Political Posts

[Pelagic]

3 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

Thanks. @Castanza for the write up. 
I just didn’t have the energy to argue … 

 

And also thanks for showing me an interesting podcast to add in to my repertoire. Hopefully is subscription free

 

That said i feel when it comes to history it is best digested through reading +500 pages books. That is how context and depths seeps in. For me anyways. But podcast have come a long way too in terms of quality and but usually it is a function of how good is the host in seeping that depth to the listeners in a way that sticks. 

 

Dan Carlin's Wrath of the Khan's episodes are a bit more than the average podcast, like most of his other series in Hardcore History. I think that particular series is either 4 or 5 episodes, each 2 hours long or so. He explores some of the what ifs had the Mongols gotten into Europe, like would their horses that were adapted to the Eurasian steppe have been able to find sufficient forage to continue their rapid advance. European warfare at the time was also rather siege centric with defensive fortifications and siege warfare being the name of the game in many conflicts, could a smaller Mongol army enjoy success if forced into prolonged siege warfare. Just a few of the thought experiments he gets into that history will likely never know the answer to.

 

In any case, I highly recommend his series, they bring a lot of life to the topics he covers.

[Luke]

20 minutes ago, james22 said:

When a nation is clearly planning for something, it is best to acknowledge it and make your own plans accordingly. . . .

 

"What I think is they're on their five year [plan], and if you go back three different budgets for them, or four years, over our 20 years in the desert, they focused very clearly on delivering a force capable to take on the United States.

 

And the speed and acceleration that they have shown and they are delivering, right, when you talk about outputs, we all look at the Chinese to understand, truly, where they are, what they're doing.

 

The largest military buildup since World War Two, both in conventional forces and then strategic-nuclear. J-20s are in full-rate production, ships coming off their industrial baseline at numbers that only replicate what we did in the Lehman time and the 600 ship Navy kind of time frame. Again, nuclear build up... is the largest and continuous we've seen.

 

So those are the concerning pieces. And that's what we're walking into."

 

https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/the-prcs-buildup-is-not-a-jobs-program

Why would it be a problem for China to build up their army and not for the US? 

Why does the US have the global single right to have all those bases and rockets stationed everywhere and other countries cant have it? 

[Castanza]

21 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

Thanks. @Castanza for the write up. 
I just didn’t have the energy to argue … 

 

And also thanks for showing me an interesting podcast to add in to my repertoire. Hopefully is subscription free

 

That said i feel when it comes to history it is best digested through reading +500 pages books. That is how context and depths seeps in. For me anyways. But podcast have come a long way too in terms of quality and but usually it is a function of how good is the host in seeping that depth to the listeners in a way that sticks. 

Dan Carlin is a whole different animal when it comes to podcasts. He often reads 50+ books and original sources before even attempting to construct a historical narrative. He often only puts out 1-2 podcast series a year. Usually lists all his sources etc. 

 

There are quite a few free episodes but his paid series is very much worth it imo. 

[Spekulatius]

2 minutes ago, Luca said:

Why would it be a problem for China to build up their army and not for the US? 

Why does the US have the global single right to have all those bases and rockets stationed everywhere and other countries cant have it? 

Because China is aggressive and has virtually attacked all their neighbors post WW2.

 

Tibet 1946 (annexed)

Korea 1950

Taiwan straight 1955/1958

Myanmar 1960

India 1962 (and several times after that)

Russia 1969

Vietnam 1979

 

Most were under Mao but Vietnam 1979 was not. XJP is a neo Maoist, so if you are China's neighbor, you should be concerned. There is also currently a cold war with the Philippines going on, due to China planting concrete Island and then declaring the ocean around it theirs.

[UK]

28 minutes ago, Luca said:

Why would it be a problem for China to build up their army and not for the US? 

Why does the US have the global single right to have all those bases and rockets stationed everywhere and other countries cant have it? 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/31/india/india-china-map-protest-intl-hnk/index.html

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-says-countries-should-see-its-national-map-objective-way-2023-08-31/

 

[UK]

Btw re this BRICS alliance: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-31/india-china-tensions-threaten-to-leave-modi-empty-handed-at-g-20

[tnp20]

 

 

We are following the right strategy...arming Taiwan, building up alliances that face China that will increase the cost to China.  If you look at China's friends globally, these are mostly low quality (economic and technological) friends and so at best its ambitions will be limited to reginal power play.

 

In terms of regional military capability ---> US + Alliance(Japan, Indian, Korea, Pjilipines, Vietnam)  > China

 

It is true today and will remain so for decades to come. India is openly nuclear. Japan, Taiwan, Korean have both the technical capability to go nuclear and the raw materials (from extracted weapons grace Uranium from Nuclear power plants).

 

Anyway which you analyze this, you wonder why Xi is playing a poor Chess game even if he is thinking 50 years ahead. Long term success of China will depend on "High-tech" innovation ...and probably I should qualify that as "High-tech innvation in strategic areas that matter"  and undoubtedly they will make some progress...but it can not match and will never match the western led order and shared knowledge worker pool. No one wants to go live in China and set up high tech start up.

 

On a positive note....Just anecdotal evidence....I am seeing lots of usually negative media sources on China turn less negative or even outright positive with green shoots....

 

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by tnp20

[Spekulatius]

37 minutes ago, UK said:

Btw re this BRICS alliance: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-31/india-china-tensions-threaten-to-leave-modi-empty-handed-at-g-20

I think the problem with BRICS is that only China and India really matter and they don't trust each other.

 

For me the biggest news is that the gulf states and especially Saudi Arabia were added. The Saudi's indeed are a powerhouse, albeit fragile from within. They have been traditionally allied with the US but that relationship has soured so now the Saudi's need new partners to assure that their oil keeps flowing.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Luke]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Because China is aggressive and has virtually attacked all their neighbors post WW2.

 

Tibet 1946 (annexed)

Korea 1950

Taiwan straight 1955/1958

Myanmar 1960

India 1962 (and several times after that)

Russia 1969

Vietnam 1979

 

Most were under Mao but Vietnam 1979 was not. XJP is a neo Maoist, so if you are China's neighbor, you should be concerned. There is also currently a cold war with the Philippines going on, due to China planting concrete Island and then declaring the ocean around it theirs.

I could give you many examples in the past where we have seen aggressive attacks by the US during that time frame.

[Luke]

1 hour ago, tnp20 said:

If you look at China's friends globally, these are mostly low quality (economic and technological) friends and so at best its ambitions will be limited to reginal power play.

Can we even talk about "friends" in geopolitics? I only see it as common or uncommon interests, i dont even see Russia and China as Friends, China is just playing their cards that should lead to the result of benefits to China (cheap energy for economy, exports, wanting "stability" in ukraine and russia due to food exports, they wouldnt mind russia taking over ukraine as a whole). 

1 hour ago, tnp20 said:

Anyway which you analyze this, you wonder why Xi is playing a poor Chess game even if he is thinking 50 years ahead.

I dont think he is playing a "poor" chess game, if you read a bit through what he has done during his time in political positions there are massive amounts of positive evidence incl pushing for privatization for the benefit of the economy. Yes he makes mistakes but its too simple and maybe almost naive to place China or Xi or the CCP in one black and white position. (newspapers like it though because it grabs attention). 

1 hour ago, tnp20 said:

Long term success of China will depend on "High-tech" innovation ...and probably I should qualify that as "High-tech innvation in strategic areas that matter"  and undoubtedly they will make some progress...but it can not match and will never match the western led order and shared knowledge worker pool.

They are already leading in citations worldwide in science research (massive) and I have quoted the incredibly bad results of US kids in schools, China is leading in math etc and work ethic is hard! (true for most Asian countries, SK, Taiwan etc). 

 

Putting off chinas progress in semiconductor production would be way to quick, I am quite convinced they will be competitive in that sector over time. If the western worker pool would be so superior, they wouldnt have come so far ahead in the automobile sector. 

1 hour ago, tnp20 said:

No one wants to go live in China and set up high tech start up.

They really have plenty enough people to do that already. 

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by Luca

[Luke]

I dont remember the name of that specific sinologist who covered Xi Jinping but i read that Xi thinks ONLY the CCP can govern china and otherwise they would collapse. Its interesting to think about, the whole structure of the country is setup under CCP rule and trying to install a different system would come with unpredictable instability. I have come more and more to peace with the CCP, the "communist" name is really a left behind of CCP history, I have heard from Frank Sieren that many older chinese people are used to it and it became some sort of heritage. Reality is so far away from communism as it can get. 

[Luke]

And also to add, it's an interesting thought experiment to think about how many advantages or disadvantages a democracy has vs a "benevolent" ruler (in this case the CCP) that has long term full control. In Germany there is so little progress because of the blocking of some party that has their own agenda, projects do not get done fast, regulation is lacking, very inefficient government etc. 

[james22]

59 minutes ago, Luca said:

And also to add, it's an interesting thought experiment to think about how many advantages or disadvantages a democracy has vs a "benevolent" ruler (in this case the CCP) that has long term full control.

 

Are you posting from your freshman dorm room, Luca?

[Luke]

3 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Are you posting from your freshman dorm room, Luca?

Hahaha, gladly not! But I see you are left with no arguments and now refer to personal insults

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, Luca said:

And also to add, it's an interesting thought experiment to think about how many advantages or disadvantages a democracy has vs a "benevolent" ruler (in this case the CCP) that has long term full control. In Germany there is so little progress because of the blocking of some party that has their own agenda, projects do not get done fast, regulation is lacking, very inefficient government etc. 

Benevolent rulers have become malevolent rulers fairly quick. History is not on your side with this one.

 

The same arguments have been used to justify monarchies etc. Democracy's are not perfect, but there is no alternative, imo.

[tnp20]

2 hours ago, Luca said:

They are already leading in citations worldwide in science research (massive) and I have quoted the incredibly bad results of US kids in schools, China is leading in math etc and work ethic is hard! (true for most Asian countries, SK, Taiwan etc). 

 

Putting off chinas progress in semiconductor production would be way to quick, I am quite convinced they will be competitive in that sector over time. If the western worker pool would be so superior, they wouldnt have come so far ahead in the automobile sector. 

 

West won the war against USSR. When faced with a more strategic challenge, a Western led order will rise to the occasion and beat China.

 

Why ?

 

Focus on the big items:-

 

(i) Top 3 economies in the world will be USA, China, India over the next 30 years. You can bet India will not be in China orbit ever. USA+India alone will be enough to outdo China. India has demographic benefits, the STEM majors, and excellent schools in IIT (modelled on MIT) and IIM (modelled on Harvard).

 

(ii) I agree that USA STEM is abysmal. But, its top Universities are excellent and full of STEM students from India, China and Russia....many patents are by these very some folks at the forefront of research. Even if Chinese had good schools, I doubt many foreign students want to go to china becuase of both language barrier and lack of freedoms imposed by CCP (which were evidently in display during COVID with their draconian measures). The CHinese students that come to the USA, by and large stay here.

 

(iii) China faces not just the USA, but USA and allied countries like Japan, Germany, Korea, France, UK, Switzerland are current technology and biotech powerhouses, each has strengths in different areas but united as a group is more powerful than CHina. India likely will be an emerging one in about 20 years.

 

The whole MRNA vaccine war was interesting. China did not accept the western MRNA vaccines despite being superior and beneficial. They preferred to prod along to develop in-house. MRNA was technology from Germany, USA and France...so it reiterates the point that alliance combined will always be more powerful than China lone. Xi's vaccine nationalism was parmount stupidity, especially when he could have shortened the needless lockdowns.

Edited August 31, 2023 by tnp20

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, Castanza said:

Dan Carlin is a whole different animal when it comes to podcasts. He often reads 50+ books and original sources before even attempting to construct a historical narrative. He often only puts out 1-2 podcast series a year. Usually lists all his sources etc. 

 

There are quite a few free episodes but his paid series is very much worth it imo. 

Definitely want to second that Dan Calin's hardcore history is gold for history buffs.

 

I didnt want to argue, but i think there are theories around that it was more than just the death of  Khan that caused the Mongol juggernaut to stop.

 

i do think it is correct to state that the Mongols were much more than a barbarian horde. For once they facilitated trade - because they controlled such a large landmass all the way to China, it made it actually easier to travel than dealing with a dozen kingdoms and warlords.

 

They were also masters of siege warfare and likely the first one to effectively use cannons, even though gunpowder was invented by the Chinese. Then they were masters of logistics as their communication system resembled the Pony Express.

[John Hjorth]

To me, it's incredible how this situation in this topic, can be nitpicked and analyzed into *I don't what's going to happen*.

[tnp20]

China was on a good trajectory before Xi. Lot of my long term Chinese friends thought that the country would open up more and have some form of democracy even with CCP in power. If that had continued and if we could project out 20-30 years, one would see China playing nice in the US led world order developing their economic , technological and political chops quietly without the needless friction and then slowly exerting their political influence by building alliances in the neighborhood and with the emerging power brokers.

 

Once Xi came on stage, first thing he did was he alienated all the neighbors (some of them future power brokers) and he took China in a different direction that no one expected. How Xi came to power is a fascinating story ..its more akin to a gangster muscling his way through rather than a strategic visionary being selected because he will Make China Great Again. He has taken a "go it alone" strategy thats nationalistic thinking he can develop all this critical technology all by himself and could care less about alienating neighbors and future power brokers. He also put USA in his cross hairs before they were ready. He scared foreign capital needlessly. This is an ideologue who is neither a true visionary or grounded in reality.

[John Hjorth]

Bloomberg [31^th August 2023] : Putin Moves to Seize Control of Wagner’s Mercenary Empire.

[Castanza]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Definitely want to second that Dan Calin's hardcore history is gold for history buffs.

 

I didnt want to argue, but i think there are theories around that it was more than just the death of  Khan that caused the Mongol juggernaut to stop.

 

i do think it is correct to state that the Mongols were much more than a barbarian horde. For once they facilitated trade - because they controlled such a large landmass all the way to China, it made it actually easier to travel than dealing with a dozen kingdoms and warlords.

 

They were also masters of siege warfare and likely the first one to effectively use cannons, even though gunpowder was invented by the Chinese. Then they were masters of logistics as their communication system resembled the Pony Express.

The Mongols were very innovative and quick to adopt new ideas and technology (more so under Kublia Khan) . But damn did they rule with an iron fist or crush your soul if you didn’t pay tribute or swear allegiance. 
 

Relating back to Ukraine with the Mongols in mind, I think it’s funny to see who owned the land when the Horde was laying siege to the cities throughout the region. I’ll let people do a little digging to find that answer
 

I guess this is why I get annoyed with the justification in this thread that goes “Ukraine is a sovereign nation and deserves its land and borders to be respected.” Etc. 

 

In my opinion, nobody owns land, you hold it with force. Ukraine has a right to defend what they believe is their land. But as history shows, that land can change hands and likely will over the next millennium. 
 

If there is one thing you can learn from Dan Carlins series; it’s that History boils down to conquer or be conquered. History bears no remorse and grants nothing. It’s take and hold until the marauders are at your gate.  Plan accordingly and maybe you’ll get 50 years of peace at best! 

[cubsfan]

5 hours ago, Luca said:

Why would it be a problem for China to build up their army and not for the US? 

Why does the US have the global single right to have all those bases and rockets stationed everywhere and other countries cant have it? 

 
Simple: China is an expansionary power, the USA is not.

 

 

[no_free_lunch]

9 hours ago, Castanza said:

The Mongols stopped their exploits in Europe because their leader died and there was division amounts the leadership on a successor. 
 

Prior to this death; they were cutting through Poland like a hot knife through butter. They would decimate armies of 75k with less than 20k of men who were supposed to be just a scouting party. The Mongols had a massive moat when it came to warfare tactics. Their brutality was unmatched as well.  Prior to the Mongols, siege warfare could be drawn out for a few years. They could raid cities and decimate armies in weeks and months. Many many times single battles decided the outcome. European Knights were no match for the Mongols technique. The Comanche Native Americans dominated with similar techniques. 
 

I believe it was in Ukraine where the Mongols captured 10,000 soldiers and they tied them up and stacked them like cord wood. They then proceeded to build a wooden platform on top of them where the Mongols then climbed on top of and ate their victory meal. The weight slowly crushed the enemy. 
 

Ogedei’s death caused the “scouting party” to turn back to elect a new leader. 
 

EU would look VERY different today without this single death. Not too often in history do big changes boil down to single events like this. 

 

The Mongol empire in that region continued for 200-300 years as I understand it.  That's a long time, even by middle ages standards.  I don't buy the internal division as an excuse.  I will give them a full century  to get their stuff together but that's it.  After a century mongols have to acknowledge their limits.  They ruled but they could no longer conquer.

 

I would say the argument I see here is that, at best, the mongols had a Buffet/Jobs level leader in Genghis Khan with an array of revolutionary tactics that could not be beat. The evidence we see is that the genius was confined to the OG Khan.  Further, the fact that subsequent generations stalled against Europe provides ample evidence that certainly without Khan's greatness they simply could not proceed.

Edited August 31, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[Castanza]

3 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

 

The Mongol empire in that region continued for 200-300 years as I understand it.  That's a long time, even by middle ages standards.  I don't buy the internal division as an excuse.  I will give them a full century  to get their stuff together but that's it.  After a century mongols have to acknowledge their limits.  They ruled but they could no longer conquer.

 

I would say the argument I see here is that, at best, the mongols had a Buffet/Jobs level leader in Genghis Khan with an array of revolutionary tactics that could not be beat. The evidence we see is that the genius was confined to the OG Khan.  However, the fact that subsequent generations stalled against Europe provides ample evidence that certainly without Khan's greatness they simply could not proceed.

Well there are various theories out there. But I will say the Mongols were not stopped because of European might. The evidence we have shows the Mongols were superior fighters and they defeated the Templars, the Teutonics and the Hospitallers; all of who were considered very formidable forces in their times. Going off the records it would seem the defeated them handily as well. 
 

I think leadership was the main cause of the retreat but it was also environmental as well. 
 

It’s really such a weird time in history. So many cultures and levels of sophistication bumping into each other. 

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

To me, it's incredible how this situation in this topic, can be nitpicked and analyzed into *I don't what's going to happen*.

Looks like the Russian frontline is cracking some more with Verbove likely already in Ukrainian control. Verbove controls one of the two main two roads into Tokmak ( which is a fortress). I do think the Ukrainian may just go around Tokmak. If Tokmak falls the hinterland is wide open.

 

Looks like the Russians are in deep trouble if the Ukraine can exploit this still small breakthrough.

 

Then there is the whole drone swarm issue all over Russia. You can see movies of slow drone flying over Moscow. What a disaster for the Russians

 

On another note, it is interesting to see the nonsense that is  shown on Indian media:

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Spekulatius