Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Generational Dynamics World View
** 15-Oct-2019 CH86 returns

(10-15-2019, 05:06 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > You know full well John that the culture wars/partisanship is a
> dog and pony show designed to distract the masses. I'm going to
> ask you a simple question, when is the establishment class going
> to stop pretending it's still 1995?

Wait a minute. Didn't you just say a few days ago that you were
leaving forever? As I used to say to Sean Love, we can't miss you if
you don't leave.

Anyway, I assume that you mean your question as a dumb joke, but it's
actually very insightful, whether intentionally or not.

I've written about this particularly with regard to the Brexit
situation. Everyone in the EU and UK expects the other side to
negotiate and be willing to compromise. That's because they're
all pretending that it's still 1995, when the Silents were running
things, and they knew how to negotiate and compromise. But today,
the Gen-Xers are in charge, and they're incapable of negotiating
and compromising.

So the answer to your question is this: The establishment class is
going to stop pretending it's still 1995 during the First Turning,
after WW III ends.
Reply
(10-15-2019, 05:45 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 15-Oct-2019 CH86 returns

(10-15-2019, 05:06 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   You know full well John that the culture wars/partisanship is a
>   dog and pony show designed to distract the masses. I'm going to
>   ask you a simple question, when is the establishment class going
>   to stop pretending it's still 1995?  

Wait a minute.  Didn't you just say a few days ago that you were
leaving forever?  As I used to say to Sean Love, we can't miss you if
you don't leave.

Anyway, I assume that you mean your question as a dumb joke, but it's
actually very insightful, whether intentionally or not.

I've written about this particularly with regard to the Brexit
situation.  Everyone in the EU and UK expects the other side to
negotiate and be willing to compromise.  That's because they're
all pretending that it's still 1995, when the Silents were running
things, and they knew how to negotiate and compromise.  But today,
the Gen-Xers are in charge, and they're incapable of negotiating
and compromising.

So the answer to your question is this: The establishment class is
going to stop pretending it's still 1995 during the First Turning,
after WW III ends.
Sorry boomer but we'really not going to pretend that it's the equivalent of 1919 until the equivalent of 1955. Sorry but that's definitely not going to happen. And before you dismiss what i've said; keep in mind that the dynamics you described above DIDN'T happen during WW2.
Reply
(10-15-2019, 12:25 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-14-2019, 11:27 AM)David Horn Wrote: The purpose of our small force in the region, and our commitment to the Kurds, was to keep ISIS in check, and the two large warring factions from burning the place to the ground.  Now we're out and, I suspect, the carnage will grow exponentially -- unless DJT gives Putting the relief from sanctions he wants so desperately.

If so, with the Islamic State gone, there wasn't any point to keeping the troops there.  I don't know which two large factions you're talking about, but why should our troops die instead of them?

The Islamic State isn't gone, just the caliphate.  IS is still there and will regenerate quickly.  The factions are the Turks, and their natural allies, and the Iranians and theirs.  The Russians are just in it for the money, but yes, they qualify as a faction too.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(10-15-2019, 12:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-15-2019, 09:52 AM)David Horn Wrote: We might even fight limited wars using hypersonic missiles, but full-up fight-to-the-death war?  No.

This is kind of a scary statement.  It's exactly when disasters - wars, depressions, etc - start to be thought impossible that they're the most likely to happen.

The stakes are simply too high, and the actors capable of starting a war like that are not crazy enough to try … except for the Donald of course.  Let's hope the military brass have enough control to stop it if he goes full postal.  I doubt any sane officer would permit a nuclear launch short of a response to one on us.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(10-15-2019, 05:41 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 15-Oct-2019 World View: Iran in Syria

Lindsey Graham was interviewed on Fox News this evening, after he met with Trump for two hours.

He says that Iran is moving troops to take over the oil fields in Syria's northeast, and he recommended to Trump to send in American soldiers to protect the oil fields.

I wanted to report this because I haven't mentioned Iran so far in my previous reports.

Assume that the local fighting will grow, since the Persians and Ottomans hate each other, and both are mired in the distant past. The Kurds will be pounded by both, so nothing good for them in all this.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(10-15-2019, 06:19 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Sorry boomer but we'really not going to pretend that it's the equivalent of 1919 until the equivalent of 1955. Sorry but that's definitely not going to happen. And before you dismiss what i've said; keep in mind that the dynamics you described above DIDN'T happen during WW2.

Actually, they did happen in the runup to WWII, for example with the various Naval Treaties.  Originally everyone found a compromise, then there was less and less compromise in subsequent treaties until they couldn't get to anything anyone would sign any more.

Granted, it seems to me it was the idealists rather than the reactives that didn't want to compromise in both cases.
Reply
(10-16-2019, 01:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: The stakes are simply too high, and the actors capable of starting a war like that are not crazy enough to try … except for the Donald of course.  Let's hope the military brass have enough control to stop it if he goes full postal.  I doubt any sane officer would permit a nuclear launch short of a response to one on us.

Personally I don't regard the Ayatollah or Kim as any stabler.  Then there are Modi and Johnson, the Donald Trumps of their nations.  The number of unstable leaders of nuclear weapon nations only seems to grow, not shrink.

Quote:The factions are the Turks, and their natural allies, and the Iranians and theirs. The Russians are just in it for the money, but yes, they qualify as a faction too.
So which of those do you think Americans should die for, again?
Reply
(10-16-2019, 02:32 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-16-2019, 01:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: The stakes are simply too high, and the actors capable of starting a war like that are not crazy enough to try … except for the Donald of course.  Let's hope the military brass have enough control to stop it if he goes full postal.  I doubt any sane officer would permit a nuclear launch short of a response to one on us.

Personally I don't regard the Ayatollah or Kim as any stabler.  Then there are Modi and Johnson, the Donald Trumps of their nations.  The number of unstable leaders of nuclear weapon nations only seems to grow, not shrink.

Kim is under the watchful eye of the Chinese, and he knows it.  Modi has his eye on Kashmir, and may start something with the Pakistanis.  Both have nukes, so it will stay conventional.  Boris Johnson acts crazier than he is.

Warren Dew Wrote:
David Horn Wrote:The factions are the Turks, and their natural allies, and the Iranians and theirs.  The Russians are just in it for the money, but yes, they qualify as a faction too.

So which of those do you think Americans should die for, again?

None.  Being there is enough to deter action, or they would have been overrun long ago.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(10-16-2019, 02:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-15-2019, 06:19 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Sorry boomer but we'really not going to pretend that it's the equivalent of 1919 until the equivalent of 1955. Sorry but that's definitely not going to happen. And before you dismiss what i've said; keep in mind that the dynamics you described above DIDN'T happen during WW2.

Actually, they did happen in the runup to WWII, for example with the various Naval Treaties.  Originally everyone found a compromise, then there was less and less compromise in subsequent treaties until they couldn't get to anything anyone would sign any more.

Granted, it seems to me it was the idealists rather than the reactives that didn't want to compromise in both cases.

Yes at first But not after about 1935 or so when Hitler unveiled the Wehrmacht. In the far east no one really sought compromise after about 1932. Any agreements after these periods were purely tactical moves. This remained the case even after 1945, the idea of honest compromise did not reemerge until 1954, after Stalin's death and the subsequent purge of Stalinist hardliners from the Kremlin leadership.
Reply
(10-16-2019, 03:33 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote:
(10-16-2019, 02:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-15-2019, 06:19 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Sorry boomer but we'really not going to pretend that it's the equivalent of 1919 until the equivalent of 1955. Sorry but that's definitely not going to happen. And before you dismiss what i've said; keep in mind that the dynamics you described above DIDN'T happen during WW2.

Actually, they did happen in the runup to WWII, for example with the various Naval Treaties.  Originally everyone found a compromise, then there was less and less compromise in subsequent treaties until they couldn't get to anything anyone would sign any more.

Granted, it seems to me it was the idealists rather than the reactives that didn't want to compromise in both cases.

Yes at first But not after about 1935 or so when Hitler unveiled the Wehrmacht. In the far east no one really sought compromise after about 1932. Any agreements after these periods were purely tactical moves. This remained the case even after 1945, the idea of honest compromise did not reemerge until 1954, after Stalin's death and the subsequent purge of Stalinist hardliners from the Kremlin leadership.

The second London Naval treaty permitted Japan to sign and prevent escalator clauses up to 1937, so we were still pretending it was 1919 up until then.  I do think WWII ended the pretence - with Pearl Harbor for the US - and the current pretence will end with WWIII.
Reply
(10-16-2019, 09:04 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-16-2019, 03:33 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Yes at first But not after about 1935 or so when Hitler unveiled the Wehrmacht. In the far east no one really sought compromise after about 1932. Any agreements after these periods were purely tactical moves. This remained the case even after 1945, the idea of honest compromise did not reemerge until 1954, after Stalin's death and the subsequent purge of Stalinist hardliners from the Kremlin leadership.

The second London Naval treaty permitted Japan to sign and prevent escalator clauses up to 1937, so we were still pretending it was 1919 up until then.  I do think WWII ended the pretense - with Pearl Harbor for the US - and the current pretense will end with WWIII.

Let's hope not. Recovering from any version of WWIII will not be as easy as the recovery from WWII, and that was no picnic.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
*** 18-Oct-19 World View -- Generational analysis of Syria war and ceasefire agreement

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
  • Turkey and the United States agree to a ceasefire
  • Turkey's long preparations for invasion of Syria
  • Turkey's uncontrolled invasion into Syria
  • Dozens of warring parties and ethnic groups in Syria
  • The rise of Russia's influence in Syria
  • Will there be a war between Turkey and Russia?

****
**** Turkey and the United States agree to a ceasefire
****


[Image: g191017b.jpg]
Thursday's negotiations in Ankara. The Turks are on the left, and the Americans are on the right, led respectively by Tayyip Recep Erdogan and Mike Pence. (AP)

In a surprise announcement by Turkey and the United States on
Thursday, Turkey agreed to a temporary ceasefire in its invasion of
Syria, and to end its invasion completely if the ceasefire holds for
five days.

According to reports, Turkey's president Tayyip Recep Erdogan was
visibly angered by being forced to accept this ceasefire, in the face
of harsh economic sanctions and threats of even more sanctions by the
Trump administration.

However, the agreement specifies that Turkey will get some of what it
wants, as well. The US will cooperate with Turkey to set up the
buffer zone that Turkey has been demanding for five years, a strip of
land in northern Syria, 32 km deep and 150 or 300 km long.

The US also agrees to destroy the heavy weapons that it provided to
the Kurds to fight ISIS, and to transport the military Kurdish YPG out
of the buffer zone.

Turkey is hosting 3.6 million refugees who fled across the border
into Turkey to escape the violence. Erdogan has demanded to
relocate 2 million of those refugees back into Syria in the buffer zone,
but it's unclear that they will ever be able to accomplish this.

The rest of this article analyzes Turkey's invasion of Syria from the
point of view of a Generational Dynamics analysis, and conclude with
some forecasts of scenarios about what will happen next.

****
**** Turkey's long preparations for invasion of Syria
****


For almost two years, Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been
massing troops and forces on the border with Syria, in preparation for
an invasion to establish a "safe zone" or "buffer zone," a strip of
land 32 km (22 miles) wide in northern Syria, along the border with
Turkey.

The Kurds in northeast Syria have made it clear that they want to
create a Kurdish state named "Rojava" along the border. Erdogan has
made it clear for years, that Turkey will not tolerate having 60,000
armed Kurds permanently located on the border with Turkey, after
Turkey has been fighting an internal war with Kurd separatists and terrorists
for three decades.

Turkey claims that hundreds of Turkish citizens living near the border
have been killed in frequent terror attacks by the Turkistan Workers'
Party (PKK) and al-Qaeda terrorists crossing the border from Syria.
Erdogan has been furious for years that America and Europe haven't
supported his efforts to end these terror attacks.

A major objective of Erdogan is to push the 60,000 armed Kurds and al-Qaeda
terrorists back below the buffer zone.

Erdogan has also been furious for years that Europe won't provide
support for any of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees that Turkey has
been coasting. These 3.6 million refugees include 300,000 Kurds. The
Europeans for five years have been telling Erdogan to wait, because
all these 3.6 million refugees will soon return to Syria. Ironically,
Erdogan's plan for the buffer zone is to provide a region for the
refugees to return to.

So Erdogan has plenty of reasons to feel a growing fury, which is why
he's been massing troops on the Syria border, in preparation for an
invasion to create a buffer zone. Erdogan has held back because there
has been an American "tripwire" force of about 26 soldiers in
observation posts in Syria along Turkey's border.

On Sunday, October 6, Donald Trump spoke on the telephone with
Erdogan. Apparently Erdogan told Trump that the invasion was
occurring whether the "tripwire" was in place or not. Trump announced
that the 26 soldiers in the tripwire would be withdrawn.

****
**** Turkey's uncontrolled invasion into Syria
****


After Trump's announcement the invasion began. There were 15,000 soldiers
in the Turkish troops, but apparently most of them are Syrian Arabs
in the Syrian National Army (SNA). In the past there have been two
previous Turkish incursions into Syria, and in both cases it was SNA fighters
that did most of the fighting, with Turkey providing support.

This week, there were immediately reports of the Turkish forces
massacring Kurds on the ground. There was a video of an SNA Arab
torturing and killing a Kurd, and bragging about it.

There were reports that Turkish/SNA forces are going farther south
than was needed for the buffer zone. There were reports that Turkish
airstrikes were forcing thousands of Kurdish families to flee their
homes to the south. However, these reports come from media are
overwhelmingly hostile to Turkey, and so it's possible that these
reports are huge exaggerations. At any rate, it's impossible to
verify them at the present time.

In the last 15 years, I've read about and written about hundreds of
incursions, military actions, invasions, and so forth, all around the
world. In some cases, the incursion is carefully controlled and
organized. These are typical of non-crisis wars.

Other incursions are highly emotional, organic, uncontrolled and
disorganized, and that seems to be the case with Turkey's invasion of
Syria. These are typical of actions taken at the beginning of a
generational crisis war.

Turkey's invasion of Syria shows all the signs of being organic and
uncontrolled, not fully under the control of Turkey's armed forces
command. In particular, the Arabs in the SNA appear to be responsible
for the massacres, and are taking actions that are not controlled
by the Turkish command.

So does this mean that Turkey and the Kurds are headed for a full-scaled
generational crisis war? Absolutely not.

We have a recent example that illustrates what's most likely to
happen.

The best recent analogy would be Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon to
attack Hezbollah. Israel panicked when two Israeli soldiers were
abducted near Lebanon's border, and conducted a highly emotional,
organic and uncontrolled invasion of Lebanon. The war was a disaster
for all involved. After a few months, the war had run its course,
with nothing accomplished except to destroy a lot of Lebanon's
infrastructure in airstrikes, and displace a lot of Lebanese from
their homes.

The invasion of Lebanon fizzled because Lebanon was in a
generatinal Awakening era. Syria is also in a generational Awakening
era, so Turkey's new invasion is almost certain to fizzle unless,
as we'll describe later, Russia's armed forces confront Turkey.

So, as I've been writing for the last few days in the Generational
Dynamics forum, it's more likely than not that Turkey's Syria
incursion will end in a few weeks. Erdogan made a statement a few
days ago that the incursion will stop when it has created a buffer
zone 400 km wide and 35 km deep, and that statement is credible,
though it may have been superceded by Thursday's ceasefire
announcement.

****
**** Dozens of warring parties and ethnic groups in Syria
****


Turkey's invasion of Syria appears to be a lot more uncontrolled than
analysts had expected, suggesting that there's more going on than a
simple action to create a buffer zone, to protect Turkey from PKK and
al-Qaeda "terrorists." In fact, Turkey's last generational crisis war
was the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Turkish independence
following World War I, and so Turkey is very deep into a generational
crisis war. And so it's not surprising that parts of the invasion
have become disorganized and uncontrolled, at least for a while.

Bashar al-Assad is a Shia/Alawite, and Syria's last generational
crisis war was a religious/ethnic civil war between the Shia Alawites
versus the Sunnis, including the ethnic Turkmens, climaxing in
February, 1982. So there's a great deal of animus between the
Alawites and the Turks. However, survivors of that Syrian civil war
are still alive, and they have no desire for another bloody
uncontrolled crisis war, so they will make sure that it stays
controlled, despite al-Assad's genocidal tactics. So Syria is in a
generational Awakening era, like Lebanon during Israel's 2006
invasion, so it's likely that Turkey's invasion of Syria will fizzle
over a furious period of two or three months.

A new Syrian civil war began in 2011, but it's an Awakening era war,
so it's well-controlled. It should have fizzled within a few months
in 2011. But it was propelled by the sociopathic monster Bashar
al-Assad, who personally pursued the war by targeting political
enemies, innocent women and children in markets, schools and
hospitals, using barrel bombs, chlorine gas and Sarin gas.

Even so, it's been clear from the beginning that the Syrian people
themselves did not want to fight. By 2015, al-Assad himself announced
publicly that he was going to lose the war, and he begged for help,
which he received from Russia, in return for establishing two Russian
military bases, Tartus naval base and Hmeimim airbase).

So today, here's a (partial) list of all the groups fighting
in Syria:
  • Syria's armed forces, Russia's armed forces,
  • Iran, Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hezbollah,
  • ISIS (Islamic State, Daesh),
  • HTS (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, HTS, Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Nusra Front),
  • JFS (Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, JFS, Front for the Conquest of Syria),
  • Turkey's armed forces, SNA (Syrian National Army),
  • United States armed forces and coalition forces,
  • YPG (People's Protection Units), PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party)
  • SDF (Syrian Democratic/Defense Forces), multiple Kurdish groups,
  • several Christian groups and other religious minorities

Most of these are small groups formed on an ad-hoc basis for a
specific purpose.

The Kurds themselves are not a monolithic group, as described by a
member of the Generational Dynamics forum, an American soldier who
fought in Iraq and Syria:

<QUOTE>"John, When people talk about the Kurds, they are
mistaken. The “Kurds” are not a monolithic group. That is a
general title that has many “diverse” groups and that term is used
by the lazy media. I dealt with the “Kurds.” There are radical
communists “Kurds” that will snuff out the Islamic/Wahhabi “Kurds”
in a heartbeat. Many are armed families that are organized into
“battalions” that would be a glorified light infantry
company/platoon in a western army. A tiny few hate the Turks and
love killing them. Many live in Turkey and have no problems with
the Turks. Like the Afghans, they will align with the big “man”
for self-preservation of the tribe/ethnic group. The Turks will
make nice with the “Kurds” for now; it is the least bloody way
forward, since the “Kurds” make a sizeable minority in Turkey
proper."<END QUOTE>


So this makes the point that there are dozens of Arab, Kurdish,
Alawite and Turkish groups fighting in Syria. Each group has its own
agenda, its own hatreds, its own objectives, its own allegiances, and
its own set of tricks to use on Americans to get their support.

This chaos should be kept in mind by those politicians who claim that
the US should send troops into Syria to defend our "allies," the Kurds.
Which of those dozens of groups would the American troops be aligned
with?

****
**** The rise of Russia's influence in Syria
****


If you look at all the list of groups fighting in Syria, you'll see
that almost all of them are small ethnic or ad-hoc groups with various
agendas. But not all.

In that list, there are six national armies actively fighting: Syria,
Russia, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon-Hezbollah, United States.

Of these six, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon-Hezbollah have armies in
generational Awakening eras, with little will to fight an expanding
war.

Two of them, Turkey and Russia, are in generational Crisis eras.
These two countries are historic enemies, and have fought many
generational crisis wars with each other. One of those was the
Crimean War of the 1850s, which was disastrous for both sides, but
feelings from the Crimean war have been revived in recent years
because of Russia's illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea, and
expulsion of the Tatars, a Turkic ethnic group from Crimea. And
there's also tension over the Bosphorus, which is controlled by
Turkey, but is heavily used by Russia (and other nations) as the
connection between the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea. And of
course, tensions were extremely high after Turkey "accidentally" shot
down a Russian warplane in November, 2015.

Turkey and Russia know how strong their mutual xenophobia has become,
and they're both aware that a small conflict could lead to a major
war, which neither side wants. So Turkey and Russia have been making
Herculean efforts, through the "Astana process," to stay out of each
other's way, to prevent an action that could lead to a major war.
This is typical of countries in a generational Crisis era, who know
that a miscalculation could lead to a major generational crisis war,
but instead force themselves to compromise rather than go to war.
Eventually, however, compromise becomes impossible, and small
incidents escalate into full-scale war.

Since 2011, Russia has been fully engaged in supporting al-Assad's
genocide and ethnic cleansing of his Arab Sunni political enemies,
including Turkic groups such as Turkmens. But Turkey has let Russia
and al-Assad have their way, even including chlorine and Sarin gas,
and has not interfered, having agreed to the farcical "de-escalation
zones" in the "Astana process," because they realize that not letting
the Russians get their way would mean full-scale war.

Al-Assad and Russia have used the de-escalation zone agreement to
conduct full-scale genocidal war on all the people in every
de-escalation zone except one. In Aleppo, Ghouta and Daraa, where
Bashar al-Assad has used barrel bombs on hospitals, schools,
marketplaces and residential neighborhoods, along with chlorine gas
and Sarin gas, forcing people to flee to Idlib.

The remaining de-escalation zone is Idlib, in northwest Syria, on
Turkey's border. Al-Assad would like to go in an exterminate all
three million Arab Sunnis living in Idlib, including women and
children, all of whom are "terrorists" according to al-Assad, and
Russia would like to help him, but everyone knows that would be
opposed militarily by Turkey, and could lead to a Russia-Turkey war.
So there's a continuing tense standoff in Idlib.

Returning now to northeast Syria, we have the Kurds, who want to form
their own secessionist state of Rojava on the border with Turkey.
Thanks to their US-backed fight against ISIS, the Kurds now have
control of a large part of Syria, including the planned state of
Rojava, and gaining control of that land was a major part of their
motivation to fight ISIS.

Now the Kurds have Rojava almost in their grasp, but the thought of
Rojava with tens of thousands of armed Kurds on Turkey's border makes
the Turks' blood run cold, as terrorist attacks in Turkey would
certainly be launched from Rojava. So Turkey has invaded Syria in
order to set up a buffer zone, and destroy the Rojava dream once and
for all.

****
**** Will there be a war between Turkey and Russia?
****


The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Force (SDF) has been threatening for a
year to make an agreement Bashar al-Assad for the protection of the
Kurds from Turkey. The SDF has formalized the deal in the last few
days, and the Syrian Army has been moving north to protect the Kurds.

In response, Russian special forces have been moving into northeast
Syria, taking over some of the responsibilities that the US military
previously had, to keep SDF and Turkish forces separated as much as
possible.

Many of the hysterical news reports on the situation have been blaming
Trump for ceding American influence to Russia in the Mideast.

So let me be clear about this, as I repeat what I've said in one way
or another for 15 years.

Russia is not America's enemy. Russia is the enemy of Georgia and
Ukraine, but not America, and not Western Europe. Our enemy is China,
not Russia. The Russian people love us, the Chinese people not so
much (except for the Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong).

As I've written many times, in the coming Clash of Civilizations world
war, China, Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries will be our
enemies, and our allies will be India, Russia and Iran.

So despite the hysteria in the mainstream media, I'm not the least bit
concerned that Russia is gaining influence in the Mideast. Russia and
Iran will be our allies in WW III, and China will be our enemy.

The more immediate question is whether there will soon be a war
between Turkey and Russia, the two generational Crisis era countries
with a long, bitter history of bloody wars. As I said earlier, Turkey
and Russia have been taking steps, usually through the "Astana
process," to stay out of each other's way, to prevent an action that
could lead to a major war. Russia's actions to keep Syria's army
separated from Turkey's forces and the SDF are another action of that
type.

But how effective will Russia's efforts be? Recall the earlier
analogy -- Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006. That war fizzled, as
I said, but not overnight. The war went on for over two months.
During that time, the Israelis were highly emotional and uncontrolled,
and they made one disastrous mistake after another, while the
Hezbollah fighters were much cooler, setting off rockets into Israeli
territory, and then going home to their wives.

The Turks have been massing on the Syria border for months, and they
made an emotional, uncontrolled invasion into Syria. I would be very,
very surprised if that uncontrolled invasion suddenly ended, thanks to
an agreement between Turkey and the United States. I would expect the
ceasefire to fall apart within a few days, and for fighting to resume.
However, a ceasefire could succeed within a couple of months.

So the real question is: What are the Russians going to do? Will they
sit back and let the incursions by Turkish and Arab SNA forces
continue? If so, then the war will fizzle within a couple of months.

Or will the Russians respond with military force directed at Turkey?
That's the major risk, because that's how major wars start.

What happens next in Syria does not depend on what the US does. It
depends on what Russia does. If Russia remains controlled, then the
war will play itself out within 2-3 months. If Russia becomes more
aggressive or uncontrolled, then a larger war will result.

---- Sources:

Related Article:



KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Syria, Kurds, Bashar al-Assad, Alawites,
Syrian Democratic Force, SDF, Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK,
Rojava, Syrian National Army, SNA,
Iran, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Russia, China

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
Reply
I think that the (real) point of a "cease fire" or "pause" is for evacuation of U.S. forces.

People may blame Trump, but the small number of U.S. soldiers over there are much too few to stand up to the Turkish army. The realistic choice has been death in the cross fire, or getting out of the way.
Reply
** 20-Oct-2019 World View: Hong Kong riots

Guest Wrote:> The protests in Hong Kong seem to be dying off. Do you think that
> they'll die off completely?

As far as I can tell, they aren't dying off at all, but they have
reached some kind of "steady state" for the time being. There are a
certain number of protesters each weekend, there's a certain amount of
property damage each weekend, and there's a certain amount of violence
by the police each weekend. But all of those numbers seem to be
roughly the same each week, so there's no major news.

I should add that even if the protests die off, as they did in 2014,
it would be only temporary. The protests are based on very deep
feelings that are only going to grow stronger:
  • The Hong Kongers hate the mainlanders.

  • The Hong Kongers speak Cantonese, while the mainlanders speak
    Mandarin.

  • Tensions are growing along the Beijing-Hong Kong and north-south
    fault lines, and China is overdue for a new massive anti-government
    rebellion, following the Taiping Rebellion (1852-64), and Mao's
    Communist Revolution (1934-49).

  • Young people are very aware that Hong Kong is scheduled in 2047 to
    lose any special democratic freedoms that were supposedly guaranteed
    by the CCP when Britain handed over Hong Kong in 1997. In particular,
    young people are aware that if they get married, then any children
    they bring into the world will be under the thumb of the violent CCP
    dictatorship.

Incidentally, there are some reports that mainlanders visiting
Hong Kong are afraid to speak Mandarin, for fear of being attacked.
The solution is that they speak English, which is hugely ironic.

We've been wondering for a long time when the CCP would send the army
into Hong Kong. I heard an analyst of tv say that would never happen.
Right now, Carrie Lam and the HK security police have to deal with the
protesters. If the army came in, then the protesters would not go
away, but Xi Jinping and the army would have to deal with them. The
CCP would prefer things the way they are.

Incidentally, the Hong Kong hostility to mainlanders isn't new.
Here's something that I wrote in 2012:

[Begin quote]

Hong Kong's growing hostility to mainland China evident from Hu Jintao's visit

[Image: g120702b.jpg]

  • From July 2012: Young Hong Kong protester carries a picture
    of Queen Elizabeth on Sunday (Reuters)


As we reported yesterday, China's president Hu Jintao visited Hong
Kong on Sunday to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the handover of
Hong Kong by Britain to China. Reports indicate that, far from being
a happy celebration, the events sharpened the anger of Hong Kong
residents against the mainland:
  • A journalist tried to ask Hu a question about Tiananmen
    Square, and he was jailed, something that infuriated the journalist
    fraternity.

  • Hu introduced Hong Kong's new Chief Executive from the mainland,
    C.Y. Leung. Leung insulted many present by giving his inaugural
    address in Mandarin, the language of the mainland, rather than in
    Cantonese, which is the first language of more than 90 percent of Hong
    Kong’s people.

  • Some 100,000 protesters joined a pro-democracy march from Victoria
    Park to the shoreline of Victoria Harbor. (These are, of course,
    British names.)

  • Many of the protesters carried old British-era Hong Kong flags,
    which carry the British Union flag in one corner. It has become a
    symbol not so much of nostalgia for the British as a banner for those
    demanding real autonomy.

  • There was a huge contingent of Falun Gong protesters. The Falun
    Gong sprang up in mainland China in the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen
    Square massacre, and had millions of adherents before Beijing crushed
    them. Since around 2000, anyone belonging to the Falun Gong on the
    mainland is subject to arrest and torture.

  • A public opinion poll shows 64% of those polled thought that Hong
    Kong had become a worse place since the handover.

In China's last generational crisis civil war, Mao's Communist
Revolution that climaxed in 1949, those who were able to escape to
Formosa (Taiwan) did so by passing through Hong Kong. It's likely
that Hong Kong will again play a pivotal role in China's next crisis
civil war.

[End quote]

So that was happening in July 2012. One major difference today is
that protesters are carrying American flags rather than British flags.

At any rate, the answer to your questions is: No, I don't think that
the protests will die off completely, though they might end
temporarily.
Reply
*** 21-Oct-19 World View -- Massive anti-government street protests paralyze Lebanon

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

  • Massive anti-government street protests paralyze Lebanon
  • Brief generational history of Lebanon

****
**** Massive anti-government street protests paralyze Lebanon
****


[Image: g191020b.jpg]
Protesters in front of the Muhammad al-Amin mosque in downtown Beirut, Lebanon, on Sunday. (EPA)

There have been four days of massive anti-government protests in
Beirut, Lebanon's capital city, and in cities across Lebanon. In the
country's second largest city, Tripoli, in northern Syria, and in the
southern port city of Tyre, the protesters waved the Lebanon national
flag, and changed "revolution" or "the people demand the fall of the
regime."

These were the largest street protests in Lebanon since 2005, when
Rafiq al-Hariri, the father of the current prime minister Saad
al-Hariri, was killed by a massive terrorist bomb in Beirut. The
assassination was blamed on Syria and on the fact that Hariri opposed
Syria's influence in Lebanon. The massive street protests at that
time led to the Cedar Revolution, causing the withdrawal of Syrian
forces from Lebanon.

Most popular protests in Lebanon have been highly sectarian, aligned
with the Sunnis, the Shias or the Christians. However, the massive
2005 protests cut across all the sectarian blocs.

The same is true of the protests in the last four days. They've been
almost completely peaceful, with some violence on the margins.
Protesters have been united in criticizing the massive corruption in
the government of Lebanon, and the resulting poverty, and a ballooning
deficit.

The protests were triggered on Thursday by a proposed fee the
equivalent of 20 cents on WhatsApp calls. Making a phone call using
Lebanon's antiquated phone system is expensive, so people have
increasingly used WhatsApp to make the calls. But the fee proposal
triggered the massive protests and the proposal was quickly withdrawn
by a desperate government in the hope of ending the protests.

However, the protests continued and grew, and the government is now
even more desperate, as it appears that the country will be paralyzed
by the protests on Monday. The Maronite Christian Lebanese Forces
party is withdrawing from the government, along with its four
ministers. The country's main labor union has threatened a general
strike.

Hariri has demanded that each government office implement reforms by
Monday evening, including a 50% cut in salaries of numerous government
officials. Protesters have been mocking these demands, since they
know that the government officials will never agree to cut their own
salaries. However, if the reforms are implemented, then they will
unlock $11 billion in Western donor pledges and help avert economic
collapse.

****
**** Brief generational history of Lebanon
****


[Image: g191020c.jpg]
Girls holding anti-government placards during protests in Beirut, Lebanon, on Sunday (AP)

Although the objectives of the protests are serious, the protests
themselves are often playful, unlike, for example, the protests in
Hong Kong. That's because Lebanon is in a generational Awakening era,
and so the protests are similar to those in the US and Europe in the
1960s. Hong Kong and China are, by contrast, in a generational Crisis
era, which means that their protests are likely to lead to full-scale
war, which is not likely in the case of the Lebanon protests.

Lebanon had two generational crisis wars during the last century. The
first was part of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908-22).

The second was Lebanon's civil war (1975-90), mainly between Muslims
versus Christians, killing some 200,000 people. A major event
occurred on September 15-16, when Maronite Christian militias
massacred 2-3,000 Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila
Palestinian refugee camps. This act has haunted Lebanon to this day.

After a generational crisis war end, the belligerents enter a
generational Recovery Era, and the survivors of the war take steps to
try to guarantee that nothing so horrible should ever happen again.

I want to take a quick side trip to describe what happened in Iran and
Syria.

I've described many times how a country that goes through a
generational crisis war that's also an ethnic civil war almost always
follows the same pattern. The ethnic group that won the civil war
takes power, and the oppresses and martializes the people in the
losing ethnic group, sometimes resorting to extreme violence.

Iran had a crisis civil war, the Islamic Revolution of 1979, followed
by the Iran/Iraq war. The leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, wrote
a new constitution that gave himself complete dictatorial powers, in
order to prevent a new anti-government rebellion. In 1988, Khomeini
ordered the torture, rape and massacre of tens of thousands of
political prisoners and political enemies. That's fairly typical of a
country's Recovery era following an ethnic crisis civil war.

Syria's last generational crisis war was a religious/ethnic civil war
between the Shia Alawites versus the Arab Sunnis. That war climaxed
in February 1982 with the destruction of the town of Hama, which
killed or displaced hundreds of thousands. This ended the war, but
today, Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is still conducting genocide
and ethnic cleansing of his political enemies, the Arab Sunnis.

Lebanon's Recovery Era acted somewhat differently. Instead of putting
one group (the Shias, the Sunnis, the Christians) in charge of the
government, which might have led to the same kind of violence as in
Iran and Syria, they tried to write the constitution to balance the
three sects.

Lebanon's constitution requires that the three main offices be
occupied by specific sectarian groups:
  • The prime minister, currently Saad al-Hariri until Saturday, must
    be a Sunni Muslim.
  • The president, currently held by Michel Aoun, must be a Syriac
    Maronite Catholic.
  • And the speaker of parliament, currently held by Nabhi Berri, must
    be a Shia Muslim.

This sectarian separation seems to have served Lebanon pretty well, at
least as compared to Iran or Syria. But protesters see it as a source
of the corruption causing the economic problems.

Each of the sects is in control of a major set of government
institutions, controlling the funding and salaries for those
institutions. Protesters are being quoted as saying that they can't
get any government services without going through the relevant
religious sect. Furthermore, each sect skims money from the
institutions that it controls. Protesters are calling this the reason
for Lebanon's extreme poverty.

Sources:

Related articles:


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Lebanon, Beirut, Tripoli, Tyre,
Saad al-Harari, Rafiq al-Hariri, Cedar Revolution,
WhatsApp, Maronite Christian Lebanese,
Syria, Iran, Ottoman Empire, Sabra, Shatila

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
Reply
** 21-Oct-2019 Russian Agent

(09-19-2019, 03:32 AM)Marypoza Wrote: > -- you were listing examples of how the Government comprised our
> national security. I believe Rags was responding to that

> Heart Bernie/Tulsi 2020 Heart

Why are you supporting a Russian Agent?
Reply
(09-12-2019, 02:41 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 12-Sep-2019 World View: The CCP Master Race

(09-11-2019, 10:27 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: >   Yup, in the name of globalization, John.  I wouldn't say it was
>   "the US". Now if we explain why this happened , then the finger of
>   blame points to multinational corporations and their toadies in
>   all manner of places in the US government.

This is really silly, but it's not surprising that you would say that,
given your view that China and the United States are the same or, as
you put it, "two peas in a pod."

I've spent thousands of hours researching China's history, and how
over two millennia the culture has developed its belief that the
Chinese ("yellow race, black hair, brown eyes, yellow skin") are the
superior master race and why they're totally contemptuous of us and
our laws and our way of life because we're all barbarians.

So the reason that the CCP believe they can arrest and enslave a
million Uighurs, or violently attack Buddhists and Christians, or can
ignore their own signed agreements over Hong Kong, or can ignore
international law in the South China Sea, or can steal intellectual
property or cheat on trade is because they believe that they've been
granted by the Kingdom of Heaven the right to do anything they want to
the barbarians.  I can assure you that this has nothing to do with
multinational corporations or the toadies in the US government.

Just as a murderer might justify his actions by blaming the way his
parents raised him, the CCP justifies its illegal atrocities by
referring to the Opium Wars and the "Century of Humiliation"
and the "Unequal Treaties."  They ignore, for example, the massive
atrocities committed by Mao Zedong that brutally killed tens of
millions of Chinese in the horrific Great Leap Forward and
the disastrous Great Cultural Revolution.

If you'd like to understand what's really going on with China, rather
than ridiculous things like toadies in the US government, then read my
book:

"World View: War Between China and Japan: Why America Must Be
Prepared" (Generational Theory Book Series, Book 2) Paperback: 331
pages, over 200 source references, $13.99
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1732738637/

If you actually want to know what's going on, then this will tell
you.

Well, for one, China didn't "steal" stuff from multinational corporations.  They CHOSE to conduct business in a manner the Chinese government agreed to. As far as I know, there were no guns involved to folks' head.

As for Chinese motives. They're like everyone else. They conduct policies to enhance their country's strategic objectives.  All I care about wrt China is if they can invade us or take over. That means we need more defense and a lot less offense.  Everyone in the world seems to have some stupid cause. China's revenge agenda, US we're the best at everything, Iran's Jihad, Wahabbi Jihad, etc. 

The toadies get special mention. They're the ones who should be booted out. You can't have a good military without a good real economy to back it up.  Uber,Amazon, Facefarce, etc. do nothing for any sort of future war effort.  A deskilled workforce is a bad thing. Things are so bad that it will take an industrial policy to go anywhere.
Good luck getting that sort of thing with Neoliberals around.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
(10-21-2019, 07:18 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 21-Oct-2019 Russian Agent

(09-19-2019, 03:32 AM)Marypoza Wrote: >   -- you were listing examples of how the Government comprised our
>      national security. I believe Rags was responding to that

>   Heart Bernie/Tulsi 2020 Heart

Why are you supporting a Russian Agent?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/201...ideo-feud/

I'm guessing John got this from Shillery's latest zombie awakening.  I shall consider the source of this and shitcan it as fake news.
---Value Added Cool
Reply
(10-21-2019, 07:18 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 21-Oct-2019 Russian Agent

(09-19-2019, 03:32 AM)Marypoza Wrote: >   -- you were listing examples of how the Government comprised our
>      national security. I believe Rags was responding to that

>   Heart Bernie/Tulsi 2020 Heart

Why are you supporting a Russian Agent?

-- I'm not. Why are you believing a senile delusional old bag who is waaaaay past her expiration date & who attempts to sabotage a fellow sistah?
Heart my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020 Heart
Reply
(10-22-2019, 08:20 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(10-21-2019, 07:18 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 21-Oct-2019 Russian Agent

(09-19-2019, 03:32 AM)Marypoza Wrote: >   -- you were listing examples of how the Government comprised our
>      national security. I believe Rags was responding to that

>   Heart Bernie/Tulsi 2020 Heart

Why are you supporting a Russian Agent?

-- I'm not. Why are you believing a senile delusional old bag who is waaaaay past her expiration date & who attempts to sabotage a fellow sistah?

-- actually now that l think about it l don't think the hag is really female
Heart my 2 yr old Niece/yr old Nephew 2020 Heart
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why the social dynamics viewpoint to the Strauss-Howe generational theory is wrong Ldr 5 5,151 06-05-2020, 10:55 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Theory: cyclical generational hormone levels behind the four turnings and archetypes Ldr 2 3,569 03-16-2020, 06:17 AM
Last Post: Ldr
  The Fall of Cities of the Ancient World (42 Years) The Sacred Name of God 42 Letters Mark40 5 5,074 01-08-2020, 08:37 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Generational cycle research Mikebert 15 16,938 02-08-2018, 10:06 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
Video Styxhexenhammer666 and his view of historical cycles. Kinser79 0 3,453 08-27-2017, 06:31 PM
Last Post: Kinser79

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 62 Guest(s)