What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Future of Europe: How can France save the Eu

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
You're writing about ignorant people. I write about people who like their culture and customs, who want to develop them, not lose them. There's nothing ignorant about that, it's the basis of a healthy society.
It might be true butit is not as simple as it is. Polish ignorance came from istitutionalised lack of knowledge, cognitive tools and informational black out. IT builds a very specific perception of reality where UN sponsored secual education is used to prepare underage children to sex change and rape by the communo-liberals from EU is not a schizophrenic rant but holy and real truth and de facto a reality.
This is also areality most of the people in Poland supporting PiS and eurosceptics belive, as hard as it may be, it is truth. Fact that without EU funds we would be another Ukraine or Albania is not even raised and paradoxically no one notices that two decades of billions of Euros actually build all these schools, bridges, roads and financed education. The fear of cultural amalgamat or other such things were always on the sideways, just like delucional religious radicals. What have changed the equation was Smoleńsk Catastrophe which is the begining of mass creation of soceity wide anti governemntal then and nationalistic movement centered around conspiracy theories and skillfull manipulation and incident instigation (vide Cross Protests for example).
After years of eroding national unity PiS won on the wave of the catholic nationalism and literal counter culture towards EU and literal antimodernism, which would not be possible if not for years invested into dividing the nation and using social/cultural/strata faultlines. In the end their rise to power looks like more a staged coup rather than electorial campaing. If not for Smoleńsk, most likely PiS and they would not surge into the power, at least not till 2019 parliamentary elections, becouse simply they would not have no meaningful political ammunition, Crimea and then brewing humanitarian crisis in North Africa might be not sufficiently polarisng. Also the political scen would be much more different.
Also of note remember that contrary to what "concerned" about cultural integration in Poland are saying they after closer inspection turn out that they have no idea about what Polsih culture actually means nor even realise their real roots instead believing sanitised verision of de facto a war propaganda, from we Poles never actually have oppurtunity to really get out, and every time we are trying to do that, which there is literal screech from "concerned" people, who actually are nothing else that barinwashed propaganda tubes for their own selfinterest which is threatened ie. loss of power coming from information starved narrow minded population.
That is how real division of power and influence building works in Polish Republic. It has as much real connection with real trade as micro ultrafast transactions of the stock market.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
These two quotes don't fit together very well. On the one hand you say 'converge' in a span of decades (which I'd agree with), and then you say that it's fine to impose cultural changes by changes in law. I assure you that for many people here it's not OK. There's this important cultural difference we've discussed some time ago. Whereas in Anglosaxon tradition (and Western tradition in general) law is above all, including above justice, in Slavic tradition (which rules majority of CEE) justice is above law, and law either has to serve justice, or be ignored. Meaning you cannot impose from Brussels, via the common legal system, cultural changes in CEE. The laws, even if they make it past our constitutional courts, will be sabotaged by everybody. And Brussels will rant and rage, impose fines and sanctions, and anger even those of us who already made the necessary cultural changes. That's basically my problem - while I don't like PiS, I'm a convinced liberal and I'm all for ever closer European integration, including in the cultural sense (which is a natural, albeit a slow process), I don't like the way it's being imposed on people who clearly aren't ready for it.
The convergence is done over decades and involve soft and hard law, though, so no real contradiction, and as for what you describe, it is also a phenomenon in France, so it's not as if the EU isn't aware of it.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
The convergence is done over decades and involve soft and hard law, though, so no real contradiction, and as for what you describe, it is also a phenomenon in France, so it's not as if the EU isn't aware of it.
Heh, heh.
How we love that world.
But what about our pacing threats?
Surely some FICINT in form of S-F prototypes is sorely needed to explore that phenomenon . . .
 

IndyFront

Ξ⌊:Ξ≪⊕ `∧∀⊥∥'⌊: ∀∃∃∀⌊:⊕⌈≪⌊:⊕Γ.
Author
I think Europe will be fine, provided they can keep from getting into it with Russia. I'll just add to this that the US isn't as homogeneous as people think it is. US is practically collapsing in on itself, and its basically like 15 countries and 6 corporations in a trench coat with "United States" written on the name tag
 

DukeofDawn

New member
I think Europe will be fine, provided they can keep from getting into it with Russia. I'll just add to this that the US isn't as homogeneous as people think it is. US is practically collapsing in on itself, and its basically like 15 countries and 6 corporations in a trench coat with "United States" written on the name tag
I don't disagree with all this.
However, with the pace things are going, i believe we might see an anglophone block form sooner rather than later, to firmly oppose China, and to try to keep the union down.

tho, do you truly believe that the US has a very real chance of collapsing or is it just wishful thinking to reassure yourself about the future?

The convergence is done over decades and involve soft and hard law, though, so no real contradiction, and as for what you describe, it is also a phenomenon in France, so it's not as if the EU isn't aware of it.
Decades is nothing but the minimum considering the scale of what we are talking about..
However, i'm worried that the window to enact the convergence trough varoius means might be shorter than we think, or might be getting smaller and smaller as the geopolitical landscape crystalize itself more and more, leaving little room for change over the course of the years.

Basically, what scares me is that we might see, (instead of an opportunnity to assert sovereignty and independance over the course of the years), the Great powers simply get stronger and gain more influence in the inner workings of the geopolitical landscape to try to sway our members away from us.

Like, things like the space race,( thinking of the creation of the Space Force in the US) were Europe is lagging behind, and is at the risk of becoming dependent on foreign help (like becoming dependent on NASA )

Or we might slowly lose our technological advantage over the rest of the world



Now, i know i've been rather negative about all this since the beginning of this thread but i was mostly trying to look for honnest answers from you guys since things haven't been really looking all that bright recently on the international stage for us.
 

IndyFront

Ξ⌊:Ξ≪⊕ `∧∀⊥∥'⌊: ∀∃∃∀⌊:⊕⌈≪⌊:⊕Γ.
Author
tho, do you truly believe that the US has a very real chance of collapsing or is it just wishful thinking to reassure yourself about the future?
Its mostly a feeling, but also more people want to balkanize the US now than at any point in recent history so there's that
I have friends and family on both sides so its 99% me just sitting there with myself all alone like "why, what the fuck is wrong with you, do you not know history"?
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
Its mostly a feeling, but also more people want to balkanize the US now than at any point in recent history so there's that
I have friends and family on both sides so its 99% me just sitting there with myself all alone like "why, what the fuck is wrong with you, do you not know history"?
Indy, European metropolis awaits!, with both extended arms!
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Basically, what scares me is that we might see, (instead of an opportunnity to assert sovereignty and independance over the course of the years), the Great powers simply get stronger and gain more influence in the inner workings of the geopolitical landscape to try to sway our members away from us.
That's the thing, the idea that the others are going to become stronger has strong issues. The US is divided as hell, keeps becoming moreso and has a massive education issue with its population being deliberately undereducated as well as, let's be blunt, killed *en masse* by its own leadership for the sake of political purity. China depends on foreign raw resources and requires continuous growth to maintain legitimacy and internal stability, while the War is coming for both of them. Among many other things for each of them.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
As every rational other government.
Disagree.

On the contrary, the evolution of things points towards an increasing focus on self-sufficience and stability to withstand the imminent collapse of the global order due to the combination of world war III and climate change. Global logistics will become increasingly unreliable and maintaining the current living standards with lower resources necessary, and this is a critical issue for China as they aren't exactly in a position to stabilize themselves as their society is still very heterogeneous in development. The US is also deeply dependent on its stranglehold on global trade to maintain their living standards, cue a big problem in the decades to come unless they can restructure themselves.

For this, though, I give the US and EU an advantage over China as their population and infrastructure tends to be more homogeneous and in less need of massive growth, even though it'll still be a hard transition.

But being dependent on foreign trade is definitely not the rational posture to have in the remaining of the century.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
Disagree.

On the contrary, the evolution of things points towards an increasing focus on self-sufficience and stability to withstand the imminent collapse of the global order due to the combination of world war III and climate change. Global logistics will become increasingly unreliable and maintaining the current living standards with lower resources necessary, and this is a critical issue for China as they aren't exactly in a position to stabilize themselves as their society is still very heterogeneous in development. The US is also deeply dependent on its stranglehold on global trade to maintain their living standards, cue a big problem in the decades to come unless they can restructure themselves.

For this, though, I give the US and EU an advantage over China as their population and infrastructure tends to be more homogeneous and in less need of massive growth, even though it'll still be a hard transition.

But being dependent on foreign trade is definitely not the rational posture to have in the remaining of the century.
True, but pay attention to the effect of the scale. Look on where and what EU countrie or US or even Russia has and what China has - PRC is a not too large country with a population of over 1.3 billion people. And they have needs, which have to be supplied, begining from the most basic like food, shelter, healthcare, transport etc. and then you need to provide reliable supply chain for each ot them and that ad infinitum. Not to mention needs of higher order or rest of state necessities. You can't supply and support 1.3 billion people with the use of resources the mainland China has.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
True, but pay attention to the effect of the scale. Look on where and what EU countrie or US or even Russia has and what China has - PRC is a not too large country with a population of over 1.3 billion people. And they have needs, which have to be supplied, begining from the most basic like food, shelter, healthcare, transport etc. and then you need to provide reliable supply chain for each ot them and that ad infinitum. Not to mention needs of higher order or rest of state necessities. You can't supply and support 1.3 billion people with the use of resources the mainland China has.
Cue the huge problem I've been pointing out here. This size combined with the structural need for growth to ensure the legitimacy of the government for the population and you have one hell of an issue that will make global hegemony a requirement for China, just like it is a requirement for the US (through other causes).
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
Cue the huge problem I've been pointing out here. This size combined with the structural need for growth to ensure the legitimacy of the government for the population and you have one hell of an issue that will make global hegemony a requirement for China, just like it is a requirement for the US (through other causes).
Yes, but is US much different? Without global hegemony, it does not have creditors, overseas markets and places to drew skilled labour, which are cornerstones of US position and produced their high standard of living.
Since globalisation of advanced technology and end of Cold War, that postion has been gradually eroded. Actually it have taken place in 70s but after 1989 it had sped up, thanks to the economical colonisation and tech transfer. Market share have dropped and now we see their global dominion crumbling, to the point where they stand before similar logistics supplynet breakdown like Great Britain, or even larger.
These are trade off for being a true global power. United EU would have the same problems actually.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Yes, but is US much different? Without global hegemony, it does not have creditors, overseas markets and places to drew skilled labour, which are cornerstones of US position and produced their high standard of living.
Since globalisation of advanced technology and end of Cold War, that postion has been gradually eroded. Actually it have taken place in 70s but after 1989 it had sped up, thanks to the economical colonisation and tech transfer. Market share have dropped and now we see their global dominion crumbling, to the point where they stand before similar logistics supplynet breakdown like Great Britain, or even larger.
These are trade off for being a true global power. United EU would have the same problems actually.
Quite more raw resources per capita, for starters, and most importantly, a more homogeneously developed environment which doesn't necessarly need a continued build-up the size the one China needs.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
Quite more raw resources per capita, for starters, and most importantly, a more homogeneously developed environment which doesn't necessarly need a continued build-up the size the one China needs.
Yes, but standarisation would be mandate in a long term. Plus still energy resources, rare earths. Chinese have created large scale processing and manufacturing infrastructure aimed for supplying global needs, which makes them pretty much invoulnerable for economic sanctions or even war, mostly becouse cutting them off means braking global supply chains and, thanks for the "buying is more economically justified than producing by oneself" mentality, creating seperate, domestic analogues in capacity to substitute lack of supply is impossible in short terms. And that concerns not only strategic, but also everyday goods, which will lead domino effect and global collapse of modern, high standart of living, consumer society.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Yes, but standarisation would be mandate in a long term. Plus still energy resources, rare earths. Chinese have created large scale processing and manufacturing infrastructure aimed for supplying global needs, which makes them pretty much invoulnerable for economic sanctions or even war, mostly becouse cutting them off means braking global supply chains and, thanks for the "buying is more economically justified than producing by oneself" mentality, creating seperate, domestic analogues in capacity to substitute lack of supply is impossible in short terms. And that concerns not only strategic, but also everyday goods, which will lead domino effect and global collapse of modern, high standart of living, consumer society.
Ah, the good old rare earth canard. How to explain this... the US has quite huge reserves of it, simply left unexploited because it's indeed simpler to buy them abroad at the moment, so they can move away from China. As for trade making China invulnerable to war, lolwat. On the damn contrary, trade isn't an obstacle to war (the various opponents in WW1 traded a shitload with each other up until the DoW) but one of the clear motivations because when it'll become clear there won't be enough room for everybody, the hegemony-needing large powers will reach the unavoidable conclusion that they will need to ensure control over the needed resources, ideally with a puppet government on the other side, even if it means a "temporary" loss of living standards.

Cue the increasing chest-beating propaganda on both sides of the Pacific to ensure that the populations perceive the war as "just" and therefore stick with its cost, which wouldn't last long in theory since, once again in - very silly - theory, the war should be short and victorious.

Yes, this is stupid. And yes, it fits exactly what is happening at the moment and what we're quickly moving towards with everyone. Thus everyone doing overt and covert moves to reindustrialize, reduce their needs in foreign resources/technologies, in order to withstand the coming storm, which in turn makes everyone else see these moves as a preparation to war, motivating more of such for themselves. Of course, these moves are inefficient on an economic point of view, weakening those who do them compared to the others... as long as peace remains while it gives a strong competitive advantage if war comes. Which is exactly the equation of general mobilization in 1914: once you've started these moves, their economic sunk costs are so high that only a military victory will be worth it, and not doing them as soon as the other side does them makes you highly vulnerable to a total military defeat.

Ergo, war becomes inevitable and logical, for all the wrong reasons.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
Ah, the good old rare earth canard. How to explain this... the US has quite huge reserves of it, simply left unexploited [...]
US does not have as large deposits as many think. That is one. Two, whole extraction to production supply chain - it would have to be build from ground up in scale that will need to substitute lack of Chinese products.
As for invulnerability of PRC to war - in a sense it cannot be bullied through sanctions and given it's capabilities, any armed action against them results in a regional conflict escalating into global one with severe repercussions, in which actuall USA is the one that will loose allies, aside regional ones, and even them might be reluctant to support such misadventure, not to mention potential nuclearisation of conflict.
On the other hand given US bleeding power and political support fast may and will lead to the point where conflict will loose any margin of, even thin, of success forcing USA to "shorten the frontline" and de facto being limited to their hemisphere, ie. Soviet model of melting off.
Unless we assume real insanity on part of the US leadership and their especially Regional allies, which is unlikely actually. Look at what is happening there now, with problems they see with country wide supply lines, look at what posture they want to adopt, which is based more or less on all corners and lacking particular focus. Ditto for political, economic and especially moral influence, which was a cornerstone of their legitimacy of global power - all of it is melting away and unless there will be a gigant shift toward irrationalism, just like it was prophecised by analysts about Soviet Union, that evil communists in face of collapse would start World War III out of literal spite, Sino-American war will not happen. PRC is not evn shown as a hostile as USSR was during the height of Cold War, Russia is NO.1 enemy of the US diplomacy and propaganda effort. Chinese are not there yet, becouse of their sea supply routes. In next two decades or so they will grow in power and USA will decline further unless we will see Arsenal of Democracy 2.0 rearmament and modernisation effort, for which US does not have time.


"China has 80% global share in REE refining"

1634317036139.png

IE. You can have all the piles of REE output you want, but thas is useless as long you does not have capacity to actually process and the use it.
 
Last edited:

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
As for invulnerability of PRC to war - in a sense it cannot be bullied through sanctions and given it's capabilities, any armed action against them results in a regional conflict escalating into global one with severe repercussions, in which actuall USA is the one that will loose allies, aside regional ones, and even them might be reluctant to support such misadventure, not to mention potential nuclearisation of conflict.
On the other hand given US bleeding power and political support fast may and will lead to the point where conflict will loose any margin of, even thin, of success forcing USA to "shorten the frontline" and de facto being limited to their hemisphere, ie. Soviet model of melting off.
Which precisely means the US need to do the war fast if they want to keep their hegemony, because the clock is running against them (the situation is bad now for them, but the more they wait, the worse it becomes). Their resources give them some time, but, well, it'll only last so long, and they aren't going to collapse gently either. Therefore, war, no matter how stupid and self-destructive it is.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
Which precisely means the US need to do the war fast if they want to keep their hegemony, because the clock is running against them (the situation is bad now for them, but the more they wait, the worse it becomes). Their resources give them some time, but, well, it'll only last so long, and they aren't going to collapse gently either. Therefore, war, no matter how stupid and self-destructive it is.
You know, the same was trumped and is still since at least 80s about USSR now Russia?
And precisely it most likely end the same way with the USA - you do not go on all out war while you have dissulussing country, broken supply chains and incapable military.
And it is a thing since we started walking upright and figured out how to bash our skulls with sones and sticks.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
You know, the same was trumped and is still since at least 80s about USSR now Russia?
And precisely it most likely end the same way with the USA - you do not go on all out war while you have dissulussing country, broken supply chains and incapable military.
And it is a thing since we started walking upright and figured out how to bash our skulls with sones and sticks.
USSR wasn't losing a hegemonic position, Reaper. Not in any way or shape like the US would lose everything it has. Combine this with the utter irrationality that has taken over their entire society from the grassroots to the legislators, and you have a recipe for disaster: they believe their own bullshit, their "manifest destiny", and their national tale is entirely structured about starting the fight against the "evil ones" and coming out swinging in glorious victory, turning every defeat into either non-existence or a "stab in the back" myth.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
USSR wasn't losing a hegemonic position, Reaper. Not in any way or shape like the US would lose everything it has. [...]
From USSR and Russian perspective it was even more than US becouse they have literaly first in their history become relevant and defeated hunger, becouse till 1950 it was a common event there. They were put through genocide, equally destructive civil war, two world wars and foreign intervention on behalf on the hated regime during the civil war. They have within one generation move from agrarian state to the feared world power. US in perspective to reach something similar it took them over a century. That radical jump in the standard of living and social stability was lost in the 1989.
State collapsed and fragmented, and we both know what effects it brough and what have been happening there. It took two decades to stabilise whole situation.
Americans are in ride for equally the same situation at worst, at best suffereing fate of Great Britain with gradual descent into margin, but even then they crash of supply and economy will not go around them, and that will break them internally. US will succumb faster to the civil war than start war with China, mostly becouse when they reach the point they can possibly risk a fight, they will not be internally cohesive enough or that point will never came from the same reason when society will start breaking, necessiting focusing forces and efforts closer to and in homeland.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
From USSR and Russian perspective it was even more than US becouse they have literaly first in their history become relevant and defeated hunger, becouse till 1950 it was a common event there. They were put through genocide, equally destructive civil war, two world wars and foreign intervention on behalf on the hated regime during the civil war. They have within one generation move from agrarian state to the feared world power. US in perspective to reach something similar it took them over a century. That radical jump in the standard of living and social stability was lost in the 1989.
State collapsed and fragmented, and we both know what effects it brough and what have been happening there. It took two decades to stabilise whole situation.
Americans are in ride for equally the same situation at worst, at best suffereing fate of Great Britain with gradual descent into margin, but even then they crash of supply and economy will not go around them, and that will break them internally. US will succumb faster to the civil war than start war with China, mostly becouse when they reach the point they can possibly risk a fight, they will not be internally cohesive enough or that point will never came from the same reason when society will start breaking, necessiting focusing forces and efforts closer to and in homeland.
I do not think you realize the amount of irrationality currently at work in the US, Reaper. The USSR population was cynical by that time, the US one is deeply, deeply idealistic, both the Democrats and the Republicans. The Russian mindset that I've seen in their art, in discussions, in their litterature is that they can and will endure the shit that is thrown at them again and again, the joke being that Russian History can somehow be described, no matter the century by "Somehow, it got worse.". The US mindset, on the other hand, is that whatever gets thrown at them, they can fight and vanquish it with tech/firepower/cunning. Russian and Soviet fiction is often about adapting to the hostile environment, US fiction is about defeating and taming the hostile environment.

If you don't see the difference in outcomes, I don't know how to explain it to you.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
I do not think you realize the amount of irrationality currently at work in the US, Reaper. The USSR population was cynical by that time, the US one is deeply, deeply idealistic, both the Democrats and the Republicans. The Russian mindset that I've seen in their art, in discussions, in their litterature is that they can and will endure the shit that is thrown at them again and again, the joke being that Russian History can somehow be described, no matter the century by "Somehow, it got worse.". The US mindset, on the other hand, is that whatever gets thrown at them, they can fight and vanquish it with tech/firepower/cunning. Russian and Soviet fiction is often about adapting to the hostile environment, US fiction is about defeating and taming the hostile environment.
Fiction is one, documents is something different. Most their predictions come true actually, at least when we are talking about declassified materials, becouse they were ususally written with access to the real knowledge and written by people who knew what they were doing. And to be frank, the same predictions cropped around the world more or less at the same time.

US citizenry may have deficient and idealogical view of reality, but behauviour of their leaders is consitent, even for Trump actually, who was no one than a social media w****, but his actions actually were far less irrational than they may appear - radical, yes, destabilising, absolutely, irrational?, no, they look like when you have someone as trampish like him invoking them. Given how they were introduced and with what popular rethoric they were served (aimed on the internal radical electorate), the global effects are what they are.

Americans are no idiots, they may lash out when put against the wall, true, but once again, when there is dissulution inside, no one will go for war with at best equal power, stronger at worst. It is simply logsitically impossible. Plus in case of insanity you will have literal war in the barracs before that happens. Also best case is with Trump who generated additional failsafes from his rhetoric and behauviour.

Currently US is on the defense, it literaly have entrenched at their current positions and tries to amend deficiencies of Bush and Trump administrations. We could prophecise that after Biden we would get a Reagan-esque figure, but that would be using historical allegories, which is by itself not a wise thing in security oriented analysis, but, nontheless, it is possible assuming Biden will manage to stabilise situation internally and at least work out some fundamentals for reintroduction of USA to the leading role, which I am doubtful. On the other hand it is possible they will manage to stabilise smaller area of influence if good winds will allow.

Otherwise war, but remember that main difference between "Better dead than Yellow" Redneck Joe and decident is that decident have much clearer and more extended picture of reality than Redneck Joe, meaning that no one will go for war knowing they will loose. Everything will be much more clearer when Americans release their new National Security Startegy, but it seems it will be centred on what TRADOC and Co. was publishing for past circa 7 years, which is about long term competition and multidomain deterrence, which some hail it as wishfull thinking and dilution of forces and means trying to cover all aspects simultanously, which actually to some degree it is, also showing critical deficiencies in the US power projection and capabilities.

Anyway, every open war scenario, rapidly escalates to the nuclear option and goes up from there, at least when conventional wisdom is applied. On the other hand nuclear escalation is broken becouse it ends with destruction of both sides without realising any of the political or ideological goals.

There will be no hegemony, no status quo, no armistice, no victory. Such outcome is not desirabele aside very narrow group of people who have no access to power nor such destructive means.

Full scale conventionl war neither achieves anything and for it regional allies matter even more, allies who do not want to be reduced to the failed states when critical infrastructure will be wiped out and themselves will become a battleground for foreign powers. And in that scenario, due to the severe damage of critical infrastructure which especially in case of China might lead to the nuclear escalation, even when China have no first use policy, assuming, their conventional warmaking capbility will critically fail and US manages to create global anti-Chinese block, but given the global attitudes, it is, now at least, unlikely.

Of course we can entertain also disarming mass conventional strike coupled with limited deployment of precision nuclear ordinance against hard targets and selected C2, communication nodes and military infrstructure, but that lead also to instant escalation and ends in not achieving any goals.

Most likely as we see entrenching in the Pacific region both sides will try to destabilise each other in their respective spheres of influence. Given impact of teh Pandemy on the Belt and Road Initiative sites, they are primary targets for sabotage and subterfuge, and thus potential places of proxy conflict between US and PRC.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
US citizenry may have deficient and idealogical view of reality, but behauviour of their leaders is consitent, even for Trump actually, who was no one than a social media w****, but his actions actually were far less irrational than they may appear - radical, yes, destabilising, absolutely, irrational?, no, they look like when you have someone as trampish like him invoking them. Given how they were introduced and with what popular rethoric they were served (aimed on the internal radical electorate), the global effects are what they are.
Their behaviour is consistent? I don't know what the hell you've been watching, but it doesn't look like the real world. The GOP is falling completely under the control of the Trump hardline, no matter the experience of their leadership, in a way very reminiscing of European democratic collapses, and it isn't a matter of simply pleasing the electorate and doing otherwise afterwards, and in terms of rationality, they're fucking their entire country entirely just to "own the libs".
Americans are no idiots, they may lash out when put against the wall, true, but once again, when there is dissulution inside, no one will go for war with at best equal power, stronger at worst. It is simply logsitically impossible. Plus in case of insanity you will have literal war in the barracs before that happens. Also best case is with Trump who generated additional failsafes from his rhetoric and behauviour.
Yeah, right now, I must say that you are deeply in denial when it comes to understanding the level of insanity and kool-aid drinking in the US. They will go for it, because there is a large part of the political echelon seriously believing the divine mandate and protection. As for "additional failsafes", they are literally being dismantled by the GOP as we speak, both on the electoral and political levels.
Currently US is on the defense, it literaly have entrenched at their current positions and tries to amend deficiencies of Bush and Trump administrations. We could prophecise that after Biden we would get a Reagan-esque figure, but that would be using historical allegories, which is by itself not a wise thing in security oriented analysis, but, nontheless, it is possible assuming Biden will manage to stabilise situation internally and at least work out some fundamentals for reintroduction of USA to the leading role, which I am doubtful. On the other hand it is possible they will manage to stabilise smaller area of influence if good winds will allow.

Otherwise war, but remember that main difference between "Better dead than Yellow" Redneck Joe and decident is that decident have much clearer and more extended picture of reality than Redneck Joe, meaning that no one will go for war knowing they will loose. Everything will be much more clearer when Americans release their new National Security Startegy, but it seems it will be centred on what TRADOC and Co. was publishing for past circa 7 years, which is about long term competition and multidomain deterrence, which some hail it as wishfull thinking and dilution of forces and means trying to cover all aspects simultanously, which actually to some degree it is, also showing critical deficiencies in the US power projection and capabilities.
Once again, you are trying to look at the situation in a rational way, when the US electorate and its leadership is NOT rational, and they have a mindset that denies the very possibility of losing if they "fight hard enough", hence the constant "stab in the back" myths whenever they get their asses handed to them. There's no stabilization coming in any way or shape internally with the level of polarization and the longer-term societal consequences of the pandemic, and Biden has strong chances of losing the mid-term elections next year then to be replaced by Trump in 2024.

Remember one thing about the US leadership: the Congress is the place where a Representative literally, not figuratively, asked whether the island of Guam could capsize because of an amphibious training exercise on a beach by the USMC. This was a Democratic one. The Republicans? There are those who literally, not figuratively, blame forest fires on "Jewish space lasers", and this isn't roleplay or posturing. A number of them are batshit insane and you should seriously stop looking at their political system the way you might look at the European, Chinese or even Soviet ones, where the leadership is calculating, assholish but somehow competent. Look at it rather like in terms of the irrationality of the German one in the "bad time", where their highest echelon would go on rants about hyperboreans or being possessed by the spirit of whatever legendary character.
Anyway, every open war scenario, rapidly escalates to the nuclear option and goes up from there, at least when conventional wisdom is applied. On the other hand nuclear escalation is broken becouse it ends with destruction of both sides without realising any of the political or ideological goals.

There will be no hegemony, no status quo, no armistice, no victory. Such outcome is not desirabele aside very narrow group of people who have no access to power nor such destructive means.
Yep, but once again, the problem is that once you are back to the wall and are going to lose everything anyway, it becomes very tempting to make the other side lose as well. See previous parts for the desirability, then add to it the "small detail" that in the Evangelist cosmogony, the apocalypse is necessary for Jesus to come back, with a large part of their support to Israel being literally because they need it to be destroyed during the armageddon and not before to ensure their prophecies. And don't make the mistake of thinking their religious insanity stops at the "redneck" level.
Full scale conventionl war neither achieves anything and for it regional allies matter even more, allies who do not want to be reduced to the failed states when critical infrastructure will be wiped out and themselves will become a battleground for foreign powers. And in that scenario, due to the severe damage of critical infrastructure which especially in case of China might lead to the nuclear escalation, even when China have no first use policy, assuming, their conventional warmaking capbility will critically fail and US manages to create global anti-Chinese block, but given the global attitudes, it is, now at least, unlikely.

Of course we can entertain also disarming mass conventional strike coupled with limited deployment of precision nuclear ordinance against hard targets and selected C2, communication nodes and military infrstructure, but that lead also to instant escalation and ends in not achieving any goals.

Most likely as we see entrenching in the Pacific region both sides will try to destabilise each other in their respective spheres of influence. Given impact of teh Pandemy on the Belt and Road Initiative sites, they are primary targets for sabotage and subterfuge, and thus potential places of proxy conflict between US and PRC.
The global anti-Chinese block theory is over, when the US and China have both pissed enough people that everyone outside the region rather wants to see them fight it out between themelves, and the notion of proxy wars require a stable statu quo such as the one between the US and USSR during the Cold War where noone is facing the clock in a terminal fashion. The problem is that both sides are facing the clock this way: China which needs hegemony FAST to secure itself for the climate change era, and the US which needs to remove China FAST before it overcomes them. They both need to win clearly and decisively if they want to remain intact, unlike the US and USSR who could actually coexist after a while.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
Their behaviour is consistent?[...]
Of course, everything they do is in support of their protestant fundamentals which are base for shaping their geostartegy plus of course, their own interests. Trump is an abberation in all these only in case of his cultivated public image of quintessential internet troll. On one hand no one can deny it was an efficient way. The same goes for their congress. As fallacial they may look like, some literal morons aside, most of that is a PR game mixed with radical chest thumping. It is vulgar, brash, anti-itelligent and aggressive, actually looking more like something from Spain, Weimar Republic or Italy, but it is thought out long term policy aimed on destruction of internall dissent to solidification of the rule. It is the same model you have now in Poland actually. Difference is only in fact that Trump was ousted after one term, in Poland not.
In US case it is a trend that actually is spinning more and more since 1980 and Reagan. Not that previously they were better, but this is the most recent and most important.
Also their internal documents and specialist revievs usually are meritoric and have zero religious or ideological context (aside ane sentence preamble about defence of democracy/way of life/position in world affairs, but frankly everyone put the same - Westerners usually use morals, Easterers peace and security/enviroment for growth), but these are executive documents for approved policies which in turn are based on cultural morals and norms which are cognitive lenses for perception of reality.
 
Top Bottom