Jump to content

Talk:Restless Souls/Summary: Difference between revisions

Talk:Restless Souls/Summary (view source)

Revision as of 19:24, 15 January 2023

51,143 bytes removed ,  15 January 2023
m
no edit summary
m (The Chancellor's strategic miscalculation and mismanagement is unbearable. Fubar. Deleting SPD and Ukraine from my brain.)
mNo edit summary
Line 361: Line 361:
Before a reform could be initiated the "cataclysm" happened. META was the fast stitched together, rudimentary successor of WCG and its "meta-democracy". The rudimentariness is symbolized by just using the one word. The democratic part and the national ideologies broke away. Therefore it goes along the line "[[Oni2:META|Beyond everything]]" (so, also, "beyond itself"). META prevented a total breakdown of world economy. After that the corrupt system served itself. It's in greater parts a totalitarian kleptocracy.
Before a reform could be initiated the "cataclysm" happened. META was the fast stitched together, rudimentary successor of WCG and its "meta-democracy". The rudimentariness is symbolized by just using the one word. The democratic part and the national ideologies broke away. Therefore it goes along the line "[[Oni2:META|Beyond everything]]" (so, also, "beyond itself"). META prevented a total breakdown of world economy. After that the corrupt system served itself. It's in greater parts a totalitarian kleptocracy.


==Worldbuilding==
====Klimadiktatur====
Some brainstorming on fictional timelines, semi-proceeding geopolitics and other topics by taking inspiration from the real world.
 
My thinking is that "interesting" science fiction has some kind of relevance for our current reality. Ergo, so why not take some more ideas from reality? Our world offers many conflicts to tell interesting stories. The negative side is that politics can be extremely polarizing. The original story was wonderful unpolitical. So I will try to keep that as a tradition even though the brainstorming may not look like that.
 
Since Green Village feature many WCG-ish but also "old world" characters (Russians, Europeans, etc.) I want to explore their possible backgrounds.
 
===War and money===
''A story about bloc(k)heads.''
 
A more detailed look on why the WCG is 90% demilitarized.
 
----
 
Generally spoken military alliances are the consequence of mutually shared interests. At first sight the main interest is attack or defense. In times of peace they have more notably the last word in diplomatic relationships and economy and on how soft power is used: Establishment of industry standards [[wp:Concerns_over_Chinese_involvement_in_5G_wireless_networks|(e.g. 5G)]], weapons, non-distribution of goods / embargos and sanctions. Therefore military alliances are always a factor in geopolitics.
 
'''Eventually geopolitics are always about securing your slice of cake in another country''' - may it be USA (and rest of NATO), Russia, China or whosoever. The only difference is how they are doing it. (After [[wp:Operation_Cyclone|decades long Afghanistan conflict]] the Western self-image got cracks. Consequences are being discussed.)
 
China was the new candidate for hegemony - until corona removed the absolute certainty. In any case the world will stay multi-polar for an even longer time. This pessimistic view is [https://archive.ph/q7kuE shared by more and more people]. '''A positive connotation could have been that this gives USA time to mentally adapt to be second in rank but this gets overshadowed by the stretched out time for even more conflicts and that China has already shown to be even more repressive against inner dissidents.'''
 
Russia <s>is working</s> worked and failed on its comeback. Does it just want respect? It's a term that caused strong diplomatic turbulence between Germany and Ukraine January 2021. Everybody knows the Crimea will not come back to the Ukraine but drawing it as a fatalistic fact therefore seemingly excusable was reckless. While that conflict is a problem for itself Kay-Achim Schönbach should have said "Russia wants to be taken serious" instead of "respect". Russia wants also a piece of the cake, the geopolitical cake, money. NATO expanded eastward multiple times, therefore expanded their zone of influence. Why in the world would Russia just stand still and say "that's okay with us"? Sure, the smaller nations should be free to choose which alliance they want to join but that's not how the world works. That's the ugly truth. Only [[wp:Realpolitik|Realpolitik]] can solve this conflict. The unofficial rules in the club of <s>supercriminals</s> (*cough*) superpowers should have been that you don't poach in the territory of another superpower and that undecided territory should remain bloc free. -- Now it's too late. Putin's own corruption and radicalization additionally worsened problem. The combination a problematic dynamic and a problematic political leader not only expelled millions of people and partially destroyed Ukraine, it also put up Cold War 1.5.
 
The question is how can we finally grow out of these studiedly dangerous kindergarten superpower mentalities.
 
----
 
On a long run overgrown military and war industry tend to deplete their host empires and allies.
 
Especially USA cannot modernizing their infrastructure, repair/compensate damages from climate change, invest in green technologies and do a new arms race all simultaneously.
 
The debts of USA are projected to reach a critical stage of [[wp:History_of_the_United_States_public_debt|200% GDP in 2050]].
 
Climate change will make war industry an unaffordable luxury.
 
Climate change and overpopulation will worsen the resource problems on a global scale. Armed conflicts increase. War industry of superpower burn money in war and peace times. Smaller states buy weapons from superpowers to protect themselves (or resources) against other smaller states or superpowers. Superpowers will through military alliances demand their bloc members to contribute more to the budget - putting more weight behind their East-vs.-West-tinted geopolitics - as they cannot do it themselves anymore.
 
It's a vicious circle, setting a bomb prone to self-ignition. '''The military-industrial complex highly contributes to globally rising and distributed debts until they reach a critical limit and any spontaneous mega crisis like a new pandemic can blow up THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.'''
 
After the probable slimming of USA and the rise of China in 2050 the new leading superpower will stand at the crossroad to - probably - deepen its totalitarianism or to - improbable - fulfill its old promise of a new form of democracy.
 
----
 
It seems that behind all ideology rest the motivation to [[wp:Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs|serve human needs]]. Ideology mostly defines the how. Since there are multiple systems concurrence and '''questions of fairness in distribution occur'''. As physiological needs are served in very most systems the second stage - safety needs, especially '''economic security (wealth)''' - is most often in our focus. The imbalance is clearly visible. The permanent effort to secure peaceful coexistence has to tackle the pyramid bottom up. But the ideological hardening keeps us imprisoned in the dynamics of competing systems - meanwhile the fights waste additional resources to the disadvantage of everyone.
 
Build into all this is the fact that humans cheat each other. To marginalize this fact only utterly inconvenient pyrrhic events and tools are thinkable. With maybe one exception.
 
===Postnational influences===
Because WCG.
 
====USA====
Today USA rightfully thinks of NATO being dysfunctional* (this has historic reasons) - and the European partners don't have strong interests in securing the Pacific. This led to the less powerful but dedicated alliance AUKUS. Besides that USA tries to normalize their relationship to the Islamic world ([[wp:Abraham_Accords#Aftermath|Abraham Accords]], lifting sanctions on Iran) as Russia and China strengthen their own relationship more and more. It's their [[wp:Islamophobia_in_China|last straw]] to significantly increase their weight in the game of superpowers.
 
: * NATO was a self-defense alliance against a hypothetical new aggressive Germany and then against Soviet Union and communism. What started with a legit objective became more and more obsolete and in greater part a geopolitical tool of USA. '''Putin's military threatening and invasions breathed new life into NATO's reasons d'etre.'''
 
=====NATO=====
I am not a "Putinversteher" (Putin fan). I do not have any sympathy for that man. My sole intention is to comprehend people.
 
''Finding the thin path of peaceful coexistence in the jungle of pretextual arguments, direct lies and self-running complexes.''
 
Showing reflected opinions based on '''past events and "complexity of life"''' was already inconvenient at peace times and it is ''heretical'' at war times. In a heated up atmosphere anything that smells like relativization is not welcomed. ''Treason.''
 
We should always try to comprehend the goals and concerns of our rivals and enemies, the pretexual and the real ones. We should always try to see behind all propaganda - their and our own.
 
In order to learn from history and prevent blowback-like situations we need to have an as good as possible informed civil population.
 
: Chalmers Johnson, CIA consultant, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pwD4J35-i8&t=350s (GER video)] [https://youtu.be/8KH6FWs99Aw?t=282 (ENG video)]:
:: It's a CIA term. '''Blowback does not mean simply the unintended consequences of foreign operations. It mean the unintended consequences of foreign operations that were deliberately kept secret from the American public. So that when the retaliation comes the American public is not able to put it in context, to put cause and effect together.''' That they come up with questions like "why did they hate us". Our government did not want the forensic question asked. ''What were their motives?'' And instead shall us to say "they were just evil-doers".
 
: Robert Gates, American intelligence analyst and United States secretary of defense complained that the Europeans were not spending enough for NATO's budget. At the same time he criticized NATO's expansion plans:
:: "[https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/11/john-mearsheimer-on-why-the-west-is-principally-responsible-for-the-ukrainian-crisis trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching.]"
 
Appeasement policy failed? Yes because it was halfhearted, sabotaged by our own interests.
 
'''If we cannot agree on things then what are the consequences and continued dynamics?''' If we do not do this then diplomacy cannot stand a chance in deadly situations.
 
'''If we reject realpolitik as solution our attempts to protect our values can cause additional loss of human lives.'''
 
----
 
:He who cannot be far-sighted,
:Nor three thousand years assay,
:Inexperienced stays benighted,
:Let him live from day to day.
:: - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 
A highfalutin quote but you get the idea. For the recent past you should watch ZDF info documentations: Inside NATO
: Paid by taxes and yet the originals will stop being available on 01.04.2022. ''The first casualty of war is truth.'' The more it is important to preserve these videos.
* <s>http://web.archive.org/web/20190911210805/https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfinfo-doku/inside-nato-eine-amerikanische-erfindung-102.html</s>
** <nowiki>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqkQNVpvVUU</nowiki>, 404 due to copyright takedown
* <s>http://web.archive.org/web/20191203124759/https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfinfo-doku/inside-nato-das-grosse-wettruesten-102.html</s>
** <nowiki>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAYXw_SyD1o</nowiki>, 404 due to copyright takedown
* <s>http://web.archive.org/web/20191203124838/https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfinfo-doku/inside-nato-krieg-und-neue-feinde-102.html</s>
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jueb884qGnw
 
There is clearly a '''[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrGqXrUdqlw spiritual successor]''' (thumb up) but the channel's 10 - 15 min limit makes it (unfortunately) quite a compression.
 
----
 
The "historic mistake of NATO" was not to reject Ukraine but to keep growing after the break down of Warsaw Pact.
 
Against who is NATO defending? '''Soviet Union / Russia was at the ground. When NATO grew they served the security concerns of east European nations but also - wanted or not - USA's geopolitical zone of influence. This took away from Russia's own potential zone of influence and pushed hardliners into feeling betrayal and new paranoia.''' They couldn't stop NATO's expansion even if they wanted to. The only option they had was to make a ''pretty face''. At least oral agreements were made - and broken - and consequently our hardliners say they don't matter.
 
From a position of strength it was all too easy to expand. NATO lacked the wisdom to make a second thought in what they were really doing.
 
'''Putin's KGB training and cold war experiences including the paranoia ''shaped'' him for using questionable methods.''' Besides that he was not always that power seeking person with an inflated, narcissistic ego. [https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfzoom/zdfzoom-der-enthemmte-despot-102.html He did not wanted to be president nor did he think he would keep that position.] He was put into that position and even tried to fight the oligarchs.
 
2001 he said "the cold war is over" and wanted to reduce the mutual threatening. But his speech in Bundestag remained without consequences. After 9/11 he even allowed USA to use military bases in former Soviet republics for operations against Taliban. '''We missed the chance to stop a self-fulfilling prophecy.''' He became disappointed by Europe's half-hearted partnership additionally hampered by US hardliners who took themselves the right to operate all over the world. He ended up in letting the oligarchs work for him and put himself at the top of the deeply corrupt system, "managed democracy". Possibly understanding himself as smaller necessary evil. Why chancellor Schröder named him a "flawless democrat" he possibly will never let us know. Putin raised to represent but not fulfilled Russia's claim in power in which also lies some old Soviet pride and made him reject joining NATO as a mere ordinary member. Calling them losers wasn't the best diplomatic behavior either, not helpful.
 
'''A long-running frustration and even deeper multifarious corruption took place.'''
 
Having lost most scruple - as assassinations, attempts and smaller preceding wars have shown - he went on and attacked Ukraine in its entirety. Does this retrospectively legitimize NATO's expansion? Now the voices of the ''eternal alerters'' are loud. "See! We always told you!" And yet they fall short to realize the broader picture: '''Cold warrior Putin has turned into a full-fledged monster - and the West is not without guilt in creating that monster.''' Right now we need the strength of NATO to contain him. But someday the most difficult question will resurface: How can we exit the dangerous bloc mentality? That is actually not a question but a necessity.
 
====Germany====
As a German I can be more specific about Germany as inspiration than about other nations. And I might have an - although not intended - national-tinted point of view.
 
After the Second World War we are the way the world - or at least the West - wanted us to be. Don't blame your creation. ''Never again [must war arise from German ground].'' '''And so we got pacifistic, pluralistic, moralistic. Sometimes to such a degree it annoys our partners - and even ourselves.''' Sometimes our own Remembrance Culture with its strong state-medial and political - therefore dead boring - rituals goes ourselves on the nerve. We try to get along with everyone. With USA, with Russia. With Israel, with Palestine (unofficially).
 
As part of the '''indoctrination of humanistic values''' school classes are dragged to old Nazi concentration camps. A normal educated citizen is meant to always remember history and be fair on everyone. What is generally a good thing has a few '''bizarre side effects in society''': hyper moral and double standards. Besides the traditional right standard racism [https://web.archive.org/web/20220311093434/https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/israel-und-europas-rechtspopulisten-verbuendete-gegen-islam-und-islamismus/23938578.html there are also people from the right spectrum who wear the support for state Israel like an armor.] At the same time they have no problem in excessively criticizing other foreign persons, especially when they are immigrates. They seem to believe that when they are pro-Israel they cannot be racists. On the other hand there are people from the left spectrum who have a blind eye for problems immigrates cause. For examples clan criminality, mafia, Arabic/pro-Palestine antisemitism were problems ignored for too many years since their fight back did not fit into the German [[wp:Willkommenskultur|welcoming culture]]. (In any case it should be common sense that German Jews are the wrong target for Israel criticism, they are not responsible for Israeli politics.) The [[wp:2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis|Israel-Palestine crisis]] and the [[wp:2021–2022_Belarus–European_Union_border_crisis|Belarus-EU border crisis]] in 2021 shook Germany's self-image. As a result the underdeveloped migration and inefficient integration politics are finally realized through essentially all political parties. Yet, much work is to do to grind away ideological hardening and formulating improved arrangements.
 
:It can be assumed that the '''ideology-driven opposing views helped partly in keeping alive a feedback loop''' hindering to create better domestic policies. The well-intended but way naive left-ish narrative helped the extreme right in their doing which again causes the leftist to counteract to protect immigrants. The leftists shouldn't be blamed for having kickstarted the dynamic. There are historic pragmatic (realpolitisch) reasons for this development. The denazification remained highly incomplete - therefore the need of a left-ish over-caring narrative. On one hand it was not possible to put large portions of Nazi perpetrator and accomplices into jail. There were simply too many of them. On the other hand post-war Europe lay in ashes. [[wp:Marshall_Plan|Germany was needed for the rebuild.]] And so USA connected this necessity with their own economic and political (anti-communistic) interests.
 
As for pacifism and appeasement policy - USA (and rest of NATO) often work hard on Germany so that it agrees to their ''invitations'' to wars and sanctions against rivals. This is partly a good thing as USA often act themselves strongly ideological just trying to protect their zone of influence. The collateral damage USA cause on their partners*- despite protestations to the contrary - is eventually secondary for them: ''America first''. -- On a general note the problem with USA is that they didn't had a war on their own ground [[wp:American_Revolutionary_War|in younger history]]. They don't know how total destruction feels like. This mixed with an self-image of superiority they too readily accept military interventions as solutions.
: * '''For example Germany is meant to give up NS2 while the States are not willing to endanger their (even more sanctions worthy) oil imports from Russia. When Biden was asked about that in the presence of Olaf Scholz no answer was given.''' Also, Biden made clear that ultimately he is the one in control of the NS2 decision, not the chancellor - as if Germany is not fully sovereign - that's at least how many people understood his words. The media tended to speak more of helping out Olaf Scholz against an inconvenient question from a journalist. (Well, both views can be true, they don't really rule out each other.)
:: 2022.03.08 Biden restored a good portion of trust when he announced embargoes of fossil energy sources. Made possible by pressure from his own people and not primarily aimed to the Europeans of course, but hey the issue was removed and cannot cause trouble in the future. To mitigate negative consequences there is cooperation with three "smaller evils": OPEC member Saudi Arabia, Iran* and Venezuela*. (* As a bonus this might also eat on Russia's influence on these nations. At least Maduro looked very happy about the decision.) Meanwhile Putin seems to want sabotaging Germany's [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/26/qatar-in-talks-to-supply-gas-to-europe-if-russia-cuts-supplies inquiry] in Qatar sending Lawrow to them.
 
At the same time Germany earns good money exporting weapons. [https://www.dw.com/en/german-arms-sales-drop-to-second-highest-levels-on-record/a-37243336 The numbers are even increasing on average]. Despite many restrictions often enough those weapons find a way into conflict zones.
 
If policy of détente is the continuation of moderate pacifism on state level, appeasement policy may be seen as continuation of a more radical (suicidal) pacifism. In any case Germany had lost its instinct for '''geopolitics''' after it adopted a pacifistic base attitude. After WWII strong nationalism and '''imperialism''' was meant to be avoided, to be banned from our heads. And so we also didn't want to deal with those matters in foreign policy. We wanted to believe that Russia would become less aggressive with time but Putin became nonetheless too greedy and frustrated and eventually saw imperialism as solution to speed up development to reach old might. The reasons are manifold. America being a problematic role model, Russia's self-definition, our comfortable focus on geopolitics ignoring economy - just to name a few. Germany should have played a more active role though nobody would have really liked that either. It would have created other kinds of conflict. -- At least instead of "having hopes", appeasement should have had exact monitoring as minimum condition to be responsible.
 
[...]
 
The fat years are over and again wrong priorities are about to get chosen. (Please don't.) If it rains nukes on Germany - and when that happens on whole Europe - forget [https://www.rbb24.de/politik/beitrag/2022/04/bunker-schutz-umbau-garagen-u-bahn-sicherheit-gruene-ukraine.html underground stations] and [https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/sachsen-anhalt/zivilschutz-katastrophenschutz-notfallplaene-bunker-100.html bomb shelters], placebos. After the explosions, there will be still nuclear fallout and starvation. Politicians should be so honest to say there is no real escape. Instead of preparing for an severe but unlikely threat - that can be barely mitigated - so that it basically brings nothing but costs, that money should be better used to tackle much realer problems: for instance, the energy transition (Energiewende), the underdeveloped digital infrastructure, cyber security, teaching companies directly to use new tools, and pushing the GAIA-X project so that it does not become a total billion-euros grave. -- Again: There is not one single plausible scenario that would justify the construction of new protection structures. Bomb shelters make sense in isolated wars but not for Germany which is part of NATO. A full scale conventional war against Germany would automatically get nuclear. And then you are in so much deep shit that nothing will help.
 
====Europe====
Europe can only preserve its sovereignty by becoming as much self-sustaining as possible. Making itself independent from superpowers by new technologies and political unity is key. A true normalization of relationships with Russia will be likely delayed until US influences are displaced and Russia realizes its expendability to a 2060-future China.
 
'''Emancipation from USA.''' There are two scenarios to improve enforcement of European interests.
* A) As an early adaptor of minimum-military the EU can free resources to successfully compensate effects of climate change and improve living standards. A certain amount of diversification is not a weakness but a resource. '''A "pluralistic-symbiotic think tank" can better work out alternative solutions and offer them anyone in need - even to (or especially to) highly militarized, ideological narrowed (gleichgeschaltete) superpowers.''' - It's a risky move as superpowers must recognize Europe as neutral ground so they can profit from it in other ways then depleting it. -- Wanted: A strategy for viable pacifism. [...]
* B) A semi-militarized version. With an European army with focus on east-European partners to ease their security concerns. USA, Russia and China will be given all the same chances to do business with Europe. No special treatments. Critical infrastructure (ownership) will stay under European control at all times. [...]
 
2022 escalated the geopolitical fight between USA and Russia. It was the last wakeup call for Europe to not end as collateral damage between all superpowers - and to become the green continent.
 
====Russia====
2022. Russia assured multiple times that it will not attack Ukraine. If Russia attacks the Ukraine nonetheless - in whatever form, no matter whether a false flag action happens before or not - they will lose all credibility for a long time and NATO will be forced to impose sanctions. Germany will be forced to stop NS2 and give up its pacifistic basic attitude. If the attack is big enough it would even trigger a new cold war.
 
'''The illogical invasion'''
 
Based on pure logic a full-fledged war across the entire Ukraine is improbable. (Also, Bundeswehr sees not much of a risk. The Ukraine doesn't want the escalation to be made real by US talk. And Snowden raised [https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1493641714363478016?cxt=HHwWgMC55bfOvbopAAAA questions], too.) Usually, an attack is carried out as fast as possible so the enemy has no time to prepare his defense. Then again, even if Russia invades they cannot keep such a vast area under control.
: The communication by western administrations (and media) - especially of USA - has been criticized as warmongering. Apparently, the current strategy is to speak about war as much as possible (to unite own allies behind the banner of NATO) and make Russia not want to prove the West right.
:: USA had many shady military and secret intelligence missions (CIA) in foreign nations. This includes installation of new government in rogue nations. Consequently these are made pro-USA. And as side effect USA often profits economically in an intensified way.
::: '''Among critics you can often hear the "blood for oil" thesis or "No blood for oil" slogan, saying in quintessence that USA is using its military to protect its advantage in buying, producing or mining the resources. However, nations with less potential power or by simply being smaller are always in disadvantage and are in danger of getting exploited by economic dynamics.''' (Pretty everyone tries or tried to exploit African nations.) On the other hand there is the military-industrial complex and ideological factors that add their bits and pieces to foreign policy - may it be the readiness to use military and the "sense of mission" (own belief in being forced) to bring democracy to nations with a different cultural environment.
:: Sometimes these missions (for new governments / nation building) end up in unwillingly facilitating new radical forces - like the Taliban or the Islamic State. This makes its sometimes hard to believe that USA speaks the truth. '''The "collateral damage" - including the eavesdrop of global communication - is so massive that whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) can reveal that many tons of mistakes and wrongdoing that they were declared public enemies. USA is at times itself a problematic role model. They created an empire not simply by - but yet partially by - questionable methods and accepted high amounts of killed civilians and violated human rights at [[wp:CIA_black_sites|CIA black sides]] like [[wp:Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp|Guantanamo]] which not even Nobel peace laureate Barack Obama was willing to close.''' If the inmates were not radicalized at the beginning they were after years of humiliation and torture. Their release poses a new threat to USA so the shutdown of Guantanamo is considered possible only in small steps. Putin sees Russia as superpower that cannot catch up. The problem with this fact is that there are four reasons: 1) Climate and geography give Russia a disadvantage. 2) Putin's own growing corruption. 3) The economic heritage. 4) The political heritage: For many US-Americans the Russians are evil communists which must be indeed blocked in their development, consequently this includes the sabotage of Russia's connection to Europe. -- Putin reasons that if USA doesn't play fair that he also doesn't need to play fair. But since Russia is in disadvantage Putin sees himself forced to use an even intensified level of ruthlessness. '''To overcome this position of weakness Putin decided to rule Russia in an autocratic style and take by force what he cannot get with legal methods.''' - Putin must be utterly frustrated that he could not lift Russia's status out of being an underdog. His entire second part of his lifespan was not enough to "restore" Russia. It seems that he snapped about that fact. - '''Besides the natural economic competition, military and political hardliners intensified a feedback loop in which USA and Russia still fight each each up to this day. - Anyway, the attack on Ukraine was the last red line Putin shouldn't have crossed. There is absolutely no credible justification for this attack.'''
 
: A far-future normalization might have an interface in structural weak East Germany at first. The more sanctions there are the more Russia will be hit but also specifically East Germany. Pro-Russian (AfD, Linke) and tendential pro-Russian (SPD, CDU) political parties in that region will probably support a normalization in hope for economic improvements. (In East Germany it is common knowledge that sanctions hit the civil population harder than the sanctioned government.) The far right AfD will serve as a catalyst - as a mutual opponent to the democratic (or self-proclaimed democratic) parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, Grüne, FDP, Linke). As those do not want AfD to grow they might try to occupy (serve) the topic for themselves - or back it in coalitions at least. West German parties will remember the idiom that "elections are not won but lost in East Germany". They will not want to repeat past mistakes. So in total an absolute majority of German parties will probably support a cautious normalization given that the 2050/2060-future post-Putin Russian government is honestly interested in such. [[Restless_Souls/Technology#Terra_Preta_2.0|Terra Preta 2.0.]] Russia's economy never really recovered from World War II. They need a modernization - a Russian Marshal plan - also to deradicalize the political system. Poverty begets negative development and slows down positive development. (See Afghanistan.)
 
Summarized, Putin walks ruthlessly over bodies but he is a rational killer after all. We didn't had the "wrong" estimation per se. It was Putin who had the wrong estimation because he was given false information. His own intelligence agencies and military gave him wrong facts. They were too afraid of telling him the truth about Russian forces and Ukraine's situation. That means that Putin would still have attacked Ukraine but only when he had the power to do so.
: * These days you often hear that Putin has an ideology. I think that's just pretextual, a justification and tool for mass manipulation. He had no problem in keeping the MiGs for war and not let them fly at the military parades. He tried to calm the families of fallen soldiers. He only halfhearted held a sign to remember the dead during the march of the immortal regiment, a once concurrent movement he found to be useful for his own ends. He isn’t talking of taking the entire Ukraine anymore, but the Donbas, simply changing a war goal that was placed in that ideology. Putin ended his speech with a halfhearted hooray and before it was fully out of his mouth he was about to turn away. Sarcastic undertones on. If he is given the right information he knows what he is doing. Sarcastic undertones off. Just because Putin "has" (uses) an ideology doesn't necessarily mean he believes it himself. Unfortunately, Putin is not ready yet to give up on his stubbornness, he is not used to lose.
 
The food sector being Putin's hostage begins to take effect. EU should finally switch to war economy. A step they also missed to do during Corona. Baerbock just announced the G7 will increase their effort to vaccinate the global south and other kind of support to mitigate historical mistakes (colonialism) and Putin's propaganda of an at least selfish West. Anyway, vaccine injections cannot replace corn.
:  2022.11.28 In the end the corn war was a double edged sword... Erdogan might have been indeed the last gram on the balance and pushed Putin in hope Türkiye could stand as supporter. Meanwhile the African guys understood who the problem is... and what the cost is...
 
'''The 4 new scenarios'''
 
* '''The optimistic one'''
 
A miracle happens and Ukraine gets enough weapons to restore all its territory. The Donbas is Putin's minimal goal, so that still won't be easy.
 
The West actually has to deliver or he gets incredible. Taiwan would go down even faster if not done.
 
The argument that further weapons delivers are not possible is not valid. That would be a pure political decision. Concerns about own alliance duty is a red herring. The more weapons are transferred to Ukraine the more weapons Russia need to win the war and the less a threat it is elsewhere. Any war game - even common sense - tells you that sending droplets of reinforcement into the enemy's superior forces is a waste of own resources. It's very simple: If Ukraine is meant to win the war military-wise as soon as possible it needs to be the superior hitter.
 
: Puntin und Selenski wollen nicht miteinander verhandeln. Wie könnte der Krieg ohne Verhandlungen ''von selbst'' enden?
: Selbstredend auch keine sympathische Aussicht. Putin lässt den Krieg solange laufen bis soviele technische und menschliche Ressourcen erschöpft sind, dass die Ukrainer sich alles zurückgeholt haben und die russische Armee nicht mehr in der Lage ist, Gebiete erneut zu besetzen. Dann hat Putin die Möglichkeit voll und ganz in der Opferrolle aufzugehen. Eigentlich werden Niederlagen nicht eingestanden. Sie passieren still und heimlich und werden versucht umzudeuten. In diesem Fall müsste er eine Ausnahme machen und an seine jetzige Propaganda anknüpfen? Russland hätte nicht einfach gegen die Ukraine verloren, sondern viel mehr gegen die USA und anderen NATO-Staaten. Gegen den vereinten Westen. ''Gegen diese Übermacht kann man ja nur verlieren...'' Mit den fehlenden Ressourcen wäre es dann auch den Hardlinern nicht möglich eine Fortsetzung des Krieges zu fordern, zumal Atomwaffen auch keine echten Möglichkeiten bieten. Putin könnte sagen, dass er alles mögliche probiert hat, aber dass es nun vorbei ist. ''Wenn ihr die Ukraine haben wollt, ja den geht doch selber an die Front...'' <!--[https://www.nzz.ch/international/ukraine-zehn-irrtuemer-die-der-sieg-in-cherson-widerlegt-hat-ld.1712721 Auf der Krim lässt man schon Schützengräben ausheben.]--> Nach russischer Propaganda war es noch nicht einmal ein Krieg. Es müsste also noch nicht mal eine Einfrierung des Konfliktes geben wie in Korea. Ironischerweise würde zumindest die Ukraine Mauern hochziehen, weil sie sich bedroht sieht und Sicherheitsgaratien nur begrenzt vertraut.
:: Will man dem [https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Buergerkrieg-in-Russland-Geheimdienst-FSB-befuerchtet-Putsch-gegen-Putin-article23731398.html Bericht über den FSB] glauben schenken, könnte Putin dazu übergehen Prigoschin und Kadyrow im letzten Schritt zu verheizen, bevor sie ihm selbst gefährlich werden können. ... Pokerface.
:: Nach [https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/ukraine/id_100085850/ukraine-krieg-wladimir-putins-verzweiflung-waechst.html ukrainischen Twitter-Angaben] hat Russland etwa die Hälfte seiner Raketen verbraucht. Pi mal Daumen reichen die noch ein Jahr, umgebaute S-300 eingeschlossen. Wird Russland bis dahin die Raketenproduktion ausbauen können?
 
* '''The realistic one'''
 
Putin will keep Donbas and the black sea coast under control.
 
Probably the relationship between Ukraine and Germany will be permanently damaged.
 
:There is already a suspicion that the Ukraine is not supposed to win. '''The stab-in-the-back myth''' was to be heard from Johannes Hano in ZDF when he quoted Ukrainians "What the hell is the West waiting for?" On the quiet Ukrainians start to think that the West, especially Germany, doesn't deliver enough weapons on purpose so Putin can have the Donbas as face-saving minimum goal. In scope of that myth this would go hand in hand with Scholz' and Macron's warning that Putin shall not be humiliated.
 
:Scholz also repeatedly said: "The Ukraine must not lose." He doesn't say "has to win". That is a difference, not nitpicking. (Baerbock actually said "win" but Scholz has the last word, so this doesn't count.) There are intermediate stages between lose and win if "to lose" means a complete takeover or destruction.
 
:The suspicion is strengthened by the official position of USA and the Baltic states that Russia is meant to be weakened so that it cannot start a new war for a very long time.
 
:Meanwhile opposition leader Merz asked Scholz whether he has "a second agenda [people don't know about]."
 
:Also, Habeck and Scholz ''admitted'' that Germany is "not doing everything possible" to help the Ukraine. These words could kinda go down the wrong pipe if ripped out of context. They said so because they want to prevent a war between Russia and NATO and therefore the risk of nuclear holocaust.
 
:The belated but eventual delivery of heavy weapons could be interpreted by the Ukrainians as "correction" to keep up the equilibrium so that the war keeps raging until both countries are mentally and physically exhausted.
 
:Russia will probably try to foster that myth to its own advantage.
:: 2022.08.16. [https://www.euronews.com/2022/08/16/putin-hits-out-at-the-us-over-ukraine-and-taiwan Putin:] "They need conflicts to retain their hegemony. That’s why they have turned the Ukrainian people into cannon fodder. [...]"
 
:Should this myth turn out true someday it will reveal another tragic. It would unwillingly and seemingly give the radical pacifists right. "Weapon prolong the war."
 
: The Ukrainians would have sacrificed their blood for us then to be called hypocrites and cowards.
 
: "States don't have friends. They have interests."
 
Since Europe couldn't jump over its shadow to support Ukraine with enough heavy weapons they gave Putin more possibilities to destroy infrastructure and occupy/block the ports that are crucial for making revenues. As consequence Europe will feel guilty and bleed half to death themselves by fully supporting Ukraine's rebuild.
 
After Putin's suicidal attack on Ukraine Russia will likely become a satellite to China. Russia revived the European part of NATO. Now with a secured back old superpower USA could concentrate more power in the Pacific. China's biggest strategic mistake during the pandemic was to not get mRNA vaccines, for ideological reasons [https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/china-perseveres-with-mrna-covid-shot-development-amid-omicron-commercial-2022-02-28/ they tried stick to their own attempts] and hampered its own growth. Russia and China showed themselves to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in geopolitical questions but given enough push and pull Russia could not just end up as satellite but as pinata, hanging there waiting to get economically slaughtered by a frustrated China to finally win against USA.
 
* '''The pessimistic one'''
 
Putin draws a full circle on Ukraine, step by step, moving along the boarders to take Moldavia and stop weapon deliveries from the West. Then Ukraine gets choked to death over many years.
 
* '''The worst case'''
 
Full-scale asymmetric war.
 
To say it with slightly changed words from Don Winslow: Democracies shouldn't have brought spoons to a knives fight.
 
Phase I
 
If Putin sabotages or destroys the corn harvest for another year or even longer he will get his geopolitical cake slice. Not the bigger pieces of Ukraine but in the AU because he can blackmail them and NATO can do little against it. China can passively support Russia's doing by simply buying large quantities of corn on the world market pushing the price even higher.
 
Phase II (option)
 
Africa should have been enabled to feed itself. Now it's too late. The situation of a starving overpopulation will take its toll. "Autarky is not a solution", my ass. If China and Russia come up with a true partnership in geopolitics Europe gets fucked. The refugee waves can be channeled to Europe functioning as "human weapons" - like during the Belarus border crisis but much more powerful because, unlike the Ukrainians, black people won't be welcomed by Europe. To maximize damage, waves from the overpopulated Afghanistan could be triggered simultaneously. And then the tone will be "thank you America for pushing Russia and China into kicking out asses while you sit on your far-away island. Thank you for nothing. May you become an idiocracy under Donald Trump and never talk to us again."
 
It's said that naturally most refugees stay in their country and hence this is just a "horror scenario". The difference is that this wouldn't be a "natural" dynamic. The question is whether Russia can effort the resources to prepare for an "African front", all the more as they are now under the eyes of an alerted NATO.
 
If Ukraine completely falls then China and Russia will dominate Africa first and then more and more parts of the remaining world. As soon as that happens Europe would need to truly unite and aim for technology-driven autarky so it doesn't become a satellite.
 
'''Asymmetric warfare'''
 
The Russians lack a clear supremacy to win the war so it would be plausible to intensify asymmetric attacks again.
 
As for the destroyed pipelines the question about who caused it is pretty tough.
 
{| class="wikitable" width="100%"
|-
!width="50%"| USA
! Russia
|-
|valign=top|
Pro:
* Biden wished NS2 to be ''dead''. An inactivation doesn't count as such. A literal destruction would have been needed.
* This ''destroyed'' the inner-German discussions of using NS2 for good.
* With the destruction of NS1 and NS2 Germany is even more certainly depending on LNG fracking gas. (This is usually a CT argument.)
* Pure speculation: After Russia's nuclear threatening the destruction of the pipelines could be a sign to Moskau to no further escalate or else pipelines for China and India will be damaged.
 
Contra:
* A few weeks ago the CIA warned about potential sabotages.
* '''The most important piece in this puzzle might be the observed drones around Norway's offshore oil fields. Besides NS1 and NS2, USA wouldn't go so far to destroy more energy infrastructure of befriended European nations. It is much more likely Russia is looking for more targets.'''
|valign=top|
Neutral:
* The detection of chemical traces from explosives proves nothing. It could have been a false-flag attack. (This can only be a first step.)
 
Pro:
* The gas prices went up.
* Bonus: Distraction from the referendum in the occupation territories.
* The fossile age is about to end. In the meantime Germany will basically rely on non-Russian sources. Therefore the Russian conclusion might be that the pipelines became negligible.
* Suspicious: The Russians were not really upset / surprised when the pipelines blew up.
* Pure speculation: This is a threatening against Europe. Other pipelines could be destroyed.
 
Contra:
* The gas prices went up but the effect was rather small since there were no more deliveries. Therefore the Russians must be really desperate to blow up their own pipes. An expensive repair with a German proportion is unlikely.
* A not marginal number of Germans supported the reopening/use of NS1 and NS2. The leverage on those people is now gone.
* The explosions happened near the time when the new Baltic Pipe from Norway to Poland opened. It would have been more plausible to blowup that pipe as well to have a stronger effect on the prices.
* There were ideas to repurpose the pipe for hydrogen (mixes).
|}
 
====China====
China demands its domestic economy to become resilient so that they can win the final power battle against USA.
 
Russia and China are backing up each other.
* They work on an alternative financial transaction system so that sanction on them lose their power. (How many years will its installment take?)
* China is working on its switch from coal to natural gas: that way Russia has a guaranteed income and five eyes and AUKUS member Australia gets damaged in multiple ways. China can later mix in hydrogen and even point the finger at [[wp:Coal_in_Australia|Australia for being an energetic dinosaur]].
 
----
 
You don't often see Xi smiling when he is involved in propaganda and military parades. It can be interpreted that he tries to create an image of himself being unemotional therefore a serious and thoughtful leader. Given his special past it is also possible that he is thinking about Mao in that moments. '''<!--ARTE documentation: Die neue Welt des Xi Jjinping -->[http://web.archive.org/web/20220228222215/https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/078193-000-F/die-neue-welt-des-xi-jinping/ He knows very well what propaganda and ideology can cause.] The [[wp:Cultural_Revolution|cultural revolution]] is estimated to have caused up to 20 million casualties. And he is a survivor of it.''' -- There were two roads for him to go. A more democratic one and totalitarian one. His most important adviser told him to go with totalitarianism as a necessary evil. The efficiency of  totalitarianism allows for faster economic development but also creates awkward costs (collateral damage), "the need" to get rid of dissidents. His own family suffered from such practices. He needed many tries and a false identity to be accepted by the communist party. This might explain why even the sale of Western, seemingly uncritical books about his life are not welcomed so that his cult of personality is protected. Inconvenient questions shall not be asked. The aggressive nationalism (One China) is core to transport the Chinese Dream, promised prosperity for everyone. '''The paradoxical consequence of China's rise in power is that as stronger they get as the less they need Taiwan. The longer China waits to annex Taiwan the easier it gets military-wise but the more they will damage their inner logic of the narrative'''. Right now Taiwan is a technological important resource. That will certainly not stay that way. Everybody sees the threat of being dependent to it. USA and Europa are building now chip factories on their own territory to mitigate the dependency. In this lays the threat for Taiwan of getting expendable to Western partners.
 
A spicy side note of history is that the USA under Kissinger and <!--Die neue Seidenstraße - Poker um eine neue Weltordnung, ARTE Doku-->Nixon agreed on that Taiwan is a part of One China (<nowiki>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fkR17cblEQ&t=1246s</nowiki>, private video).
: Censorship in a democracy is still censorship. Normally, comments just get disabled if content is heating up the crowds. Obviously, ARTE was told by our US friends to make the video unavailable on Youtube (Google, US-owned platform) since it is still accessible on ARTE's own website hosted on a European server: http://web.archive.org/web/20221016234812/https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/082808-000-A/poker-um-eine-neue-weltordnung/
 
===Zones of influence===
Overall influence:
 
China
* [[wp:Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation#Membership|Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)]]
** Afghanistan (even tough Afghanistan is referred to as "graveyard of empires", Russia tries to gain new influence by [https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/exclusive-afghan-taliban-sign-deal-russian-oil-products-gas-wheat-2022-09-27/ trading])
** Russia
*** [[wp:Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization|CSTO]]
*** Hungary (opportunist)
** mediocre: India (opportunist)
* mediocre: [[wp:Regional_Comprehensive_Economic_Partnership|RCEP]] members
* AU ("pragmatic" investments and loan traps)
* mediocre: nations being part of "[[wp:Belt_and_Road_Initiative|belt and road initiative]]", built infrastructure, bought ports, Chinese secret state loans
** Serbia (shared influence by Russia and [https://web.archive.org/web/20210418050030/https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2021-04/china-serbien-corona-impfstoff-propaganda-eu-balkan China], bad mood in Balkan states because of creeping progress in EU membership)
** Portugal? (investments)
** Greece? (investments)
* advantage of having most rare earth elements
* after annexing Taiwan, the next hard nut to crack would be India and deescalate future resource conflicts, if China can reach some form of neutrality with them the road to a "Chinese Century" lies all open
 
Greater Middle East ([[wp:Sunni_Islam#Adherents|Sunni Islam]])? (Or just future SCO satellites?)
* normalization: http://web.archive.org/web/20220702220653/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/world/middleeast/turkey-erdogan-saudi-arabia.html
* Saudi-Arabia as leader and Türkiye as befriended nation? (Türkiye is special as it has connections to the West by EU and NATO, important economic ties to Russia and it is an Muslim nation.)
** Türkiye's latest blackmailing (2022.05.14) has just proofed again that they are a mafia-tainted autocracy. Should NATO and China start to beat up each other they can turn to team number three, let them be the "king maker" and split the bribe.
*** '''Türkiye could become a Trojan Horse for NATO as it cannot be kicked out.''' The opportunist Erdogan showed interest in a [https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Erdogan-plant-Mitgliedschaft-in-oestlichem-Buendnis-article23595727.html SCO membership]. Also, he repeatedly threatened NATO member Greece. Türkiye switching sides would mean to leave major parts of the Black Sea to the influence zone of SCO and Georgia would be degraded to a full-fledged satellite state. As soon as Türkiye joins SCO NATO would need to dissolve and reassemble a second later together with Sweden and Finland.
** Oh look who is [https://archive.ph/pSytN looking for backup]. Spite China's Islamophobia Saudi-Arabia and co. could become befriended - or in China's worst case neutral - partners during a hot USA-China-conflict. The Islamic world and China share an autocratic ruling style and a subliminal up to an open Anti-Americanism.
 
USA
* First level partners: Five Eyes
* Second level partners?: Israel, Switzerland
* Third level partners?: NATO, Japan, Saudi-Arabia, South Korea, Philippines (We know Germany is a "third level partner" so there exist other levels of partnership...)
* Fourth level partners?: other geopolitical primed nations
 
EU (Alternative, improbable future path. This is more of a backup plan.)
* As EU will never be able to speak and act in unison for bigger initiatives the only option left for them is to become a "community of autarky".
 
----
 
[[wp:United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-11/1|United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1]] indicates that following states have an anti-USA, pro-Russian, pro-China position, consequently shows that they are directly in Russia's and China's zone of influence:
 
In total dependency:
: Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Syria
 
Under strong influence:
: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Cuba, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, India, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe
----
 
Explicit military influence:
: [[wp:List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases|List of countries with overseas military bases]]
: [[wp:List_of_United_States_military_bases|List of United States military bases]]
: [[wp:List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad|List of Russian military bases abroad]]
 
==Braindump section==
===Klimadiktatur===
Das Wort "'''[https://www.idz-jena.de/wsddet/wsd11-07 Klimadiktatur]'''" und "Ökodiktatur" beinhaltet wie auch "Klimawandel" ein dem rechten Spektrum nützliches [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBwQtCgcJ4g Nudging]. Statt zu verharmlosen, wird diesmal das Wort "Diktatur" genutzt, um Angst zu schüren. Vertreter klimaschonender Politik sollen so diskreditiert werden. Klimaschutz sei nur ein Vorwand, um die Macht an sich zu reißen und den einfachen Bürger zu schikanieren und zu kontrollieren.
Das Wort "'''[https://www.idz-jena.de/wsddet/wsd11-07 Klimadiktatur]'''" und "Ökodiktatur" beinhaltet wie auch "Klimawandel" ein dem rechten Spektrum nützliches [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBwQtCgcJ4g Nudging]. Statt zu verharmlosen, wird diesmal das Wort "Diktatur" genutzt, um Angst zu schüren. Vertreter klimaschonender Politik sollen so diskreditiert werden. Klimaschutz sei nur ein Vorwand, um die Macht an sich zu reißen und den einfachen Bürger zu schikanieren und zu kontrollieren.


Line 730: Line 396:
:: [...] NATO should monitor and assess the impact of climate change on security in the coming decade and increase its situational awareness of threats that could emanate from consequent heightened activity and increased freedom of navigation. In support of this goal, NATO should increase situational awareness, early warning and information sharing on climate and security, including by Allies considering the establishment of a '''NATO Centre of Excellence on Climate and Security''' or adding climate to the NATO Centre of Excellence on Energy Security. [...]
:: [...] NATO should monitor and assess the impact of climate change on security in the coming decade and increase its situational awareness of threats that could emanate from consequent heightened activity and increased freedom of navigation. In support of this goal, NATO should increase situational awareness, early warning and information sharing on climate and security, including by Allies considering the establishment of a '''NATO Centre of Excellence on Climate and Security''' or adding climate to the NATO Centre of Excellence on Energy Security. [...]


===5-Grad-Plus-Erde===
====5-Grad-Plus-Erde====
[https://archive.ph/T53B6 Jor, man kann natürlich argumentieren, dass RCP8.5 und RCP6.0 unrealistisch sind.] Oder man macht sich Gedanken zu was unterschätzte Selbstverstärkung, RCP4.5 und die Kipppunkte führen (können). Höhere RCP-Äquivalente? Ich persönlich glaube ja auch nicht, dass die gesamte Menschheit ausstirbt. Irgendein Rest moderne Zivilisation wird schon noch übrig bleiben. Aber man muss es ja nicht drauf anlegen, das Restrisiko Realität werden zu lassen. Oder?
[https://archive.ph/T53B6 Jor, man kann natürlich argumentieren, dass RCP8.5 und RCP6.0 unrealistisch sind.] Oder man macht sich Gedanken zu was unterschätzte Selbstverstärkung, RCP4.5 und die Kipppunkte führen (können). Höhere RCP-Äquivalente? Ich persönlich glaube ja auch nicht, dass die gesamte Menschheit ausstirbt. Irgendein Rest moderne Zivilisation wird schon noch übrig bleiben. Aber man muss es ja nicht drauf anlegen, das Restrisiko Realität werden zu lassen. Oder?


Paradox-01
8,452

edits

Retrieved from "https://wiki.oni2.net/Special:MobileDiff/39102"