(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?

(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/xct.gd.e160915.htm#e160915

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

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/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.

(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.

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

• 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.

• 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)
  

• 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.

• 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)
  

(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.

• 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
  

• 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)
  

(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.

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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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-russias-baltic-naval-exercise-highlight-new-normal-european-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.

(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.

(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?

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

(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.

(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.

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.

(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.