provided the StrategyPage article is that it's recent
(posted within the last few days), it contains a lot of interesting
information on China and Russia's Far East, and because I provided
that as a source in my article, which provides other sources as well.

If you want to go back farther in time, then just google the words
"chinese migrants russia far east", which provides links to many other
articles that talk about China's invasion of Russia's Far East.

I've dealt with hundreds of trolls over the years, especially on the
Breitbart site. One of the games that trolls play is "bait and mock",
where you bait the victim into defending his statements, then you mock
or ridicule the response and then bait him again with something like
"what's your point?" or "This is the "It's not a crisis without a war"
bit again, isn't it?" A good troll can keep the game going for many
rounds with a hapless victim, baiting the victim, ridiculing the
response and baiting him again, and so forth.

Bait and mock is particularly a game that Gen-Xers and Millennials
like to play, targeting Boomers, whom they view with contempt and
consider them to be fools. I assume that's why you thought that
rehashing the whole Russia 4T thing would be "fun". Somehow I knew it
wouldn't be "fun", and I was right.

I note again that you haven't provided a single link to anything that
supports your claims. You never do. You simply make unsupported
claims that are supposed to be automatically believed. On the other
hand, I've provided several links in my articles, and you can click on
any of the many articles from that google link to see articles that
don't support your claim.

Part of the problem is that I simply don't believe you. In
particular, I don't believe that you believe that the Chinese aren't
threatening Russia's Far East. This has been so widely reported over
the last 15 years, that someone as knowledgeable as yourself must be
aware of that, and you are just using a "bait and mock" technique by
saying that "they had actually settled all of their border disputes
over a decade ago" to have some "fun."

(02-04-2017, 03:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> What? Why? Why wouldn't the US be allied with China, Pakistan,
> and the Sunni states against India, Russia, and Iran instead?
> None of the dots you mention say anything about the US.

That's an interesting question. Could the US join China and
Pakistan against India and Britain? I just don't see how that's
possible.

One thing that I've pointed to in the past is that Russia has invaded
and annexed parts of Georgia and Ukraine, and yet there hasn't been
even a hint of war between the US and Russia. Basically, the Russian
people and Western people like each other, for the most part.

But I believe that we would be at war with China within six hours if
China invaded Taiwan (or Japan or Philippines). Even though we saved
China's ass in WW II, they still hate us.

(02-04-2017, 03:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> Also, why isn't the EU included in this analysis? What side will
> they be on, or will they split up as tensions between the French
> and Germans reassert themselves?

This is a question that I've been puzzling over for ten years. There
are several historical fault lines -- Catholic vs Protestant, Western
vs Orthodox, Christian vs Jew, Greek vs German, and so forth. How
these fault lines will align in the coming war is still to be
determined.

One hypothesis that I've considered is that "universal religions"
stick together, while "targeted religions" stick together. The
universal religions are Catholic, Sunni Islam, and Buddhism, while the
targeted religions are Protestant Christianity, Orthodox Christianity,
Shia Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism.

I wrote about this hypothesis in the following article:

** 17-Aug-16 World View -- Russia-Iran airbase agreement further isolates Saudi Arabia
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e160817

and I've received nothing but ridicule for it. But still, the
hypothesis has some historical significance, and might have some
relevance it predicting the alignment of the various European nations.

This is a really interesting discussion point. My $0.02...

In this still relatively new 21st century, which alliance is stronger for the US - the historical alliance with Great Britain and western Europe as western democracies, or the economic alliance with the House of Saud and as a result Sunni countries through the middle east.

This could go either way. The dependence on Saudi Arabia for cheap, reliable oil is certainly much less than in past decades, and this will only continue to decline. At some point is the US going to say that the negatives of the relationship outweigh the positives, and say screw it? While this is possible, the strong rhetoric that this administration is sending out against shia Iran tells me that the status quo will continue for at least the next few years.

As long as the US allies with Saudi Arabia, I gotta think pakistan is relatively safe. As soon as that starts to waver tho - and the best indicator would be a more conciliatory attitude towards Iran - I think all bets are off.

John,

This is absurd.  I am not baiting you in order to have fun at your expense, I am soliciting a conversation because I like talking about things like this and living in a strange city and working as a programmer at a travel agency does not give me a lot of opportunities to do so in RL.  I genuinely disagree that the pressures to which you refer will be an issue IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.  Later in the 21st century, with increasing resource scarcity and a warming climate?  Entirely possible, as I have said previously.

Let's take this Chinese-Immigration-to-the-Russian-Far-East thing.  We have had this conversation previously, and I remember you linking to this article, written in 2000 and referencing an Alexander Shaikin, who claimed that a million and a half Chinese had flooded over the border in the last year, and that the Chinese would come to dominate the region demographically within the next 20-30 years.  It is now 2017, so let's evaluate the claim.  Here is an article in The Diplomat, written a year ago.  It specifically references his claim, and compares it to census information, interviews with locals, and the like.  The author basically comes to the same conclusion I did, which is that while there is a demographic imbalance, there is little pushing/pulling the Chinese in that direction, and that while it is likely to be an issue in the long run, it is not presently.  This goes to my point that in terms of their geopolitical aspirations, China and Russia's are complementary RIGHT NOW, and that if there is going to be an alliance of convenience formed in the next few years, it is going to be between Russia and China rather than between either of them and the US. We can see evidence of this with the formation of the SCO, Chinese support of Russian actions in the Ukraine, Russian sales of advanced weaponry to the Chinese, and regularly scheduled joint military exercises between the two of them.

Like I said, if there were a particularly hankering in the Chinese government for resettling Han settlers (which is something that they do do, as one can see in Tibet and Xinjiang) in a cold and inhospitable place to which they had prior claims, you’d probably see it in Mongolia first. Outer Mongolia had been within the Chinese orbit for centuries, had been incorporated into the Qing dynasty, and didn’t split off into its own country again until the early 20th century. I was in Northern China over winter break 2014-2015. I actually rode the bus up from Beijing to Zamin Ude, the major border crossing between China and Mongolia (and the only one open to people like me). Do you know what I saw on the ride up, the border crossing through, and in Ulanbaator (not a place I would recommend visiting in January, BTW)? Hordes of Chinese settlers? No, I saw Mongolian migrant laborers traveling to China for work, or heading back to Mongolia to visit family. So why would China try and seize Russian land from a nuclear power while tensions with the US are what they are, and not bother to seize an equally mineral-rich and population poor place to which they have prior claim whose army is negligible and whose WMDs are nonexistent?

Don't believe the border-dispute resolution?  They signed an initial resolution in 1991, subject to haggling, agreed on control of various islands in the Amur River by 2004, with the official transfer occurring in 2008.  There are presently no outstanding issues between the two governments on the subject.  No official statements of irredentism.  So where is the war going to come from?

As for the idea that an Indo-Pakistani war would draw in the two of them on either side?  Where's the evidence?  The Russians remained neutral when India and China went to war back in the 1960s, when Russian-Chinese tensions were high enough to lead to actual border clashes.  The Russians are holding military drills with Pakistan, and increasing weapons sales to offset India's rapprochement with United States.  Where was Chinese military support for Pakistan during Indo-Pakistani war in 1971?

(02-04-2017, 09:28 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-04-2017, 03:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]>   What?  Why?  Why wouldn't the US be allied with China, Pakistan,
>   and the Sunni states against India, Russia, and Iran instead?
>   None of the dots you mention say anything about the US.

That's an interesting question.  Could the US join China and
Pakistan against India and Britain?  I just don't see how that's
possible.

One thing that I've pointed to in the past is that Russia has invaded
and annexed parts of Georgia and Ukraine, and yet there hasn't been
even a hint of war between the US and Russia.  Basically, the Russian
people and Western people like each other, for the most part.

But I believe that we would be at war with China within six hours if
China invaded Taiwan (or Japan or Philippines).  Even though we saved
China's ass in WW II, they still hate us.

I think the explanation there is that the difference between Japan on the one hand and Ukraine on the other is required by geopolitical imperatives.  The US is a maritime power; our geography, as the only major nation with long coasts on both the Atlantic and the Pacific, dictates that.  Our geopolitical interest is in being a - preferably the - global maritime power; for that reason, we're interested primarily in other coastal nations, from whom we can benefit through favorable trade agreements.

Japan and Taiwan are island nations, the ultimate in coastal nations, so our interest in them is strong.  Ukraine and Georgia have little coast, and what coast they have is on the Black Sea, which we can access only by treaty with Turkey.  Our interest in them is weaker and mostly indirect, through NATO allies.  And of course it doesn't hurt that China is only a second tier nuclear power, while Russia is on a par with us.

This means that from a geopolitical interest standpoint, we have more potential for conflict with China than with Russia.  I'm not sure geopolitical interest necessarily coincides with your cultural imperatives, however, and potential for conflict doesn't necessarily make conflict inevitable.

I'd also note that from a geopolitical standpoint, one could have expected a war in the WWII time frame between the US and Japan, but not between the US and Germany, as Japan was a competing maritime power while Germany was a continental power.  We ended up getting dragged into the war with Germany - including lend lease even before the Pearl Harbor attack - by our cultural allies, in particular Britain.  If Russia's leader ends up on an expansionist path due to internal political imperatives, as happened with Germany in WWII, I could easily see us dragged into a war with them as well, through western European allies.

Nor do we necessarily have to be dragged into any war.  WWII never touched our shores, and Britain managed to stay out of the thick of the 1860 crisis, remaining on the periphery of the US civil war and the Taiping rebellion, participating directly only in the Second Opium War.  If we realize that our correct strategy is to improve our global maritime power to hegemonic status by playing balance of power politics with respect to Eurasia, we could restrict our intervention to tipping the balance of any conflicts in whatever direction favors us.  This is basically what Victorian England did.

If you think cultural concerns necessarily trump geopolitical concerns, the closest thing we have to cultural enemies are Iran and Russia, so it's hard to justify our being on their side.  As you note, though, our history doesn't show a clear cultural nemesis, having cycled through Britain, ourselves, and Germany and Japan.

And of course, we can't necessarily assume there's no civil war in the US, what with the California government studying ways to cut off funding flows to the federal government.  If the rest of the world breaks down the way you suggest, the East Coast could side with Russia while the West Coast sides with China.

----

I'd also note a few details here:

First, I presume  you meant "Russia" rather than "Britain".  The "dots" you provided didn't cover Britain any more than they did the US.

I would point out  our interest in Japan is stronger than our interest in Taiwan; we have bases in Japan but not Taiwan.  I do think we would intervene in favor of Taiwan if they were invaded conventionally, but it's to be noted that we also sent planes to Georgia when Russia invaded, loaded with Georgian troops with fresh combat experience in Iraq.  The Russian invasion stopped advancing the instant our planes touched down in Georgia.  We obviously haven't intervened in, or even supplied arms to, Ukraine, as yet, so the big contrast is between Ukraine and Japan - though even there Obama may have thought sanctions were a form of intervention in favor of Ukraine.

Incidentally, while we helped get Japan off China's back, we spent the last four years of their crisis war, which didn't end until 1949, supporting the Nationalists.  The Nationalists love us still, and the Maoists no longer had reason to.  And the Soviet Communists, who did have reason for gratitude,  were as ungrateful as the Maoists.

Quote:

(02-04-2017, 03:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]>   Also, why isn't the EU included in this analysis?  What side will
>   they be on, or will they split up as tensions between the French
>   and Germans reassert themselves?

This is a question that I've been puzzling over for ten years.  There
are several historical fault lines -- Catholic vs Protestant, Western
vs Orthodox, Christian vs Jew, Greek vs German, and so forth.  How
these fault lines will align in the coming war is still to be
determined.

One hypothesis that I've considered is that "universal religions"
stick together, while "targeted religions" stick together.  The
universal religions are Catholic, Sunni Islam, and Buddhism, while the
targeted religions are Protestant Christianity, Orthodox Christianity,
Shia Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism.

I wrote about this hypothesis in the following article:

** 17-Aug-16 World View -- Russia-Iran airbase agreement further isolates Saudi Arabia
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e160817

and I've received nothing but ridicule for it.  But still, the
hypothesis has some historical significance, and might have some
relevance it predicting the alignment of the various European nations

An interesting idea.  Your reason not to apply it to Japan seems a bit of a rationalization, though, and the rationalization would be as valid for China, which would hurt your theory about how the rest of the world would break down.

Also to be noted is that most of Europe is at this point irreligious, including the UK, and their secular humanist atheism would qualify as a universalist faith.  This suggests that Europe would be more likely to be on the Arabia/Pakistan/China side and against the Russia/India/Iran side.  In that case your theory would then have us helping Russia take over Western Europe.  Could you see that?

I'd like to chime in, for what it's worth, with Warren's analysis.

(02-04-2017, 02:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]> This is absurd. I am not baiting you in order to have fun at your
> expense, I am soliciting a conversation because I like talking
> about things like this and living in a strange city and working as
> a programmer at a travel agency does not give me a lot of
> opportunities to do so in RL. I genuinely disagree that the
> pressures to which you refer will be an issue IN THE IMMEDIATE
> FUTURE. Later in the 21st century, with increasing resource
> scarcity and a warming climate? Entirely possible, as I have said
> previously.

OK, I'll concede that I misunderstood what you were saying, and I
apologize for doing so.

But there's still something very wrong if you and I view the same
subjects so differently.

Let's start with the 1991 border agreement, since that's the most
obvious problem. What possible relevance could an old Unraveling-era
agreement have to today's world? France and Germany signed a border
agreement at Versailles in 1919, but they still went to war 20 years
later.

Some of the things you mention are really laughable. Of course China
supports Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- it's doing the same thing in
the South China Sea.

Using your reasoning, I can prove that WW II never occurred. England
and Germany had a "peace in our time" agreement, so of course they
were never at war. Russia and Germany had the Molotov–Ribbentrop
agreement, so of course Germany never invaded Russia. The North and
the South were happily debating laws in the Congress of the United
States, so of course the South never attacked Fort Sumter. The Hutus
and the Tutsis had signed several peace agreements, so of course there
was no mass slaughter when someone broadcast, "Cut down the tall
trees."

When I was growing up in the 1950s, I heard the same thing over and
over again from everyone -- parents, teachers, friends, etc. -- that
everyone had been completely surprised by Hitler and the war. No one
had ever suspected what Hitler would do, I was often told.

In fact, one person famously did see what was coming - Churchill. He
noticed that the Germans were building a large air force whose only
logical purpose was to bomb Britain. But that was ignored, as was the
invasion of Czechoslovakia.

So I read your list of political agreements and your claims that these
prove that no one is planning war with utter astonishment. If China
were planning war with Russia and America, it would still sign all
those agreements, just as Hitler signed the "peace in our time"
agreement on the same day he and Mussolini were planning war.

If China were NOT planning war, it would have no use for the thousands
of missiles targeting the US and Russia, or for those new missiles on
Russia's border, and China would not be confiscating other people's
fishing grounds and building military bases in the South China Sea.

As you may know, I compare myself to the mythical Cassandra, the
Biblical Jeramiah, and Winston Churchill himself, all of whom were
willing to see what was obviously coming, but were treated like dirt,
hated and ridiculed and even assaulted for saying so.

And now what's really hilarious is the situation where Steve Bannon,
who is Trump's chief strategist, is a friend of mine and an expert on
Generational Dynamics, and as I pointed out, Trump's inauguration
speech reflected the Generational Dynamics view of the world.

But the hilarious part is that the mainstream media is suddenly
discovering the Fourth Turning, and David Kaiser and Neil Howe, who
are both on the far left and therefore hate Trump, are disavowing the
whole FT theory. Oh no, Trump's all wrong, they're now saying in the
Time article. Both Howe and Kaiser really despise me and GD. This is
an example of my own initial naïveté. Back 12-13 years ago, I naïvely
thought that Howe and Strauss and Kaiser would actually welcome my
contributions to the fourth turning theory. Haha. I'm like dirt to
them, but I'm in good company anyway.

So getting back to the current subject, believe what you want. If you
think WW II never happened, then you're welcome to that belief. If
you think that WW III won't happen, then you're welcome to that
belief too. My only point is that the reasons you give for having that
belief are completely irrelevant.

(02-04-2017, 04:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> Also to be noted is that most of Europe is at this point
> irreligious, including the UK, and their secular humanist atheism
> would qualify as a universalist faith. This suggests that Europe
> would be more likely to be on the Arabia/Pakistan/China side and
> against the Russia/India/Iran side. In that case your theory
> would then have us helping Russia take over Western Europe. Could
> you see that?

It's not a theory. It's a speculation. And it would describe
tendencies only. It's just one more of several generational tools
that can be used to try to forecast the future.

Apology accepted, and sorry if I appeared to be baiting you.  Not my intention at all.

Also, you actually know Steve Bannon?  That's pretty cool.

As for the rest of it, let's see:

- So, no mention of the complete absence of evidence for hordes of Chinese people pouring into the Russian Far East.  So, are you abandoning this claim?  Refusing to discuss it?

- The bit about WWII is a little odd.  The proof that WWII happened is that it... actually happened.  Lots of evidence (bombed buildings, mass death, people's memories, documents from the time, etc.) for it.  If your argument is instead that by my reasoning WWII could not have happened because of Munich, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, etc.  Ok, does this mean any peace treaty or border adjustment signed is ipso facto evidence that the parties are going to try and kill each other shortly after.  I mean, the French and Germans had fought a war only 20 years before, the French sent troops into the Ruhr in 1923, Hitler had been fairly clear about his long term goals and obsessions in Mein Kampf, France had been actively trying to form alliances like the Stresa Front in order to counterbalance  Germany all through the 30s, there was a state of war between Germany and France after the invasion of Poland for almost a year before the attacks on France and Low Countries...  Once again, it didn't just come out of a clear sky.  Where is the equivalent between Russia and China?  There are tensions between the US and Russia, China, and Iran, between Israel and its neighbors, between Pakistan and India (with shots fired), but Russia and China?  I don't see any, and I think and have thought for a number of years that WWIII (for some value of the same) is a real possibility, so I've been looking.  If you have some information to that effect, I'd love to see it.  Really, I would.

- As for the Indo-Pakistani thing inevitably drawing the Chinese and Russians on opposite sides, where's the evidence that they would intervene (to the point of nuking each other, no less)?  Where are the mutual defense treaties between the two?  Prior evidence of interventions?  It seems like a bit of a leap.

A Russo-Chinese joint war against the US is much more likely than China attacking Russia. China and Russia carried out joint military exercises last summer in the south China sea and have been conducting Annual naval and nuclear submarine exercises since 2005. These exercises are obviously directed at the US. Also While many younger Iranians have more pro-western views, Most Americans consider Iran an Irrational and Potentially Deadly enemy. Also when you Mention Muslims and possible 4T conflicts, wars and/or genocide; you seem to regard the Muslims as more likely being the victims of genocidal actions rather than the Aggressors. This is utter nonsense, if a genocidal conflict involving Muslims occurred, they are far more likely to be the aggressors than the defenders.

(02-04-2017, 06:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Apology accepted, and sorry if I appeared to be baiting you.  Not my intention at all.

Also, you actually know Steve Bannon?  That's pretty cool.

As for the rest of it, let's see:

- So, no mention of the complete absence of evidence for hordes of Chinese people pouring into the Russian Far East.  So, are you abandoning this claim?  Refusing to discuss it?

- The bit about WWII is a little odd.  The proof that WWII happened is that it... actually happened.  Lots of evidence (bombed buildings, mass death, people's memories, documents from the time, etc.) for it.  If your argument is instead that by my reasoning WWII could not have happened because of Munich, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, etc.  Ok, does this mean any peace treaty or border adjustment signed is ipso facto evidence that the parties are going to try and kill each other shortly after.  I mean, the French and Germans had fought a war only 20 years before, the French sent troops into the Ruhr in 1923, Hitler had been fairly clear about his long term goals and obsessions in Mein Kampf, France had been actively trying to form alliances like the Stresa Front in order to counterbalance  Germany all through the 30s, there was a state of war between Germany and France after the invasion of Poland for almost a year before the attacks on France and Low Countries...  Once again, it didn't just come out of a clear sky.  Where is the equivalent between Russia and China?  There are tensions between the US and Russia, China, and Iran, between Israel and its neighbors, between Pakistan and India (with shots fired), but Russia and China?  I don't see any, and I think and have thought for a number of years that WWIII (for some value of the same) is a real possibility, so I've been looking.  If you have some information to that effect, I'd love to see it.  Really, I would.

- As for the Indo-Pakistani thing inevitably drawing the Chinese and Russians on opposite sides, where's the evidence that they would intervene (to the point of nuking each other, no less)?  Where are the mutual defense treaties between the two?  Prior evidence of interventions?  It seems like a bit of a leap.

I think this is coming to it from the wrong direction.

There's a crisis to be resolved soon.  All crises discussed in Generations end in total wars.  I've never understood how the Great Depression could be seen as the culmination of the last crisis period, and apparently neither could John, nor Bannon, by all accounts.

If you come at things from that perspective - there's going to be a total war, the only question is who will be fighting whom - then the salient issue when a conflict is settled before the crisis war is that there was a conflict which could flare up again and precipitate the crisis war, not that there was a settlement.

Personally, I'm pretty convinced about Pakistan and India being on opposite sides.  China and India are at least unlikely to be on the same side, though they might not end up fighting; in particular, I think China is a good candidate for a civil war.  Iran and India will end up on the same side on the "enemy of my enemy" theory; same for Pakistan and Arabia once Iran joins.

I don't see Russia, or Europe, or especially the US, as obvious with regard to sides.  John may be picking the most likely sides, but once you line up all the probabilistic effects, even the most likely sides are likely less than even odds.  There are a lot of possible combinations.

(02-04-2017, 10:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-04-2017, 06:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Apology accepted, and sorry if I appeared to be baiting you.  Not my intention at all.

Also, you actually know Steve Bannon?  That's pretty cool.

As for the rest of it, let's see:

- So, no mention of the complete absence of evidence for hordes of Chinese people pouring into the Russian Far East.  So, are you abandoning this claim?  Refusing to discuss it?

- The bit about WWII is a little odd.  The proof that WWII happened is that it... actually happened.  Lots of evidence (bombed buildings, mass death, people's memories, documents from the time, etc.) for it.  If your argument is instead that by my reasoning WWII could not have happened because of Munich, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, etc.  Ok, does this mean any peace treaty or border adjustment signed is ipso facto evidence that the parties are going to try and kill each other shortly after.  I mean, the French and Germans had fought a war only 20 years before, the French sent troops into the Ruhr in 1923, Hitler had been fairly clear about his long term goals and obsessions in Mein Kampf, France had been actively trying to form alliances like the Stresa Front in order to counterbalance  Germany all through the 30s, there was a state of war between Germany and France after the invasion of Poland for almost a year before the attacks on France and Low Countries...  Once again, it didn't just come out of a clear sky.  Where is the equivalent between Russia and China?  There are tensions between the US and Russia, China, and Iran, between Israel and its neighbors, between Pakistan and India (with shots fired), but Russia and China?  I don't see any, and I think and have thought for a number of years that WWIII (for some value of the same) is a real possibility, so I've been looking.  If you have some information to that effect, I'd love to see it.  Really, I would.

- As for the Indo-Pakistani thing inevitably drawing the Chinese and Russians on opposite sides, where's the evidence that they would intervene (to the point of nuking each other, no less)?  Where are the mutual defense treaties between the two?  Prior evidence of interventions?  It seems like a bit of a leap.

I think this is coming to it from the wrong direction.

There's a crisis to be resolved soon.  All crises discussed in Generations end in total wars.  I've never understood how the Great Depression could be seen as the culmination of the last crisis period, and apparently neither could John, nor Bannon, by all accounts.

If you come at things from that perspective - there's going to be a total war, the only question is who will be fighting whom - then the salient issue when a conflict is settled before the crisis war is that there was a conflict which could flare up again and precipitate the crisis war, not that there was a settlement.

Personally, I'm pretty convinced about Pakistan and India being on opposite sides.  China and India are at least unlikely to be on the same side, though they might not end up fighting; in particular, I think China is a good candidate for a civil war.  Iran and India will end up on the same side on the "enemy of my enemy" theory; same for Pakistan and Arabia once Iran joins.

I don't see Russia, or Europe, or especially the US, as obvious with regard to sides.  John may be picking the most likely sides, but once you line up all the probabilistic effects, even the most likely sides are likely less than even odds.  There are a lot of possible combinations.

Oh, agreed, up to a point.  The whole point I was making was that they don't flare up out of nowhere.  India/Pakistan, why, there's shots fired across the border right now.  Israel, well, I don't think they get along with any of their neighbors, except maybe King Playstation.  US/Iran, there's another one, which would be particularly unfortunate because in the medium-to-long term I agree that the rising generations are not at all committed to the "Death to America" thing (it would also make the India thing a little awkward).  China/Japan, or China/Taiwan, and by extension with the previous China/US, again, entirely possible.  If you want a European example, how do you think France's National Front would get along with their large Arab/African population if the former ever came to power (which is not exactly outside the realm of possibility these days).  But China and Russia?  Maybe a few decades from now, in fact I think it probable.  But now?  Where's the evidence?

Honestly, I don't see Russia as being in a 4T, and so I could actually see it sitting out, as long as it had its own little sphere of influence in the FSU that nobody infringed on. And at this point the country most likely (though thankfully much less after the election) to poke hard into its perceived sphere of influence and into it personally is the US.

*** 5-Feb-17 World View -- Egypt accused of 'dirty deal' to sabotage an Ethiopian dam project

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Egypt's air force accused of bombing rebel targets in South Sudan
  
• Egypt accused of 'dirty deal' to sabotage an Ethiopian dam project
  

****
**** Egypt's air force accused of bombing rebel targets in South Sudan
****


Egypt's al-Sisi (L) and South Sudan's Kiir are said to have agreed to a 'dirty deal' (Getty)

Anti-government rebels in South Sudan are accusing Egypt of conducting
bombing raids on rebel targets. A statement published by the rebels
accuses South Sudan's president Salva Kiir of risking a regional war.

South Sudan is the world's youngest nation, having gained independence
from Sudan in 2011. The region's last generational crisis war was an
ethnic war mainly between two tribes, the Nuer and the Dinka. That
war climaxed with the "Bor Massacre," which began on November 15,
1991, killing tens of thousands of people and displacing hundreds of
thousands of people over a three month period.

A new conflict began on December 15, 2013, led by the president Salva
Kiir, of the Dinka tribe, fighting against forces led by vice
president Riek Machar, of the Nuer tribe. Kiir and Machar signed a
peace agreement in August 2015, but that did little good.

South Sudan is in a generational Awakening era, and this renewed war
between the Dinkas and the Nuer would have fizzled out, except that
both sides have been importing weapons, often using funds meant to
fight poverty. The situation in South Sudan is similar to the war in
Syria, which would have fizzled out long ago if it weren't for massive
military aid from Russia, Hezbollah and Iran.

The rebels are accusing Egypt of replicating the situation in Sudan by
playing the part that Russia is playing in Syria, and bombing rebel
targets on behalf of the government.

Egyptian foreign ministry spokesman Ahmed Abu Zeid denied the alleged
air strikes, saying: "Egypt does not interfere in the internal affairs
of other countries." Reuters and South Sudan News Agency

Related Articles

• South Sudan increasingly parallels Syria in genocidal violence (24-Dec-2016)
  
  
• Fears that renewed South Sudan tribal fighting could spiral into larger war (11-Jul-2016)
  

****
**** Egypt accused of 'dirty deal' to sabotage an Ethiopian dam project
****

The statement by anti-government rebels accusing Egypt of bombing
rebel targets in South Sudan says that Egypt and South Sudan are in a
"dirty deal" between Egypt's president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and South
Sudan's president Salva Kiir, and that the deal involves involving
weapons sales and sabotage of an Ethiopian dam project:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"There is a dirty deal going between Kiir and
> El-Sisi. the issue of Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is one of
> the main deals being finalized in Cairo. Our intelligence sources
> in Kampala and Juba confirmed that Egypt wants South Sudan and
> Uganda to be her regional allies so that she can advance its
> covert sabotage campaign against the Ethiopian Dam. The man [Kiir]
> is a double agent; he will cause many problems for the entire East
> Africa region."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The statement refers to a Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD)
project that Ethiopia has been trying to get built for years.
Ethiopians see as is a great national project and a means of
overcoming poverty.

There is considerable opposition to the dam project in Egypt because
it would affect the flow of water along the Nile river. Egypt depends
on the Nile river to supply most of Egypt's drinking war, to irrigate
the Nile Delta, and to generate half of the country's electricity
through the operation of Egypt's Aswan High Dam.

Egypt's long-time dictator Hosni Mubarak was able to block development
of the Ethiopian dam, but after the "Arab Awakening" in 2011, and the
coup that overthrew him, Ethiopia began building the dam. It's
expected to be completed in July. Egypt and Ethiopia have signed an
agreement saying that Ethiopia guarantees that Egypt's water supply
will not be affected, but that hasn't fully reassured many Egyptians.

The South Sudan rebel statement, if true, would indicate that Egypt's
al-Sisi and South Sudan's Kiir covertly sabotaging the dam in a "dirty
deal" that will keep Kiir in power. Egypt Independent and Al-Ahram (Cairo) and Sudan Tribune


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, South Sudan, Dinka, Nuer, Bor Massacre,
Salva Kiir, Riek Machar, Syria, Ahmed Abu Zeid, Ethiopia,
Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, GERD,
Aswan High Dam, Hosni Mubarak

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe