Talk:Restless Souls/Summary

Order of events

Maybe filling in some numbers later to make this a full-fledged timeline. For now I only need the order of events.

This is a rough summary. Details may or may not be added.

• WCG happens
• Bioattack in Suez (Griffin, GATC "indirectly" involved)
• Artificial mycorrhiza happens
• Operation Hotdog (Kimura, Griffin)
• Barabas and others died or went MIA, Griffin frustrated
• Xeno hybrids (mutated mycorrhiza with new symbionts, begin of a new "BioCrisis" that overshadows the others)
• Puppet master program (last chance for winning the war, Griffin knows GATC went too far and kills GATC sci and joins TCTF)
• Blackstars happens (GATC soldiers form merc group)
• ACC construction
• Feng: "after Suez, research must be regulated", sci prisons
• Bioc tech happens, Blackstars destroys the company of Dakosta's father
• Griffin takes Bioc tech, gives it to WCG (trust gain, used for GV's construction)
• GOP happens
• Jamie dies
• CDC, Walker sends Hanna to GV
• Standoff, Hasegawa
• Hasegawa, Kerr join Syndicate
• [Weeks passes until Hanna is invited to GV]
• Marburg incidence
• Hanna Curtis airplane chat
• [Hanna uses a MRSA "blocker"]
• Hanna, Blake, GV
• Kimura, Blue mountain worker
• Kimura gets sample from GV, Hanna ok
• Kimura kills worker
• Hanna talks with Bertram
• Kimura contacts then kidnaps Pensatore
• Avatara finishes Daodan Chrysalis
• Griffin, Iron Demon takeover
• Avatara tries to get back Pensatore, Syn. evacuates/TCTF lab raid (soon after Kerr left the area, the TCTF arrives)
• Kerr takes Mai to TCTF
• Mai Biosafty, Pest control (assassination plans for Muro)
• Maria (Hanna) joins TCTF
• Mai fake OP (Maria, Kerr fool Griffin)
• Corruption of Hasegawa by Kimura
• Shinatama, intro
• Jack, Intro
• Mukade, Intro
• Churi, Intro
• Muro, Ryu, Tomo, Kimura vs Strikers
• Traton, Intro
• Jack's father almost killed
• Griffin, Iron Demon
• Kumo sends killers after Griffin
• Griffin, Mai and the reindeers (indoc)
• Takahashi, intro
• Griffin, Victor planning against Kumo (to eliminate Syn. threat for Neo-Tokio)
• Griffin, Mai, Daya
• Vendret, intro
• Muro (note to self: do more 'chapter rotations' of Muro and Mai)
• - Life in the Camp
• - Friendly rivalry with Ryu
• - Muros's missions with Traton and Daodandroids
• - Saomi, GATC Z
• - Alliance with BGI, Sarai, intro
• Churi, Sledgehammer, bar
• - Car bomb, death of Tomo
• - Furies
• - Further assassination attempts from Z
• - Death of Pensatore
• - Death of Hasegawa
• - Exil of Traton
• - Sturmanderung plans, Muro
• - Dispute with Ryu
• - War against BGI
• - Peace treaty with BGI (temporary, they build Iron Demons)
• Sturmänderung (Oni 1.5) including missing chapters
• Mukade reanimated, enslaved by Pensatore
• Pensatore rescues Shinatama (Shin questions her own ego, is something of her soul missing? Hence removes "(a)tama" from her name, pun: tama = soul, atama = head (in Japanese), also: "Shin" is a base for the word "die", so in total: "died without a soul" or "without a head you die")

Inner conflict is intensified by Mai's cultural background.
* Her mother was American and her father Japanese.
** Western thinking: Robots are dead matter; Japanese thinking: in Shinto pretty much everything can have a soul
** The TCTF does not assume SLD are alive but simulated. On the other hand Shin is based on Mai's original personality and might have a free will - something Pensatore asked her. How much of a copy are "Brain engramms"? If simulated brain activity - or their "results" - are indistinguishable from "real" - why not grand the "host" human rights?

• GATC Z fails to eliminate Muro (Imago stage)
• Mai destroys Syn. mountain complex
• Oni 2 happens

Thought lab

Story

Open threads

• Hardy's title names and themes for Oni 2 and 3 - can we recycle some aspects?
• Exploring Mai/Jack story arc based on music album The Unforgiving.
• AI of GOP desert vs. Muro
• Deadly Brain arc (Neuronal Processing Units)
• Green Phönix, evolutionary forerunners of Phyllions (Mai teaches other hosts how to establish symbiosis with daodanized plants. She is seen as a candidate for "New Gaia".)

Merging

I will try to fix inconsistencies later between the summaries.

Summary attempt 2 (focus on Avatara)

I always wanted to introduce some folks that get "ancient". Their emergence is inevitable. They are the consequence of technological progress and human's wish to improve themselves, resulting in longer and longer lifetimes, eventually in their potentially biological immortality.

The Ancients are the first of their kind which puts them into challenges of all sorts. Daodan hosts have a good chance to reach biological immortality before others do and survive possible wars in that new phase of unrest. In theory peaceful coexistence is possible but unlikely. The human mind evolves slower than his tools and powers. The threat of a new world war is not banned. The question is can they survive another one and if yes, will they learn enough from it?

The new summary attempt will only change few aspects. But the technological dimension will be expanded one more time. That expansion looks almost marginal to the existing material but its aftermath will be substantial for some characters.

[Notes/preliminary]

• Syndicate Sky Drive (SSD, ambivalent abbreviation on purpose)

The Network (Comguy/Controller group) aims to create new information processing and transportation means to eventually outsmart WCG and TCTF.

This happens by the abuse of city domes (graphene shields) to create an alternative internet which technological background is completely unknown to the TCTF. The Network's laser technology can create phonon within the graphene structures. The shield is not build homologous which allows for more directed phonon propagation. At another location a second laser is used to read out the information of the phonons.

• As the city domes can fail to function or are shut down by authorities the next step is the development of a more universal infrastructure, SSD2. The Network experimented with nanotechnology to manipulate particle creation within the atmosphere. When they heard of the Bioc, a geo-engenering project, they were all ear. They eventually plan to let erupt some volcanoes to shoot massive quantities of Bioc material into the higher atmospheres. And from that on everything could change. Information control, whether control, control of solar winds/energy. But for that the airborne bioc needs itself a control instance just like its counterpart on the ground. The Network plans to capture Daya to alter and upload her mind to SSD2. When Daya was captured for biosafty concerns the Network ruins Mukade's objective and forces her bioc infection to spread and reach a critical mass. Their plans works out to the point that she successfully merges Daodan and Bioc. However, their attempt to alter her mind fails with her escape from the Syndicate facility. The second attempt also fails when they use Pensatore as a tool to literally let her explode together with the Bioc main mass in Green Village.
• The Network manages to build on the airborne fragments resulting in the birth of an atmospheric AI. They need it all the more as Avatara hunts them for having murdered Shinatama. The Network is then independent from satellites and can kick off a destructive collision cascade (Kessler syndrome) to greatly hamper WCG's and Avatara's communications eventually rendering them incapable of acting quickly enough to win that war.
• Avatara's counter measure against SSD2 started with a Bioc pattern injected into the Tanzania craton (old continental core mass). More exactly, the Bioc worked on the black magma of the Ol Doinyo Lengai volcano. The carbon-rich materials were prepared to create self-assembling structures in the atmosphere once the volcano would be blown up with a series of timed nuclear detonations. For this purpose uran was mined near the Selous Game Reserve. As the Bioc operated in kilometers of depth nobody else than Avatara was really aware of the events. At the same time, the craton is interesting for diamond mining. The diamond particles were processed to have N-V centers, therefor generating more QC building blocks.
• "Fighting fire with fire." Avatara thought he acted adequately to the situation by taking over the airborne AI of the Network with a competing infrastructure (basically a massive hardware trojan). Avatara had to act quickly. The SSD2 AI, Aether, potentially allows for weather control, distribution of sunlight, channeling of solar wind by manipulating the magnetosphere. Ripping a hole into the magnetosphere by supraconducting structures would allow the solar radiation to hit Earth and render good parts of the planet inhabitable. A risk that must be prevented. It turned out that Avatara underestimated the political shockwaves within human communities and therefor the implications on Gaia. Also, the AI of nature herself was mad that Avatara set an end to the annual wildebeest migration at the Ol Doinyo Lengai, sacrificing others of millions of animal lifes, bringing nuclear contamination to the ecosystem and causing a global dimming that endangered all photosynthesis. It destroyed her trust in Avatara almost completely.
• By using a captured proxy of Avatara the Network was eventually ready to write new core functions of Gaia - an act that must be authorized by Gaia herself, Avatara and the omega groups. The threat of an airborne AI (v1) was a red herring. The irony was that Avatara improved that airborne AI but also lost control over it again together with Gaia's trust.
• In an act of desperation Avatara establishes the Mind Seal. This can be seen as an extension of the WCG science prison concept but affecting all humans and "unapproved" artificial life (AL).
• The two volcano eruptions needed a clean up of the atmosphere. Inverse tornadoes concentrated the particles which were collected on the ground to build the Guardians meant to harness the human intellect and protect it from self-destruction.
• Some Network members planed to upload themselves to SSD2. Their most cybernized member actually has no other choice, he had turned himself into an extreme NPU to better connect with computers. It was slowly killing him.
• Mukade hold Pensatore and Hasegawa both hostage in a BGI deep sea research and mining complex. Pensatore freed himself by letting him devour by the Bioc. When the later actions destroyed the complex Hasegawa drowned in flooding corridors. The destruction set the Bioc free that devoured Pensatore before and did the same with Hasegawa. However, Hasegawa's damaged consciousness remains captured within the dark deep sea grave.
• Pensatore: "I sacrificed you, Hasegawa, to save the world, as you sacrificed your son Muro." (Echo of Christian mythology: god sacrificed his only son to safe all humans and Jesus resists the devil in the desert who offers him all empires.) The theme evolved by coincidence as GOP is a religious power set in a desert location. Story-wise this can be used to underline Muro's transformation into "a more good man", rejecting GOP and their sole claim for peace after bringing Armageddon. Muro is no longer a man of pure madness. It shall remain the idea that humans can achieve more paradisaical conditions just if they wanted to by using technology and true cooperation. Of course an naive thought in face of reality and so Muro returns to Ryu and the Syndicate to "minimize evil". He knows he has to make up for Sturmänderung and the corrupted people that believed in it and used any means necessary. In that perspective Pensatore can be seen as evil or the devil himself, trying to save humans from God's plan (Daodan) as Pensatore is too much concerned for the ego of people, to stay in control, while getting himself consumed by hate.
• It takes ages until Muro finds this father and frees him from the grasp of Gaia and her subordinates (King of Styx and other). "It took me a while to get back to you, dad." The reunions remains marred as Hasegawa has lost most of his memories and they can't yet return to the planet's surface.
• While Muro becomes the new ruler of the subterranean Bioc, Mai is on the surface transforming slowly into a part of nature, making her kind of a rival to Gaia which together the airborne AI has turned against all the other major players of the planet.
• [?] (rival) kills Kimura and Mukade (done by Ryu and Muro). In the past Mukade spared his rivals life but that didn't made up for the other acts.
• Avatara detects another personality in the dead Mukade (ego hybrida). The body hosted the consciousness of Kimura and Hasegawa, with the death of all biological cells only Pensatore's SLD cells remained. This Pensatore mind copy pretends to be on Avatara's sides. He aims to get rid of all Daodans and takes the name Pandora, officially working for META as Daodan hunter.
• Pandora and Mai resemble memhunters, one getting into sync with society and the other becoming a rough agent. Mai continues to hunt technology crimes. Avatara sends her on the mission to take down the Network for good and end the Wizard war (see Mind Seal story).
• Corruption of Gaia
• Destruction of planet Earth (collision)

Summary attempt 1.5 (focus on Mai)

GATC administration wanted Mai to go for Green Village. They have a deal with WCG which needed quickly a scapegoat to calm the masses. In return GATC is rehabilitated as military force in the former US state regions and if things go well these states also regain partial sovereignty. That is at least the official version.

GATC told Mai to support the search for her father and that there are hints to be investigated in Green Village. “Now that the Syndicate declared war the WCG gives us access to new information regarding the Daodan. Also, we need you to take down some other symbionts who were not at Muro’s hideout.”

When Green Village was run over by Sarai and her troops Mai retreated. She was simply too powerful for Mai.

(After tracing the GATC transmission at ground zero of Muro's mountain compound Traton ask his BGI contacts to infiltrate the group because the double agent has connection to WCG men and that's not something Traton is good at dealing with. BGI uncovers GATC being a potential rival or rouge element, best to be eliminated from the global equation?)

In a next step BGI invaded GATC’s HQ and blackmailed them. Either they cancel their Daodan program or GATC will be blamed for genocide alongside Mai.

To fulfill BGI’s demands and carry out their own plan GATC set up a rigged scenario: Mai isn’t yet a very fear-inflicting monster (Imago) and they had no footage for WCG’s propaganda so they let fight their Daodan hosts against Mai.

Based on project Spare GATC replicated humans with Mai’s DNA. 13 replicas or “R” were produced to study different routes of hyperevolution.

Number symbolism: 12 functional R, 1 disfunctional R, Mai as first or 14th instance of her own (when all combined). (Will she have the size of "Mutant Muro"?)

As the "powerless" R has no functional cores to pass on, Mai can be seen as the "luckless" merge of 13. Who knows what role the "powerless" cores will play in the future...

When Blackstars got to know that HQ was invaded by an unknown group they decide to re-conquer the HQ. (All the more since in a decoy transmission BGI claimed to found a backup of Griffin’s snatched secured research which they will have decoded in 21 hours.) The administration and BGI cuts off Mai from the rest of her team and let her fight the heavily altered replica. However, Mai received help from a Shinobi (no associated with Mukade) to beat all R. At times he weakened some R and sabotaged their equipment, the administration gave him the means to to so. Mai follows Kojiro’s hint to obtain the Daodan cores of each R to boost her powers so she would stand a chance against the strongest R and Sarai one day. GATC administration hoped to push Mai finally into Imago stage by letting her obtain all cores and fighting nonstop. Sarai stood by to capture Mai.

In a final fight Sarai wounded Mai very badly with an anti-Daodan weapon. Mai managed to escape but felt into stasis shortly afterwards.

Griffin rescued her but one day Black Phönix found their hideout. In Griffin’s absence they capture Mai and transforms her into a mindless killing machine.

Meanwhile Muro escaped from the desert and joined Ryu. When Muro found out about Mai he tried to beat some sense back into her.

However Mai’s body and mind is fragmented by the experiments of Black Phönix. Her Daodan cores that needed to restore her memory and adaptions has been transplanted into soldiers of META. Griffin and friends sent her on missions to get back those cores, therefor restoring her full memory. That is to prepare her for fighting Sarai and Traton, head of META.

Summary attempt 1 (focus on GV)

GATC convinces Mai to join. How exactly do they do this?

They want to secure the Daodan production site and depot at Green Village. Also they want to find out what happened to Hasegawa and ask him how much advanced the Syndicate Daodan program really is.

Mai destroyed the ACCs. She is responsible for poisoning the people with polluted air. She needs to fix that. GATC makes her feel guilty which is an easy game.

GATC also names a fake reason: They are interested in her abilities. They try to bait her with pride. But as a host of a first generation Daodan, she can sense the presence of other symbionts among the GATC team.

Bonus: The administration wants Mai under their control since they plan to trade her against sovereignty, re-establishing USA.

This is recognized by the GATC troops as a dangerous game as the whole organization could be stigmatized as terrorists group if WCG don't agree on the deal. As the administration wants to secure the Daodan technology and depot, this makes it even easier for the WCG to create a suspicion among the population and blame them for the Black Season. ("What are you thinking GATC were doing there?" Traton discovered the puppetmaster in WCG politician circle.

Traton negotiates with WCG to create META. Pensatore's Keslersyndrom cuts off WCG from satellite communication. They need the Syndicates internet and drone technologies.

In order to get back the Daodan depot WCG attacks GV. They don't ask the Syndicate as they might keep the DCs for themselves. They don't know that the Syndicate Daodan depot selfdestruct after Muro's life signal was terminated. A security against rivals. Only Sayomi has one as reserve. So only a half of Camp Sturmanderung is daodanized. Sayomi's body receives very heavy physical treatment to speed up the transformation process. She wants to hunt down Mai for vengeance and to ensure the Striker's loyalty. "We are one family. I will continue to protect your future. Just like Muro has envisioned it. We will surpass these humans."

Traton: "You aren't strong enough yet [against Konoko]. Why don't you pay the old man [Griffin] a visit first?"

Sayomi in Griffin hospital room: "No. You don't know me. And it's not important. But it's important that you are still alive. I will make you pay for taking him away from me." "Who?" Saomi puts Griffin on fire. "You will die just like he did. Burning and buried under rocks."

Sayomi returns from her liquidation mission. Wrath for Griffin's interference in the mountain complex, followed by Muro's death.

BGI sends also their agents to GV to control the situation. Iron Demon 2.0 is used to hunt the DC hosts. (Model v1.0 was destroyed by Mai when she visited BGI HQ. In a cutscene you can see the unfinished, second model. - Checking the google docs later for consistency.)

Traton: "The damage control teams reported our latest upgrades were meant to clean the air even better. - Can we use that information? - Also get me Mukade. Or shot him. I don't care. Set a bounty to one trillion credits." "Huh, that's a lot of money." "And the end of the world. It's worth nothing."

Old Shinobi clan is reactivated to hunt the traitor. Shinatama is going to defend him as she knows that his brain engrams are crucial for Hasegawa's reanimation (just like Shinatama's engrams can be used to reanimate Mai). Avatara tries to remain a neutral bystander.

Operation Proteus: Traton declares Griffin death as justified as WCG and TCTF and Mai caused the black season. Also, his teams were working on repairing/upgrading the ACCs. Traton: "They will not negate with us. We must increase the pressure."

Video clips show Hasegawa working on the DC. It contains information of the old lab. Mai and GATC cannot resist to search for that lab. The Syndicate and Sayomi awaits them. Mai manages to kill the Syndicate team. Saomi barely survives and returns to African HQ. She gets banned by Ryu and his Sniper/Shinobi fellow Okamin.

--

In consideration:

Mai and her GATC team has left Green Village as it was invaded by WCG military. In the lab she should have found something that helps her. Maybe a Daodan upgrade. A telomere regeneration code so that she doesn't age so fast like Muro and something "useful" information. After their trip to Hasegawa's second lab they sneak back into the village. WCG made it a quarantine zone after seeing from close distance what the Bioc infection means. At some point she should meet Ryu. Since Hasegawa isn't in his second lab he should be in a another Syndicate-owned location. Anyway, probably Ryu is going after Green Village too after having killed Kumo who started the chain-reaction.

It seems only a matter of time before WCG decides to extinguish the whole region with a series of nuclear bombs. Also, the nuclear radiation attracts the bioc main mass which degrades them. It's Pensatore's massive energy beam* that overloads the structure while killing almost everyone on the battlefield including the GOP creatures and Mukdade. However, the habitants are going to survives in Daya's bioc catacombs (resemble a second protection layer like a over-dimensionized cell nucleus) while Konoko stands on burned ground. Mai collapses in the believe that she came to late to somehow evacuate the people. Hasegawa was revealed to have drowned and Jack was apparently hanged by a city mob during the Proteus operation.

* Mukade shows that he is not longer under Pensatore's control when he encounters Daya and Nishio on the battlefield. That means that the ninja is of no longer use and Pensotore gives in to his desire for revenge. However, in attempt to eradicate Mukade, the microwave beam creates another enigma. Nishio's pulverized graphene shield becomes resembled, creating a giant crystallized structure with an carbonized orb in its center. It had conducted the energy into bioc main mass and has withstood the following explosion. During all the years, the orb remains untouched as a war memorial. It is said that at dark, cold winter nights aurora sinks down to the orb, guiding lost souls to find a place to rest.

Pensatore: "You think that the Bioc is a danger? I totally agree with you. And you are doing a great job in concentrating it in this area. However, you are also a threat to all of us. After this incidence you will continue where you left off. Avatara is your next target in your egoistic plan, isn't it?! - I cannot allow that." (Shinatama will blame Avatara for sparing Penstore's life because he is his mental father and saved him from Mukade's control.)

5 years later: Mai becomes reanimated by Phönix.

....

Maybe I should try out a plotline without letting Mai fall into a coma. It feels like it shortens her actions too much.

....

BGI backups the rebellion against META as they fear to be eradicated if they don't do something. BGI tries to recruit Mai as she is one of very few Daodan host that isn't working for META. Shinatama tries to help her while fighting against Pandora, META's Daodan hunter. Traton is also killed by her. Avatara watch her preparations in their R&D location. "Looks like you are going to kill even more." "And you just don't seem to care. -- Be honest." "Is that a reproach?" "Well, you don't choose any side. Yet, you are probably the most powerful person on this planet and you don't even try to fight evil." "Is it evil to seek economic dominance. You all support this [capitalistic] system. But as soon as it doesn't pay off you turn against it. META is restricting technology. I don't see anything wrong with that. Humans are destructive. As for your friend Mai Hasegawa, why should she not be punished by the law. She destroyed the ACCs. It's a fact." Shinatama was stopped re-assembling her rifle for a moment. In continuing she said: "Sometimes you still surprise me." "How that?" "That someone that smart can be so stupid."

Individual topics

Autarkie

Notizen:

Globalization, deglobalization, sustainability, efficiency, autarky, global autarky, globalized autarky ...

---

Sinn und Unsinn von Autarkie

Bei Autarkie denke ich immer gerne an eine hypothetische Kolonie auf einem fremden Planeten, die keine Unterstützung von der Erde erhält. Die Kolonie kann es sich nicht leisten mehr Ressourcen - Sauerstoff, Essen und alles andere - zu verbrauchen, als sie selber bereitstellen kann. Wenn man das Sonnenlicht und die Wärmestrahlung vernachlässigt, ist es im Groben und Ganzen ein geschlossenes System. Das Überleben der Crew hängt von dieser einfachen Logik ab.

Beim Planeten Erde, diesem besseren Felsbrocken in Vakuum des Weltraums, ist es nicht viel anders. Unser Planet ist eine riesige Weltraumkolonie. Allerdings lässt uns die schiere Größe dieser "Kolonie" und die natürlichen Ressourcen das oft vergessen. Wir können diese Ressourcen abbauen und nutzen und das in einem immer schnelleren Tempo, aber irgendwann werden natürliche Grenzen erreicht. Es ist schlicht unmöglich einen grenzüberschreitenden Verbrauch aufrechtzuerhalten ohne unser eigenes Überleben dabei zu gefährden.

Der Ressourcenverbrauch von Menschen in Industrienationen beträgt fast drei Erden. Die Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländer streben den gleichen Lebensstandard an. Kurzum, insgesamt betrachtet leben wir nicht autark, nicht eigenständig. Da wir keine drei Erden haben, leben wir stattdessen auf Kredit. Die Hypothek wird immer größer. Probleme werden in die Zukunft verlagert - bis der Tag anbricht, an dem die Rechnung nicht mehr zu begleichen ist und theatralisch ausgedrückt alles den nicht mehr vorhandenen, austrockneten Bach runter geht. Wir wären nicht viel schlauer als eine zusammenbrechende Bakterienkolonie gewesen. Der kollektive Verstand der Menschheit war anscheinend einfach nicht viel größer ...

Planetarisch gesehen müssen wir insgesamt autark leben, mit dem auskommen, was auch auf lange Zeit vertretbar nutzbar ist. Und idealerweise sollte auch jeder Nationalstaat autark sein. Ein Staat dürfte nur so viele Menschen beherbergen wie er selbst versorgen kann. Das würde ein nachhaltiges Leben und Wirtschaften geradezu garantieren. Der Nachteil wäre, dass dies höchst ineffizient wäre. Erst der Handel ermöglicht überhaupt die nennenswerte Besiedlung mancher Gebiete -- nicht weil das Gebiet überhaupt wenig Ressourcen hat, sondern weil ein paar wenige Arten von Ressourcen wie Metalle fehlen.

Menschen treiben seit jeher Handel, um Waren zu erhalten zu denen sie selbst kein Zugriff haben, die sie selbst nur schwer herstellen können oder die sie aus psychologischen Gründen einfach nur gerne haben würden - Luxus.

Andererseits ist absolute Autarkie auch eher die Ausnahme. Selbst viele nicht Kolonien bildende Bakterien kennen Kooperation. Und bei multizellularen Leben ist Kooperation (gegenseitige Abhängigkeit) schon fast überdeutlich sichtbar. Dieses Konzept gewinnt an Stärke je mehr Zellen bzw. "Individuen" involviert sind.

Familie, Gruppe, Dorf, Stadt, Nation, Region/Wirtschaftsblock, globaler Markt. Die Effizienz kann mit dem Umfang von Kooperation immer weiter steigen.

Eng an die Kooperation ist Spezialisierung und damit Arbeitsteilung gebunden.

Plus: Je mehr Individuen existieren desto mehr Wissen wird generiert. (Zu viel Aukarkie bremst Entwicklung.)

Sinn und Unsinn von Globalisierung

Transportkosten (Nur weil man um den Globus schippern kann, sollte man es nicht tun. CO2 = versteckte Kosten (Klimawandel))
3D-Drucker nutzen. Etwas, dass in Kanada designt wurde, kann auch Australien geprintet werden. Der Transport entfällt.
3D-Drucker sind ein schönes Beispiel wie eine Symbiose aus Globalisierung (Wissen/Kooperation) und Autarkie (lokale, "eigene" Produktion) aussehen kann.

"Der Markt regelt das." vs. "Ein Scheiß regelt der Markt."

Globalisierung outsourced Probleme des Kapitalismus in andere Regionen. (Was kann das Lieferkettengesetz leisten?)

Schaffung und Ausnutzung von Abhängigkeiten. (Theoretisch würde Autarkie dies verhindern und für Gerechtigkeit sorgen.
Autarkie steht Geopolitik und Imperialismus entgegen.)

Sinn und Unsinn der Positive-Sum-Theory.

Ausbeutung Gesellschaft 

Globalisierung kann Nationalstaaten und ganze Regionen in latenter Weise destabilisieren.

Effizienz als Risikofaktor (zu starke Spezialisierung schafft Anfälligkeit für Störungen)

Eine totale Deglobalisierung wäre nicht sinnvoll - gleichzeitig würde der Umbau selbst Ressourcen auch verbrauchen.
Upgrades für Effizienzsteigerungen können eine eher positive Perspektive vermitteln:
möglichst viel Wohlstandsbewahrung bei gleichzeitiger Schonung der Umwelt.
"It is easier to give people something than taking something away from them." (Realpolitical break through strategy.)

Je höher das technologische Level einer Zivilisation desto mehr Gebiete können autark genutzt werden.

Urban lebende Menschen in Wüstengebieten sollte Aquaponik und Vertical Farming mit Solarenergie verbinden.
(Wasserverlust durch möglichst geschlossene Systeme gering halten,)

[...]

Die ideale Form des Zusammenlebens wäre eine ausbalancierte, globalisierte Autarkie.

Die Menschheit sollte sich als einen multizellulären Organismus begreifen, in welchem das Gehirn sich nicht ständig fragt, "welchem anderen Organ kann ich jetzt die Ressourcen klauen?"

Langzeitperspektive: Lebensstandard aller kann auch wieder steigen, einfach durch weiteren Fortschritt, der bestehende Strukturen effizienter und nachhaltig macht. (Energiegewinnung kann dekarbonisiert, sodass sie den Treibhauseffekt nicht länger stärkt. Außerdem können mit Effizienzsteigerungen sogar dazu führen, dass mit weniger Energie mehr Arbeit erledigt wird.)

---

These: Autarkie begünstigt Aggressionen anderer Staaten, weil fehlende Abhängigkeiten sie motivieren Gewalt anzuwenden.

Wandel durch Handel gilt als gescheitert. Abhängigkeiten haben "nichts" gebracht. Sie können eine dämpfenden Wirkung haben. Letztendlich ist das politische System entscheidend, nicht das wirtschaftliche System. Ein Diktator der unbedingt Krieg führen will, wird das auch bei eigenen Abhängigkeiten tun.

Globalisierte Autarkie

Wenn eine Großmacht in allen Wirtschaftszweigen führend in Entwicklung und Export ist, hat es die Möglichkeit kleinere Staaten durch die Dynamiken des Marktes in den Ruin zu treiben oder auf unbestimmte Zeit klein zu halten. (EU vs. Afrika)

Eine auf Koexistenz ausgelegte globaliserte Autarkie würde bedeuten den kleineren Staaten Nischen zuzugestehen, sodass jeder mindestens eine sichere Einkommensquelle hat und gemessen am globalen Durchschnitt einen fairen Wohlstand erreichen kann.

Biokratie westlicher Prägung

Pensatore's ursprüngliche Version. (Nationale Biokratie.)

Biokratie chinesischer Prägung

Feng's Adaption. (Nationale Biokratie.)

Xi's Idee einer Schicksalsgemeinschaft der Menschheit hat einige Schnittmenge zur Biokratie und globalisierte Autarkie. Dass sich Xi hinter den schönen Worten noch anderes denkt, sei mal für ein Moment beiseite gestellt.

• Socialism with Chinese characteristics
• Xi Jinping Thought

Ziel dieser Sektion ist es eine Biokratie "chinesischer Prägung" zu skizzieren, um somit Überlegungen für eine globale (chinesisch-westlich) Biokratie zu ermöglichen.

[...]

World citizen

Does the WCG have an ideology?

To create and maintain a WCG they likely had an integrative ideology. Something that made use of existing nationalisms. There is the "need" to act as one unit but also the "national heritage" that can be a "resource". And only when all "resources" get bundled, human kind can survive and prosper.

Possible directions: Participation and threat of totalitarianism?

Worldbuilding

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 (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 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 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 is working 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 Realpolitik can solve this conflict. The unofficial rules in the club of supercriminals (*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 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 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 (Abraham Accords, lifting sanctions on Iran) as Russia and China strengthen their own relationship more and more. It's their 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, (GER video) (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:

"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.

• http://web.archive.org/web/20190911210805/https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfinfo-doku/inside-nato-eine-amerikanische-erfindung-102.html
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqkQNVpvVUU, 404 due to copyright takedown
• http://web.archive.org/web/20191203124759/https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfinfo-doku/inside-nato-das-grosse-wettruesten-102.html
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAYXw_SyD1o, 404 due to copyright takedown
• http://web.archive.org/web/20191203124838/https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfinfo-doku/inside-nato-krieg-und-neue-feinde-102.html
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jueb884qGnw

There is clearly a 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. 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 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 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 Israel-Palestine crisis and the 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. 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 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 inquiry in Qatar sending Lawrow to them.

At the same time Germany earns good money exporting weapons. 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 underground stations and 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 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 CIA black sides like 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. 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.

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.

• 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. 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 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.

USA

Russia

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.

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 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. He knows very well what propaganda and ideology can cause. The 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 Nixon agreed on that Taiwan is a part of One China (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fkR17cblEQ&t=1246s, 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

• Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)
  • Afghanistan (even tough Afghanistan is referred to as "graveyard of empires", Russia tries to gain new influence by trading)
  • Russia
    • CSTO
    • Hungary (opportunist)
  • mediocre: India (opportunist)
• mediocre: RCEP members
• AU ("pragmatic" investments and loan traps)
• mediocre: nations being part of "belt and road initiative", built infrastructure, bought ports, Chinese secret state loans
  • Serbia (shared influence by Russia and 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 (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 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 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".

---

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:

List of countries with overseas military bases

List of United States military bases

List of Russian military bases abroad

Braindump section

These section were written around the first half of 2022 when the Russian invasion of Ukraine took place.

Base attitude of German leftists

To lesser degree the (center-left) SPD, in majority the (far-left) Linke: Leftists put the social aspects over profit and fight for those who need the most help. Therefore they have a traditional tendency to be more anti-authoritarian, anti-fascistic, anti-capitalistic, pro-communistic, anti-US-American/pro-Russian, and anti-Israeli/pro-Palestine and support minority-identitarian ideas.

Pacifism

Pacifism is best to be understood as idea to preserve freedom - to prevent escalation - but not to end a current war.

The later is more suitable for diplomacy.

Moderate pacifists recognize self-defense as an instrument of damage containment. The usage of counter-violence is an investment into the future so that the aggressor gets discouraged in starting new conflicts. Own casualties can bring a persistent peace. On the net side more lives might be saved.

At first sight radical pacifism is right when it says that denial of violence minimizes the number of dead.

The tragic with Russia's invasion is that NATO limited itself in supporting Ukraine and therefore prolonged the war: there were concerns of an instant end of pipeline gas deliveries, modern weapons could fall into Russian hands, and "the bomb". Until 16.06.2022 the strategy was "let's wait and see how things develop"... Sometimes the middle way is even worse.

There is no guarantee that an aggressor is satisfied with presets. The ideology relies on the mercy of a ruthless aggressor and therefore it is defenseless against total dependency (modern slavery through becoming a money bleeding "satellite state") and genocide. It is dead born concept.

Radical pacifists are willing to sacrifice the live of their own and potentially those of others. An aggressor could easily exploit their position.

This topic is such a mood killer. How about this packed into comedy? Oh wait, this is still sad. Well, screw it...

Thought experiment: Moderate pacifism combined with radical self-defense

How much effective could that be?

The entire population is defending its country. Nobody flees. Everyone is helping. In real life this is unrealistically to achieve - due to human instinct to leave the war zone. In theory it would maximize the chance to successfully fight back the aggressor:

• The aggressor faces so much resistance that winning the war might simply become impossible. Also, the huge resistance means own immense casualties. Are the war goals worth that much trouble?
• The killing of huge numbers of people and children renders an early moral defeat of the aggressor. The justification of own goals stand against mass murder and possibly genocide. The support for the war would drop. It demoralizes own soldiers and population very fast. This would have to happen as soon as possible in a war. The later it happens the less shocking impact it gives.
  • As the war continues soldiers get used to war crimes. Killing can be perceived as fun.
  • When Putin honors the war crimes in Bucha as "heroism" and "courage" we may see it as a cynical, barbarian doing but in a rationalized view it is logical: He believes he depend on the terror acts and cannot tell his troops that they did wrong and decrease their moral even further. Russian soldiers are dying for him after all.
• The aggressor would be faced pretty early on with the crime of attempted genocide. A international like-minded community of states couldn't ignore that as the continued war tells them that they are next to be attacked. For damage containment they would to participate in the war - in one way or another - and make sure the aggressor does not win.

Thought experiment: How to disable nuclear deterrence - the radical way

Deescalation by escalation 2.0

Nukes are answered with nukes. Therefore no nuclear party can use nukes against each other. The nuclear options cancel out each other. It's "just" one big scare game.

"What about the escalation spiral?" What about it? You just have to lower the trigger point. The agreement has to be: as soon as any nuclear weapon is fired it has to be answered by the start of the entire other nuclear arsenal. Zero tolerance. Collective suicide. There would be no escalation because the smallest step of escalation would be already too much. Despite the already insane existence of nuclear weapons it is unlikely enough people would agree for this version. But for sake of the thought experiments let's ignore that for a moment.

This radical version of nuclear deterrence renders itself useless. Because there is no space for exceptions - or errors.

Therefore all humans of planet Earth would be forced to unite in a policy to destroy all nuclear weapons. These weapons mean only one thing: self-destruction. There is absolute no point in keeping them. The remaining conventional armies would be tasked to disarm any deviant who does not agree. Any attempt in constructing new nuclear weapons would be answered by the global community with obliteration of the deviant.

"If someone had secretly created new nukes wouldn't the others be scared off in attacking him?" That someone would be very unlikely to create enough warheads in time but yes that would be a weak point. A far-future solution to this could be a neutral AI with independent infrastructure. It would not fear termination and could enforce the global policy. To use Voltaire's words in this different context: If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

"Wouldn't that create the problem of an AI overlord?" It's only a problem when you define it as such. -- It all boils down to "fear vs. hope". You can create an endless list of dilemmas. The only solution is to make a step of faith.

Thought experiment: How to disable nuclear deterrence - the soft way

People in a global biocracy simply vote for the destruction of all nuclear weapons - and when they are already about it for general demilitarization.

The only one left who is allowed to carry weapons would be the police.

German political parties in a nutshell

SPD

"The old party of employees." Despite having won the Bundestagswahl in 2021 they are losing voters again. Compared to CDU they were recognized as the "smaller evil" and therefore got the votes. They basically serve as a placeholder for CDU and the growing Greens.

Grüne

"The green and anti-nuclear party." (The well-off, intellectuals, new left, pool of minorities, and ... traditional Greens.) Potential new voters were not afraid of their core program but the new ideological-tinted topics and Greens' missing experience. Also, they are not perceived for a strong social competence. Putin's war has pushed back the ideological topics up to that point that they even got (temporary) praise from news platform WELT whose most readers are CDU, FDP and AfD sympathizers. If they don't completely fuck up another time the Greens have a good chance in setting the vice chancellor at least another time. Climate change isn't going away. To the contrary.

FDP

A natural "five percent party" due to their core clientele: "bankers, managers, bosses" (plus freelancers and founders). With money fueled PR they most often surpass their natural limit. -- Certain individuals have indeed good, plausible positions that the mainstream can agree on but that doesn't change the fact that they actually have a different clientele and that their Corona booster is running out. -- They are a traditional "king maker" party, most often for CDU.

CDU

"The employers (and well-off employees) party." The common dominator by clientele and money but has the most corruption scandals. Chancellor Merkel had a strategy that ensure victories for many years. The costs for that strategy were a non-implementation of uncomfortable but important reforms. They lost the last Bundestagswahl by simply having the wrong candidate which also provoked a quarrel with their Bavarian sister party CSU.

AfD

"The new (self-proclaimed) party of employees", the pool of activated non-voters, "protest voters", rights beyond CDU and extreme right. It's said that this party is doomed for reincarnation. When the radical forces surpass the line of no longer being tolerable the party gets basically ostracized by society and the cycle repeats. (NPD, AfD, ...) The Russian invasion put them into an inner conflict. When other global and regional crises take over again they will likely continue to be a factor.

Linke

"The East German party." Marginalized themselves by inner fights and are perceived as ideological dead stranded. Also, they became collateral damage by strategic voting: Voters wanted to prevent AfD so they lost votes to CDU, SPD and Greens.

The non-voters

Non-voters are often described as biggest party. But that doesn't mean they could create such party. That unit wouldn't be homogeneous enough. -- It's debatable whether the high amount of non-voters is a sign of a functional or dysfunctional democracy.

Why do people not vote? They ...

• don't have any political interest.
• don't believe politicians in general.
• have a minority position so their vote has realistically no effect anyway.
• are intellectual non-voters: they don't see voting to make much of a difference because they don't have control over details (not enough direct democratic).
• are pleased by the general course of politics and so no correction is needed (If you argue that democracy is the best form of system you shouldn't be surprised that some people subconsciously perceive possible optimization steps to become smaller and smaller. Elections become automatically of marginalized importance and anything else is actually (as the German idiom goes) "to complain on a high level".)

General notes:

• Parties are said to be fishing in the middle of the spectrum to get as much votes as possible. That holds the threat of weaken one's own profile / identity up to the point that some critics say they look "all the same", so the not represented borders grow.
• Political apathy and politicians apathy. Besides the feeling of not being represented there is also a growing discontent for politicians clinging to their positions. The problem is especially severe with ministers. No matter what mistakes they do and how big their revealed incompetence is, most often they stay in position. And the affected party tolerates this behavior because otherwise the political opponent can deal damage another time by pointing out the party has chosen/confirmed that miscast in the first place. As the parties see themselves unable to solve that dilemma people believe more and more that the true motivation of politicians is just money and that they help out each other in getting the profitable positions.

Klartext

Kann man mit Putin noch verhandeln?

Precht meinte man müsse Putin als Punkt Nummer Eins zusichern, dass die Ukraine nicht Teil der NATO wird. Solchen Gedanken hätte ich früher noch zugestimmt. Mittlerweile ist der Krieg dafür viel zu weit fortgeschritten.

Solange der Krieg läuft, ist der NATO-Betritt völlig irrelevant. Die NATO nimmt (informell) keine Konfliktparteien auf. Spätestens Scholz würde den NATO-Beitritt blockieren. Daher eignet sich der Beitritt sowieso nicht als Verhandlungsmasse.

Putin braucht Erfolge, die wir ihm eigentlich nicht lassen können.

Der Rahmen zukünftiger Verhandlungen:

• Territoriale Aneignung durch nukleare Erpressung ist ein doppeltes no-go.
• Genauso wenig kann die Ukraine die Kriegsverbrechen ignorieren. Die Sanktionen bleiben solange bestehen bis Putin ausgeliefert wird. (Verhandlungsmasse.)
• Um die vielen toten russischen Soldaten zu rechtfertigen, braucht es eine gesichtswahrende Lösung, die es nicht geben wird. Putin wird seine Auslieferung als Sündenbock oder Attentate durch Hardlinern fürchten müssen, die ihm Hochverrat unterstellen.
• Reparationen. (Verhandlungsmasse)

When you ordered leadership but got a Scholzomat

[Recycle in "schizophrenia within democracy". Why democracies sometimes bypass opposing opinions and how to improve.]

In 2022 Scholz couldn’t decide whether he wanted to be a leader of mediocreness or a true deliverer. Diverse material could also be delivered by the industry. But the administration pretended the inquiries didn't exist, were not yet received, or simply answered them very late. Ring exchanges were sabotaged by delays and bad offers. 2022.09.22 Oh hey, attempted damage control? Interesting with what argumentation this went now.

It's known to public that Scholz hides behind the argument "other nations also don't deliver tanks [because we don't allow them to]". The "leopards" made by Germany now in 13 European states are best suited for delivery but Scholz can refuse their export because of contract clauses.

A welcome side effect of this is that it keeps the statistics more in his favor.

There are so many cheap tricks which protect them from admitting that they don't want to act. -- In context of that light Scholz sent just enough weapons to not be called a traitor of European values and "Putin's best man". -- 200 rockets after a major offensive. Celebration fireworks? For a “chancellor of shame” it would be still sufficient. Babbles of shoa and the importance to remember but can’t support people that are right now tortured and killed. Seriously, everybody is asking what he is afraid of. Is it that Putin could close the borders and so the record-smelling export is breaking away and the East Germans go on a rampage after skyrocketing energy costs? (There should have been a limit long ago but Germany couldn't take ideas from its befriended European neighbors. And if it did, then always too late.) Is it the rest risk of being declared a war participant? Our Russian diplomat here already said we crossed the red line. Okay great, then anything else doesn’t matter anymore, thanks for the hint, buddy. -- To be a leader you need to do more, more in quality and quantity, more in boldness. No more hiding behind USA. Emancipate. (Emancipate to also say "no" one day.)

• If the tanks are not delivered then how is the war supposed to end sooner?
• What protects investments from being bombarded?
• What protects still intact infrastructure?
• What prevents new Ukrainian refugees?
• What gives us the respect of our military allies?

The Ukrainian offensive showed that it motivates Russian people to stand up against Putin. Stopping here means to let Putin "window", imprison or send to front all the brave (who tried to refuse or start a movement) until Gleichschaltung is restored and the war prolongs.

Germany and Israel: what unites them in this war is both their dishonorable lack of support* for Ukraine. While others fight for their lives, these two patting each others shoulder for remembering the long past dead, as if nothing else is more important than cultivating Germany's eternal guilt and the Jews eternal victim cultism. "Wake up" you might want to shout at them. You shouldn't look away when massive murdering is happening. Germany and Israel should know better than anybody else you might think. Don't let it become a dead ritual you might think. Should we really burden ourselves with another historic guilt by not helping enough? -- I'm sick the "hollow" remembering. Stand the colors meant to be protected or put the remembering up your you-know-where.

* Israel gave in to Russia's blackmailing. If you followed the news past years you know Putin's regime has good connections to the local terrorists.

Addendum: Time for a bit recapitulation.

• Early worries that qualify as red lines where the "no-fly zone" and sending NATO troops. In quintessence everything that could lead to WW3. Somebody said to not constantly talk about nuclear escalation to not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. So this might explain why Scholz avoided to mention it again and thought of other excuses. This self-chosen non-communication left behind a confused German population. It just happened that 2022.09.17 Biden and Scholz could longer hold back to mention it again.
• "Sleepwalking into WW3" was also mentioned in the past. In Scholz logic weapon deliveries would equal as such. The distinction of defensive and offensive weapons is a really poor one, so this reveals itself as another pretextual argument. Putin decides what is too much "offensive".
• It was often said we don't let us blackmail by Putin. This is nonsense. Of cause Putin successfully blackmails us with nuclear escalation otherwise the points above wouldn't exist.
• Frustrating conclusion: Scholz must be thinking there is no other option left but to wait until Putin runs out of ammunition or troops. The proverbial bite into granite. The weak point is: When Putin runs out of conventional ammunition he will still have the nuclear bombs. Therefore Scholz' plan might be after all to not give Ukraine enough weapons so they cannot take back Crimea. In that scenario neither Ukraine wouldn't have lost "older" territory nor would have Russia its "newer". Back to status quo. There we have it again, as Scholz said: "Ukraine must not lose." (At the beginning he avoided to say "Ukraine has to win.")

We shouldn't fall for Putin's threatening and framing comments like that of Veit Medick. Medick starts his comment by discrediting people as "tank fans". People supporting weapons deliveries are "in a fever", drawing a picture of mentally illness. And "[this is not a] videogame." Yea, everybody knows that. Especially the people in Butcha. Actual arguments are few and packed with fears. For stronger arguments there is a little interview with Klaus Wittmann, General a.D, on WELT. If you are interested make sure to not read the text but watch the video. -- The training of Ukrainian soldiers for modern German tanks better should have started months ago.

Putin: "We are not in a hurry. [Because we are running out of good ideas.]" A simple lie followed by partial mobilization, sharpened laws against deserters, and the order to produce military goods as fast as possible. The home front was about to erode. Look into the long sad faces in their propaganda talk show. -- Nuclear weapons aren't an option. Therefore more conventional escalations. He could have blown away Zelenskyy together with Kyiv but didn't. Putin hopes to buy time and be successful with his scare game. -- The 300.000+X reservists would be badly equipped but still a threat by their number. Therefore it is careless to just wait and see how the Ukrainian soldiers can defend against them. Only enough weapons to defend Ukraine will be enough. No less. If Putin dictates how much we are "allowed" to give them, they cannot win. Homeopathic doses will not do. -- A Russian military warned that they could repeat the call-up, several times. Improbable. When the first wave of 300.000 reservists has returned home - either servery wounded, with lost limbs or dead - the last idiot will have understood that there waits nothing good for him in Ukraine. Edit: Because of the public obvious disliking some analysts expect the mobilization will continue in a covered fashion.

Zelenskyy's and the West's statements* changes nothing. Even if the taboo break happens. A nuclear attack will bring nothing but new problems. At the end of the day there is only one way to go. With brutal honest logic: if we allow nuclear blackmailing for one time, we allow it for all times. We must stop playing the "scare game". Nuclear weapons must be destroyed for our all future. The cold war must end. Live and let live.

* This was an example of good communication: By saying we take Putin's threatening serious and don't turn away, Putin gets potentially demotivated from testing this out. If we would have said, "we don't believe you", it would leave Putin more probable to give us a "proof". So now the proof is unnecessary, it doesn't change our position.

Grauer Schwan

Atomwaffenangriffe wurden von Precht und Lanz in ihrem Podcast diskutiert. Ein solcher Angriff ist kein völlig unerwartbarer schwarzer Schwan. Es kann immer etwas schief gehen. So ist das Ereignis vielmehr ein grauer Schwan: es ist unwahrscheinlich, kann aber trotzdem passieren. Lanz meinte man sollte die Szenarien einfach durchgehen. Das reduziert auch die Angst, die Putin als Waffe nutzt. Machen wir das doch mal:

• Ein Abwurf einer Atombombe über der Ostsee bringt Putin militärisch absolut gar nichts. Außerdem riskiert er, dass der Fallout auf NATO-Gebiet runter geht. Das könnte man indirekt als Angriff werten. Es könnten sich auch Schiffe in Reichweite des EMP befinden. Diese Szenario hätte hohe Kosten und ein (psychologisch) zweifelhaften bis keinen Nutzen. Falls der Fallout über Schweden und Finnland runter geht, könnte das auch Druck auf die Türkei ausüben, den NATO-Beitritt nicht länger zu blockieren. Erdogan würde Schwierigkeiten haben zu erklären, warum er den größeren Terroristen und der Nicht-Verstärkung der NATO den Vorzug gibt.
• Ähnlich der Abwurf über dem schwarzen Meer. Das könnte zusätzlich Getreidefrachter gefährden. Das wäre für die Propaganda im Kornkrieg desaströs. Der Fallout könnte Richtung Türkei wehen und dort das politische Klima ruinieren.
• Gemäß Kosten-Nutzen-Abwägung ist der Abwurf über ukrainischem Gebiet zwecks EMP das wahrscheinlichste Szenario und trotzdem insgesamt noch schlecht. Der militärische Nutzen ist begrenzt: Ukrainisches Gerät würde unbrauchbar werden. Der Einsatz russischer Soldaten in dem Gebiet wäre auf Grund desolaten Ausrüstung (Strahlenschutz) und neuer Logistikproblemen nur bedingt erfolgversprechend. Möglicherweise würde bereits hier ein US-amerikanischer Vergeltungsschlag erfolgen. Für Putin positiv: Als Kollateralschaden würde es Fluchtbewegungen der ukrainischen Zivilgesellschaft geben. Für Putin negativ: Agrarprodukte liefen Gefahr keine Abnehmer mehr zu finden. Das würde wiederum die Kornkrieg-Propaganda zerstören. Die Agrarwirtschaft wäre nachhaltig geschädigt und würde für viele Jahre Hungersnöte auslösen. Die politischen Kosten wären für Russland grenzwertig bis desaströs.
• Die Zerstörung einer Großstadt würde die totale Ächtung Russlands nach sich ziehen. China, Indien und Co. müssten sich vom Massenmörder Putin distanzieren, wenn sie nicht als Unterstützer gelten wollen. Wer ohne Not mit Atombomben um sich schmeißt, hat sich von der internationalen Friedensordnung und der Menschheit vollends verabschiedet. Der russischen Bevölkerung dürfte ebenso wenig Sympathie entgegen schlagen, haben sie Putin mit ihrem Schweigen doch so lange unterstützt. Es würden den innenpolitischen Druck auf Putin immens steigern.
  • Die NATO bzw. vielmehr die USA würden wie von US-Militärs bereits angedeutet wahrscheinlich umfassend konventionell antworten. Der Tabubruch wäre zu beantworten. Die russische Militärdoktrin lässt Spielraum für Interpretationen für das, was als nächstes passieren könnte. Da Putin konventionell blank gezogen hat, würde nur noch ein nuklearer Folgeangriff auf US-Einrichtungen und somit wiederum den nuklearen Holocaust bedeuten. Dieses Szenario ist eine Sackgasse.

So erklärt sich auch, dass man nach dem Anschlag auf die als rote Linie propagierte Krim und später auch die Krim-Brücke keine nukleare Eskalation folgen ließ.

Dmitry Medvedev, Volgograd, 17 Juli: "Individual exalted, bloody clowns who pop up there from time to time with some statements are also trying to threaten us, referring to the attack on the Crimea and so on. In this regard, I want to say that it is quite obvious – they understand the implications of such statements. And the consequences are obvious that if something like this happens, for all of them there, Judgment Day will come at once. Very fast and heavy. It will be very difficult to hide."

Man versucht sich immer hinter mehrdeutigen Formulierungen zu verstecken. Der Einsatz von Atomwaffen würde Putins Untergang nur beschleunigen.

Für eine konventionelle Eskalation fehlte zunächst die Substanz. Nach Informationen von Geheimdiensten von USA und GB waren bereits Raketenangriffe in Planung. (Vermutlich um im Winter humanitäre Notsituationen und Demoralisierung in der Zivilbevölkerung zu verursachen.) Aber selbst mit einer Beschleunigung der Vorbereitungen brauchte man noch Tage, um genügend Raketen zusammenzukratzen. Konventionell schwächelt man immer mehr. Die Lagerbestände leeren sich. Die Mangellage zeigt sich auch in den Zwangspausen zwischen den Abschüssen. So sprach Medwedew selbst von "Episoden", weil man ein kontinuierlichen Angriff nicht durchhalten würde. Allgemein hin war/ist man am Gucken, wo man Waffen für den Krieg herbekommt: Belarus, Iran, Nord Korea.

Die Ukraine hat realistisch gesehen nur einen Job zu erledigen: sich konventionell Stück für Stück zurückholen, was ihr gehört, und Putin der Wut der Russen zu überlassen.

Sind wir im Krieg?

In einigen Bereichen kann man von Krieg sprechen. "Konventionell" gesehen, sind wir es nicht. So lange keine NATO-Soldaten auf russische Soldaten schießen. Die Lieferung von Waffen ändert völkerrechtlich lediglich den Status von einer neutralen zu einer (parteiischen) nichtkriegsführenden Partei. Da sich Putin nicht um das Völkerrecht schert, kann er ja selber festlegen, wo die rote Grenze liegt?

Im Prinzip war es schon ein Fehler dieses Spiel mitzuspielen. Die Formulierung "Kampfpanzer nicht-westlicher Bauart" wirkt schon ziemlich spezifisch und damit verdächtig, als ob man sich hier etwas diktieren lassen hat. Die Angst als Kriegspartei zu gelten, spiegelt sich auch in den Ringtausch-Geschäften wieder. -- Die Ampel hat gut reagiert, in dem sie die Sanktionsschraube zunächst nur soweit angezogen hat, wie Deutschland die Sanktionen selbst durchhalten kann. Scholz betonte, dass er in erster Linie der Kanzler der Deutschen sei, von ihnen gewählt wurde und sich um ihre Anliegen kümmern muss. Realpolitisch beweist er das auch mit neuen Energieabkommen mit Saudi-Arabien und Co. -- Die Ringtausch-Geschäfte wirken wie vorgeschoben. Hier geht die geschworene Verantwortung wieder nahtlos in German Angst über. Als ob man jedwedes Restrisiko outsourcen wolle. Bloß nicht den schwarzen Peter zugeschoben bekommen. Wie war das noch mal mit Führung? "Mir nach, ich folge euch." Sollte Artikel 5 Anwendung finden, ist es ziemlich egal auf wen Putin zuerst mit dem Finger zeigt. Dabei hat ja Polen bereits über 200 T-72 Kampfpanzer an die Ukraine geliefert: diese sind sowjetischer Bauart, wurde aber mit NATO-Technik modernisiert. Die Festlegung auf "Kampfpanzer nicht-westlicher Bauart" und "Offensivwaffen" ist reine Willkür. Die spannende Frage ist von wem genau diese Formulierung stammt.

Trotz der wichtigsten fehlenden "konventionellen" Komponente, ist es nachvollziehbar warum Lauterbach sagte "wir sind im Krieg mit Putin":

• Propagandakrieg: Große (erfolgreiche) Cyberangriffe sind bisher ausgeblieben. Erstens benötigt so etwas viel Vorbereitung. Zweitens lag der Fokus auf der Ukraine, die sich auch mit ausländischer Hilfe erfolgreich verteidigen konnte. Stattdessen erleben wir, wie Leute aus russischen "Trollfabriken" in Foren aller Art fleißig posten, um die öffentliche Meinung zu manipulieren. Daneben gibt/gab es die wortwörtliche FakeNews-Seiten, Telegram-Gruppen und RT DE. Nach den drei "Wahlbeobachtern" und dem Ausdruck "Vaterlandsverrat" scheint selbst in gewissen Kreisen langsam durchzusickern, dass Putin kein lupenreiner Demokrat ist.
• Wirtschaftskrieg: Streit herrscht hier nicht, dass es diesen gibt, sondern höchstens - wie bei Wagenknecht zuletzt gesehen - wer diesen angefangen hat. Mit den Sanktionen wollten man auf Putin Druck ausüben und sagen "das, was du machst, ist nicht okay". Dass wir einen Wirtschaftskrieg "vom Zaun gebrochen" haben, ist eine unglückliche Formulierung. Wir können Putin ja schlecht alles durchgehen lassen. Aktuell gefährdet er unsere "europäische Sicherheitsarchitektur".
• Energiekrieg: Es wurde zu Recht bereits von der drohenden Deindustrialisierung Deutschlands gesprochen. Wie man am notwendig gewordenen 200 Milliarden schweren Abwehrschirm sieht, ist dieser Energiekrieg sehr konkret und kein Hirngespinst. -- Als Antwort auf die Waffenlieferungen und den Wirtschaftskrieg hat Putin versucht uns das Gas heimlich abzudrehen und dann behauptet es gäbe technische Gründe. Ebenso hat er in Kasachstan die Ölpipeline dicht gemacht. Der Plan war Deutschland in eine absolut katastrophale Mangelsituation zu führen. Von Blackouts hin zu Aufständen.
• Kornkrieg: Länder in Afrika, Asien und der arabischen Welt wurden versucht gegen den Westen aufzuwiegeln.
• Hybrider Krieg: Zuletzt sagte auch Baerbock, dass Russland ein hybriden Krieg gegen uns führt. Wenn dem so ist, kann man schlecht sagen, wir ignorieren das, weil wir ja eh keine Partei sind. Wir müssen uns wehren.

Zusammengefasst: Wir sind Teil eines Krieges ["wir sind im Krieg"], ohne selbst "Kriegspartei" zu sein. Lauterbach's Formulierung lässt sich zwar gut begründen, ist aber so sehr verknappt und damit missverständlich, dass er insbesondere von seinen Parteigenossen einen Rüffel bekam. Zu groß war die Sorge, dass dies zu negativen Entwicklungen beitragen könnte.

Offene Fragen bei hybrider Kriegsführung:

• Da die Beweislage ziemlich dünn ist, kann man nur mutmaßen, dass Russland für die Sabotageakte gegen die kritische Infrastruktur verantwortlich ist. Mit dem kurzen Lahmlegen des Bahnverkehrs hat man sich etwas gesucht, das kaum Schaden machte aber noch einmal deutlich durch die Medien ging. Die Plausibilität würde noch einmal steigen, wenn dies zum wiederholten Mal stattfindet. Dann sind westliche False Flag Operationen zwecks Manipulierung der öffentlichen Meinung weniger wahrscheinlich. Alles andere wäre ungeheuerlich.
• Primär wurden die Ukrainer zwecks Demoralisierung* terrorisiert. Dass dies auch die Flüchtlingswellen intensivierte, war für Putin eine willkommende Begleiterscheinung. Inwieweit Belarus und der Kreml noch einmal versuchen werden andere Flüchtlinge an die EU-Grenzen zu schleusen, bleibt abzuwarten.

* Die Ukrainer ahnten bereits vor dem Raketenhagel, dass im Winter Russland versuchen würde sie hungern und frieren zu lassen, und so konnte sie sich etwas vorbereiten.

Scholz' Zögerlichkeit gefährdet die Ukraine, Deutschland und Europa

Scholz sagte mal, dass falls die Ukraine scheitere und Russland gewinne, dann sei das schlecht für Europa. Äh ja, dann halt dich doch an die eigene Binsenweisheit. Um so wichtiger wäre es, alles notwendige zu tun, damit die Ukraine nicht nur gewinnt, sondern sich ihr Sieg auch in aller Deutlichkeit abzeichnet damit es bei negativen Entwicklungen Reserven gibt.

Wie gut, dass Putin im Denken des kalten Krieges gefangen ist, sonst wüsste er, dass er noch Möglichkeiten hat... Wenn er nicht dahinter kommt, bleiben bis auf Weiteres folgende offensichtlichere Risiken.

Risikofaktor Belarus

Es gibt Berichte darüber, dass Munition aus Belarus nach Russland transportiert wird. Und trotzdem muss man damit kalkulieren, dass ein Angriff selbst auch von Belarus noch auf die Ukraine erfolgen kann. "Putin eskaliert [konventionell] wie er will." Man muss ihm Grenzen setzen. Alleine schon wegen diesem Risiko, müsste man die Verteidigung um Kiev mit neuen Material von Außerhalb stärken, damit die Truppen an anderen Frontabschnitten nicht ausgedünnt werden. Kampfpanzer oder Luftverteidigung? Als ob das eine das andere verhindert. Schwachsinn. Sollte ein belarussischer Angriff erfolgen, sollte Scholz seine Zögerlichkeit aufgeben oder zurücktreten. Er ist dieses Risiko bereitwillig eingegangen.

Die 9000 russischen Soldaten seien nur eine Ablenkung. Was jetzt stimmen mag muss ja nicht so bleiben. Und vielleicht haben die noch ein ganz anderen Zweck. Putin's Einfluss (auch durch die Sicherheitskräfte) wurde in Belarus immer größer und bevor Putin endgültig den Krieg verliert, ist es denkbar, dass er Lukaschenko die Pistole an den Kopf setzen lässt. Hanebüchen? Manchmal kann man gar nicht dumm genug denken.

Was sind nützliche Idioten im Endgame noch? Kanonenfutter.

Risikofaktor USA

Was passiert, wenn Putin-Sympathisant Trump wiedergewählt wird? America first. Er könnte argumentieren, dass die hohen Kosten für das Kriegsmaterial Amerika schadet. Da fehlt es nicht mehr viel bis er auf die Idee kommt mit Putin ein dreckigen Deal zu schließen: Höhere Förderquoten durch die OPEC+, um die Reps bei der Stange zu halten ("It's the economy, stupid.") gegen ein Waffenstillstand in welchem die Ukraine Gebiete verliert und die vereinbarten Sicherheitsgarantien ihr Papier nicht wert sind, auf denen sie geschrieben stehen. Putin würde an der Macht bleiben und das Militär verstärken.

China gilt unter Reps und Dems als die viel größere Bedrohung. "AUKUS." "Return to Asia." Man würde sich am liebsten viel stärker um diesen Rivalen kümmern. Russland ist da ein lästiger Klotz am Bein, um den sich doch die Europäer kümmern könnten. Jüngst haben 30 Dems Biden bedrängt auf Verhandlungen zu setzen. Trump könnten mit einem neuen Kurs offene Türen einrennen. Biden hat zwar schon die Gefahr erkannt und überlegt mit seine politischen Möglichkeiten die Waffen vorbei am Congress in die Ukraine zu liefern. Das macht Bidens Wiederwahl nicht wahrscheinlicher.

Warum sollten die Europäer ihr Kapital für den Wiederaufbau riskieren, wenn die Ukraine weiterhin in Gefahr ist, ein russischer Satellitenstaat zu werden? Mützenich fordert ja immer wieder, dass mit Hilfe von Diplomatie der Krieg beendet werden sollte. Das heißt im Klartext, dass man Putin etwas anbietet, dass er gerne haben würde. Das wäre der Anfang vom Ende der europäischen Sicherheit.

Wenn Trump Teile der Ukraine Russland überlässt, stehen die Europäer und insbesondere Scholz vor der Wahl, die Ukraine unter erschwerten Bedingungen um so mehr zu unterstützen oder sich der Position von Trump anzuschließen. -- Europa würden ein geopolitischer Satellit der USA bleiben und im anderen Fall finanziell noch viel stärker ausbluten, weil sie sich zu spät entschieden haben.

Die Möglichkeiten:

• Scholz und Mützenich liefern mit verfrühten Diplomatieforderungen die Ukraine und die europäischen Werte und Sicherheit ans Messer. Nukleare Erpressung macht Schule.
• Sie riskieren Trumps Wiederwahl und machen alles noch viel schlimmer. Der Anti-Amerikanismus dürfte wachsen, da die USA dann nicht mehr als verlässlicher Partner gilt. Eine problematisch verkürzte Erzählung könnte in etwa so aussehen: Zuerst ein geopolitischen Schwelbrand nach Auflösung des Warschauer Pakts 1991 mit dem Fortbestehen der NATO zulassen und sich dann aus dem Staub machen wenn es nach der Nicht-Einbindung des sich selbst radikalisierten Gegner hart auf hart kommt. Danke für nichts. Goodbye Russia. Goodbye USA. Die EU zerfällt zusehends in kleinere Machtzonen: enttäuschtes Osteuropa, verschuldetes Südeuropa, sich abkapselndes Nordeuropa, ...
• Sie springen über ihren Schatten, sorgen für einen bestmöglichen Kriegsausgang für die Ukraine und minimieren damit auch deutsche Investitionskosten im Wiederaufbau.

Risikofaktor China

Was passiert, wenn sich der Krieg hinzieht und China Taiwan überfällt?

Wie will man China sanktionieren, ohne dass es katastrophale Boomerangeffekte gibt? Na gar nicht. Insofern wäre es höchste Eisenbahn die Ukraine so zu unterstützen, dass sie abschreckendes Beispiel gegenüber anderen Autokratien dient. Solange sich der Krieg in der Ukraine hinzieht, muss China mit noch weniger Konsequenzen von Seiten des Westens aus rechnen: dann müssten sie nämlich eine Doppelbelastung tragen.

Aus dem ersten Scheitern wird schnell ein zweites Scheitern, eine doppelte Niederlage im Kampf für die Menschenrechte.

Dann wären wir Schönwettermoralisten, die nur schwätzen solange es keine eigenen Risiken gibt.

Aber, aber, heißt es nicht "zuerst das Fressen, dann die Moral"? Ja sicher, aber... Man kann ein noch so sehr großer, schwarzer/roter/grüner/gelber/blauer Patriot sein oder ein noch so großer, schwarzer/roter/gelber/grüner/blauer Anhänger der Realpolitik sein, dieses Denken findet planetar seine Grenze. Genauer gesagt handelt es sich um "Gier frisst Hirn." Und das trifft sowohl auf das Individuum zu wie auch auf die Gemeinschaft. Jede zu große Population bricht zusammen. Auf dem globalen Level wird Moral (zivilisatorische Regeln des Zusammenlebens) existentiell. Es gibt nur einen Ausweg: die vereinbarten Regeln erst zu nehmen, proaktiv werden, die drohenden Verteilungskämpfe abzumildern und nicht quasi aus Versehen auszusterben.

Moral kann nur so gut sein wie es die Realität erlaubt. Besonders exemplarisch stehen dafür die Kannibalismusfälle in den Anden 1972. Da ging es kurzfristig um Ressourcensicherung. Nahrung. Hätten sich alle Mitglieder moralisch verhalten, wären sie ganz einfach gestorben.

Jetzt könnte man denken, was im kleinen Maßstab gilt, funktioniert auch auf globaler Ebene. Wenn es eine Überbevölkerung gibt, könnte man abwarten bis die zu vielen Menschen verhungert sind? Äh, selbst wenn man absolute skrupellose wäre, wäre das keine Lösung. Denn da gibt es mindestens noch zwei katastrophale Restrisiken.

• Milliarden von Menschen werden nicht still vor sich hin verhungern: Massenmigration und die sprichwörtliche Klimakriege würden entstehen. Wir wissen nicht ob eine Spirale der Gewalt nicht auch zu einer ganzheitlichen Vernichtung der Menschheit führt. Beispielsweise könnten ärmere Staaten oder gewaltbereite Gruppen zu Bioterrorismus greifen, um Hilfe von reicheren Staaten einzufordern. Wenn die Dynamik sich auch noch religiös oder ideologisch auflädt, könnte es schnell Richtung Genozid gehen.
• Zweitens ist der Klimawandel ein träger Tanker. Selbst wenn wir uns aus rein egoistischen Gründen irgendwann dazu entscheiden den Klimawandel zu bekämpfen, könnte es zu spät sein. Der Planet könnte unaufhaltsam komplett unbewohnbar werden.

In diesem Fall ist moralisch zu handeln nicht ein Problem, sondern die Lösung, da es vorausschauendes Handeln und Risikovermeidung beinhaltet.

So kann man den Ukrainekrieg und den Taiwan-Konflikt als Zwischenprüfung der Menschheit in Intelligenz, Fairness und Mäßigung verstehen. Wenn wir das nicht schaffen, wie können wir dann erst hoffen das existenzielle Risiko einer Klimakatastrophe zu überleben?

Moral hat durch vermeintliche oder tatsächlich weltfremde oder überbordenen Verwendung einen ziemlichen ramponierten Ruf bekommen. Da hört man oft von Moralkeule, Hypermoral, Moralisten, moralisierend [weil angeblich argumentefrei], oder einfach nur "scheiß Gutmensch". Da ist sicherlich viel Frust, Meinungsverstärkung durch das Internet und politisch motivierte sich gegenseitig hochschaukelnde Dynamiken im Spiel. Am Ende muss man festhalten, dass es auf keinen Fall ohne Moral geht. Sie ist das Fundament unserer modernen Gesellschaft und aus zuvor genannten Gründen kann sie unser globales Überleben sichern. Die Verächtlichmachung von Moral durch Rechte gegenüber Linken und die missbräuchliche Überhöhung von Moral durch identitäre Linke und grünen Fundies gegenüber Rechten ist ein suizidales Spiel.

Bottom-up: Moral stellt ausdiskutierte Regeln dar, kondensierte Argumente. Der Klimawandel erfordert neue Diskussionen, neue Regeln des gemeinschaftlichen Zusammenlebens. Zumindest neue Priorisierungen. Es liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass sich besonders Konservative nicht leicht überzeugen lassen. Anstatt sie mit geupdatete Moral unangenehm zu überraschen, sollten man ihnen gegenüber weiterhin nicht-zusammengedampfte, roh-köstliche Argumente ins Feld führen. Haschen nach Aufmerksamkeit ersetzt keine Überzeugungsarbeit. Das Festkleben auf Asphaltstraßen erzeugt eher Frust statt Einsicht. Es wäre besser die Klima- und Umweltaktivisten würden mit gutem Beispiel voranzugehen. Sie sollten den Beweis antreten, dass ein nachhaltiges wirtschaften möglich ist. So könnte man ihnen schlechter vorwerfen "ideologisch" (weltfremd) zu agieren. Sie sollten auf Bauernhöfen und kleineren Dörfern anfangen einen alternativ funktionierenden Lebensstil zu demonstrieren und sukzessiv alte und neue hilfreiche Technologien kombinieren. (PV, Windkraft, Biogas, modernes Terra Preta, Aquaponik und Vertical Farming im Keller, Wasserstofferzeugung und -speicherung, etc.) Der Transformationsfokus sollte auf dem Land liegen und erst später die Städte mit einschließen. Fläche ist kostbar: man sollte bei Neubauten auf dem Land stärker mehrstöckig bauen. Nicht etwa um mehr Menschen unterzubringen, sondern Technik. -- Grüne Fundies und grüne Realos sollten Wege finden sich weniger gegenseitig zu blockieren.

Obacht, China ist keine Autokratie mehr

Cosco hat versichert Hamburg gegenüber allen anderen europäischen Häfen bevorzugt anzusteuern. Zwei Fragen: Mit welchen Versprechen hat man denn die anderen europäischen Regierungen geködert? Jetzt sag bitte nicht "mit den selben". Und dienen solche Aussagen nicht dem Säen von Zwietracht und Angst, um die europäischen Partnern gegeneinander auszuspielen?

Kevin Kühnert war bei Lanz so freundlich durchblicken zu lassen, dass Deutschland bzw. die SPD sich jetzt schon von den Chinesen erpressen lässt: "Wir sind umzingelt von Cosco-Beteiligungen an europäischen Häfen [...]"

Gleichzeitig drohte die chinesische Botschaft deutsche Unternehmen, sich nicht zu widersetzen. Nachdem nun nur noch 24,9 % Anteile des Terminals in Aussicht stehen, zeigt man sich nicht mehr so begeistert. Das Gesamtbild zeichnet den Verdacht, dass es den Chinesen auch in diesem Fall um geopolitische Einflussnahme ging.

Währenddessen setzt sich unsere eigene geopolitische Geisterfahrt fort: die deutsche Wirtschaft möge sich doch bitte unabhängiger von China machen. Und was macht Scholz? Wenn man Marcel Fratzscher's Analyse weiter denkt opfert Scholz die Zukunft einer (nicht selbstlosen) wertegeleitete Außenwirtschaftspolitik seiner vermeintlich sichereren Realpolitik, weil er schon selber nicht mehr an erstgenanntes glaubt.

Wir brauchen eine europäische Strategie? Keine einzige chinesische Beteiligung an Infrastruktur in Europa mehr zulassen. Wenn möglich die anderen Anteile zurückholen. Wenn China einzelne Häfen boykottiert, sollte die EU aus dem Erlösen der nicht boykottierten Häfen ein Ausgleich zahlen. Erpressung darf sich nicht lohnen. China kann nicht die ganze EU boykottieren. Entweder die EU rauft sich zusammen, einigt sich auf gemeinsame Richtlinien gegenüber China oder wir brauchen das Wort Taiwan nie wieder in den Mund zu nehmen.

Verstärkte Aufmerksamkeit sollte jetzt auch angesagt sein, weil China keine Ein-Partei-Autokratie mehr ist. Die Parteispitze ist gleichgeschaltet und nur dazu da Xi zu unterstützen. Jeder der nicht loyal ist, wird entfernt. Xi hat nun noch mehr Macht und ist somit unberechenbarer geworden. Eigentlich kann sich niemand einen weiteren Wirtschaftskrieg leisten, doch ist mit dem Wandel zu einer Diktatur das Restrisiko eines chinesischen Angriffs noch einmal gestiegen.

Ein-China-Politik

Note to self: Bei seinem Treffen mit Xi 2022 "warnte" Scholz (kleinlaut), dass die Ein-China-Politik "nur friedlich und im gegenseitigen Einvernehmen" mit Taiwan durchgeführt werden kann. Wie wir wissen, war auch die USA grundsätzlich dazu bereit die Ein-China-Politik zu achten. -- Man gibt sich maximal diplomatisch: man lehnt den Anschluss nicht ab, verweist aber auf Bedingungen...

Es herrscht Klärungsbedarf

Normalerweise werden Botschaften für Geheimdienstaktivitäten und Spionage zwecks gegenseitiger Kontrolle genutzt. Die im Oktober 2022 bekannt gewordenen chinesischen "Polizeistationen" in Europa würden darüber hinausgehen. Warum lässt man so etwas zu? Sind wir noch souverän? Und was kommt als Nächstes? Das kann ja wohl kaum der neue Standard sein? Was ist hier eigentlich los?

In Deutschland ist nur eine Stelle bekannt. Vernachlässigbar? Nein. Es sollte ums Prinzip gehen.

Da insgesamt Europa betroffen ist, dürfte das den amerikanischen Geheimdiensten nicht entgangen sein. Haben die uns nicht Bescheid gesagt? Oder war uns das egal?

Gier frisst Hirn: sehenden Auges in den Klimakrieg

Die OPEC+ ("die Achse des Öls") lehnten Biden's Bitte ab die Fördermengen zu erhöhen. Man versucht damit die Midterms und damit auch die spätere Präsidentschaftswahl in Amerika zu beeinflussen. Es ist kein Geheimnis, dass meisten Autokraten dieser Welt den Putin-Sympathisanten, Klimawandelleugner, QAnon-Idol und evangelikan Taliban Donald Trump lieber im Weißen Haus sehen wollen als Joe Biden. Der zweite Angriff auf die Demokratie hat begonnen.

Die OPEC+ Staaten werden Asien weiterhin mit verführerisch billigen fossilen Energien voll pumpen. Konsequenz: verschleppte Transformation. Klimawandel? Nicht unser Problem. Soll sich die nächste Generation drum kümmern.

Durch die Ressourcenverschwendung, fortgeführte fossile Energiewirtschaft und nationale und Bloc-gebundene Interessen laufen wir alle gemeinsam Gefahr diesen "Klimakrieg" zu verlieren.

Alle offenen und getarnten, extremen Nationalisten können sich dann auf die Schulter klopfen, mit Hetze und Populismus stellt man dann die stärkste Partei - und regiert ein abgewirtschafteten failed state.

Gegen kollektive Dummheit hilft nur kollektives Schlauerwerden: Biokratie.

Klimadiktatur

Das Wort "Klimadiktatur" und "Ökodiktatur" beinhaltet wie auch "Klimawandel" ein dem rechten Spektrum nützliches 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.

Wenn überhaupt handelt es sich hierbei um ein "Diktat des Klimas". Es sind äußere Zwänge, planetare Grenzen, die unsere Freiheiten einschränken werden. In welchen Schweregraden und in welcher Geschwindigkeit wird vermutlich Gegenstand immer heißer werdenden Debatten sein.

So warnte Neubauer bereits 2020 selbst vor dem Verlust von Freiheiten: "Die große Bedrohung für die Freiheit geht in der Klimakrise ganz klar vom Nichthandeln aus. Die Frage lautet also: Wie können wir so viele Freiheiten wie möglich für die Menschen heute und morgen gewährleisten – und zwar durch eine Politik, die wir heute umsetzen?"

China hat mit seinen sehr strengen Lockdowns während der Corona-Pandemie gezeigt, dass Naturkatastrophen für die eigenen Machtfestigung und Diktaturbestrebungen genutzt werden können. Es ist also denkbar, dass besonders autoritäre Staaten, den Klimawandel und die entstehenden Notsituationen als Ausrede nutzen werden, um Opposition und Dissidenten aus dem Weg zu räumen.

Durch die Pandemie driftet auch Europa immer weiter nach rechts. Egal welche Katastrophen noch auftauchen werden, Migration wird fester Bestandteil der Politik bleiben.

• Der linksgrüne Block hat strategische Nachteile: Von den tätsächlichen Kapazitätsgrenzen mal abgesehen, werden einige Gruppen sich genötigt fühlen die Migrationspolitik soweit zu verschärfen, dass möglichst wenig Wählerstimmen nach rechts zu verlieren. (Beispiel: Dänemark, 2022.) Es droht Streit und Zersplitterung. Letztendlich wird an der "Festung Europa" von links wie von rechts gebaut werden. Klimaschutzmaßnahmen bleiben unattraktiv. Wirtschaftlich begründeter Wohlstand wird immer wichtiger für die Zustimmung in die Politik. Ein Teufelskreis. Notwendige Investitionen stehen teilweise in Konkurrenz zu andere staatlichen Ausgaben. Der eigentlich hohe Zuspruch für grüne Politik in Zeiten des Klimawandels läuft Gefahr durch das Schüren von Verlustängsten sabotiert zu werden.
• Rechte Parteien haben einen strategischen Vorteil: durch das Leugnen oder Verharmlosen des Klimawandels können sie so lange ein Blockadehaltung für effektiven Klimaschutz einnehmen bis die Auswirkungen so schwerwiegend werden, dass Mixed Migration ein kritisches Level erreicht und ihnen durch Populismus die absolute Mehrheit sichert.

Ironischerweise wird letztendlich eine radikal grüne Politik auch von den Rechten ausgehen: Ganz einfach um die Kettenreaktion innerhalb der Kipppunkte zu stoppen, um den klimatischen Supergau zu verhindern. -- Auf langer Sicht basteln sie - bewusst oder nicht - an dem, was ihnen angeblich selbst zuwider ist.

Insbesondere in den USA hat sich eine starke Wissenschaftsfeindlichkeit breit gemacht. Sie ist fester Bestandteil der republikanischen Partei. Nebenbei wird auch noch die Demokratie an sich verächtlich gemacht. Demokratie sei nur ein System der Mehrheit, um die Minderheiten niederzuknüppel. Im Umkehrschluss schützen Republiken die Freiheiten der "Minderheiten".

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." - Vermeintliches Zitat von Thomas Jefferson, Urvater der US-Demokraten

Die Volksverhetzung geht soweit, dass Republikaner offen fantasieren, man müsse an den Demokraten per Enthauptung ein Exempel statuieren.

Es zeichnet sich ein Bild der Sündenbock-Politik ab. Bei den ganzen Waffen und dem Rassismus entwickelt sich die USA zu einem nicht kalkulierbaren Risiko.

In ärmeren Staaten des globalen Südens werden vermutlich Klimadiktaturen im Sinne von Militärjunta entstehen, die im besten Fall "nur" damit beschäftigt sind die tatsächlichen Notlagen ihrer Nation zu managen: Wassermangel, Überflutungen, Seuchen, Nahrungsmangel, Bürgerkriege, usw.

In den extremsten Klimapfaden bzw. ihren emergenten Äquivalenten ist es also wahrscheinlich, dass sich global viele rechtspopulistischen und ultranationalistischen "Klimadiktaturen" entwickeln werden. Bei weiterer Verschärfung der Lebensumstände würden einige Systeme abermals kippen und linksgrüne Klimadiktaturen hervorbringen, weil es allen Anschein nicht mehr anders geht.

Alles hanebüchen? Selbst bei der NATO wächst langsam das Bewusstsein, dass der Klimawandel zu einem schweren Sicherheitsproblem wird.

"Die Zielsetzung des Pariser Abkommens, die weltweite Erwärmung deutlich unter zwei Grad Celsius, besser unter 1,5 Grad zu halten, scheint kaum mehr erreichbar. Klimaforscher halten heute langfristig eine globale Erwärmung von etwa drei Grad für realistischer. Zusätzliche Risiken wie mögliche Kipppunkte, die ganze Ökosysteme kollabieren lassen könnten, sind bei den Bewertungen noch gar nicht berücksichtigt."

Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, 2021.06.18, NATO verabschiedet Aktionsplan zum Klimawandel

5-Grad-Plus-Erde

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 Kippunkte 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?

Warum so pessimistisch? Die Prognosen werden immer wieder nach oben verschoben. Hier eine Region, da eine Region, und schließlich doch global. Das heißt, dass da noch etwas ist von dem wir nichts wissen und gegen uns arbeitet und/oder der sich selbst verstärkende Temperaturanstieg noch immer unterschätzt wird. Die große Gefahr ist, dass die Kipppunkte wie Dominosteine einer nach dem anderem umkippen. Einige Kipppunkte liegen in polnahen Regionen, die sich sowieso besonders schnell erwärmen.

Womöglich ist die Zeit schon abgelaufen, weil dieser träge Tanker gar nicht mehr rechtzeitig bremsen kann. Zeit sich auf das Schlimmste vorzubereiten.

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

• Für CO2 sind wir bereits über 400 ppm. Als ob das noch nicht schlimm genug wäre, fehlt heute die globale Verdunkelung (global dimming) durch Vulkanausbrüche.
• Der Ausstoß der Treibhausgase steigt immer weiter. Die Erwärmung beschleunigt sich. Rückkopplungseffekte verstärken die Entwicklung. Kipppunkte werden überschritten.
  • Je wärmer es wird desto mehr Wasserdampf gelangt in die Atmosphäre und blockiert die Wärmeabgabe in den Weltraum.
  • Beim Betrachten der Messwerte 10.000 vor Christus fällt sehr irritierend auf, dass die CO2-Konzentration anscheinend der Temperatur nachläuft, also, als ob, Ursache und Wirkung vertauscht sind. Die Erklärung ist, dass die erwärmten Meere wiederum CO2 abgeben. Das kommt also verzögert noch mal on top.
  • Je mehr reflektierendes Eis schmilzt desto mehr Sonnenlicht kann durch freigelegtes Land und dunklere Wasserflächen absorbiert werden.
  • Der Permafrost in Sibirien, Kanada, Alaska, Arktis und generell in den Bergen löst sich auf. Das lässt sich gar nicht mehr verhindern. So gelangt kurzfristig das noch viel stärkere Treibhausgas Methan in die Atmosphäre, das unsere Klimaschutzbemühungen sabotiert. Sollte die Wassertemperatur um 4° ansteigen, schmilzt auch noch das Methanhydrat auf dem Meeresboden und die Kettenreaktion setzt sich fort.
  • Der Planet wird gerade so warm, dass Wälder mehr CO2 abgeben als zu speichern. Der besonders betroffene Regenwald droht komplett zu kippen, da dort noch immer Brandrodung stattfindet. Auch die "natürlichen" Waldbrände werden immer häufiger.
• An das Thema (weiter wachsende) Überbevölkerung traut man sich immer noch nicht so recht ran. Das stabilisiere sich ja sowieso um 2080. Und was passiert in bis dahin in den nächsten 60 Jahren? Auch heißt es immer wieder beschwichtigend, dass die wachsenden Bevölkerungen gegenüber den Industrienationen das kleinere Übel ist, weil wir ja diejenigen sind, die die meisten Emissionen verursachen. Da stimmt zwar, wird aber nicht so bleiben. Die Menschen in den Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländer - wer könnte es ihnen verübeln - wollen auch eine moderne Industrie und einen höheren Lebensstandard. Und wenn die Dinge nicht zu den Menschen kommen, machen sich die Menschen auf den Weg. Mixed Migration: Kriegsflüchtlinge, Klimaflüchtlinge und Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge. "Ihr dürft euch nicht industrialisieren und ihr dürft aber auch nicht zu uns." Das wird nicht funktionieren. -- Wenn also schon nicht das Bevölkerungswachstum früher gebremst werden kann, muss man zumindest bei der Industrialisierung mit grüner Technologie helfen. Kooperationen (Technologietransfers, "Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe" und angestrebte Partnerschaften) klingen erst einmal logisch, werden es uns aber nicht ersparen selbst auch autarker zu werden. Das Risiko für störende Konflikte ist einfach zu groß. Zukünftige islamistische Terrorgruppen - womöglich mit Unterstützung Russlands, um die BRICS-Einflusssphäre sichern zu helfen - könnten die EU-Pläne für Wasserstoffpartnerschaften in Nord-, West- und Ost-Afrika über den Haufen werfen: "Klimakriege" könnten die neu geschaffenen Energie-Abhängigkeiten mal wieder in Europa spürbar werden lassen. -- Falls diese Geopolitik-Kindergarten-Scheiße nicht endlich aufhört und halb Afrika in Chaos versinkt, wird die EU über 100-prozentige eigene Autarkie nachdenken müssen. Das ist technisch machbar, kostet aber auch mehr und wirft uns alle in der Bekämpfung des Klimawandels zurück. - Todo: Beende und verlinke Autarkie-Abschnitt. - Der Westen und der Osten dürfen nicht Afrika zur Kampfzone machen.
• Kriege und politische Fehlentscheidungen sorgen dafür, dass Geld nicht für die Bekämpfung des Klimawandels ausgegeben wird. Dem kommt konkurrierend hinzu, dass neben den Ursachen auch immer mehr Geld zur Bekämpfung der Symptome des Klimawandels ausgegeben werden wird: Wassermangel, Überflutungen, Nahrungsmittelmangel, Landverlust, Artenverlust, Sturmschäden, Ausbreitung von mehr Krankheiten, Hitzetote, Mixed Migration. Der allgemeine Wohlstandsverlust droht Gesellschaften zu radikalisieren und diese in nicht helfende Nationalismen zurückfallen zu lassen. -- Jedes weitere Zögern rächt sich im Notwendigwerden zusätzlicher Maßnahmen. Es ist zu spät? Ja, vielleicht, aber Nichtstun macht es nur noch schlimmer.

Um den Planeten wieder abzukühlen, müsste man ihn buchstäblich wieder begrünen.