Generational Dynamics World View - Printable Version +- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum) +-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: Theories Of History (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-7.html) +--- Thread: Generational Dynamics World View (/thread-51.html) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
|
RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - SomeGuy - 02-03-2017 (02-03-2017, 02:32 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:(02-03-2017, 02:23 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:(02-03-2017, 02:18 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:(02-03-2017, 02:14 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: What Chinese expansionism in the Far East has Russia historically been fighting? Why are you conflating the Mongols (actually led by Ogedai at the time, Genghis Khan having died several years before the invasion of Rus) with the Chinese? Your link isn't working for me. I'm at work, this isn't going to be another one of those white supremacist pages you pulled off the first Google search page, is it? RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - John J. Xenakis - 02-03-2017 Here's the whole article: January 26, 2017: Since 2014 Russia has been making a lot of headlines but not much else. The economy is a mess and despite government predictions that the economy can “stabilize” if oil is over $50 a barrel (where it seems to be headed) and there would be two percent GDP growth in 2017 (versus a decline of .6 percent in 2016). The reality is that the real average income of Russians has, as of the end of 2016, been declining 25 months in a row and the decline continues. With so many people seeing their income decline corruption is getting worse, despite vigorous efforts to curb it. The number of best educated and capable Russians who have left the country since 2014 has now reached 1.5 million. The poor are getting poorer and more Russians are slipping into poverty. The military is telling its veteran officers and NCOs that a new benefit for ex-military personnel is preferential treatment when it comes to getting unemployment benefits. There is still the implied promise of a government job for retired officers but, well, you know hard times and all that. And then there are the foreign cash reserves, essential for buying imports. Those reserves will be exhausted later in 2017 or in 2018. So no, the economic news is not good. The 2016 international corruption ratings show the world that Russia is not making much progress dealing with corruption and is stuck near the bottom (131 out of 176 nations rated). Corruption in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index is measured on a 1 (most corrupt) to 100 (not corrupt) scale. The most corrupt nations (usually North Korea and Somalia) have a rating of under 15 while of the least corrupt (usually Denmark) is often 90 or higher. African nations are the most corrupt, followed by Middle Eastern ones. The current Russian score is 29 compared to 40 for China, 72 for Japan, 62 for Poland and 74 for the United States. A lower corruption score is common with nations in economic trouble. Russia has the same score as Ukraine and most of the other nations that used to be part of the Soviet Union. Do you see a pattern here? A growing number of Russians (and others who used to be ruled by Russians) certainly do. Invading Ukraine and Syria has not helped solve any of the fundamental problems but have made for great propaganda that sort of distracts Russians from how much life sucks at home. What went wrong? Russia entered the 21st century with a new elected government dominated by former secret police (KGB) officers who promised to restore economic and civil order. They did so but in the process are turning Russia into a police state with less political and economic freedom. A growing number of Russians opposed this and the government responded by appealing to nationalism. Russia has returned to police state ways and the traditional threatening attitude towards neighbors. Rather than being run by corrupt communist bureaucrats, the country is now dominated by corrupt businessmen, gangsters and self-serving government officials. The semi-free economy is more productive than the centrally controlled communist one but that just provides more money to steal. A rebellion against the new dictatorship has been derailed by astute propaganda depicting Russia as under siege by the West. Yet opinion polls that show wide popular support for this paranoid fantasy has left enough Russians with democratic impulses to continue leading the struggle for better government and needed reforms. For now most Russians want economic and personal security and are willing to tolerate a police state to get it. That atmosphere, plus the anxiety generated by having troops fighting in Syria and Ukraine has scared away a lot of foreign investors and many Russian ones as well. Russia can downplay this in the state controlled media but without all that foreign and Russian capital the economy cannot grow. Meanwhile China, the only real threat to Russia, quietly makes progress in the east. There China has claims on much of the Russian Far East and is openly replacing Russia as the primary economic, military and political force in Central Asia. Non-News And The Thought Police Since the late 1990s the government has gradually returned the Cold War practices of declaring all bad news a state secret, especially if it involves the military or security services. But now there is the Internet and the government has not been able to suppress the rumors from spreading and, worse, being compiled, analyzed and revealing a pretty accurate picture of what is really going on. Corruption is again becoming a major problem in the military, just as it was before Vladimir Putin and his KGB whiz kids got elected with the promise to fix things. The fixes worked for a while but now they are failing. Again there are reports of bases having their heat and power cut off because someone stole the money to pay for that. Worse, more troops are reporting food shortages on bases and the old-timers remember that was common in the 1990s. Troops also report that many of the new weapons, especially ships, are accepted into service even though they have numerous deficiencies. Someone got paid off and the users are not happy that they may have to pay, with their lives, using defective ships and aircraft or weapons that malfunction with a bang. Reporting any of this openly gets you arrested for treason, thanks to new laws. The government knows all about these bad attitude problems, in part because in 2013 Russia brought back the old communist era ideological training for troops and increased use of informants and opinion surveys to monitor morale and loyalty in the military. In effect government has returned to using the communist era "Zampolit" (political officer.) In Soviet times, every unit commander had a deputy (Zampolit) who represented the communist party and could veto any of the commanders’ decisions. The Zampolit was responsible for troop loyalty and political correctness. Sort of a communist chaplain. In 2010 the Russian Army reintroduced chaplains, something that the communists did away with in the 1920s. The new chaplains are, however, expected to report on the loyalty of the troops, to church and state. Now additional officers are being added to handle ideological training and monitoring morale. Not exactly the return of the Zampolit, but a return of most of the Zampolits’ duties. Like their Cold War era counterparts the Zampolits proved better at reporting the bad news than dealing with it. China Big news in Russia recently were revelations that China had moved some of their ICBMs to the Russian border. The state controlled Russia media insisted there was nothing to worry about because these missiles were obviously meant to evade American ballistic missile defense systems and, besides, the minimum range for those DF-41 missiles is 3,000 kilometers, which means they could not be used against targets in the Russian Far East. More astute Russians observed that China could not win a nuclear exchange with the U.S. but could against Russia. And China would not want to nuke the Far East, they want to take control and fill the place with Chinese. Those DF-41s are well placed to blast Russian nukes and ICBMs far to the west. For many Russians China is seen as the only real threat to Russia and any Chinese move out there is nervously discussed in the Russian media (to calm people down) and privately (to discuss what is really happening on the Pacific coast). China has ancient claims on much of the Russian Far East and is openly replacing Russia as the primary economic, military and political force in Central Asia. This is made worse by the post-Cold War decline of the Russian economy. In 1991 the U.S. and EU (European Union) had over half the world GDP. The Soviet Union had about ten percent and China two percent. The Soviet Union and its economy was falling apart (hence the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and had been for decades. By the end of the 1990s Russia (now with half the population of the Soviet Union) had three percent of world GDP, China seven percent, the EU 24 percent and the U.S. 21 percent. China began growing at ten percent a year in the 1980s and kept going. China was still ruled by communists but had made the bold decision to allow and sustain a free market economy. The compounded growth really adds up if you can sustain it over several decades, which China did. By 2015 China was 17 percent of world GDP, Russia three percent, the EU 17 percent and the U.S. 16 percent. Projections for 2020, even taking into account showed down Chinese growth, have China with 19 percent of world GDP, Russia three percent, the EU 15 percent and the U.S. 15 percent. One important factor in the Chinese GDP growth was the fact that China has more people than the EU, the U.S. and Russia combined. Since 2012 China increased spending on infrastructure in border areas of the Russian Far East (areas near the Pacific Ocean) to make it easier for Chinese businessmen to operate. This supports the rapid growth of Chinese trade in the thinly populated Far East and stirs (or confirms) Russian fears that Chinese businesses will take over the economy out there. The Chinese have done this before, over the centuries, with other neighbors. Chinese today are well aware of that and know that once you control the economy it’s a lot easier to annex the area to China. Meanwhile Russia continues to have problems getting Russians to move to the Far East and stay there. Communist and czarist governments also had this problem and the inability to solve it makes it easier for the Chinese to take over. Another aspects of this is China is backing Russia over the Ukraine matter. Makes sense, as China is also an empire trying to reclaim lost territories. That some of those territories are currently Russia’s Far East although these claims are not officially discussed in Russia or China. That is a problem for another day and currently Russia and China support each other’s imperial ambitions (as in Ukraine and the South China Sea) and help each other out to deal with any associated problems, especially the UN or economic sanctions. Syria With Aleppo back in hands of the Assads the war is going in two directions. The Assad government, backed by Iran, Russia and Turkey are concentrating on clearing remaining rebels out of the northwest. That means Hama, Latakia and Idlib provinces, the areas where the Assads always had the most support. Turkey is intent on getting any anti-Turk (pro-PKK) Syrian Kurds out of there as well. Idlib province, west of Aleppo and bordering Turkey, is the main target and is now receiving most of the Russian airstrikes. There are still lots of rebels (few of them ISIL) west of Aleppo. Meanwhile the Kurds, Iraq, the West and the Gulf Arab states want to eliminate the ISIL presence in Iraq and eastern Syria (namely Raqqa). Russia sees all this as an opportunity to get start negotiations on a long-term peace deal. In part this is motivated by the Russian realization that its alliance with Turkey and Iran is not normal for any of the nations involved and not likely to last. There have been signs. Many Turks have demonstrated against and criticized Turkish cooperation with Iran, Russia and the Assad government of Syria. All three of these groups have long been seen as enemies of Turkey. In early January Turkey threatened to withdraw from the temporary alliance with Russia and Iran in Syria. Turkey was angry at Iran for tolerating repeated violations of the recent ceasefire deal by Iranian mercenaries (mainly Hezbollah) in Syria. The Turkish government justifies the alliance with Iran and Russia in Syria by referring to increased cooperation with Russia and Iran since the 1990s. But in Syria the Turks have to deal with the fact that Iran is run by a religious dictatorship and Turkey and Russia are not. Iran justifies breaking agreements by blaming it on the many religious fanatics in its government and military. Russia is willing to ignore that sort of thing, Turkey isn’t. At same time a growing number of Iranians openly demonstrate against the alliance with Russia. For decades Russia was depicted (by Iranian media, governments and personal experience) as a dangerous enemy of Iran. Russia and Iran also openly disagree over some key items. Russia openly supports Israel’s efforts to defend itself from Hezbollah or Iranian missile attacks. Russia is also willing to have the Americans join in the effort to craft a peace deal at the conference going on now in Kazakhstan. Iran insisted that the Americans not show and the new U.S. government was OK with that. The unusual alliance of Iran, Turkey and Russia is seen by all three countries as historically unnatural and unsustainable. Iran has long been fighting the Russians and Turks over who had the most power, control and influence in the areas where they were neighbors. Each of the three still have fundamental differences with the other two and popular opinion in all three nations shows widespread distrust of these “unnatural” allies. But most Iranians also remember that many times in the past Iran has made such unstable alliances work, for a while at least. Ukraine Ukraine is recovering from the economic damage suffered because of the war with Russia and is coming to realize that the biggest problems Ukraine is facing are internal. Yet despite the continued widespread corruption in 2016 Ukrainian GDP grew 1.5 percent and is expected to be three percent in 2017. In contrast 2015 GDP declined 10 percent. But the corruption is still in play and most obvious when it comes to the growing defense budget. The U.S. is not happy with all the continued plundering of the Ukrainian defense budget and threatens to cut support unless the Ukrainian officials stop the stealing and cooperate with each other for the common good. Recent opinion polls show that the majority of Ukrainians would now vote to join NATO and move closer to the less corrupt and more prosperous West. For the last decade Russia has threated to declare war if Ukraine joined NATO. Because of this by 2009 the U.S. lost its enthusiasm for letting Ukraine join NATO, thus leaving Ukraine on its own to deal with Russian aggression. That led to a popular uprising in 2014 that ousted a pro-Russian (and very corrupt) president of Ukraine and triggered an undeclared Russian war against Ukraine. In eastern Ukraine (Donbas) the latest indefinite ceasefire, which began in late December ended after a few days as the number of unprovoked attacks by the Russian backed rebels keeps increasing. Despite that Russia says it is withdrawing forces from in and around Donbas. This is interesting because Russia is also withdrawing forces from Syria. Yet the permanent Russian increase of its bases near the Ukrainian border and near East Europe continues. January 24, 2017: Russia sent six Tu-22M3 bombers, escorted by four Su-30SMs, from an airbase in the Caucasus to hit ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) targets in eastern Syria. Russia has been working its Tu-22M3M long-range bombers hard over Syria since mid-2016, flying several dozen sorties from Russian bases to hit targets in Syria. That’s a lot of work for the ten or so Tu-22M3Ms in service that have to fly all the way from southern Russia to Syria and back to deliver a few tons of bombs. While smart bombs were used in some of the 2016 missions the recent attacks involved unguided (dumb) bombs. But the Tu-22M3M proved to be effective during its first sustained combat experience since Afghanistan in the 1980s. January 23, 2017: The pro-Assad coalition of Russia, Turkey, Iran and the Assad government held peace talks with the Syrian rebels beginning today in the Central Asian city of Astana (the capital of Kazakhstan). Nothing was achieved after two days but the major powers congratulated each other for getting this far. The U.S. was not invited when these talks were announced in December but Russia later asked that someone from the new (after January 20th) U.S. government attend. In the end the U.S. declined to send anyone. Most of the rebels were not invited either. Only the FSA rebel coalition was, because it does not support Islamic terrorism. Three rebel larger groups (Ahrar al Sham, Fatah al Sham Front and the Kurds) were not invited, nor was ISIL, the group everyone hates. At the end of 2016 discussions between Russia, Turkey, Iran and the Assad government apparently agreed to some general terms for such a deal. It would consist of a ceasefire with groups now in control of parts of Syria recognized as the temporary ruler of those areas. If the ceasefire held, there would be new elections. The Assads would not participate, but only if they were granted immunity to prosecution so the Assads could go into comfortable exile. All this assumes that ISIL control of any territory in Syria is eliminated. This is an old proposal, but it always depended on ISIL not being part of the mix. That is now a possibility that still doesn’t have enough support within Syria to work. So far it looks like the Astana talks will produce nothing of value. January 19, 2017: In Ukraine police seized several crates marked “aircraft parts” headed for Iran via air freight. On closer inspection the aircraft parts turned out to be components for older Russian ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles). Iran needs these parts to keep many of their older weapons operational. Iran is still subject to many restrictions on the importation of weapons. Ukraine used to be a good source of such forbidden spare parts but since Russia began trying to annex portions of Ukraine in 2014 (with some success) Ukraine has been more dependent on Western support. In return they are supposed to abide by the many arms export sanctions they used to ignore. January 16, 2017: In the south (Chechnya) police carried out a series of raids against an ISIL network and arrested 60 ISIL members and key supporters. There was some armed opposition and four Islamic terrorists were killed. January 14, 2017: In Yemen captured rebel commanders admit (some say boast) that Hezbollah and Iranian personnel run military training camps in the north (Saada province) where the Shia rebel tribes have their ancient homeland. Despite overwhelming evidence of Iranian weapons being supplied to the Shia rebels the Russian and Chinese support in the UN blocks any international action against Iran. January 13, 2017: In Syria the government accused Israel of firing missiles from northern Israel at the Mezzah airbase outside Damascus. The explosions were heard in the city and a large fire broke out. Israel refused to comment but local reports indicate that the target was recently delivered (by air) long range, satellite guided Iranian missiles. Several days later Russia broadcast a statement approving of the Israeli action, pointing out that these missiles are an obvious threat to Israel and are meant for no one else. January 11, 2017: The Russian aircraft carrier Kuznetsov and its escorts arrived off the coast of eastern Libya. The carrier sent a helicopter to nearby Tobruk and picked up Khalifa Hiftar and two other senior officers (all in uniform) and took them to the carrier. The visit to the Kuznetsov was captured on video and broadcast. The video showed the event treated as an official visit with sailors in dress uniforms lined up and a band playing the Libyan national anthem. Hiftar was given a tour of the ship and then held a video conference (not shown) with the Russian defense minister back in Moscow. Hiftar has been trying to get Russia to defy the UN arms embargo and provide pro-Hiftar forces with weapons. Apparently this “official visit” signaled that Russia was willing to deal and later reports from Libya indicated that Russia will now supply the Hiftar forces with over a billion dollars’ worth of weapons. Hiftar is the head of the armed forces for one of the two rival governments Hiftar is the most powerful man in eastern Libya. He has cultivated contacts in Russia, which believes Hiftar is someone who will still wield power when peace returns to Libya and will be able to help Russia to once more become the major arms supplier to Libya. Hiftar made two trips to Moscow in 2016. (June and November). Hiftar visits Egypt regularly and visited Russia in late June 2016. Hiftar has managed to keep Egypt, a few other Arab states and Russia providing support. Egypt allows banned goods (like weapons and ammo) cross the border unhindered. Russia is known to have printed new currency for HoR earlier in 2016 and has provided unspecified military support. Russia also provides HoR with some support inside the UN as one of the few countries that can veto proposed UN resolutions. Hiftar has recently visited Egypt and Jordan. Egypt is particularly important because it is again run by a former general and feels Libya needs the same kind of leader. But Egypt is under a lot of pressure from the UN to get behind the GNA, which Egypt sees as too cozy with Islamic conservative groups. Algeria feels the same way as do many Tunisians. January 6, 2017: Russia announced it was reducing its military forces in Syria. By exactly how much is unclear. The Russian aircraft carrier task force off the coast departed for its home base in northern Russia. A dozen (or more) Russian warplanes are heading back to Russia. It is unclear how many (if any) Russian ground troops are leaving. The Russian air operations in Syria are expensive (in terms of spare parts and missiles and smart bombs). While it’s great for these new warplanes and their weapons to get some combat experience, Russia is still experiencing severe budget problems at home and still has to deal with their effort to seize eastern Ukraine. Israel released spy satellite photos taken on December 28 that showed two Russian Iskander (also known as SS-26 and 9M723K1) ballistic missile launcher vehicles in Syria (at the base Russia shares with Syria). These are probably in Syria to be “tested in combat” by firing a non-nuclear warhead at a high profile target, like the ISIL capital of Raqqa. Iskander has a 500 kilometer range and is not a traditional ballistic missile. That is, it does not fire straight up, leave the atmosphere, then come back down, following a ballistic trajectory. Instead, Iskander stays in the atmosphere and follows a rather flat trajectory. It is capable of evasive maneuvers and deploying decoys. This makes it more difficult for anti-missile systems to take it down. Iskander began development near the end of the Cold War and the first successful launch took place in 1996. The 4.6 ton Iskander M has a solid fuel rocket motor and a range of up to 700 kilometers normally carries a 710 kg (1,500 pound) warhead. The missile can be stored for up to ten years. Russia developed several different types of warheads, mainly for, including cluster munitions, thermobaric (fuel-air explosive) and electro-magnetic pulse (anti-radar, and destructive to electronics in general.) There is also a nuclear warhead, which is not exported. Guidance is very accurate, using GPS, plus infrared homing for terminal guidance. The warhead will land within 10 meters (31 feet) of the aim point. Iskanders are carried in a 40 ton 8x8 truck, which also provides a launch platform. There is an optional reload truck that carries two missiles. Russia ended up only producing the Iskander-M for its own military. Entering service in 2005, Russia found there were no export customers for the innovative and expensive Iskander but free publicity from actual use in Syria might change that. January 4, 2017: As expected 2016 was the first year where China launched more orbital missions (22) than Russia (17). The U.S. was tied with China for the first time with 22 launches. Since 2004 Russia has launched the most orbital missions but Russia has been having personnel and equipment problems keeping up. In 2015 Russia was first with 26 and in 2014 it was 32. December 30, 2016: In Syria The pro-Assad coalition of Russia, Turkey, Iran and the Assad government agreed that peace talks with the Syrian rebels could be held in Central Asia (the capital of Kazakhstan). RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - SomeGuy - 02-03-2017 So we have a lengthy article from a not too terribly reputable source stating that they are presently supporting each other's imperial ambitions. Your point is? RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - John J. Xenakis - 02-03-2017 (02-03-2017, 03:04 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > So we have a lengthy article from a not too terribly reputable So here's what we have:
In other words, you're just a troll. You should change your handle from "SomeGuy" to "SomeTroll". RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - SomeGuy - 02-03-2017 What are you talking about? Quote:When I provide a Generational Dynamics analysis you ridicule it I didn't ridicule it, I pointed out that it detailed Russian expansionism into NE Asia, opposed by China, and not the other way round. I mean, it's your article, not sure what you're disagreeing with. Quote:When I provide a link to a source, you ridicule it This source? I don't know, John, maybe don't grab the first link that comes up on a search page. It didn't even detail what you said it did, the bit about mutual support of each other's imperial ambitions was FROM THE SOURCE YOU PROVIDED. Quote:You provide completely unsupported opinions and expect them to be Could you name me an instance of this. Quote: I linked to the Kanuri thing repeatedly, and I had to do it several times before you stopped since you apparently wrote your Boko Haram articles on autopilot. I don't know if you have the Generational Dynamics comments from the old site archived here, but I am willing to bet I could find links in previous posts. "Never" is a very long time. Quote:In other words, you're just a troll. In other words, I disagree with you, ask for clarification on something, point out that the links you provide don't exactly prove your point, and you... what, pout? This is a ridiculous response, John. I'm not exactly the only one asking why you are absolutely convinced that the 4T sides are going to line up the way you say they will, and not the only one unsatisfied with the few answers you provide. It's a discussion forum, if you don't want to discuss your positions why respond to comments? 4-Feb-17 World View -- Devastating UN report on Burma shows scale of atrocities - John J. Xenakis - 02-03-2017 *** 4-Feb-17 World View -- Devastating UN report on Burma shows scale of ghastly atrocities by Buddhists targeting Muslim Rohingyas This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
**** **** Devastating UN report on Burma shows scale of ghastly atrocities **** File photo of Rohingyas fleeing violence (Reuters) A devastating new report by the UN office of human rights shows a huge scale of ghastly atrocities committed by Buddhists targeting ethnic Rohingya Muslims. For months, Burma (Myanmar) police and soldiers have been committing ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State by scorched earth attacks, burning down their villages, and committing massacres, rapes and other atrocities that have forced tens of thousands to flee for their lives across the border into Bangladesh. Burma has tacitly admitted guilt by forbidding any journalists or humanitarian groups from entering Rakhine State to investigate. As we've reported in the past, evidence of atrocities keeps leaking out, despite desperate and laughable attempts to hide them. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has documented the ethnic cleansing through a series of "before and after" satellite images. Burma's government agrees that the satellite images show that Rohingya villages are being burned down, but they make the laughable claim that the Rohingyas are burning down the villages themselves in order to embarrass the government. There have also been dozens of videos showing Burma's police beating and raping Rohingya civilians, but Burma's government claims that all of these videos are phony and have been fabricated. So to get around Burma's restrictions, the UN office of human rights conducted extensive interviews of hundreds of the tens of thousands of refugees who had been forced to flee across Burma's border into Bangladesh, and were living in filthy refugee camps such as Cox's Bazar. In addition, the UN team interviewed numerous representatives of UN system agencies, NGOs, health professionals and other experts. The interviewers heard one story after another of killings, beatings, rape, sexual violence, shootings, stabbings, and wholesale destruction of home and property. 52 of the 101 women interviewed reported being raped or subjected to sexual violence. Seven of them were girls who had been gang-raped. Some of the raped girls and women were killed afterwards. The report contains many personal stories. A woman said, "They killed the baby by stomping on it with their heavy boots. Then they burned the house." A 12-year-old boy said: "I was at home with my 13-year old uncle, when the army broke into the house. They beat us with sticks, metal rods and kicks. We were crying, pleading for mercy. An army officer hit me hard with a metal rod on my right arm, causing severe injury. We were dragged out of the house, which was set on fire. My uncle, who attempted to flee was caught, beaten and thrown into a burning house." Independent (London) and UN human rights report on Burma and BBC Related Articles
**** **** Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma's government may have to respond to the report **** Burma's government has refused to allow any international journalists or investigators into the region, and has used every possible disinformation technique for months to deny that the atrocities are taking place. These include the laughable technique of claiming that the Rohingyas are killing each other and burning down their own villages to embarrass the government. However, this new report has been so devastating that Burma's government has been forced to acknowledge it. Even so, U Zaw Htay, the spokesman for Burma's president Htin Kyaw, said on Friday that they hadn't seen the report, and added, "We will review the report from the UN and we will respond, either in an official statement or in an individual response (to questions)." Later on Friday, the spokesman said, "These are extremely serious allegations, and we are deeply concerned. We will be immediately investigating these allegations through the investigation commission led by Vice-President U Myint Swe Where there is clear evidence of abuses and violations, we will take all necessary action." International pressure is building on Aung San Suu Kyi, who is believed to be the most powerful politician in Burma today. When she was under arrest for many years by the army, she won the Nobel Peace prize, and now she's considered to be some kind of human rights hero (heroine). But this slaughter of Muslims by Burmese Buddhists has been going on for years, and has become far worse in the last few months, but she continues to deny that there are serious crimes being committed. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad al-Hussein said on Friday, "I did speak to Aung San Suu Kyi about an hour and a half ago. I called upon her to use every means available to exert pressure on the military and the security services to end this operation." We'll have to see whether anything gets done or can get done. This is a growing problem that will destabilize the region, and lead to new hostilities, possibly triggering a major regional generational crisis war. Irrawaddy Times (Burma) and Reuters **** **** Generational Dynamics interpretation of Burma (Myanmar) atrocities **** From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, these atrocities are coming out of deep hatred by Buddhists of Muslims, based on numerous generational crisis wars between the two groups over the centuries. Every time I post a story about Burma, some commenters apparently get confused and think that it's the Rohingya's that are killing, torturing and raping the Buddhists. But no it's not. For the last few years, the Buddhists have been the perpetrators, and the Rohingya Muslims have been the victims. In fact, as I've described several times in the past, the actions being taken by Buddhists against Muslims today are very similar to actions taken by Nazis against the Jews. These kinds of atrocities are standard fare for all regious and ethnic groups. One commenter in the past pointed out that Muslims conducted atrocities against Buddhists in previous wars, decades and centuries ago. That's undoubtedly true. That's part of how the generational cycle works, with new generations in each side vowing revenge for atrocities committed against their grandfathers. Each side vividly recalls the atrocities committed by the other side, but strangely enough have no memory whatsoever of atrocities committed by their own grandfathers. Some people believe that Buddhists are such peace loving people that they never fight or never rape or never commit atrocities. Any ethnic or religious group that really lived that way would not survive for long, but would be exterminated by some other ethnic or religious group before long. From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, all religious and ethnic groups act the same way, and in fact use religion to justify their actions. The Buddhist xenophobic hatred of Muslims in Burma goes very deep. The root of the violence is xenophobic attacks by Buddhists led by Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu and his "969 movement," against the Rohingya Muslims, including rapes, torture and other atrocities committed by Buddhists, targeting the Rohingyas. The Rohingyas have a darker skin than Burmese, and they speak a Bengali dialect. What is clear is that the current situation is becoming increasingly dangerous for the entire region. The Buddhist atrocities started to become significant worse since October 9 of last year, when nine Myanmar border police were killed in an attack blamed on Rohingya militants. This was the first act of violence by Rohingyas in revenge. CNN has reported on an interview with members of Harakat al-Yaqeen, or "Faith Movement," who are claiming responsibility for the October 9 attacks, and who are the first armed insurgency to emerge from the Rohingyas. The leader Atah Ullah said in the interview: > [indent]<QUOTE>"We, the vulnerable and persecuted people, have asked > the international community for protection against the atrocities > by the government of Myanmar, but the international community > turned its back on us. Finally, we cannot take it > anymore."<END QUOTE>[/indent] This armed insurgency is only the beginning. The government of Muslim-majority Malaysia is furious, and is condemning the government of Burma, violating the regional rule of not interfering in the internal affairs of neighbors. And the situation is ripe for infiltration and recruitment by jihadists, such as al-Qaeda or the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh). CNN and Reuters Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Burma, Myanmar, Rohingyas, Bangladesh, Cox's Bazar, U Zaw Htay, Htin Kyaw, U Myint Swe, Aung San Suu Kyi, Zeid Raad al-Hussein Harakat al-Yaqeen, Faith Movement, Atah Ullah, Malaysia Permanent web link to this article Receive daily World View columns by e-mail Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal John J. Xenakis 100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: 617-864-0010 E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - Warren Dew - 02-04-2017 (02-03-2017, 01:51 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:(01-28-2017, 04:25 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > By the way, my China-Russia article cross-posted in the Breitbart I'm with you so far. I don't think it's set in stone, but the "dots" here make sense. Quote:So if you go through that list and connect the dots, then What? Why? Why wouldn't the US be allied with China, Pakistan, and the Sunni states against India, Russia, and Iran instead? None of the dots you mention say anything about the US. Quote: Just remember that What feelings dictate the US side? Also, why isn't the EU included in this analysis? What side will they be on, or will they split up as tensions between the French and Germans reassert themselves? RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - John J. Xenakis - 02-04-2017 (02-03-2017, 06:49 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > What are you talking about? ... It's a discussion forum, if you I like to respond to comments. In this case, part of my response is to call you a troll. The reason I provided the StrategyPage article is that it's recent (posted within the last few days), it contains a lot of interesting information on China and Russia's Far East, and because I provided that as a source in my article, which provides other sources as well. If you want to go back farther in time, then just google the words "chinese migrants russia far east", which provides links to many other articles that talk about China's invasion of Russia's Far East. I've dealt with hundreds of trolls over the years, especially on the Breitbart site. One of the games that trolls play is "bait and mock", where you bait the victim into defending his statements, then you mock or ridicule the response and then bait him again with something like "what's your point?" or "This is the "It's not a crisis without a war" bit again, isn't it?" A good troll can keep the game going for many rounds with a hapless victim, baiting the victim, ridiculing the response and baiting him again, and so forth. Bait and mock is particularly a game that Gen-Xers and Millennials like to play, targeting Boomers, whom they view with contempt and consider them to be fools. I assume that's why you thought that rehashing the whole Russia 4T thing would be "fun". Somehow I knew it wouldn't be "fun", and I was right. I note again that you haven't provided a single link to anything that supports your claims. You never do. You simply make unsupported claims that are supposed to be automatically believed. On the other hand, I've provided several links in my articles, and you can click on any of the many articles from that google link to see articles that don't support your claim. Part of the problem is that I simply don't believe you. In particular, I don't believe that you believe that the Chinese aren't threatening Russia's Far East. This has been so widely reported over the last 15 years, that someone as knowledgeable as yourself must be aware of that, and you are just using a "bait and mock" technique by saying that "they had actually settled all of their border disputes over a decade ago" to have some "fun." RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - John J. Xenakis - 02-04-2017 (02-04-2017, 03:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > What? Why? Why wouldn't the US be allied with China, Pakistan, That's an interesting question. Could the US join China and Pakistan against India and Britain? I just don't see how that's possible. One thing that I've pointed to in the past is that Russia has invaded and annexed parts of Georgia and Ukraine, and yet there hasn't been even a hint of war between the US and Russia. Basically, the Russian people and Western people like each other, for the most part. But I believe that we would be at war with China within six hours if China invaded Taiwan (or Japan or Philippines). Even though we saved China's ass in WW II, they still hate us. (02-04-2017, 03:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Also, why isn't the EU included in this analysis? What side will This is a question that I've been puzzling over for ten years. There are several historical fault lines -- Catholic vs Protestant, Western vs Orthodox, Christian vs Jew, Greek vs German, and so forth. How these fault lines will align in the coming war is still to be determined. One hypothesis that I've considered is that "universal religions" stick together, while "targeted religions" stick together. The universal religions are Catholic, Sunni Islam, and Buddhism, while the targeted religions are Protestant Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, Shia Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism. I wrote about this hypothesis in the following article: ** 17-Aug-16 World View -- Russia-Iran airbase agreement further isolates Saudi Arabia ** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/xct.gd.e160817.htm#e160817 and I've received nothing but ridicule for it. But still, the hypothesis has some historical significance, and might have some relevance it predicting the alignment of the various European nations. RE: Generational Dynamics World View - tg63 - 02-04-2017 This is a really interesting discussion point. My $0.02... In this still relatively new 21st century, which alliance is stronger for the US - the historical alliance with Great Britain and western Europe as western democracies, or the economic alliance with the House of Saud and as a result Sunni countries through the middle east. This could go either way. The dependence on Saudi Arabia for cheap, reliable oil is certainly much less than in past decades, and this will only continue to decline. At some point is the US going to say that the negatives of the relationship outweigh the positives, and say screw it? While this is possible, the strong rhetoric that this administration is sending out against shia Iran tells me that the status quo will continue for at least the next few years. As long as the US allies with Saudi Arabia, I gotta think pakistan is relatively safe. As soon as that starts to waver tho - and the best indicator would be a more conciliatory attitude towards Iran - I think all bets are off. RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - SomeGuy - 02-04-2017 John, This is absurd. I am not baiting you in order to have fun at your expense, I am soliciting a conversation because I like talking about things like this and living in a strange city and working as a programmer at a travel agency does not give me a lot of opportunities to do so in RL. I genuinely disagree that the pressures to which you refer will be an issue IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE. Later in the 21st century, with increasing resource scarcity and a warming climate? Entirely possible, as I have said previously. Let's take this Chinese-Immigration-to-the-Russian-Far-East thing. We have had this conversation previously, and I remember you linking to this article, written in 2000 and referencing an Alexander Shaikin, who claimed that a million and a half Chinese had flooded over the border in the last year, and that the Chinese would come to dominate the region demographically within the next 20-30 years. It is now 2017, so let's evaluate the claim. Here is an article in The Diplomat, written a year ago. It specifically references his claim, and compares it to census information, interviews with locals, and the like. The author basically comes to the same conclusion I did, which is that while there is a demographic imbalance, there is little pushing/pulling the Chinese in that direction, and that while it is likely to be an issue in the long run, it is not presently. This goes to my point that in terms of their geopolitical aspirations, China and Russia's are complementary RIGHT NOW, and that if there is going to be an alliance of convenience formed in the next few years, it is going to be between Russia and China rather than between either of them and the US. We can see evidence of this with the formation of the SCO, Chinese support of Russian actions in the Ukraine, Russian sales of advanced weaponry to the Chinese, and regularly scheduled joint military exercises between the two of them. Like I said, if there were a particularly hankering in the Chinese government for resettling Han settlers (which is something that they do do, as one can see in Tibet and Xinjiang) in a cold and inhospitable place to which they had prior claims, you’d probably see it in Mongolia first. Outer Mongolia had been within the Chinese orbit for centuries, had been incorporated into the Qing dynasty, and didn’t split off into its own country again until the early 20th century. I was in Northern China over winter break 2014-2015. I actually rode the bus up from Beijing to Zamin Ude, the major border crossing between China and Mongolia (and the only one open to people like me). Do you know what I saw on the ride up, the border crossing through, and in Ulanbaator (not a place I would recommend visiting in January, BTW)? Hordes of Chinese settlers? No, I saw Mongolian migrant laborers traveling to China for work, or heading back to Mongolia to visit family. So why would China try and seize Russian land from a nuclear power while tensions with the US are what they are, and not bother to seize an equally mineral-rich and population poor place to which they have prior claim whose army is negligible and whose WMDs are nonexistent? Don't believe the border-dispute resolution? They signed an initial resolution in 1991, subject to haggling, agreed on control of various islands in the Amur River by 2004, with the official transfer occurring in 2008. There are presently no outstanding issues between the two governments on the subject. No official statements of irredentism. So where is the war going to come from? As for the idea that an Indo-Pakistani war would draw in the two of them on either side? Where's the evidence? The Russians remained neutral when India and China went to war back in the 1960s, when Russian-Chinese tensions were high enough to lead to actual border clashes. The Russians are holding military drills with Pakistan, and increasing weapons sales to offset India's rapprochement with United States. Where was Chinese military support for Pakistan during Indo-Pakistani war in 1971? RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - Warren Dew - 02-04-2017 (02-04-2017, 09:28 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:(02-04-2017, 03:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > What? Why? Why wouldn't the US be allied with China, Pakistan, I think the explanation there is that the difference between Japan on the one hand and Ukraine on the other is required by geopolitical imperatives. The US is a maritime power; our geography, as the only major nation with long coasts on both the Atlantic and the Pacific, dictates that. Our geopolitical interest is in being a - preferably the - global maritime power; for that reason, we're interested primarily in other coastal nations, from whom we can benefit through favorable trade agreements. Japan and Taiwan are island nations, the ultimate in coastal nations, so our interest in them is strong. Ukraine and Georgia have little coast, and what coast they have is on the Black Sea, which we can access only by treaty with Turkey. Our interest in them is weaker and mostly indirect, through NATO allies. And of course it doesn't hurt that China is only a second tier nuclear power, while Russia is on a par with us. This means that from a geopolitical interest standpoint, we have more potential for conflict with China than with Russia. I'm not sure geopolitical interest necessarily coincides with your cultural imperatives, however, and potential for conflict doesn't necessarily make conflict inevitable. I'd also note that from a geopolitical standpoint, one could have expected a war in the WWII time frame between the US and Japan, but not between the US and Germany, as Japan was a competing maritime power while Germany was a continental power. We ended up getting dragged into the war with Germany - including lend lease even before the Pearl Harbor attack - by our cultural allies, in particular Britain. If Russia's leader ends up on an expansionist path due to internal political imperatives, as happened with Germany in WWII, I could easily see us dragged into a war with them as well, through western European allies. Nor do we necessarily have to be dragged into any war. WWII never touched our shores, and Britain managed to stay out of the thick of the 1860 crisis, remaining on the periphery of the US civil war and the Taiping rebellion, participating directly only in the Second Opium War. If we realize that our correct strategy is to improve our global maritime power to hegemonic status by playing balance of power politics with respect to Eurasia, we could restrict our intervention to tipping the balance of any conflicts in whatever direction favors us. This is basically what Victorian England did. If you think cultural concerns necessarily trump geopolitical concerns, the closest thing we have to cultural enemies are Iran and Russia, so it's hard to justify our being on their side. As you note, though, our history doesn't show a clear cultural nemesis, having cycled through Britain, ourselves, and Germany and Japan. And of course, we can't necessarily assume there's no civil war in the US, what with the California government studying ways to cut off funding flows to the federal government. If the rest of the world breaks down the way you suggest, the East Coast could side with Russia while the West Coast sides with China. ---- I'd also note a few details here: First, I presume you meant "Russia" rather than "Britain". The "dots" you provided didn't cover Britain any more than they did the US. I would point out our interest in Japan is stronger than our interest in Taiwan; we have bases in Japan but not Taiwan. I do think we would intervene in favor of Taiwan if they were invaded conventionally, but it's to be noted that we also sent planes to Georgia when Russia invaded, loaded with Georgian troops with fresh combat experience in Iraq. The Russian invasion stopped advancing the instant our planes touched down in Georgia. We obviously haven't intervened in, or even supplied arms to, Ukraine, as yet, so the big contrast is between Ukraine and Japan - though even there Obama may have thought sanctions were a form of intervention in favor of Ukraine. Incidentally, while we helped get Japan off China's back, we spent the last four years of their crisis war, which didn't end until 1949, supporting the Nationalists. The Nationalists love us still, and the Maoists no longer had reason to. And the Soviet Communists, who did have reason for gratitude, were as ungrateful as the Maoists. Quote:(02-04-2017, 03:17 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Also, why isn't the EU included in this analysis? What side will An interesting idea. Your reason not to apply it to Japan seems a bit of a rationalization, though, and the rationalization would be as valid for China, which would hurt your theory about how the rest of the world would break down. Also to be noted is that most of Europe is at this point irreligious, including the UK, and their secular humanist atheism would qualify as a universalist faith. This suggests that Europe would be more likely to be on the Arabia/Pakistan/China side and against the Russia/India/Iran side. In that case your theory would then have us helping Russia take over Western Europe. Could you see that? RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - SomeGuy - 02-04-2017 I'd like to chime in, for what it's worth, with Warren's analysis. RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - John J. Xenakis - 02-04-2017 (02-04-2017, 02:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > This is absurd. I am not baiting you in order to have fun at your OK, I'll concede that I misunderstood what you were saying, and I apologize for doing so. But there's still something very wrong if you and I view the same subjects so differently. Let's start with the 1991 border agreement, since that's the most obvious problem. What possible relevance could an old Unraveling-era agreement have to today's world? France and Germany signed a border agreement at Versailles in 1919, but they still went to war 20 years later. Some of the things you mention are really laughable. Of course China supports Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- it's doing the same thing in the South China Sea. Using your reasoning, I can prove that WW II never occurred. England and Germany had a "peace in our time" agreement, so of course they were never at war. Russia and Germany had the Molotov–Ribbentrop agreement, so of course Germany never invaded Russia. The North and the South were happily debating laws in the Congress of the United States, so of course the South never attacked Fort Sumter. The Hutus and the Tutsis had signed several peace agreements, so of course there was no mass slaughter when someone broadcast, "Cut down the tall trees." When I was growing up in the 1950s, I heard the same thing over and over again from everyone -- parents, teachers, friends, etc. -- that everyone had been completely surprised by Hitler and the war. No one had ever suspected what Hitler would do, I was often told. In fact, one person famously did see what was coming - Churchill. He noticed that the Germans were building a large air force whose only logical purpose was to bomb Britain. But that was ignored, as was the invasion of Czechoslovakia. So I read your list of political agreements and your claims that these prove that no one is planning war with utter astonishment. If China were planning war with Russia and America, it would still sign all those agreements, just as Hitler signed the "peace in our time" agreement on the same day he and Mussolini were planning war. If China were NOT planning war, it would have no use for the thousands of missiles targeting the US and Russia, or for those new missiles on Russia's border, and China would not be confiscating other people's fishing grounds and building military bases in the South China Sea. As you may know, I compare myself to the mythical Cassandra, the Biblical Jeramiah, and Winston Churchill himself, all of whom were willing to see what was obviously coming, but were treated like dirt, hated and ridiculed and even assaulted for saying so. And now what's really hilarious is the situation where Steve Bannon, who is Trump's chief strategist, is a friend of mine and an expert on Generational Dynamics, and as I pointed out, Trump's inauguration speech reflected the Generational Dynamics view of the world. But the hilarious part is that the mainstream media is suddenly discovering the Fourth Turning, and David Kaiser and Neil Howe, who are both on the far left and therefore hate Trump, are disavowing the whole FT theory. Oh no, Trump's all wrong, they're now saying in the Time article. Both Howe and Kaiser really despise me and GD. This is an example of my own initial naïveté. Back 12-13 years ago, I naïvely thought that Howe and Strauss and Kaiser would actually welcome my contributions to the fourth turning theory. Haha. I'm like dirt to them, but I'm in good company anyway. So getting back to the current subject, believe what you want. If you think WW II never happened, then you're welcome to that belief. If you think that WW III won't happen, then you're welcome to that belief too. My only point is that the reasons you give for having that belief are completely irrelevant. RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - John J. Xenakis - 02-04-2017 (02-04-2017, 04:58 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Also to be noted is that most of Europe is at this point It's not a theory. It's a speculation. And it would describe tendencies only. It's just one more of several generational tools that can be used to try to forecast the future. RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - SomeGuy - 02-04-2017 Apology accepted, and sorry if I appeared to be baiting you. Not my intention at all. Also, you actually know Steve Bannon? That's pretty cool. As for the rest of it, let's see: - So, no mention of the complete absence of evidence for hordes of Chinese people pouring into the Russian Far East. So, are you abandoning this claim? Refusing to discuss it? - The bit about WWII is a little odd. The proof that WWII happened is that it... actually happened. Lots of evidence (bombed buildings, mass death, people's memories, documents from the time, etc.) for it. If your argument is instead that by my reasoning WWII could not have happened because of Munich, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, etc. Ok, does this mean any peace treaty or border adjustment signed is ipso facto evidence that the parties are going to try and kill each other shortly after. I mean, the French and Germans had fought a war only 20 years before, the French sent troops into the Ruhr in 1923, Hitler had been fairly clear about his long term goals and obsessions in Mein Kampf, France had been actively trying to form alliances like the Stresa Front in order to counterbalance Germany all through the 30s, there was a state of war between Germany and France after the invasion of Poland for almost a year before the attacks on France and Low Countries... Once again, it didn't just come out of a clear sky. Where is the equivalent between Russia and China? There are tensions between the US and Russia, China, and Iran, between Israel and its neighbors, between Pakistan and India (with shots fired), but Russia and China? I don't see any, and I think and have thought for a number of years that WWIII (for some value of the same) is a real possibility, so I've been looking. If you have some information to that effect, I'd love to see it. Really, I would. - As for the Indo-Pakistani thing inevitably drawing the Chinese and Russians on opposite sides, where's the evidence that they would intervene (to the point of nuking each other, no less)? Where are the mutual defense treaties between the two? Prior evidence of interventions? It seems like a bit of a leap. RE: Generational Dynamics World View - Cynic Hero '86 - 02-04-2017 A Russo-Chinese joint war against the US is much more likely than China attacking Russia. China and Russia carried out joint military exercises last summer in the south China sea and have been conducting Annual naval and nuclear submarine exercises since 2005. These exercises are obviously directed at the US. Also While many younger Iranians have more pro-western views, Most Americans consider Iran an Irrational and Potentially Deadly enemy. Also when you Mention Muslims and possible 4T conflicts, wars and/or genocide; you seem to regard the Muslims as more likely being the victims of genocidal actions rather than the Aggressors. This is utter nonsense, if a genocidal conflict involving Muslims occurred, they are far more likely to be the aggressors than the defenders. RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - Warren Dew - 02-04-2017 (02-04-2017, 06:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Apology accepted, and sorry if I appeared to be baiting you. Not my intention at all. I think this is coming to it from the wrong direction. There's a crisis to be resolved soon. All crises discussed in Generations end in total wars. I've never understood how the Great Depression could be seen as the culmination of the last crisis period, and apparently neither could John, nor Bannon, by all accounts. If you come at things from that perspective - there's going to be a total war, the only question is who will be fighting whom - then the salient issue when a conflict is settled before the crisis war is that there was a conflict which could flare up again and precipitate the crisis war, not that there was a settlement. Personally, I'm pretty convinced about Pakistan and India being on opposite sides. China and India are at least unlikely to be on the same side, though they might not end up fighting; in particular, I think China is a good candidate for a civil war. Iran and India will end up on the same side on the "enemy of my enemy" theory; same for Pakistan and Arabia once Iran joins. I don't see Russia, or Europe, or especially the US, as obvious with regard to sides. John may be picking the most likely sides, but once you line up all the probabilistic effects, even the most likely sides are likely less than even odds. There are a lot of possible combinations. RE: 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect - SomeGuy - 02-04-2017 (02-04-2017, 10:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(02-04-2017, 06:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Apology accepted, and sorry if I appeared to be baiting you. Not my intention at all. Oh, agreed, up to a point. The whole point I was making was that they don't flare up out of nowhere. India/Pakistan, why, there's shots fired across the border right now. Israel, well, I don't think they get along with any of their neighbors, except maybe King Playstation. US/Iran, there's another one, which would be particularly unfortunate because in the medium-to-long term I agree that the rising generations are not at all committed to the "Death to America" thing (it would also make the India thing a little awkward). China/Japan, or China/Taiwan, and by extension with the previous China/US, again, entirely possible. If you want a European example, how do you think France's National Front would get along with their large Arab/African population if the former ever came to power (which is not exactly outside the realm of possibility these days). But China and Russia? Maybe a few decades from now, in fact I think it probable. But now? Where's the evidence? Honestly, I don't see Russia as being in a 4T, and so I could actually see it sitting out, as long as it had its own little sphere of influence in the FSU that nobody infringed on. And at this point the country most likely (though thankfully much less after the election) to poke hard into its perceived sphere of influence and into it personally is the US. 5-Feb-17 World View -- Egypt accused of 'dirty deal' to sabotage an Ethiopian dam - John J. Xenakis - 02-04-2017 *** 5-Feb-17 World View -- Egypt accused of 'dirty deal' to sabotage an Ethiopian dam project This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
**** **** Egypt's air force accused of bombing rebel targets in South Sudan **** Egypt's al-Sisi (L) and South Sudan's Kiir are said to have agreed to a 'dirty deal' (Getty) Anti-government rebels in South Sudan are accusing Egypt of conducting bombing raids on rebel targets. A statement published by the rebels accuses South Sudan's president Salva Kiir of risking a regional war. South Sudan is the world's youngest nation, having gained independence from Sudan in 2011. The region's last generational crisis war was an ethnic war mainly between two tribes, the Nuer and the Dinka. That war climaxed with the "Bor Massacre," which began on November 15, 1991, killing tens of thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands of people over a three month period. A new conflict began on December 15, 2013, led by the president Salva Kiir, of the Dinka tribe, fighting against forces led by vice president Riek Machar, of the Nuer tribe. Kiir and Machar signed a peace agreement in August 2015, but that did little good. South Sudan is in a generational Awakening era, and this renewed war between the Dinkas and the Nuer would have fizzled out, except that both sides have been importing weapons, often using funds meant to fight poverty. The situation in South Sudan is similar to the war in Syria, which would have fizzled out long ago if it weren't for massive military aid from Russia, Hezbollah and Iran. The rebels are accusing Egypt of replicating the situation in Sudan by playing the part that Russia is playing in Syria, and bombing rebel targets on behalf of the government. Egyptian foreign ministry spokesman Ahmed Abu Zeid denied the alleged air strikes, saying: "Egypt does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries." Reuters and South Sudan News Agency Related Articles
**** **** Egypt accused of 'dirty deal' to sabotage an Ethiopian dam project **** The statement by anti-government rebels accusing Egypt of bombing rebel targets in South Sudan says that Egypt and South Sudan are in a "dirty deal" between Egypt's president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and South Sudan's president Salva Kiir, and that the deal involves involving weapons sales and sabotage of an Ethiopian dam project: > [indent]<QUOTE>"There is a dirty deal going between Kiir and > El-Sisi. the issue of Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is one of > the main deals being finalized in Cairo. Our intelligence sources > in Kampala and Juba confirmed that Egypt wants South Sudan and > Uganda to be her regional allies so that she can advance its > covert sabotage campaign against the Ethiopian Dam. The man [Kiir] > is a double agent; he will cause many problems for the entire East > Africa region."<END QUOTE>[/indent] The statement refers to a Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) project that Ethiopia has been trying to get built for years. Ethiopians see as is a great national project and a means of overcoming poverty. There is considerable opposition to the dam project in Egypt because it would affect the flow of water along the Nile river. Egypt depends on the Nile river to supply most of Egypt's drinking war, to irrigate the Nile Delta, and to generate half of the country's electricity through the operation of Egypt's Aswan High Dam. Egypt's long-time dictator Hosni Mubarak was able to block development of the Ethiopian dam, but after the "Arab Awakening" in 2011, and the coup that overthrew him, Ethiopia began building the dam. It's expected to be completed in July. Egypt and Ethiopia have signed an agreement saying that Ethiopia guarantees that Egypt's water supply will not be affected, but that hasn't fully reassured many Egyptians. The South Sudan rebel statement, if true, would indicate that Egypt's al-Sisi and South Sudan's Kiir covertly sabotaging the dam in a "dirty deal" that will keep Kiir in power. Egypt Independent and Al-Ahram (Cairo) and Sudan Tribune KEYS: Generational Dynamics, South Sudan, Dinka, Nuer, Bor Massacre, Salva Kiir, Riek Machar, Syria, Ahmed Abu Zeid, Ethiopia, Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, GERD, Aswan High Dam, Hosni Mubarak Permanent web link to this article Receive daily World View columns by e-mail Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal John J. Xenakis 100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: 617-864-0010 E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe |