Generational Dynamics World View

[SomeGuy]

Speaking of derangement... 

[John J. Xenakis]

(01-20-2017, 11:25 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: > I know you really hated Obama. I didn't much care for him but I
> never got to the point of Obama-derangement syndrome. Similarly
> you seem to have gotten caught up in resurgent Clinton-derangement
> syndrome.

I don't hate Obama, and have never hated Obama. Just because I've
criticized his policies doesn't mean I hate him. Every time you
ascribe to me with certainty beliefs and motives that are clearly
wrong, I realize that since you're so wrong about things like that,
where I know you're wrong, then you must be equally wrong about
other things about which you're equally certain.

Actually, your description above is hilarious. Not only do you have
Trump-derangement syndrome, you also clearly have Xenakis-derangement
syndrome. You ought to go see a doctor and get that treated.

[Warren Dew]

(01-20-2017, 11:25 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Trump's speech was not at all like FDR. FDR was no isolationist. Trump's speech was as if the DNA of Lindburgh and Coughlin were brought to life and recombined into a great Orange Monster. Imagine an alternate history where the America Firsters won the '36 or even '40 election. Except this time around we live in a world of warfare under high tech conditions, and the major players are all armed with WMD including thermonuclear devices.

If there's going to be a major nuclear war - say between China and India over Asia, or between Russia and the EU over Eurafrica - I for one would be happier staying out of it.  Fortunately for us, we're the only nuclear power in the Americas.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 22-Jan-17 World View -- India begins deploying its 'Cold Start' military strategy against Pakistan

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• India begins deploying its 'Cold Start' military strategy against Pakistan
  
• Unintended consequence: Cold Start strategy may trigger nuclear war
  
• Russia and India declare their love for each other
  

****
**** India begins deploying its 'Cold Start' military strategy against Pakistan
****


Indian Army T-90S tanks on parade

Reports indicate that India is preparing to deploy 460 high-tech
battle tanks along its border with Pakistan, in order to implement its
"Cold Start" military strategy.

The Cold Start strategy has been discussed for years, although India
has wavered between denying it and acknowledging it at different
times.

The Cold Start strategy would be used when India wants to perform
lightning "Blitzkrieg" military operation with conventional
(non-nuclear) on Pakistani soil for whatever reason -- such as to
retaliate for a jihadist terror attack.

In its current configuration, could not mount such an attack in less
than a few weeks, giving Pakistan time to a nuclear counterattack,
which would force India to back down in most cases.

In the Cold Start scenario, India's army would be prepared to launch
an invasive attack almost immediately. The objective would be to meet
the military objective within a week, before Pakistan would have time
to launch nuclear retaliatory strikes.

Despite years of discussion and denial, the Cold Start strategy hasn't
been implemented because it's too expensive. It requires such things
as high-tech armor including tanks, attack helicopters, and multiple
rocket launchers with a 100 km range, and they have to be on alert at
all times. It also requires sophisticated intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance capabilities that India does not currently have.
India already maintains a sizable tank force along the Pakistan
border, but with decades-old technology.

The reported purchase of hundreds of high-tech Russian tanks suggests
that India is finally moving ahead with its Cold Start strategy.
Relations between India and Pakistan deteriorated significantly during
2016 because of repeated violence during anti-India protests in
India-controlled Kashmir. India blamed the violence on Pakistan,
while Pakistan denied responsibility. Russia Today and The Diplomat

****
**** Unintended consequence: Cold Start strategy may trigger nuclear war
****

The objective of the Cold Start strategy is to be able to complete
attain a military objective quickly with a "Blitzkrieg" attack using
conventional weapons, without risking a nuclear war.

However, some India analysts are saying that the strategy may have the
unintended consequence of making a nuclear war more likely.

According to defense analyst Nitin Mehta:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The Cold Start doctrine essentially will prepare for
> the next wars, which will emerge on short notice, will be of short
> duration, and will be fought at high tempo and intensity. The
> doctrine would mean combined operations by air, land and sea
> forces, which will require greater coordination headed by a senior
> military official."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Gurmeet Kanwal, also a retired Indian Army brigadier and defense
analyst, said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Indian political and military leaders and strategic
> analysts believe that there is clear strategic space for a
> conventional conflict below the nuclear threshold because nuclear
> weapons are not weapons of war fighting. They are convinced that
> for Pakistan, it would be suicidal to launch a nuclear strike
> against India or Indian forces, as it would invite massive
> retaliation."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Both of these analysts advise caution because of the assumptions being
made in the context of a very high risk and very costly strategy. The
strategy is based on the questionable assumption that a rapid military
action by massive armored attacks will deter Pakistan from launching
nuclear counter strikes in retaliation.

In fact, Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaj Asif completely rejects
those assumptions:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on
> us. Pakistan's army is fully prepared to answer any misadventure
> of India. We have not made atomic devices to display in a
> showcase. If a such a situation arises we will use it (nuclear
> weapons) and eliminate India."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

China Topix and Defense News

Related Articles

• In major strategic escalation, Pakistan will use tactical nuclear weapons against India (22-Oct-2015)
  
  
• Generational history of cow protection in India and Hinduism (07-Aug-2016)
  

****
**** Russia and India declare their love for each other
****

India's prime minister last week said in a speech:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Russia is an abiding friend. President Putin and I
> have held long conversations on the challenges that confront the
> world today. Our trusted and strategic partnership, especially in
> the field of defense has deepened."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

At a meeting in October of last year, Sergei Chemezov, CEO of Russia's
Rostec State Corporation and a close aide to Russia's president
Vladimir Putin, said that Russia will always stand by India:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"We are ready not just to deliver the most serious
> weapons, and the most important weapons, but continue to give our
> state of art technology.
>
> Russia is a friend, an ally [of India] and not a business
> partner. Russia stood by India during its darkest hours. Next year
> will mark 70 years of our relationship. It has been a long time.
> In the not so recent past, when India was under sanctions, we were
> pretty much the only partner for India.
>
> Russia has been a partner not only in every day military supplies
> but also in the most sensitive and most important supplies,
> including a nuclear submarine which was rented to India for you to
> use."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

China and Pakistan also have a deep love relationship. As I've
reported in the past, China and Pakistan describe their relationship
as "all-weather friends," "deeper than the deepest ocean," "sweeter
than honey" and "dearer than eyesight."

As I've been writing for many years, Generational Dynamics predicts
that the world is headed for a Clash of Civilizations world war, where
China's allies will include Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries,
and America's allies will include India, Russia and Iran. Russia and India Report and India Today (23-Oct-2016)

Related Articles

• China extends its military buildup with Pakistan (27-Apr-2015)
  
  
• Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China sign economic and military agreements (01-Sep-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, India, Pakistan, Russia, Cold Start,
Nitin Mehta, Gurmeet Kanwal, Khawaj Asif, Sergei Chemezov

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

[Warren Dew]

Pakistan's nuclear weapons take a week to launch?

[John J. Xenakis]

(01-21-2017, 11:13 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Pakistan's nuclear weapons take a week to launch?

It's a little obscure, but I think the issue is that it would take
several days for Pakistan to decide whether to use nuclear weapons in
response to a small, quick military action using conventional weapons.

As the analysts I quoted point out, it's a highly risky strategy,
based on assumptions that may not be true.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 23-Jan-17 World View -- Explosive Israeli policy decisions reportedly put on hold at Trump's request

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Explosive Israeli policy decisions reportedly put on hold at Trump's request
  
• Israel prepares for the Palestinian 'Oslo Generation'
  

****
**** Explosive Israeli policy decisions reportedly put on hold at Trump's request
****


Israeli Arabs in the Oslo Generation (Reuters)

Two potentially explosive policy decisions related to Israel and the
Mideast have been put on hold, reflecting the recognition by both the
American and Israeli administrations of the need for caution:

• Reports that President Donald Trump on Monday was going to
  move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were
  shot down by administration officials, saying that they were only at
  "the very beginning" of discussing plans to move the embassy.
  
• Under pressure from Trump, Israel's prime minister Benjamin
  Netanyahu has asked his cabinet to postpone plans to annex a portion
  of the West Bank, the Maaleh Adumim settlement near
  Jerusalem.

Internationally, the pressure on Israel is in a bit of a lull right
now. The knife and car attacks and other attacks by young
Palestinians on Israelis that were surging in 2015 have subsided,
while the tensions over the so-called "peace process" have subsided
because the international focus is on the wars in Syria, Iraq and
Yemen.

So the delay in implementing these two explosive policy decisions is
welcome because it continues this relative lull for a while longer.

Decisions like these should not be implemented without two things:

• Laying the groundwork with an extensive campaign to educate
  the public, especially Palestinians, so that even if they disagree
  with the decisions, they'll understand them.
  
• Coming up with something to give in return, such as closing down
  some little-used settlement elsewhere in the West Bank.

NBC News and AP

****
**** Israel prepares for the Palestinian 'Oslo Generation'
****

As long-time readers are aware, Generational Dynamics predicts a
full-scale Mideast war, pitting Jews against Arabs, Sunnis against
Shias, and various ethnic groups against each other. There is no
guarantee that Israel will survive this war.

Politicians often get confused about who's in charge, and believe that
they control events. As I've written many times, it's a core
principle of generational theory that, even in a dictatorship, major
decisions are made by masses of people, by generations of people, and
that politicians are irrelevant except insofar as they're implementing
the wishes of the masses of people. In the case of the Palestinians,
the average age is less than 20 years old, meaning that major events
will be determined not by the 80 year old politicians, but by the
masses of teens and 20-somethings.

This is the "Oslo generation" that I've described in the past. These
kids were all born after the 1993 Oslo accords that were supposed to
bring peace to the Mideast, but are perceived as accomplishing
nothing. These kids feel angry and frustrated, they do not trust
their leaders, and they are willing to do what they can to "get things
done."

Nationalist feelings are extremely high at the present time among both
the Palestinians and Israelis. This is exactly the kind of climate
that leads to both sides setting red lines and taking harsh steps that
lead to tit-for-tat reprisals and revenge. That's why the best policy
now is the cautious policy, one that is least likely to result in
retaliation and revenge, and to use the time available to prepare for
the inevitable war that cannot be prevented. Arab News

Related Articles

• Palestinian 'Oslo Generation' relationship with Israel extremely toxic and explosive (18-Oct-2015)
  
  
• President Trump's inauguration speech links today's America to the 1930s (21-Jan-2017)
  
  
• Hezbollah building tunnels into Israel to prepare for next war (04-Jun-2016)
  
  
• France issues ultimatum to Israel as West Bank tensions grow (02-Feb-2016)
  
  
• Hezbollah backs down from war with Israel (31-Jan-2015)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, West Bank,
Maaleh Adumim, Oslo Generation

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

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 24-Jan-17 World View -- Russia will build major naval base in Tartus Syria

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Trump may permit US military cooperation with Russia in Syria
  
• Russia will build major naval base in Tartus Syria
  

****
**** Trump may permit US military cooperation with Russia in Syria
****


Port of Tartus, Syria, to become a major Russian naval base (Reuters)

The prize for bizarre story of the day on Monday had to do with
whether the US and Russian militaries were cooperating in Syria to
fight the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh).

According to Russian reports, US military intelligence was providing
the Russia military with coordinates that Russian warplanes could use
to strike ISIS targets.

However, soon after the Russian claims were made, American officials
were calling them Russian disinformation, and an American military
spokesman called the Russian statement "rubbish."

Next, President Trump's press secretary said that the US is willing to
"work with any country that shares our interest in defeating ISIS,"
including Russia.

The problem is that the Russians really don't care much about ISIS, as
their only interest is to keep Syria's president Bashar al-Assad in
power, while Trump's only interest is in keeping his campaign pledge
to destroy ISIS.

So it's an interesting development that the door has been left open
for the US and Russia to cooperate militarily in Syria.

However, it is true that Russia and Turkey have been coordinating air
strikes against ISIS targets.

As readers are aware, Generational Dynamics predicts that the US, Iran
and Russia will be allies in the coming Clash of Civilizations world
war, and Turkey will not be an ally. AP and Russia Today and International Business Times

Related Articles

• Russia and Turkey announce a new ceasefire in Syria (30-Dec-2016)
  
  
• US cuts off talks with Russia, signaling turning point in Syria (04-Oct-2016)
  
  
• Concerns growing of a military showdown between US and Russia in Syria (02-Oct-2016)
  
  
• From 2013: The history of how Syria's Bashar al-Assad created ISIS (07-Sep-2016)
  

****
**** Russia will build major naval base in Tartus Syria
****

For the first time in decades, Russia is coming back as a major
military naval power in the Mideast, now that Russia and Syria have
signed a long-term agreement to build a large naval base in Tartus,
Syria, on the Mediterranean Sea. In addition, the agreement allows
Russia to expand its Hmeymim airbase in Latakia in Syria.

According to the agreement, Russia can station up to 11 warships,
including nuclear-powered warships, at Tartus. The facility will be
completely controlled by Russia. It is immune from "search,
requisition, arrest or executory measures" by Syrian officials.

According to Andrey Krasov, head of the State Duma's Defense
Committee, the only purpose of the naval base is to fight terrorism:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Russia needs this base to be present in this region.
> Unlike NATO, the Russian Federation is the guarantor of security
> in the world. In Syria, we fight against international terrorism
> not only by words, but also by deeds. Both Russian Aerospace
> Defense Forces and Russian Navy’s ship groups demonstrate their
> professionalism, high qualifications in supporting the Syrian
> Armed Forces in the fight against terrorism. We are doing
> everything possible in order for long-suffering Syria to be
> cleansed from this plague ― international terrorism.
>
> When in the 1990s we did not hold any drills and closed our bases
> one by one ― in Cam Ranh (Vietnam), in Cuba ― no one cared about
> this, everybody was clapping their hands. And now, when we rose
> from our knees, when we started to actively train our forces - and
> we are doing this on our own territory - our defense-industrial
> companies produce the most modern weapons, and no other army in
> the world has such equipment and such weapons - this worries
> someone. We are worried, however, that NATO is approaching our
> borders. We do not get closer to anybody, but by these actions, we
> are returning the positions lost earlier, we are returning our
> presence in this region."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

However, Krasov was contradicted by Igor Korotchenko, a Russian
military expert, who says that the base will actually have a much
larger purpose than just fighting terrorism: "It will make it possible
for Russia to keep control of the entire Mediterranean region,
i.e. the Middle East, North Africa and NATO’s southern borders. In
terms of military strategy, it gives big possibilities for control
over the most important geopolitical processes in the region. ... The
mere fact of the presence of Russian warships and submarines,
especially those armed with Kalibr cruise missiles, will make it
possible to keep control of the entire region and repel any threats."
Deutsche Welle and Tass and Straits Times and Tass

Related Articles

• Russia seeks military air and naval bases in Cyprus (18-Jul-2013)
  
  
• Russia, Iran sending troops to Syria as chemical weapons use grows (11-Sep-2015)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Russia, Turkey,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Tartus, Latakia, Hmeymim airbase, Andrey Krasov, Igor Korotchenko

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

[SomeGuy]

Well, their main warm water port is in Sevastopol, on the Black Sea.  Since they don't control the Turkish Straits (Bosporus/Sea of Marmara/Dardanelles), it behooves them to have forces in the eastern Mediterranean to at least be able to pressure the Turks on the other end.  Even then they're still kinda bottled in since they don't control Gibraltar or the Suez Canal either.  Even their other main ports in the Baltic, the Barents Sea, the White Sea, the Sea of Japan, and the Sea of Okhotsk, in addition to weather issues, don't open directly onto the oceans (other than the Arctic) and are subject to blockade and interdiction by a hostile power.

Unrestricted access to the open ocean has been a longstanding geopolitical issue for Russia, and they're still far away from attaining it. Barring drastic global warming (which could be an issue further down the line), I don't see them achieving it anytime soon.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 25-Jan-17 World View -- Russia, Iran, Turkey sign farcical Syria peace agreement

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Russia, Iran, Turkey sign farcical Syria peace agreement
  
• Syria peace conference sees a return to 'proximity talks'
  
• The aftermath of the destruction of Aleppo
  

****
**** Russia, Iran, Turkey sign farcical Syria peace agreement
****


Politicians shake hands and congratulate each other at Tuesday's conclusion of the Syria peace negotiations (AP)

What's wrong with this picture: There's a civil war in Syria between
the Shia/Alawites versus the Sunnis. On Tuesday, Russia, Iran and
Turkey signed a peace agreement.

The thing that's wrong with this picture is that nobody from Syria
signed the agreement. It was an agreement among outsiders, and did
not include any parties who are nominally the opponents in Syria's
civil war.

The peace talks were held in Astana, the capital city of Kazakhstan.
Syrian civil war peace talks in the past were held in Geneva, so
having these talks in Astana gives that "this time it's different"
feeling to the meeting.

Another reason it's different is that the United States was not
invited to the peace talks, largely because Iran opposed having the US
present. However, the US was permitted to have an observer, and sent
George Krol, the U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan. The US issued a
statement saying that it welcomed any "actions that sustainably
de-escalate violence and reduce suffering in Syria."

However the main reason, according to analysts, that this time it's
different is that Russia is making it clear that it's willing to
enforce a peace in Syria, so that it will get the credit for bringing
about peace.

In fact, Russia is so eager to enforce a peace that on Tuesday, for
apparently the first time ever, Russia publicly bashed Syria's
president Bashar al-Assad for breaching the ceasefire and lying about
it.

This has to do with a region called Wadi Barada in the suburbs of
Damascus, that's under the control of anti-Assad rebels. Al-Assad's
forced, aided by Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah forces, have been
breaching the ceasefire, attacking the anti-Assad rebels around Wadi
Barada. Al-Assad claimed that it was al-Qaeda forces that were
attacking the rebels, but the Russians called him out, essentially
calling him a liar.

Readers may recall that in 2015, al-Assad's army was close to complete
collapse, and was only saved by massive Russian intervention. This
was confirmed on Tuesday by Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov,
who said that al-Assad and Damascus itself were only three weeks away
from falling, which was prevented only because the Russian air force
came and saved him.

So the Russians have hallucinatory belief that they're going to
enforce a ceasefire across Syria, including al-Assad's army, the
so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh), the
al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Nusra Front, recently renamed
Jabhat Fateh al-Sham or JFS), and any of the numerous anti-Assad rebel
groups in Syria. Russia is going to enforce a ceasefire among all
those groups, Syria will return to "normal," and Russia will get all
the credit for bringing peace to the land. It's hard not to laugh.
Washington Post and Guardian (London)

****
**** Syria peace conference sees a return to 'proximity talks'
****

It's almost hard to believe, but we're seeing "proximity talks" again.

In Astana, the al-Assad representatives were supposed to meet face to
face with the anti-Assad rebel representatives. On Monday, they all
sat around a nice oval table, so they could negotiate. So then the
lead rebel negotiator Mohammed Alloush, called the Syrian government a
"bloody, oppressive regime" that forced Syrians to choose between "the
terrorism of Bashar and the terrorism of ISIS," implying that al-Assad
is worse terrorist than ISIS. Syria's lead negotiator, Bashar
Jaafari, responded by calling Alloush the head of the "armed terrorist
groups’ delegation." So that was the end of the face to face talks
between the al-Assad and rebel representatives. After that, they were
put into separate rooms, and the farcical "proximity talks" started.

I described how this works in the context of the January 2014 peace
negotiations. Instead of talking to each other, a mediator carries
messages back and forth between the two sides, in the hopes of
reaching an agreement that way.

So you have people saying that the Astana talks are a "breaktrhough"
because the two sides are finally talking to each other, but in fact
they aren't talking to each other. AP and The Diplomat and ARA News (Syria)

Related Articles

• U.N. Security Council adopts farcical 'peace plan' for Syria (22-Mar-2012)
  
  
• Kofi Annan resigns in failure as Syria envoy (03-Aug-2012)
  
  
• Syria's 'peace conference' proceeds as total farce (29-Jan-2014)
  
  
• Syria peace process 'proximity talks' to begin this week in Geneva (25-Jan-2016)
  
  
• Syria's civilians fear worse violence from US-Russia 'ceasefire' agreement (11-Sep-2016)
  

****
**** The aftermath of the destruction of Aleppo
****

Let's review. Last year, al-Assad's military, supported by
overwhelming destructive force provided by Russia and Iran, was going
to destroy the city of Aleppo. That was going to end the war because
it would demoralize the opposition groups and jihadists so they would
lose interesting in fighting, and would go home.

At the time, Bashar al-Assad called it "history in the making":

> [indent]<QUOTE>"[The liberation of Aleppo was] history in the making
> and worthy of more than the word congratulations.
>
> History is being written in these moments. Every Syrian citizen is
> taking part in the writing. It started not today, but years ago
> when the crisis and the war on Syria began.
>
> I think that after the liberation of Aleppo we’ll talk about the
> situation as ... before the liberation of Aleppo and after the
> liberation of Aleppo."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Well, nobody is talking about the destruction of Aleppo as "history in
the making" any more. It was pure fantasy by al-Assad. Al-Assad
destroyed Aleppo, but nobody seems to have gone home. There's a
ceasefire in effect, but how long before it falls apart?

I've been writing about this war for years. Syria is in a
generational Awakening era, and this war should have fizzled within a
year. But Bashar al-Assad's goal is extermination of Syria's Sunnis,
as I've been describing for years.

It's worth remembering how we got here. The civil war in Syria was
caused by al-Assad when he unleashed his army and air force against
peaceful protesters in 2011. Up to that point, Turkey and Saudi
Arabia were friendly with al-Assad. Things really turned around in
August 2011, when al-Assad launched a massive military assault on a
large, peaceful Palestinian refugee camp in Latakia, filled with tens
of thousands of women and children Palestinians.

Al-Assad's unprovoked attack on this refugee camp, and the slaughter
of thousands of Palestinian women and children, drew young jihadists
from around the world to Syria to fight al-Assad, resulting in the
formation of the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or
Daesh). Sunnis in Syria itself turned against al-Assad, forming
either "moderate" rebel militias or joining the jihadist Al-Nusra
Front. Al-Assad is responsible for displacing millions of Syrians,
including over a million that have flowed into Europe as refugees.

So let's suppose that the Astana peace negotiations "succeed" in some
sense, and the ceasefire continues for a while. What's going to
happen when Syrians begin peacefully protesting again? Is al-Assad
going to ignore it this time? How long will Russia's military be
willing to continue spending blood and money to enforce the ceasefire?

A ceasefire cannot work unless both sides want it to work. In this
case, neither side wants it to work. What has always been clear to me
is that al-Assad started this war and is the driving force behind
continuing the war. As long as al-Assad is in power, the war will
continue. ARA News (Syria) and LA Times

Related Articles

• Syria and Russia see 'the light at the end of the tunnel' after Aleppo victory (18-Dec-2016)
  
  
• Generational theory: Bashar al-Assad's miscalculation (11-Sep-2016)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Bashar al-Assad,
Astana, Kazakhstan, George Krol, Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Nusra Front,
Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, JFS, Front for the Conquest of Syria,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh,
Lebanon, Hezbollah, Sergei Lavrov, Mohammed Alloush, Bashar Jaafari,
proximity talks, Aleppo

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

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 26-Jan-17 World View -- Dow surges past 20,000, further expanding dangerous Wall Street bubble

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Dow surges past 20,000, further expanding dangerous Wall Street bubble
  
• China desperately imposes controls on capital outflows
  

****
**** Dow surges past 20,000, further expanding dangerous Wall Street bubble
****


S&P 500 Price/Earnings ratio at 24.71 on Jan 20, indicating a huge and growing stock market bubble (WSJ)

President Donald Trump and the "Trump effect" are being given credit
for pushing the Dow Jones Industrial Average past 20,000 on Wednesday,
for the first time in history. The credit is being given to Trump
because of the excitement generated by his election victory and his
divisive moves in the direction of rolling back regulations that have
hampered businesses and job creation.

The operative word is "excitement." There's little or nothing
of real economic fundamentals that justify this continually
growing stock market bubble. Central banks around the world have
been printing money and pumping it into the banking system.
Investors borrow that money and use it to buy stocks and sell
them to each other, pushing up stock prices and stock market
indexes.

Furthermore, this was going on in the Barack Obama administration
as well as the Trump administration. Stock market bubbles have
no connection to politicians, either conservative or liberal.

According to Friday's Wall Street Journal, the S&P 500 Price/Earnings index (stock
valuations index) on Friday morning (Jan 20) was at an astronomically
high 24.71. This is far above the historical average of 14,
indicating that the stock market bubble is still growing, and could
burst at any time. Generational Dynamics predicts that the P/E ratio
will fall to the 5-6 range or lower, which is where it was as recently
as 1982, resulting in a Dow Jones Industrial Average of 3000 or lower.

There's a lot of Schadenfreude going around about the election
night New York Times blog entry by Paul Krugman, who was awarded
the Nobel Prize in Economics because of his hatred of President
George Bush. After Donald Trump's election victory,
Krugman wrote:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"It really does now look like President Donald
> J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to
> recover?
>
> Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my
> specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many
> aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of
> things to fear.
>
> Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when
> markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
>
> Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man
> who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the
> nation with the world’s most important economy would be very bad
> news. What makes it especially bad right now, however, is the
> fundamentally fragile state much of the world is still in, eight
> years after the great financial crisis."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

What this goes to show is what an idiot Krugman is, but not because
he's wrong about "fundamentally fragile state" of the world. He's
actually right about that, and that's consistent with the Generational
Dynamics view of the world.

And that's particularly ironic, because Krugman is agreeing the thrust
of Trump's inauguration speech, which linked America today to the
economic hardships of the 1930s.

What makes Krugman a total idiot is that he thinks that he can time
the market. You'd think that the Nobel prize winner in economics
would know that he can't write a column late at night predicting stock
prices the next day and expect to get them right. But then again,
Krugman didn't get his Nobel prize in economics because he's a good
economist. The loons in Sweden gave it to him because they hated Bush
and they wanted to give it to someone else who hated Bush as much as
they did. So Krugman and the loons in Sweden deserve each other.

An economist would /should know that you can't predict the timing of a
stock market panic and crash. I always like to point out that even
today, 87 years after the stock market panic of October 1929, nobody
knows why it happened at exactly that time, and not three months
earlier or five months later, and what triggered the 1929 panic. It's
still a mystery.

A P/E ratio of 24.71 is astronomically high. And since stock prices
have surged since Friday morning, the P/E ratio after Wednesday's
close is probably now above 25.

We can't predict exactly when a stock market panic will occur, or what
will trigger it, but we can predict with 100% mathematical certainty
that a panic and crash will occur, and by the Law of Mean Reversion,
the Dow Jones Industrial Average will fall from its current level of
20,000 to a low below 3,000, wiping out millions of people's savings.
CNBC and
Bloomberg and NY Times (9-Nov-2016)

Related Articles

• Earnings fall, but central bank liquidity floods markets, pushing up stocks (30-Jul-2016)
  
  
• President Trump's inauguration speech links today's America to the 1930s (21-Jan-2017)
  
  
• Explanation of Price/Earnings ratio and Stock Valuations (28-Aug-2015)
  
  
• Wharton School's Jeremy Siegel is lying about stock valuations (14-Apr-2012)
  

****
**** China desperately imposes controls on capital outflows
****

With the world's economies interlocked, the trigger for a Wall Street
panic and crash needn't necessarily come from the United States. A
financial panic in any major world economy could create a chain
reaction that would affect all world economies.

In China, there's already a panic of sorts going on, as wealthy
Chinese have been converting their fortunes from China's yuan currency
into dollars or other foreign currencies, and then using those dollars
to purchase assets outside China. In that way, Chinese investors
protect themselves from a currency or stock market crash within China.

This has resulted in huge outflows of China's yuan currency, as much
as $1.3 trillion in the last four months of 2016. As more and more
investors sell their yuan currency, the yuan weakens and its exchange
rate becomes less and less favorable against the dollar. The value of
the yuan lost 7% against the dollar in 2016. In the last few months,
the yuan fell at its fastest rate since 1994.

Chinese investors, seeing the yuan weaken, then become anxious and
convert more yuan into dollars in order to preserve value. This can
create a vicious cycle that leads to a full-scale currency panic that
would affect China's entire economy.

As a result, China at the beginning of January issued regulations
designed to clamp down on currency outflows. Chinese investors will
be strictly limited in the amount of money that they can convert to
dollars, and even then they must sign a pledge that the funds "will
not be used for overseas purchases of property, securities, life
insurance or any other insurance of an investment nature."

China's government says that these are not really capital controls,
but are meant to prevent investment in terrorist activities abroad.

However, these new regulations are having a chilling effect on
international investors considering investments in China. A person is
not going to be willing to send dollars into China to invest in a
business if they're concerned that they'll lose all their money
because Chinese regulators won't let them take it out of China later.

China's new capital outflow limitations are a move of desperation that
will not work forever. China Daily (5-Jan) and Radio Free Asia and Business Insider and Reuters

Related Articles

• China's Xi Jinping congratulates himself on stopping stock market crash (24-Sep-2015)
  
  
• Global trade plunges as China's economy becomes deflationary (11-Nov-2015)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Price/earnings ratio, Trump Effect,
Paul Krugman, Law of mean reversion, China, currency controls

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

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 27-Jan-17 World View -- China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect and attack America

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect and attack America
  
• Centuries-old Russia-China border dispute could lead to another war
  

****
**** China places missiles on Russia's border -- to gain respect and attack America
****


Battery of Chinese DF-41 missiles

China has deployed a brigade of Dongfeng-41 nuclear ICBM
(Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) systems near the Amur River,
which separates China from Russia's Far East. China's Global Times
describes the deployment, and also gives some insight into the what
China's leadership thinks:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Before Trump took power, his team showed a tough
> stance toward China, and in turn, Beijing will ready itself for
> pressures imposed by the new US government. It is logical that
> Beijing attaches particular importance to the Dongfeng-41 as a
> strategic deterrence tool. With China's rise, China's strategic
> risks are growing. China bears the heavy task of safeguarding
> national security. Nuclear deterrence is the foundation of China's
> national security, which must be consolidated with the rising
> strategic risks.
>
> The US has the world's most powerful military strength, including
> the most advanced and powerful nuclear arsenal. But Trump has
> called for a nuclear arms build-up many times. Even Washington
> feels that its naval forces and nuclear strength are lacking, so
> how can China be content with its current nuclear strength when it
> is viewed by the US as its biggest potential opponent?
>
> China's nuclear capability should be so strong that no country
> would dare launch a military showdown with China under any
> circumstance, and such that China can strike back against those
> militarily provoking it. A military clash with the US is the last
> thing China wants, but China's nuclear arsenal must be able to
> deter the US.
>
> The US has not paid enough respect to China's military. Senior US
> officials of the Asia-Pacific command frequently show their
> intention to flex their muscles with arrogance. The Trump team
> also took a flippant attitude toward China's core interests after
> Trump's election win. Enhancing communication and mutual
> understanding is not enough. China must procure a level of
> strategic military strength that will force the US to respect
> it."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

China has had missiles deployed on Russia's borders for decades, but
the deployment of the new DF-41 missiles is causing anxiety in Russia,
who fear that the new missiles are meant for Russian targets.
Russia's state media have been full of articles to reassure the
public. Russian military expert Konstantin Sivkov says that the
missiles could not possibly be targeting China:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"China has deployed inter-continental ballistic
> missiles near Russia with the aim to be able to reach targets in
> the US, Canada and Europe.
>
> This is an inter-continental class missile with an effective
> range of 10,000 to 12000 kms. The missile's dead zone is no less
> than three thousand kms. A large territory of Russia, practically
> the entire Far East and West Siberia are not within the missile's
> reach.
>
> If that were the purpose, the missiles should have been stationed
> deep inside mainland China or on its southern
> border."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The last statement is somewhat ironic, since apparently two additional
brigades of DF-41 missiles have been deployed, and those brigades are
deep inside mainland China, and presumably could strike much of
Russia. Even the brigade on Russia's northeastern border could still
strike Moscow, which is in the west.

Each DF-41 ICBM can carry ten independently targetable warheads, with
a maximum speed close to 20,000 mph. By deploying an ICBM brigade on
the Amur River, the missiles could attack the US by going over the
North Pole, and could hit any target in the US, while remaining out of
range of the defensive Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
system that the US is deploying in South Korea. The nominal purpose
of the THAAD system, according to the US, is to protect the US from a
North Korean missile launch. However, everyone believes, undoubtedly
correctly, that the bigger purpose of the THAAD system is as a first
line of defense to a Chinese missile attack on the United States, but
the THAAD system could not defend against China's new missile
deployment. Global Times (Beijing) and Sputnik News (Moscow) and Daily Mail (London) and Russia Today and Japan Times

Related Articles

• China's fury grows over South Korea's plan to deploy THAAD anti-missile system (10-Aug-2016)
  
  
• China, Japan vociferously object to South Korea's THAAD missile system deployment (28-Jul-2016)
  

****
**** Centuries-old Russia-China border dispute could lead to another war
****

The Amur River that forms part of the border between China and
Russia's Far East has been the site of wars between the two people for
centuries.

The first conflict began in 1628 when the Russians invaded a territory
inhabited by a Mongol-related ethnic group. The Russians and the
Mongols had already fought many long, bitter wars following the
conquests of Genghis Khan in the 1200s, but that wasn't the motivation
for this invasion. The motivation for the 1628 invasion was fur, gold
and silver.

The most recent war in this region occurred in the 1960s, and
is known as the Damansky Incident. On March 2, 1969,
border units of the Soviet Union and China clashed on Damansky
Island, gaining control of the island.

Militarily, the Damansky Incident was a small operation, but
symbolically and politically it's been extremely important. The
fighting generated worldwide concern, over fears that China and Russia
would escalate the fight into nuclear war. The United States sided
with China in the clash, causing China to have much more favorable
relations with the US. In fact, this incident is thought to be the
trigger that led to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger
successfully developing diplomatic relations with China in 1971.

As regular readers know, Generational Dynamics predicts that
in the approaching Clash of Civilizations world war, Russia
and the United States will be allied against China. I've given
many reasons for this, but the tensions along the Amur River
provide another one.

Russia's Far East is a vast sparsely populated region. Across the
Amur River is heavily populated northeast China. By some estimates,
there are about 5 million illegal Chinese immigrants living in
Russia's Far East, with the number increasing by a million or so each
year. The 1969 border war is well remembered by both sides, so the
new DF-41 missile deployment is stoking strong nationalistic feelings
on both sides.

Since 2012 China has increased spending on infrastructure along the
Amur River border region, to make it easier for Chinese businesses to
operate. This supports the rapid growth of Chinese trade in the
thinly populated Far East and confirms Russian fears that Chinese
businesses and Chinese migrants will take over Russia's Far East
before long.

In 2014, Russia held the massive Vostok military exercises in the Far
East, explaining that the military drills were necessary to prepare
for war with the United States. And yet, the assets deployed during
this exercise were more consistent with preparing for a defense of the
Far East, a region that America would be unlikely to invade if it
wanted to invade Russia at all. The only state actor that against
which such a defense is needed is China. And so it appears that
Russia and China claim that they're each preparing for war with the
United States, but in reality they're preparing for war with each
other. Russia Behind the Headlines (2-Sep-2015) and American University
and Strategy Page and The Diplomat

Related Articles

• Russia's concerns about China's 'invasion' of the Far East continue (21-Jun-2015)
  
  
• Russia holds massive Vostok 2014 military exercises amid anti-US hysteria (26-Sep-2014)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, Dongfeng-41, Russia, Far East, Amur River,
Konstantin Sivkov, Damansky Incident,
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD, South Korea

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

[SomeGuy]

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.

[Warren Dew]

(01-26-2017, 11:47 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The most recent war in this region occurred in the 1960s, and
is known as the Damansky Incident.  On March 2, 1969,
border units of the Soviet Union and China clashed on Damansky
Island, gaining control of the island.

Who had control before Soviet and Chinese border units clashed there?  Japan?

[tg63]

(01-27-2017, 12:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 11:47 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The most recent war in this region occurred in the 1960s, and
is known as the Damansky Incident.  On March 2, 1969,
border units of the Soviet Union and China clashed on Damansky
Island, gaining control of the island.

Who had control before Soviet and Chinese border units clashed there?  Japan?

It's an inland island on a river (not near the ocean) ... there have been claims to it by both Russia & China back to the 1600's.

[SomeGuy]

Manchukuo had roughly the same boundaries as the region in Modern China, I think their border stopped at the river.  The Japanese did cross the river lower down, when they fought the Battle of Lake Khasan with the Soviets, and the Red Army did invade back over the river when they fought the Kwantung Army in 1945.


All in all, it's a point of contention between China and Russia (however defined), and I don't there have been any other claimants in a long time.

[John J. Xenakis]

(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?

[Warren Dew]

(01-27-2017, 01:27 PM)tg63 Wrote:

(01-27-2017, 12:40 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-26-2017, 11:47 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: The most recent war in this region occurred in the 1960s, and
is known as the Damansky Incident.  On March 2, 1969,
border units of the Soviet Union and China clashed on Damansky
Island, gaining control of the island.

Who had control before Soviet and Chinese border units clashed there?  Japan?

It's an inland island on a river (not near the ocean) ... there have been claims to it by both Russia & China back to the 1600's.

I was being silly.  John's wording seemed to imply that he was conveying who ended up with control of the island - I assume either the Soviet Union or China - but it didn't seem actually to convey that.

[Warren Dew]

(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?

What's your theory about their overall strategic plan?

[SomeGuy]

(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?