Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(01-27-2017, 05:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: (01-27-2017, 05:25 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: (01-27-2017, 10:19 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: > I still question if that issue is going to be salient within the
> present turning. If it really wanted to directly acquire
> mineral-rich, barely habitable territory, why wouldn't it start
> with, say, Mongolia? Small population, big territory, historic
> claims, lots of resources, no nukes, etc. Going straight for
> nuclear war seems a bit of a drastic step. Even Hitler built up
> to invading Russia gradually, with lots of trial runs in
> Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, France, Norway, the
> Netherlands...
> A few decades from now, maybe, but not? Color me skeptical.
>
If that's true, then why is China building illegal artificial islands
and military bases in the South China Sea, and why is China
threatening Japan over the Senkaku islands?
To secure its sealanes and fisheries? Or is it really just to lull the Russians into a false sense of confidence?
I'm pretty sure it's to secure energy resources. I still don't understand what John thinks that implies about their strategic plan, though.
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
(01-27-2017, 05:33 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > What's your theory about their overall strategic plan?
I don't believe that the South had a strategic plan in mind when they
attacked Fort Sumter. I don't believe that Japan had (much of) a
strategic plan in mind when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
Israel certainly had no strategic plan in mind when they attacked
Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006.
I keep saying this -- generational crisis wars are not rational, any
more than sex is rational. Like erotic urges, nationalistic urges
take over the mind and take control of it, so that there is just blind
emotion driving a person or a population to a climax and disaster.
Maybe it would be more rational for China to attack Mongolia,
but that wouldn't satisfy the nationalistic urges permeating
China today.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
And these nationalistic urges must inevitably be directed in Russia's direction because, why?
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
01-27-2017, 08:38 PM
(01-27-2017, 08:10 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > And these nationalistic urges must inevitably be directed in
> Russia's direction because, why?
They're also directed at America. And at India. And at Japan.
You keep looking for a rational explanation when none exists. Why are
sexual urges directed at some particular woman? It's not rational.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
Quote:They're also directed at America. And at India. And at Japan.
We've seen ample evidence for nationalist animosities directed towards Japan, the Chinese have been stoking the coals on that one for years. America? To a point, in the sense that we are standing in the way of them and their "rightful place in the sun", as it were. India? That's seems less nationalist and more strategic, vis securing their supply line through Pakistan to Gwadar, or fears of encirclement.
Where is the evidence for Russia-China tensions within the past few years? The US and Japan prior to WWII? The US had been denouncing them for years, and slapped an oil embargo on them to boot. The South and the North prior to the Civil War? Bleeding Kandas, the Caning of Charles Sumner, John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, there's no need to go on. Israel and Hezbollah? Again, long standing, and it's a conflict that isn't finished.
Wars don't just break out from clear skies. And please don't tell me the most recent thing you've got are the Sino-Soviet split back in the 60s. They actually addressed all of the outstanding border disputes in 2004, starting in the '90s. Putin and Xi Jinping are reportedly quite friendly. I'm not trying to be difficult, where are you seeing this tension building now?
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
Oh, and that Jessi Colter was real cute back in her prime. Waylon Jennings was a lucky man.
Posts: 1,402
Threads: 17
Joined: May 2016
(01-27-2017, 08:38 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:
OMG, John. That is one of the worst songs ever! Why did you ever remind me of that hideous droning warbling.
<<<<cringe>>>>>
---Value Added 
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
*** 28-Jan-17 World View -- Furious Turkey threatens migrant deal over Greece's failure to extradite
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- Furious Turkey threatens migrant deal over Greece's failure to extradite
- Desperate EU officials still try to shut down Mediterranean migration route
****
**** Furious Turkey threatens migrant deal over Greece's failure to extradite
****
![[Image: g170127b.jpg]](http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g170127b.jpg)
Turkish soldiers after landing in Greece on July 17 of last year (Reuters)
Greece's Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the extradition of eight
Turkish military officers sought by Ankara over the failed coup of
July 15 of last year.
On July 16, the day after the coup attempt, a Turkish military
helicopter landed unexpectedly in the Greek town of Alexandroupoli,
close to the Turkish border. Eight Turkish soldiers emerged from the
helicopter, asking for political asylum.
Turkey said that the eight soldiers were traitors, and demanded their
extradition.
It's been six months since then, and the asylum request is still
pending. However, on Friday, Greece's Supreme Court ruled against
extraditing them back to Turkey. The court said that there was on
evidence that they were involved in the coup attempt, and that they
were unlikely to get a fair trial in Turkey. The soldiers claim that
they would be killed if they returned to Turkey.
Turkey, on the other hand, claims that they provided documents and
other evidence that proves that the eight soldiers were involved, and
that Greece's refusal to extradite is a violation of international
law.
Turkish officials are furious:
> [indent] <QUOTE>"We will carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the
> impact of this decision - which we believe has been taken with a
> political motive - on our bilateral ties, co-operation in the
> fight against terrorism and on other bilateral and regional
> issues. ...
>
> There is a migration deal we signed, including a readmission deal
> with Greece, and we are evaluating what we can do, including the
> cancellation of the readmission deal with Greece."<END QUOTE>[/indent]
The readmission deal is one part of the EU-Turkey migrant deal signed
last year. Turkey agreed with the EU to take back all migrants and
refugees who cross to Greece illegally. In return, Turkey would
receive financial aid, visa-free travel for all Turkish citizens in
Europe, and an acceleration of negotiations for Turkey to join the EU.
Turkey and Greece also have an agreement on the readmission to Turkey
of illegal migrants.
The EU-Turkey deal has been extremely successful, in that it's reduced
the flow of migrants from Syria and Iraq into the EU from a torrent
into a trickle. The EU so far has refused to grant visa-free travel
to Turkish citizens, or to accelerate negotiations for Turkey to join
the EU.
Turkey has sometimes threated the "nuclear option" of cancelling the
entire deal. However, on this occasion, the threat appears to be far
less substantial -- just canceling the portion of the deal that
permits Greece to send refugees back to Turkey for readmission.
The EU is trying to play a balancing act with Turkey. The EU
desperately needs the migrant deal, since another influx of hundreds
of thousands of migrants would threaten the cohesion of the EU itself.
On the other hand, Turkish authorities have fired or jailed hundreds
of thousands of people since July, accusing them of supporting the
coup, while not supplying any evidence. These arrests have
particularly targeted journalists, teachers and police officers.
These massive firings and jailings have caused astonishment among EU
officials, raising human rights concerns to the point where visa-free
travel and EU membership are strongly rejected by many EU officials.
Hurriyet (Ankara) and Greek Reporter and BBC (19-Jul-2016)
Related Articles
****
**** Desperate EU officials still try to shut down Mediterranean migration route
****
Even if the EU-Turkey migrant deal remains intact, there could still
be hundreds of thousands of migrants traveling from Libya to Italy by
crossing the Mediterranean. The technique used by human smugglers is
to pack 40 migrants in a rubber dinghy that's supposed to hold no more
than 10 people, and send them out to sea off the coast of Libya.
They're told to call the Italian coast guard once they're in
international waters and ask to be saved.
Because of the instability in Libya, it's clear that there's no hope
of an EU-Libya deal as effective as the EU-Turkey deal.
Instead, EU officials are moving ahead with a plan to establish
refugee camps in Africa. When migrants are picked up from dinghies in
the Mediterranean, they'll be taken to these African refugee camps
rather than to Europe.
According to Germany's Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, "The
people taken up by the smugglers need to be saved and brought to a
safe place. But then from this safe place outside Europe, we would
bring into Europe only those who require protection." RFE/RL and Russia Today and Reuters
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Turkey, Greece, Alexandroupoli,
Libya, Italy, Mediterranean Sea, Thomas de Maiziere
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
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
Quote:> They're also directed at America. And
> at India. And at Japan.
(01-27-2017, 08:49 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > We've seen ample evidence for nationalist animosities directed
> towards Japan, the Chinese have been stoking the coals on that one
> for years. America? To a point, in the sense that we are
> standing in the way of them and their "rightful place in the sun",
> as it were. India? That's seems less nationalist and more
> strategic, vis securing their supply line through Pakistan to
> Gwadar, or fears of encirclement. Where is the evidence for
> Russia-China tensions within the past few years? The US and Japan
> prior to WWII? The US had been denouncing them for years, and
> slapped an oil embargo on them to boot. The South and the North
> prior to the Civil War? Bleeding Kandas, the Caning of Charles
> Sumner, John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, there's no need to go
> on. Israel and Hezbollah? Again, long standing, and it's a
> conflict that isn't finished. Wars don't just break out from
> clear skies. And please don't tell me the most recent thing
> you've got are the Sino-Soviet split back in the 60s. They
> actually addressed all of the outstanding border disputes in 2004,
> starting in the '90s. Putin and Xi Jinping are reportedly quite
> friendly. I'm not trying to be difficult, where are you seeing
> this tension building now?
I agree with your analysis here. There's a point that I've made in
the past but not recently that really America is really one of the
least hated countries in the world. If you listen to the news media
and you hear almost every politician blame America for almost
everything, and particularly now when the international media have
gone hysterically ballistic over Trump, you would think that in fact
America is the most hated nation in the world. But that hatred is all
fatuous political nonsense. I remember thinking this years ago when
there was widespread anti-American rioting in Pakistan over the Afghan
war and drone strikes in FATA. It was clear that these anti-American
rioters did not wish any harm to America -- they simply wanted America
to leave. That kind of anti-Americanism is very different from hating
America.
So I agree with you that Xi Jinping is not going to get out of bed one
morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll push the Red Button today to
launch missiles and destroy 50 American cities. That'll be fun."
But that's not how it's going to go. The fact is that China has
developed all these missile systems capable of attacking American
cities, military bases and aircraft carriers. Those aren't just going
to sit there forever. They're going to get used. So the only issue
is the scenario.
So here's a perfectly plausible scenario: A border war between India
and Pakistan begins to escalate. China comes in on Pakistan's side,
and Russia comes in on India's side. At first it's only for support
-- supplying weapons and logistics, for example -- but sooner or later
Russian and Chinese forces start shooting at each other. Pakistan's
blood brothers in Saudi Arabia come to their aid, while Iran starts
helping out with India. The US stays out of it as long as it can, and
calls for peace, but is really on India's side. China wants to send
warships to the India Ocean to support Pakistan, but they're blocked
by American warships. China decides that it has to "solve the America
problem once and for all," and launches its battery of nuclear
missiles to clear out the warships blocking China's ships, and on
American cities as well. By that time, the US is shooting back, and
everyone is starting to use nuclear weapons.
That's just one scenario. You could imagine another scenario where
the Syrian war expands to a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, pulling
in Pakistan and India, etc. Or maybe it'll be Turkey vs Greece. Or
maybe it'll be Israel vs the Arabs. It could even start with an
escalating border dispute between Colombia and Venezuela.
The thing that distinguishes generational Crisis eras from other eras
is that in other eras the public mood is against war, because the
survivors of the last Crisis war are still around, while in a Crisis
era the public mood becomes highly nationalistic and favors wars.
That's why small wars in Unraveling eras don't escalate, while small
wars in Crisis eras lead to the tit-for-tat setting of escalating red
lines leads to a Regeneracy and a full-scale generational crisis war
-- in this case a world war.
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
(01-27-2017, 08:38 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:
(01-27-2017, 09:09 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: > OMG, John. That is one of the worst songs ever! Why did you ever
> remind me of that hideous droning warbling.
> <<<<cringe>>>>>
I love that song. The following article gives one possible
reason why people have different tastes in music:
** Generational Dynamics and prolactin
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/x...tm#e150214
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
God Damn You, B&N WiFi! You cut out exactly while I was posting my response!
*sigh*
And again...
Quote:I agree with your analysis here. There's a point that I've made in
the past but not recently that really America is really one of the
least hated countries in the world. If you listen to the news media
and you hear almost every politician blame America for almost
everything, and particularly now when the international media have
gone hysterically ballistic over Trump, you would think that in fact
America is the most hated nation in the world. But that hatred is all
fatuous political nonsense. I remember thinking this years ago when
there was widespread anti-American rioting in Pakistan over the Afghan
war and drone strikes in FATA. It was clear that these anti-American
rioters did not wish any harm to America -- they simply wanted America
to leave. That kind of anti-Americanism is very different from hating
America.
To be sure. I have traveled a fair bit, even to China, and I have seen plenty of the one sort of anti-Americanism to which you refer, and very little of the other. The British enjoyed a similar prestige during their imperial heyday, and yet their moment ended eventually, even as ours will, be it in this crisis or another. The allusion to their "place in the sun" was in reference to a previous iteration of this attitude, though in reference to the "British Question" rather than the American one.
Quote:So I agree with you that Xi Jinping is not going to get out of bed one
morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll push the Red Button today to
launch missiles and destroy 50 American cities. That'll be fun."
But that's not how it's going to go. The fact is that China has
developed all these missile systems capable of attacking American
cities, military bases and aircraft carriers. Those aren't just going
to sit there forever. They're going to get used. So the only issue
is the scenario.
We are in agreement thus far.
Quote:So here's a perfectly plausible scenario: A border war between India
and Pakistan begins to escalate. China comes in on Pakistan's side,
and Russia comes in on India's side. At first it's only for support
-- supplying weapons and logistics, for example -- but sooner or later
Russian and Chinese forces start shooting at each other. Pakistan's
blood brothers in Saudi Arabia come to their aid, while Iran starts
helping out with India. The US stays out of it as long as it can, and
calls for peace, but is really on India's side. China wants to send
warships to the India Ocean to support Pakistan, but they're blocked
by American warships. China decides that it has to "solve the America
problem once and for all," and launches its battery of nuclear
missiles to clear out the warships blocking China's ships, and on
American cities as well. By that time, the US is shooting back, and
everyone is starting to use nuclear weapons.
This is where we diverge. Russia's relations with India have long had more to do with export markets (particularly for arms) than any real alliance structure, and indeed Russia has recently boosted arrangements with Pakistan in order to balance against India's rapprochement with the US, as well as to deal with the threat posed by the Taliban to its own position in Central Asia. It never intervened in any of the previous Indo-Pakistani conflicts, AFAIK, and I don't see why it would now. China is relatively cool to India, both because of their border disputes, but more because it views its emerging relationship with the US as an attempt at encirclement by the latter. I also don't see why it would use its relatively limited nuclear arsenal to strike at US forces in the Western Pacific when it has been building up its conventional forces to do the same thing, cheaper, with less risk of escalation, and with the ability to keep their own strategic weapons in reserve. Things COULD escalate to a nuclar conflict, but probably not as an opening gambit. YMMV, of course.
Quote:That's just one scenario. You could imagine another scenario where
the Syrian war expands to a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, pulling
in Pakistan and India, etc. Or maybe it'll be Turkey vs Greece. Or
maybe it'll be Israel vs the Arabs. It could even start with an
escalating border dispute between Colombia and Venezuela.
I can easily imagine all of those conflicts, as well as an escalation between Russia and the Ukraine. What I don't see are the formal alliances, a la fin de siecle Europe, that would pull all of those conflicts into one.
I mean, there's NATO, and US security commitments in Asia, but I don't really see how that would pull Russia in on our side.
Quote:The thing that distinguishes generational Crisis eras from other eras
is that in other eras the public mood is against war, because the
survivors of the last Crisis war are still around, while in a Crisis
era the public mood becomes highly nationalistic and favors wars.
That's why small wars in Unraveling eras don't escalate, while small
wars in Crisis eras lead to the tit-for-tat setting of escalating red
lines leads to a Regeneracy and a full-scale generational crisis war
-- in this case a world war.
Agreed, as far as it goes, but I don't agree that all of those countries are in 4T right now. China, the US, India-Pakistan, Israel? Sure. Russia, Turkey, Iran? Not so much.
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
Russia, Turkey - so much.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
(01-28-2017, 12:09 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Russia, Turkey - so much.
Russia, and Turkey both had crises that started in 1905ish and ended in the early to mid 1920s. Turkey didn't even participate in WWII. Russia did, and yet its Khrushchev Thaw, Brezhnevite Era of Stagnation, and its complete geopolitical collapse in the 1980s and 90s suggest a full saeculum from the 1920s to 2000. Its present environment has been characteried by rising birthrates (admittedly from an apocalypticly low level during the 90s), a widespread reaction to the ills of the 1990s, unified and broadly popular leadership, and a rise in religious sentiments. Unless you're still postulating a 5th turning I don't see how you can view Putin's Russia as anything other than a 1T coming back from a disastrous crisis.
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
(01-28-2017, 12:09 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > Russia, Turkey - so much.
(01-28-2017, 12:17 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > Russia, and Turkey both had crises that started in 1905ish and
> ended in the early to mid 1920s. Turkey didn't even participate
> in WWII. Russia did, and yet its Khrushchev Thaw, Brezhnevite Era
> of Stagnation, and its complete geopolitical collapse in the 1980s
> and 90s suggest a full saeculum from the 1920s to 2000. Its
> present environment has been characteried by rising birthrates
> (admittedly from an apocalypticly low level during the 90s), a
> widespread reaction to the ills of the 1990s, unified and broadly
> popular leadership, and a rise in religious sentiments. Unless
> you're still postulating a 5th turning I don't see how you can
> view Putin's Russia as anything other than a 1T coming back from a
> disastrous crisis.
I really have no desire at all to rehash these arguments all over
again in detail for the 235th time. 1990s was not a crisis for Russia
- there was no Regeneracy and no Climax. And yes, Turkey and Russia
are in a Fifth Turning, along with Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
Come on! It'll be fun! 
Russian tanks firing on parliament? Civil war in Tajikistan? War between the Chechen and the Russian government, between the Armenians and the Azeris? The complete collapse of a major power? Yeltsin getting re-elected? An attempted coup?
Russia in the 90s was in serious crisis. They had a regeneracy, it's just that the people they ended up rallying around were idiots, especially in Russia proper.
Posts: 2,751
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
01-28-2017, 12:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2017, 12:45 PM by John J. Xenakis.)
Those are all different regions on their own timelines. The collapse
of the Soviet Union was not brought about by a Crisis climax; it was
brought about by an Awakening climax. The Vietnam War was a "crisis"
for America, but there was no Regeneracy and no Climax.
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(01-28-2017, 12:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Quote:So here's a perfectly plausible scenario: A border war between India
and Pakistan begins to escalate. China comes in on Pakistan's side,
and Russia comes in on India's side. At first it's only for support
-- supplying weapons and logistics, for example -- but sooner or later
Russian and Chinese forces start shooting at each other. Pakistan's
blood brothers in Saudi Arabia come to their aid, while Iran starts
helping out with India. The US stays out of it as long as it can, and
calls for peace, but is really on India's side. China wants to send
warships to the India Ocean to support Pakistan, but they're blocked
by American warships. China decides that it has to "solve the America
problem once and for all," and launches its battery of nuclear
missiles to clear out the warships blocking China's ships, and on
American cities as well. By that time, the US is shooting back, and
everyone is starting to use nuclear weapons.
This is where we diverge. Russia's relations with India have long had more to do with export markets (particularly for arms) than any real alliance structure, and indeed Russia has recently boosted arrangements with Pakistan in order to balance against India's rapprochement with the US, as well as to deal with the threat posed by the Taliban to its own position in Central Asia. It never intervened in any of the previous Indo-Pakistani conflicts, AFAIK, and I don't see why it would now. China is relatively cool to India, both because of their border disputes, but more because it views its emerging relationship with the US as an attempt at encirclement by the latter. I also don't see why it would use its relatively limited nuclear arsenal to strike at US forces in the Western Pacific when it has been building up its conventional forces to do the same thing, cheaper, with less risk of escalation, and with the ability to keep their own strategic weapons in reserve. Things COULD escalate to a nuclar conflict, but probably not as an opening gambit. YMMV, of course.
I also find that particular scenario a little questionable, but I think a similar result could be reached another way. In particular, both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons of their own. I can imagine a conflict between Pakistan and India involving incursions into Chinese territory by India, which along with nuclear saber rattling from India might cause China to promise nuclear backup to Pakistan. Emboldened, Pakistan might actually use a nuke, and then India would retaliate, and China might feel obligated to make good on its promise. And if China nuked a city with a large American expatriate community - or if Pakistan or India did that directly - that might draw the US in.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
(01-28-2017, 12:44 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: Those are all different regions on their own timelines. The collapse
of the Soviet Union was not brought about by a Crisis climax; it was
brought about by an Awakening climax. The Vietnam War was a "crisis"
for America, but there was no Regeneracy and no Climax.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was an Awakening? How did we jump to turning #5, then? 
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2016
Warren,
But how does that draw in Russia?
Posts: 1,970
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2016
(01-28-2017, 01:13 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Warren,
But how does that draw in Russia?
Personally, I have a difficult time seeing Putin getting drawn in to anything that doesn't involve a direct attack on Russia, and he tries to avoid even that, as witness his opposition to a Hillary Clinton presidency.
That said, I suppose if the domestic situation in Russia became sufficiently fragile, and some key person were killed that was important politically, he might be drawn in.
I think Russia is more likely to be drawn in by a European conflict, for example if Ukraine heated up again and got out of hand. The issue there is that it's France that controls the nuclear weapons, not Germany.
|
