01-28-2017, 02:58 PM
(01-28-2017, 02:09 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:(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.
(01-28-2017, 01:11 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > The collapse of the Soviet Union was an Awakening? How did we jump
> to turning #5, then?
The Awakening era is characterized by a political clash between the
crisis war survivor generations and the generations growing up after
the war. The Awakening climax decides the inter-generational victors
and losers. It can occur during the Awakening era (resignation of
Nixon), or it can occur later (Glorious Revolution, Weimar collapse,
Tiananmen Square massacre, Soviet Union collapse). The words "Velvet
Coup" or "Velvet Revolution" are often used to describe the event
because there's relatively little violence.
An Awakening era creates a horizontal split in the population --
generation vs generation. A Crisis era creates a vertical split --
religion vs religion, ethnic group vs ethnic group, etc. The climax
in each case determines a victor, but in the case of the Crisis
climax, it comes after maximum genocidal violence that's so horrific
that the survivors enter a First Turning again.
This is the "It's not a crisis without a war" bit again, isn't it?
Quote:How World War III could begin in Latvia.
Which again goes against the idea of Russia fighting China instead of the West.
Quote: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.
Yeah, I think the risk is more with whoever comes in AFTER Putin. Somebody like Rogozin or something. And yeah, I don't think it would be over the Amur river or South Asia, either.
