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

(07-04-2017, 11:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> Remind me, if you will, what vital national interests were at
> stake in Kosovo, over which we nearly went to war with Russia, or
> in Libya, where we set the precedent that dictator giving up a
> nuclear weapons program would result in his removal?

Long after a war is over, you can look back and see that there weren't
"vital national interests" at all. You could say that there were no
vital national interests in the Iraq war, Gulf war, Vietnam war,
Korean war, WW II - European theatre, WW I. By looking at the past,
you could argue that there was only one war where the US had vital
national interests -- the Pacific theatre in WW II.

In fact, I believe that there are pacifists around who would agree
with the last paragraph.

So what would have happened to the world if we had been clever enough
to stay out of every war except the WW II Pacific theatre? Would we
have been invaded by other countries because we're so weak -- which
means that we would have had to fight other wars anyway?

At any rate, if you want to judge why a country went to war, a
retrospective analysis of vital national interests is irrelevant.
("Hindight is always 20-20.") You have to look at "perceived"
national interests at the time that the decision was being made.
Under those conditions, the two wars you mention can be justified.

Here's an article I wrote last year on the Libya war:

** 15-Sep-16 World View -- UK politicians debate the 2011 Libya intervention
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e160915

And here's a timeline that explains the Kosovo war:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/.../cron.html

The way the world works is that wars are always a lot more popular as
they're starting than they ever are in retrospect.

An interesting case study for "vital national interests" is
the civil war in Darfur.

In 2004, Jesse Jackson wanted George Bush to send troops to Darfur:


** Jesse Jackson calls for sending American troops to Darfur
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e040727

In 2007, Joe Biden wanted us to get fully involved in the
Darfur war:

** Senator Joe Biden wants to move troops from Iraq to Darfur civil war
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e070429

If we had listened to those two idiots, we would have been
involved in a war much worse than the war in Iraq.

The only "vital national interests" were Democratic Party racial
politics. It just goes to show that going to war is usually an
extremely emotional decision, not a reason-based decision.

(07-05-2017, 08:16 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-04-2017, 11:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]>   Remind me, if you will, what vital national interests were at
>   stake in Kosovo, over which we nearly went to war with Russia, or
>   in Libya, where we set the precedent that dictator giving up a
>   nuclear weapons program would result in his removal?

Long after a war is over, you can look back and see that there weren't
"vital national interests" at all.  You could say that there were no
vital national interests in the Iraq war, Gulf war, Vietnam war,
Korean war, WW II - European theatre, WW I.  By looking at the past,
you could argue that there was only one war where the US had vital
national interests -- the Pacific theatre in WW II.

In fact, I believe that there are pacifists around who would agree
with the last paragraph.

So what would have happened to the world if we had been clever enough
to stay out of every war except the WW II Pacific theatre?  Would we
have been invaded by other countries because we're so weak -- which
means that we would have had to fight other wars anyway?

At any rate, if you want to judge why a country went to war, a
retrospective analysis of vital national interests is irrelevant.
("Hindight is always 20-20.")  You have to look at "perceived"
national interests at the time that the decision was being made.
Under those conditions, the two wars you mention can be justified.

Here's an article I wrote last year on the Libya war:

** 15-Sep-16 World View -- UK politicians debate the 2011 Libya intervention
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e160915

And here's a timeline that explains the Kosovo war:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/.../cron.html

The way the world works is that wars are always a lot more popular as
they're starting than they ever are in retrospect.

I'm not talking about retrospect, though.  Even at the time, the justification for interfering in Kosovo was humanitarian, not US national interest, and similarly getting rid of Qadafi was justified based on wanting to spread democracy, not US national interest.  In the latter case there might have been some jockeying between French oil interests and Italian oil interests, but that didn't affect the US.

(07-05-2017, 11:13 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> I'm not talking about retrospect, though. Even at the time, the
> justification for interfering in Kosovo was humanitarian, not US
> national interest, and similarly getting rid of Qadafi was
> justified based on wanting to spread democracy, not US national
> interest. In the latter case there might have been some jockeying
> between French oil interests and Italian oil interests, but that
> didn't affect the US.

Well, as I recall, there was some Nato involvement in both cases, and
Nato is a national interest. In the Kosovo war, there was a very
harsh memory of the Bosnian war. In Libya, Gaddafi was threatening to
massacre the enemy tribes, which would have worsened the refugee
crisis into Tunisia, Egypt and Europe. That goes well beyond
"spreading democracy." I really believe that you're oversimplifying
the motivations that were in effect at the time of the actual military
actions. If "humanitarian needs" and "spreading democracy" were
enough to start a war, then we'd be in 50 wars today, and obviously
we're not.

*** 6-Jul-17 World View -- Russian-led Syria peace talks collapse in Astana, Kazakhstan

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Russian-led Syria peace talks collapse in Astana, Kazakhstan
  
• The four de-escalation zones
  
• Is the end of the Syrian war in sight?
  

****
**** Russian-led Syria peace talks collapse in Astana, Kazakhstan
****


Russia's four de-escalation zones in eastern Syria (al-Jazeera)

Russia's plans to lead all the factions fighting in Syria to reach a
negotiated peace settlement appear to have collapsed on Wednesday,
when Russia, Turkey and Iran failed to agree on details of four
"de-escalation zones" or "safe zones" proposed by Russia at a meeting
in Astana, the capital city of Kazakhstan in Central Asia.

Wednesday's meeting was based on a peace plan that was signed two
months ago. (See "9-May-17 World View -- Russia, Iran and Turkey announce yet another farcical new Syria peace plan"
.)

In that article, I listed the reasons why it was farcical. The
principal reason is that it didn't include the actual parties to the
Syrian war -- the Shia/Alawite regime of Syria's president Bashar
al-Assad and the Sunni opposition. In fact, none of these actual
participants in the war agreed to the terms of the agreement. That's
why the talks on Wednesday collapsed.

The three countries -- Russia, Iran, and Turkey -- are supposed to be
the "Guarantors" of the agreement, providing whatever troops are
necessary for the functioning of the checkpoints and observation posts
as well as the administration of the security zones.

News reports gave several reasons why the Astana peace talks collapsed
on Wednesday:

• The Syrians and Russians blamed the Turks as being unwilling
  to agree to any implementation of the zones.
  
  
• Turkey and Iran were unable to agree on whose troops would
  be used to guarantee the safety of the safe zones.
  
  
• The moderate Sunni rebels said that they would refuse a proposal
  to have Iran monitor the safe zone in central Homs province.
  
  
• The United States and United Nations were purposely excluded from
  the Astana peace talks, but Russia now agrees that the United States
  and Jordan will have to be involved in some way to cover the zone in
  southern Syria.
  
  
• Russia also blames the failure of the talks on Wednesday on the
  United States, because of uncertainty about what Donald Trump and
  Vladimir Putin will agree to when they meet at the G-20 summit in
  Hamburg on Friday. Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in an
  interview on Monday the he would also discuss the issue with Putin at
  the G-20 summit.

A new meeting of the three countries is to take place in Tehran on
August 1-2, with a self-imposed deadline of the last week of August to
work out all the details. Reuters and AFP and Sputnik (Moscow) and VOA

Related Articles

• Russia, Iran and Turkey announce yet another farcical new Syria peace plan (09-May-2017)
  
  
• In dramatic development, US warplanes smash fortified wall in Raqqa, Syria (05-Jul-2017)
  

****
**** The four de-escalation zones
****

The map of Syria above shows the four de-escalation zones on the left
(western side) of the map of Syria appearing above. The four zones,
taken together, are enclaves containing over 2.5 million Sunni
civilians, mostly women and children, in areas controlled variously by
al-Qaeda linked or moderate opposition rebels. These millions of
civilians are people that al-Assad in the past has made clear that he
wants to exterminate as if they were cockroaches, and so which is why
neither Assad nor the the opposition rebels were willing to sign
Russia's agreement.

Here are al-Jazeera's descriptions of the four zones:

• Zone 1: Idlib province, as well as northeastern areas of
  Latakia province, western areas of Aleppo province and northern areas
  of Hama province. There are more than one million civilians in this
  zone and its rebel factions are dominated by an al-Qaeda-linked
  alliance.
  
  
• Zone 2: The Rastan and Talbiseh enclave in northern Homs province.
  There are approximately 180,000 civilians in this zone and its network
  of rebel groups includes al-Qaeda-linked fighters.
  
  
• Zone 3: Eastern Ghouta in the northern Damascus countryside.
  Controlled by Jaish al-Islam, a powerful rebel faction that was
  participating in the Astana talks, it is home to about 690,000
  civilians. This zone does not include the adjacent,
  government-besieged area of Qaboun.
  
  
• Zone 4: The rebel-controlled south along the border with Jordan
  that includes parts of Deraa and Quneitra provinces. Up to 800,000
  civilians live there.

There's little agreement among all the parties as to how the so-called
"Guarantors" of de-escalation zones or safe zones are going to enforce
the terms of the proposed agreement.

Russia had announced on Tuesday that they would deploy the Russian
military police carrying light weapons within two to three weeks, but
that plan is now on hold after the peace talks collapsed on Wednesday.

Because of the difficulty in getting agreement on whose military
forces will be occupying each of the safe zones, Russia has asked two
Central Asian countries, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, to send some of
their own soldiers as peacekeepers.

However, Kazakhstan has already refused, saying that an essential
condition for sending Kazakh peacekeepers is the existence of a UN
Security Council resolution and the corresponding mandate of the UN.
Al-Jazeera and Sputnik News (Moscow) and Sputnik News

****
**** Is the end of the Syrian war in sight?
****

Last year, al-Assad's military, supported by overwhelming destructive
force provided by Russia and Iran, was going to destroy the city of
Aleppo. That was going to end the war because it would demoralize the
opposition groups and jihadists so they would lose interest in
fighting, and would go home.

At the time, Bashar al-Assad called it "history in the making":

> [indent]<QUOTE>"[The liberation of Aleppo was] history in the making
> and worthy of more than the word congratulations.
>
> History is being written in these moments. Every Syrian citizen is
> taking part in the writing. It started not today, but years ago
> when the crisis and the war on Syria began.
>
> I think that after the liberation of Aleppo we’ll talk about the
> situation as ... before the liberation of Aleppo and after the
> liberation of Aleppo."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Bashar al-Assad has proven himself to be psychopathic genocidal killer,
the worst war criminal so far this century, so it's not surprising
that he was totally delusional about the outcome of his slaughter of
the people of Aleppo.

I've written about any number of Syria peace plans over the years.
Kofi Annan, the virulently anti-American former Secretary-General of
the United Nations from Ghana, was the first UN envoy on Syria. Annan
formulated a farcical six-point 'peace plan'
which said absolutely nothing, but which al-Assad used
as a cover to continue exterminating innocent Sunni women and children
with impunity.

After Kofi Annan was repeatedly humiliated by Bashar al-Assad, the UN
appointed a new Syria peace envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi,
to replace Kofi Annan. Brahimi wasn't as much of
an idiot as Annan was, but he still resigned in disgust in May 2014,
after it became clear that
al-Assad really had no desire to do anything but exterminate Sunni
civilians. Now, the current UN envoy is Staffan de Mistura, who goes
around all the time saying, "This will not be tolerated," but who
accomplishes nothing except, again, to provide cover for Bashar
al-Assad's atrocities.

All of these peace plans have failed because the psychopathic,
delusional Bashar al-Assad doesn't want the war to end. The war
will never end as long as al-Assad is in power.

The map at the beginning of this article shows how Syria is currently
divided up among different militias. Russia's peace plan did not
address any of this, except for four zones in the western region
supposedly still controlled by al-Assad. There will be a particular
dispute between Turkey and the Kurds, as the latter try to join the
two yellow areas into a single Kurdish state called Rojava, and Turkey
does everything possible to prevent it.

The latest fantasy about the end of the war is that the war will end
in the next few weeks, due to the defeat of the so-called Islamic
State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh) in its last two strongholds,
Raqqa, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq. According to this theory, the
remaining opposition forces are located in small, geographically
isolated enclaves, so they won't be able to coordinate their actions
into a significant fighting force.

The problem with this reasoning is that the defeat of ISIS in Raqqa
and Mosul is just a simple tactical victory. It does not address the
core issues that started the civil war in 2011, when al-Assad began
exterminating Sunni women and children who were simply peaceful
protesters.

Furthermore, defeating ISIS does not mean the end of the fighters in
ISIS. As we've been reporting recently, they can flee to Deir az-Zour
in eastern Syria. Scattered Sunni rebel militias can unify for the
same reason as before -- to fight against al-Assad. That's the reason
that tens of thousands of jihadists from 86 countries around the world
came to Syria, and ended up forming ISIS. We should expect to see new
versions of al-Nusra and ISIS to be formed in the weeks to come.
War on the Rocks

Related Articles

• US and Iran headed for military confrontation in Deir az-Zour in eastern Syria (09-Jun-2017)
  
  
• Syria's so-called ceasefire collapses after terrorist bombings in Homs (26-Feb-2017)
  
  
• Generational theory: Bashar al-Assad's miscalculation (11-Sep-2016)
  

[*] Syria and Russia see 'the light at the end of the tunnel' after Aleppo victory (18-Dec-2016)
[/list]


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
Russia, Turkey, Iran, Astana, Kazakhstan, de-escalation zones,
Aleppo, Kofi Annan, Lakhdar Brahimi, Staffan de Mistura,
Raqqa, Mosul, Iraq,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh

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

(07-05-2017, 12:07 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-05-2017, 11:13 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]>   I'm not talking about retrospect, though.  Even at the time, the
>   justification for interfering in Kosovo was humanitarian, not US
>   national interest, and similarly getting rid of Qadafi was
>   justified based on wanting to spread democracy, not US national
>   interest.  In the latter case there might have been some jockeying
>   between French oil interests and Italian oil interests, but that
>   didn't affect the US.  

Well, as I recall, there was some Nato involvement in both cases, and
Nato is a national interest.  In the Kosovo war, there was a very
harsh memory of the Bosnian war.  In Libya, Gaddafi was threatening to
massacre the enemy tribes, which would have worsened the refugee
crisis into Tunisia, Egypt and Europe.  That goes well beyond
"spreading democracy."  I really believe that you're oversimplifying
the motivations that were in effect at the time of the actual military
actions.  If "humanitarian needs" and "spreading democracy" were
enough to start a war, then we'd be in 50 wars today, and obviously
we're not.

I'd concede that in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, we basically got dragged in by Europe, though I still contend that it was based on humanitarian arguments.  I'm not sure to what degree that addresses Cynic Hero's issues, since Europe's national interests are not necessarily our own.

*** 7-Jul-17 World View -- Donald Trump's speech in Warsaw Poland evokes the Clash of Civilizations

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Donald Trump's speech in Warsaw Poland evokes the Clash of Civilizations
  
• Remembering the horrors that Poland suffered in World War II
  
• Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Generational Dynamics
  

****
**** Donald Trump's speech in Warsaw Poland evokes the Clash of Civilizations
****


A large American flag-waving crowd greets Donald Trump in Warsaw Poland on Thursday

When President Donald J. Trump gave his inauguration speech on January
20, I wrote that the speech links today's America to the 1930s,
because it evoked the 1930s mood of
nationalism and isolationism.

Thursday's speech in Warsaw Poland was even more strongly linked to
the 1930s, suggesting that we're facing a Clash of Civilizations world
war in the same way that Poland was devastated by World War II. The
theme of isolationism was still present in remarks about the need to
"protect our borders."

More interesting were the themes around nationalism. Themes about
American nationalism -- pride in America and loyalty to American
values -- have been broadened to encompass pride in Western
civilization and loyalty to the values of Western civilization --
individual freedom, security, free speech, free expression, empowering
women, striving for excellence, valuing human dignity, honoring God,
treasuring the rule of law, putting faith and family at the center of
our lives.

Trump gave the speech to a large, extremely enthusiastic and euphoric
crowd in Warsaw, frequently chanting, "Donald Trump! Donald Trump!
Donald Trump!"

The comparison is to candidate Barack Obama's speech in Berlin in July
2008. There was a large, extremely enthusiastic and euphoric crowd.
As I wrote at the time in "Barack Obama in Berlin calls for greater European militarism"
, the lines that drew the greatest and most
euphoric responses were the anti-American statements, like "Will we
reject torture and stand for the rule of law?"

Trump must have had the speech in mind when he delivered Thursday's
speech, with its emphasis on preserving and honoring Western
civilization, and particularly when he said the following:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"This is my first visit to Central Europe as
> President, and I am thrilled that it could be right here at this
> magnificent, beautiful piece of land. It is beautiful. Poland is
> the geographic heart of Europe, but more importantly, in the
> Polish people, we see the soul of Europe. Your nation is great
> because your spirit is great and your spirit is
> strong."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

We can be pretty certain that phrases like "the heart of Europe" and
"the soul of Europe" were directed at Germany's Chancellor Angela
Merkel, whom Trump will be meeting on Friday. Merkel has openly taken
on the task of proving that Trump is so awful that he is isolated in
the world, and so saying that the Polish people are "the soul of
Europe" is a preemptive strike.

****
**** Remembering the horrors that Poland suffered in World War II
****

Much of Trump's speech reminded that enthusiastic audience of the the
horrors that Poland went through in World War II:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"In 1920, in the Miracle of Vistula, Poland stopped
> the Soviet army bent on European conquest. Then, 19 years later
> in 1939, you were invaded yet again, this time by Nazi Germany
> from the west and the Soviet Union from the east. That's
> trouble. That's tough.
>
> Under a double occupation the Polish people endured evils beyond
> description: the Katyn forest massacre, the occupations, the
> Holocaust, the Warsaw Ghetto and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the
> destruction of this beautiful capital city, and the deaths of
> nearly one in five Polish people. A vibrant Jewish population --
> the largest in Europe -- was reduced to almost nothing after the
> Nazis systematically murdered millions of Poland's Jewish
> citizens, along with countless others, during that brutal
> occupation.
>
> In the summer of 1944, the Nazi and Soviet armies were preparing
> for a terrible and bloody battle right here in Warsaw. Amid that
> hell on earth, the citizens of Poland rose up to defend their
> homeland. I am deeply honored to be joined on stage today by
> veterans and heroes of the Warsaw Uprising."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Trump then related those horrors to today's dangers to Western
civilization:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"This continent no longer confronts the specter of
> communism. But today we're in the West, and we have to say there
> are dire threats to our security and to our way of life. You see
> what's happening out there. They are threats. We will confront
> them. We will win. But they are threats.
>
> We are confronted by another oppressive ideology -- one that seeks
> to export terrorism and extremism all around the globe. America
> and Europe have suffered one terror attack after another. We're
> going to get it to stop.
>
> During a historic gathering in Saudi Arabia, I called on the
> leaders of more than 50 Muslim nations to join together to drive
> out this menace which threatens all of humanity. We must stand
> united against these shared enemies to strip them of their
> territory and their funding, and their networks, and any form of
> ideological support that they may have. While we will always
> welcome new citizens who share our values and love our people, our
> borders will always be closed to terrorism and extremism of any
> kind.
>
> We are fighting hard against radical Islamic terrorism, and we
> will prevail. We cannot accept those who reject our values and who
> use hatred to justify violence against the innocent.
>
> Today, the West is also confronted by the powers that seek to test
> our will, undermine our confidence, and challenge our
> interests. To meet new forms of aggression, including propaganda,
> financial crimes, and cyberwarfare, we must adapt our alliance to
> compete effectively in new ways and on all new
> battlefields."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Trump mentioned Russia's "destabilizing activities" and urged it to
join in the fight "in defense of civilization itself." He did NOT
mention the current growing crisis with regard to the North Korea, nor
did he mention the growing belligerent militarization of China in the
South China Sea and the development of advanced missile systems.
However, he did say the following:

> [indent]<QUOTE>Americans, Poles, and the nations of Europe value
> individual freedom and sovereignty. We must work together to
> confront forces, whether they come from inside or out, from the
> South or the East, that threaten over time to undermine these
> values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition that
> make us who we are. If left unchecked, these forces will
> undermine our courage, sap our spirit, and weaken our will to
> defend ourselves and our societies."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

I interpret the phrase "forces ... from the South or the East" as
acknowledging that there are other existential threats to America and
Europe, especially from North Korea and China.

Finally, he tied it all together by asking whether the West has the
will to survive:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"We have to remember that our defense is not just a
> commitment of money, it is a commitment of will. Because as the
> Polish experience reminds us, the defense of the West ultimately
> rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to
> prevail and be successful and get what you have to have. The
> fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will
> to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them
> at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect
> our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our
> civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy
> it?"<END QUOTE>[/indent]

CNN and LA Times

Related Articles

• President Trump's inauguration speech links today's America to the 1930s (21-Jan-2017)
  
  
• Barack Obama in Berlin calls for greater European militarism (25-Jul-2008)
  

****
**** Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Generational Dynamics
****

Whenever I listen to a speech by Donald Trump, I'm always analyzing it
from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, because I know that
Generational Dynamics is heavily influencing the Trump administration.

Regular readers are aware that I've worked in the past with Steve
Bannon, a principal Trump advisor. I worked with him on his
documentary movie "Generation Zero," and I worked with him for years
since I started in 2010 cross-posting my articles on the Breitbart
National Security site, where he was the editor in chief.

As I've said many times in the past, Barack Obama came into office
without any clue what was going on in the world, and after 8 years in
office, I've seen no evidence that he's learned anything. Trump also
came into office without any clue what was going on in the world, and
the only relevant question is whether, unlike Obama, he's able to
learn.

It was clear when I met Steve Bannon that he was already very
knowledgeable about what was going on in the world, from serving as an
officer in the Navy and from attending Georgetown University.

However, Bannon also became extremely knowledgeable about my work on
Generational Dynamics. I know that Bannon is extremely knowledgeable
about Generational Dynamics, and I know that Bannon is very
knowledgeable about the conclusions of Generational Dynamics. And I
believe (though can't prove) that he actually agrees with those
conclusions -- that we're headed for a Clash of Civilizations world
war, where the UN, Japan, India, Russia and Iran will be pitted
against China, Pakistan, and the Sunni Muslim countries. And I
believe that these conclusions are a big part of the motivation for
Thursday's speech.

It's pretty clear to me that Trump's inauguration speech in January
and his speech Thursday in Poland were completely consistent with the
point of view of Generational Dynamics. Let's look at a couple of
issues.

People my age have wondered all our lives how it was possible for
Britain to be so thoroughly fooled by the Nazis and Adolf Hitler for
years. It was perfectly obvious that the Nazi Germany was preparing
for war with Britain, and Winston Churchill repeatedly warned about
it, so how could British leaders have been so oblivious to the danger?

Today we know the answer, as we see how oblivious the West is to the
danger from North Korea and especially from China, even though it's
perfectly obvious.

For Bannon and Trump, this presents the problem that any recognition
of this situation is met with mockery and ridicule by the mainstream
media, just as happened to Winston Churchill. We might call this "the
Neville Chamberlain effect," named after the person who declared
"peace in our time" after meeting with Hitler in 1939.

So I interpret Trump's speech on Thursday as working around these
problems. By giving a speech to a wildly enthusiastic crowd in
Poland, and calling the Polish people "the soul of Europe," he's
attempting to get around the mockery of the mainstream media, and at
the same time show that Angela Merkel's views are not unanimously held
among the G-20 leaders.

As long-time readers know, since 2003, There are some 4,000 articles
on my web site containing hundreds of predictions, all of which have
come true or are trending true. None has turned out to be false.
There have been some cases, such as my analysis of the Mideast peace
process in 2003, Lebanon in 2006, Sri Lanka in 2009, and Iran in the
last ten years, when I've been right and pretty much the rest of the
world has been wrong. There is no other web site, analyst,
journalist, economist or politician in the world with a better
predictive record than mine. A number of people have challenged this
claim, and all have failed.

Generational Dynamics is the only methodology that tells what's
actually going on in the world. Donald Trump may or may not know
what's going on in the world, but Steve Bannon definitely does, and
Bannon is Trump's principal advisor. It's very gratifying to me
personally that Generational Dynamics is guiding the policy of America
at this time of greatest peril in our history.

Trump and Bannon are trying to find a way to defeat the Generational
Dynamics predictions -- by trying to goad China into blocking North
Korea's nuclear development, by trying to challenge China in the South
China Sea with freedom of navigation trips, and by trying to rouse the
West into confronting the existential threats it faces, rather than
falling into the easy Pollyannaish feelings of the Neville Chamberlain
effect.

Trump said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Those heroes remind us that the West was saved with
> the blood of patriots; that each generation must rise up and play
> their part in its defense -- and that every foot of ground, and
> every last inch of civilization, is worth defending with your
> life."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

I wish that I could say that Trump and Bannon will find a way to
succeed at preventing the Clash of Civilizations world war, but
Generational Dynamics tells us that's mathematically impossible. We
can't even be certain that the US will survive the coming world war.
The best we can hope for is that we will survive, and that history
will look back at the America as having once again played its part in
saving civilization.


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Warsaw, Poland, Clash of Civilizations,
Germany, Angela Merkel, Russia, North Korea, China, Steve Bannon

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

Trumps speech is more to do with the Islamist threat rather than toward threats from North Korea, China and Russia. Especially Regarding Chinese and North Korean threats to the west. Here I mention Europe. If China actually was a threat to Europe, Putin's Russia would have a much different attitude toward China than it does. Russia would not have a De Facto alliance with China if they posed a threat to Europe because Russia shares a direct border with China, Europe does not. North Korea doesn't border Europe and there are no European troops oppose them. We have troops opposite them and are committed to south Korea and Japan. For that reason a North Korean threat to the US is plausible, regarding Europe However there is no such hostile relation in regards to Europe and the North Koreans have no border with Europe, so there is no plausible trigger point for an attack on Europe.

Regardless of the Level of threat China can pose to Russia, The US, and Europe; China would always be a greater threat to Russia than it would be to Europe. This is due to simple Geography, China actually borders Russia, it does not border Europe. For that reason a Chinese war with Russia or a Chinese war with the US are plausible scenarios, China invading Europe on the other hand is not a plausible scenario unless Russia has already been conquered beforehand.

Regarding North Korea it is likely that this threat would not be the case. Not Because North Korea is not developing missiles capable of hitting the US, it is and that nation is becoming more dangerous by the day. But precisely because the obvious threat it poses to the US would necessitate the imminent use of the Nuclear scalpel to remove this threat. This would also bolster deterrence crucially with both Russia and China.

(07-06-2017, 10:35 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]We can be pretty certain that phrases like "the heart of Europe" and
"the soul of Europe" were directed at Germany's Chancellor Angela
Merkel, whom Trump will be meeting on Friday.  Merkel has openly taken
on the task of proving that Trump is so awful that he is isolated in
the world, and so saying that the Polish people are "the soul of
Europe" is a preemptive strike.

Yes.  It's in the US interest to preserve NATO, but the EU, which has become a tool for European protectionism rather than for free trade, works against US interests.  A breakup of the EU would help facilitate a period of American domination after the crisis.

Quote:People my age have wondered all our lives how it was possible for
Britain to be so thoroughly fooled by the Nazis and Adolf Hitler for
years.  It was perfectly obvious that the Nazi Germany was preparing
for war with Britain, and Winston Churchill repeatedly warned about
it, so how could British leaders have been so oblivious to the danger?

Today we know the answer, as we see how oblivious the West is to the
danger from North Korea and especially from China, even though it's
perfectly obvious.

Or, perhaps, the danger is from Russia rather than - or in addition to - China, and you're also being oblivious to it.  Based on Trump's speech, he's not.

It's also to be noted that Churchill couldn't actually have done much more than Chamberlain, since the UK hadn't really rearmed at the time of the Sudeten crisis.  We may be facing a similar issue with North Korea - which incidentally is currently on better terms with Russia than with China.

(07-06-2017, 11:48 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: [ -> ]> Trumps speech is more to do with the Islamist threat rather than
> toward threats from North Korea, China and Russia. Especially
> Regarding Chinese and North Korean threats to the west. Here I
> mention Europe. If China actually was a threat to Europe, Putin's
> Russia would have a much different attitude toward China than it
> does. Russia would not have a De Facto alliance with China if they
> posed a threat to Europe because Russia shares a direct border
> with China, Europe does not. North Korea doesn't border Europe and
> there are no European troops oppose them. We have troops opposite
> them and are committed to south Korea and Japan. For that reason a
> North Korean threat to the US is plausible, regarding Europe
> However there is no such hostile relation in regards to Europe and
> the North Koreans have no border with Europe, so there is no
> plausible trigger point for an attack on Europe.

> Regardless of the Level of threat China can pose to Russia, The
> US, and Europe; China would always be a greater threat to Russia
> than it would be to Europe. This is due to simple Geography, China
> actually borders Russia, it does not border Europe. For that
> reason a Chinese war with Russia or a Chinese war with the US are
> plausible scenarios, China invading Europe on the other hand is
> not a plausible scenario unless Russia has already been conquered
> beforehand.

> Regarding North Korea it is likely that this threat would not be
> the case. Not Because North Korea is not developing missiles
> capable of hitting the US, it is and that nation is becoming more
> dangerous by the day. But precisely because the obvious threat it
> poses to the US would necessitate the imminent use of the Nuclear
> scalpel to remove this threat. This would also bolster deterrence
> crucially with both Russia and China.

Apparently you're not fully up to date on the news. Russia
and China are conducting joint naval military exercises in
the Baltic Sea.

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/05/china-r...n-maritime

(07-07-2017, 10:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> Yes. It's in the US interest to preserve NATO, but the EU, which
> has become a tool for European protectionism rather than for free
> trade, works against US interests. A breakup of the EU would help
> facilitate a period of American domination after the
> crisis.

There's no way that I'm aware of to reach those conclusions from that
assumption. At any rate, it's a moot point, since the EU will not
survive the war in its present form. After the war, there will be a
big international conference, where international boundaries will be
redrawn, losers will be condemned, and winners will be write the
history of what happened. At that time, the EU will be reconstituted
in some way to take advantage of "lessons learned" from the war.

(07-07-2017, 10:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]> Or, perhaps, the danger is from Russia rather than - or in
> addition to - China, and you're also being oblivious to it. Based
> on Trump's speech, he's not.

> It's also to be noted that Churchill couldn't actually have done
> much more than Chamberlain, since the UK hadn't really rearmed at
> the time of the Sudeten crisis. We may be facing a similar issue
> with North Korea - which incidentally is currently on better terms
> with Russia than with China.

Apparently you aren't up to date with the latest news.

Trump did criticize Russia by saying, "We urge Russia to cease its
destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, and its support for
hostile regimes -- including Syria and Iran." But also, Trump and
Putin are giving the appearance of being very friendly -- though that
could change, as they're still meeting.

On the other hand, relations between Trump and Xi have been changing
dramatically, since their friendly meeting in Florida. In just the
last week, the administration has imposed sanctions on a Chinese bank
for helping NK, has sold arms to Taiwan, has met with Modi, has
criticized China's human trafficking, and has conducted freedom of
navigation operation in the South China Sea.

So I would say that Trump's relations with Xi are far more hostile
than his relations with Putin.

--

I analyze events in a way completely different from the way that both
of you do. What you've been doing is similar to looking at the
weather reports for the last six months, extrapolating them forward,
and concluding that by December the temperature in NY city will be 150
degrees.

The whole point of generational theory is that you can't do that
extrapolation. As I've explained on my web site, you can apply System
Dynamics, as developed by MIT's Jay Forrester, applying it to
generational flows.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, everything going on
today between Russia and China is a collection of fatuous political
moves based on their common "criminal" activities, invading and
annexing regions belonging to other countries, and not nearly as
important as the flow of history between the two countries. The
political relationships can change overnight, but the historical
relations are core attitudes buried deep within the generations.

As you say, China borders Russia, and a war with China would endanger
Russia more than the US. I agree, though those Chinese missiles are
specifically designed to be as destructive as possible to the US.
However, those missiles are also a danger to Europe, so no one is
safe.

The Hamburgers are rioting at the G-20.

(07-07-2017, 11:33 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2017, 11:48 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]>   Trumps speech is more to do with the Islamist threat rather than
>   toward threats from North Korea, China and Russia. Especially
>   Regarding Chinese and North Korean threats to the west. Here I
>   mention Europe. If China actually was a threat to Europe, Putin's
>   Russia would have a much different attitude toward China than it
>   does. Russia would not have a De Facto alliance with China if they
>   posed a threat to Europe because Russia shares a direct border
>   with China, Europe does not. North Korea doesn't border Europe and
>   there are no European troops oppose them. We have troops opposite
>   them and are committed to south Korea and Japan. For that reason a
>   North Korean threat to the US is plausible, regarding Europe
>   However there is no such hostile relation in regards to Europe and
>   the North Koreans have no border with Europe, so there is no
>   plausible trigger point for an attack on Europe.

>   Regardless of the Level of threat China can pose to Russia, The
>   US, and Europe; China would always be a greater threat to Russia
>   than it would be to Europe. This is due to simple Geography, China
>   actually borders Russia, it does not border Europe. For that
>   reason a Chinese war with Russia or a Chinese war with the US are
>   plausible scenarios, China invading Europe on the other hand is
>   not a plausible scenario unless Russia has already been conquered
>   beforehand.

>   Regarding North Korea it is likely that this threat would not be
>   the case. Not Because North Korea is not developing missiles
>   capable of hitting the US, it is and that nation is becoming more
>   dangerous by the day. But precisely because the obvious threat it
>   poses to the US would necessitate the imminent use of the Nuclear
>   scalpel to remove this threat. This would also bolster deterrence
>   crucially with both Russia and China.

Apparently you're not fully up to date on the news.  Russia
and China are conducting joint naval military exercises in
the Baltic Sea.

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/05/china-r...n-maritime

(07-07-2017, 10:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]>   Yes.  It's in the US interest to preserve NATO, but the EU, which
>   has become a tool for European protectionism rather than for free
>   trade, works against US interests.  A breakup of the EU would help
>   facilitate a period of American domination after the
>   crisis.

There's no way that I'm aware of to reach those conclusions from that
assumption.  At any rate, it's a moot point, since the EU will not
survive the war in its present form.  After the war, there will be a
big international conference, where international boundaries will be
redrawn, losers will be condemned, and winners will be write the
history of what happened.  At that time, the EU will be reconstituted
in some way to take advantage of "lessons learned" from the war.

(07-07-2017, 10:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]>   Or, perhaps, the danger is from Russia rather than - or in
>   addition to - China, and you're also being oblivious to it.  Based
>   on Trump's speech, he's not.

>   It's also to be noted that Churchill couldn't actually have done
>   much more than Chamberlain, since the UK hadn't really rearmed at
>   the time of the Sudeten crisis. We may be facing a similar issue
>   with North Korea - which incidentally is currently on better terms
>   with Russia than with China.

Apparently you aren't up to date with the latest news.

Trump did criticize Russia by saying, "We urge Russia to cease its
destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, and its support for
hostile regimes -- including Syria and Iran."  But also, Trump and
Putin are giving the appearance of being very friendly -- though that
could change, as they're still meeting.

On the other hand, relations between Trump and Xi have been changing
dramatically, since their friendly meeting in Florida.  In just the
last week, the administration has imposed sanctions on a Chinese bank
for helping NK, has sold arms to Taiwan, has met with Modi, has
criticized China's human trafficking, and has conducted freedom of
navigation operation in the South China Sea.

So I would say that Trump's relations with Xi are far more hostile
than his relations with Putin.

--

I analyze events in a way completely different from the way that both
of you do.  What you've been doing is similar to looking at the
weather reports for the last six months, extrapolating them forward,
and concluding that by December the temperature in NY city will be 150
degrees.

The whole point of generational theory is that you can't do that
extrapolation.  As I've explained on my web site, you can apply System
Dynamics, as developed by MIT's Jay Forrester, applying it to
generational flows.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, everything going on
today between Russia and China is a collection of fatuous political
moves based on their common "criminal" activities, invading and
annexing regions belonging to other countries, and not nearly as
important as the flow of history between the two countries.  The
political relationships can change overnight, but the historical
relations are core attitudes buried deep within the generations.

As you say, China borders Russia, and a war with China would endanger
Russia more than the US.  I agree, though those Chinese missiles are
specifically designed to be as destructive as possible to the US.
However, those missiles are also a danger to Europe, so no one is
safe.

JohnX can argue that China is a threat to the US, Japan, South korea, Russia, India, vietnam, the Philippines and Europe or even to North Korea. And it may very well be a threat to all of these countries even an existential threat to all of these countries. But that is not the argument JohnX that you seemed to have been making. The problem JohnX is that you seemed to be arguing that China is not a threat to Russia while at the same time is an existential threat to Europe. That scenario is impossible. If china is aggressive and expansionist and is an existential threat to Europe and the US, then that threat is immeasurably greater to Russia that it would be to either the US and Europe because neither western blocs shares a direct border with china. On the other hand russia shares a madrive 3000 mile long border with china and there are several PLA army groups permanently deployed directly opposite that border.

(07-07-2017, 11:48 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: [ -> ]> JohnX can argue that China is a threat to the US, Japan, South
> korea, Russia, India, vietnam, the Philippines and Europe or even
> to North Korea. And it may very well be a threat to all of these
> countries even an existential threat to all of these
> countries. But that is not the argument JohnX that you seemed to
> have been making. The problem JohnX is that you seemed to be
> arguing that China is not a threat to Russia while at the same
> time is an existential threat to Europe. That scenario is
> impossible. If china is aggressive and expansionist and is an
> existential threat to Europe and the US, then that threat is
> immeasurably greater to Russia that it would be to either the US
> and Europe because neither western blocs shares a direct border
> with china. On the other hand russia shares a madrive 3000 mile
> long border with china and there are several PLA army groups
> permanently deployed directly opposite that border.

Did you even read the comments you're responding to?

(07-07-2017, 12:04 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-07-2017, 11:48 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]>   JohnX can argue that China is a threat to the US, Japan, South
>   korea, Russia, India, vietnam, the Philippines and Europe or even
>   to North Korea. And it may very well be a threat to all of these
>   countries even an existential threat to all of these
>   countries. But that is not the argument JohnX that you seemed to
>   have been making. The problem JohnX is that you seemed to be
>   arguing that China is not a threat to Russia while at the same
>   time is an existential threat to Europe. That scenario is
>   impossible. If china is aggressive and expansionist and is an
>   existential threat to Europe and the US, then that threat is
>   immeasurably greater to Russia that it would be to either the US
>   and Europe because neither western blocs shares a direct border
>   with china. On the other hand russia shares a madrive 3000 mile
>   long border with china and there are several PLA army groups
>   permanently deployed directly opposite that border.  

Did you even read the comments you're responding to?

I had already wrote up this statement when you replied to the earlier statement. I did not want that reply to go to waste however

(07-07-2017, 11:37 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]The Hamburgers are rioting at the G-20.

A disgrace to Germany. Funnily I for a second thought you had meant burgers being served to the leaders at the g20 when I remembered the huge riots that were mentioned on the news yesterday .

(07-07-2017, 11:33 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, everything going on
today between Russia and China is a collection of fatuous political
moves based on their common "criminal" activities, invading and
annexing regions belonging to other countries, and not nearly as
important as the flow of history between the two countries.  The
political relationships can change overnight, but the historical
relations are core attitudes buried deep within the generations.

Thats right and Russian Xers and Millies are quite anti-american/anti-western. Russian Boomers were pro-american in their youth but have tended to be anti-american since the collapse of the USSR. The only really pro-western generation in Russia were/are the silents and relations with Russia were much better from the mid-1980s to early 2000s when that generation was in power. 

In the west the notion that the human rights tyranny would be what the west would rally around and the 4T war would be triggered around those issues are laughable. Only the boomers care about free trade, international human rights, international unimpeded trade routes and globalism. Most Xers, Millies and likely Homies (new artists) as well despise human rights, globalism and free-trade. Those Xers and Millies who have embraced those boomer ideas are laughed at as social justice warriors (SJWs) and are despised by the rest off these generations.

Also Regarding Trump mentioning Poland as a cradle of western culture, that was a statement simply to say thanks to polish support to NATO and a snub toward Merkel due to her refusal to reform the EU and curb Muslim immigration. Those particular lines were also to throw a bone to the neocons, not because trump actually believes that. Only neocons would be foolish enough to actually believe that Poland was a main progenitor of western values. Western Culture originated with the Frankish Empire and the defeat of the Muslim invasion of western Europe by Charles Martel in 732 ad. After the victory over the Muslims the franks gradually embraced a policy of supporting the church in Rome against the church's local enemies and as support in the church's disputes with the byzantine emperor in Constantinople. Later when Charlemagne conquered most of what became europe the papacy legitimized his right to rule by proclaiming that it represented the rebirth of the western roman empire, this was in 800 ad. When the Frankish empire collapsed during the 840s, the treaty of Verdun acknowledged France, Germany and Lotharingia (the low countries and italy) as independent nations in 843 Ad . That was the birth of western civilization. Poland however was not incorporated into the west until at least the 11th century

Poland also missed several crucial developments in the evolution of western culture and politics. Most notably the age of absolutism that lasted from roughly 1650 to 1850. In this era nations would implement policies that usually centralized the state to be directly subordinate to the monarch. The power of the local aristocracy in most countries was severely curtailed and the armed forces in those countries would be professionalized and made answerable directly to the monarch. The curbed aristocracy would be converted into the officer corps of these armies. Such reforms were pioneered in France under Louis XIV and later implemented in Spain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, even to a limited extent in the ottoman empire as well. Poland missed this era and because of that first lost territory to its neighbors and then eventually was conquered entirely and partitioned by Austria, Prussia, and Russia. In sum the idea of poland as a cradle to western values is highly dubious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism

(07-07-2017, 11:33 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-07-2017, 10:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]>   Yes.  It's in the US interest to preserve NATO, but the EU, which
>   has become a tool for European protectionism rather than for free
>   trade, works against US interests.  A breakup of the EU would help
>   facilitate a period of American domination after the
>   crisis.

There's no way that I'm aware of to reach those conclusions from that
assumption.  At any rate, it's a moot point, since the EU will not
survive the war in its present form.  After the war, there will be a
big international conference, where international boundaries will be
redrawn, losers will be condemned, and winners will be write the
history of what happened.  At that time, the EU will be reconstituted
in some way to take advantage of "lessons learned" from the war.

If you're interested, I can explain the logic.

Quote:

(07-07-2017, 10:22 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]>   Or, perhaps, the danger is from Russia rather than - or in
>   addition to - China, and you're also being oblivious to it.  Based
>   on Trump's speech, he's not.

>   It's also to be noted that Churchill couldn't actually have done
>   much more than Chamberlain, since the UK hadn't really rearmed at
>   the time of the Sudeten crisis. We may be facing a similar issue
>   with North Korea - which incidentally is currently on better terms
>   with Russia than with China.

Apparently you aren't up to date with the latest news.

Trump did criticize Russia by saying, "We urge Russia to cease its
destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, and its support for
hostile regimes -- including Syria and Iran."  But also, Trump and
Putin are giving the appearance of being very friendly -- though that
could change, as they're still meeting.

On the other hand, relations between Trump and Xi have been changing
dramatically, since their friendly meeting in Florida.  In just the
last week, the administration has imposed sanctions on a Chinese bank
for helping NK, has sold arms to Taiwan, has met with Modi, has
criticized China's human trafficking, and has conducted freedom of
navigation operation in the South China Sea.

So I would say that Trump's relations with Xi are far more hostile
than his relations with Putin.

You're extrapolating from month to month variations in rhetoric.  As you yourself point out, that's not a valid approach.

My position is that both Russia and China are potential adversaries for us and for each other in the crisis war, but we don't yet know for sure how things will play out.  Your justifications for your projected alignments are based on multiple layers of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic, and the potential for error compounds with each layer, making your projections of very low confidence and unconvincing.

Trump is maintaining engagement with the leaders of both, but also acknowledging our differences with both.  That flexibility, to me, is a good thing.

(07-07-2017, 11:33 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]As you say, China borders Russia, and a war with China would endanger
Russia more than the US.  I agree, though those Chinese missiles are
specifically designed to be as destructive as possible to the US.
However, those missiles are also a danger to Europe, so no one is
safe.

But the Majority of the Chinese buildup is of "carrier killer" missiles such as the DF-15, DF-21 and DF-26. These missiles can also be converted in to land-based attack missiles in the case of a war against a land based enemy. The very fact that these missile were constructed means the PLA is following an attrition/open battle based military doctrine. This is because the Current base ports of the US carriers are beyond the range of these missiles. In a sneak attack the carriers could simply be taken out at port by regular ICBMs, that carrier based tech and tech to counter carriers is being constructed indicates that the Chinese doctrine is of winning an open battle not a sneak attack battle. Europe is beyond range of most of these systems except the ICBMs, and Chinese-European relations are quite good actually.

Also Trumps moves against China have been more to leverage Chinese support against North Korea than any move toward a direct confrontation with the PRC.