Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Aneristic Illusions => Topic started by: Cain on March 24, 2010, 10:01:25 AM

Title: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 24, 2010, 10:01:25 AM
Whole point of NATO is to keep the Germans down and the Russians out.  So long as America is providing military protection for Germany, there is no viable reason for the Germans to build up their own military (which they do want to do).  And so long as Germany is kept militarily inert, France wont stick it's neck out in providing the majority of troops for a potential EU military force (which is fair, since Germany has twice the population of France).  And no potential European army means the US continues to have no peer competitors who can challenge it's foreign policy on global terms - something the EU (which is essentially France and Germany, plus a bunch of vassal states) has been inclined to do on issues like Iraq, Cyprus, Israel/Palestine, trade and other things.

All US grand strategy is predicated around preventing the rise of movements, groups, states and superstates who could even theoretically challenge it's hegemony.  That's why it remains in Central Asia (control Eurasia, control the globe) and why wherever US troops land, they only leave very reluctantly.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 24, 2010, 09:21:03 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 24, 2010, 10:01:25 AM
Whole point of NATO is to keep the Germans down and the Russians out. <snip>

Wow, damn.  That whole post was kind of enlightening/depressing. 
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 24, 2010, 09:57:11 PM
Rule 1 of the wonderful world of international relations: nations don't have permament friends, only permament interests.  Germany nearly overthrew the international system twice in a 25 year period at the start of this century, and then near the end helped take down most of the Warsaw Pact without firing a single shot (conditional loans are neat toys) and is the biggest player in the EU, especially for the Eastern European states.  At the end of the Cold War, it was widely expected in US circles that Germany would rebuild its military, assert hegemony over Europe, and possibly even acquire nukes/intervene in the former Yugoslavia.  They obviously overstated their case, just a little, but it is true Germany is at the centre of European decision making, and other states defer to it. 
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 24, 2010, 10:13:18 PM
Well, I don't see a problem with Germany rising again.  The Germans are almost shockingly reformed, from what I can tell, it's a pretty good country all in all.  Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 24, 2010, 10:25:17 PM
Well I don't have a problem with it, insofar as I don't think the Germans are going to bring the international system crashing to its knees.

But I'm not someone profiting in any way from US hegemony, so my views on the matter are not being taken into account much.  There is also a theory that says more centres of power = more war, because there is more potential for conflict, but at the same time, having one power which is massively more militarized than many others also causes lots of wars, because of the power imbalance hypothesis (namely, if you have the means, and the enemies don't seem that threatening, you're more likely to use war as a tool).

As far as I'm concerned, all the current potential great powers are essentially the same, anyway.  All act in their own self-interest, and their home political culture rarely has anything to do with their foreign policy.  One of them might go completely off the wall crazy, but so far, the most likely culprit for such behaviour would be, uh, the USA.  Teabaggers in the White House.  I mean, that's the scenario I'd be preparing for, if I was in Beijing or Berlin or Paris or Moscow.  There is a particular fascination with foreign policy there which most other political parties in other states seem to lack.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 24, 2010, 10:27:34 PM
If I hadn't already settled on a subject, IR would look pretty appealing right about now...  I'm hearing a lot of fascinating things here.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 24, 2010, 10:32:26 PM
1.  Posit a successful US world hegemony, if not in name, then functionally so.  Who benefits?  I'm not counting on benefiting, but it would be nice to think so. 

2.  Is there a situation where there are an optimum number of certain types of centers of power, such that there will be as few wars as possible?  If so, could this be proven objectively and put into practice?

3.  Even though all the current main powers are very similar, what types might exist otherwise?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2010, 05:25:55 PM
Thanks.  It is a pretty interesting topic, once you get past certain parts of bullshit (which I wont bore you with).

a) A successful US hegemony was, effectively, the post Cold War world.  Even before, the smart money was always on the US outperforming the USSR, because the US was better at building international institutions, had a more powerful naval force and performed far better economically.  After the Cold War, the USA was undisputedly the most powerful nation in the international system, and while a few malcontents (Somalian warlords, Saddam Hussein, Milosevich) might make a show of defying them, the name of the game was "what we say goes".

As for who benefits - mostly Americans of its own upper class.  Weapons manufacturers, for example, since you need the might to back up your threats.  Investment banks, both to invest in critical industries and to bring foreign industries under de facto US control.  Anyone involved in international trade, since the US was effectively "keeping the peace" now.  Anyone involved in the business of empire, of keeping America at the top of the world, are those who benefit the most.

2) It really depends who you ask, since the evidence is far from conclusive.  Usually though, people say multipolarity is the worst, and unipolarity or a bipolar international system keep the peace the best.  Personally, I believe all are as bad as each other, and only differ in the type of conflicts they cause, but I don't have much in the way of evidence for this.

3) Well really, I tend to adhere to the realist principle that the internal politics of most states matter very little to their foreign policy.  Of course there is going to be some effect, to claim otherwise would be stupid, but by and large continuity is the watchword of foreign policy ministries.  The main variations would be Marxism, Fascism and Neoconservatism, I would guess.  Marxist governments are generally committed to the aim of worldwide revolution, targeted against capitalist states in addition to those which are a security threat.  Though the USSR eventually settled down in some ways, in others it was very active right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall (look up "Active Measures" for more on that).  Equally, fascist states, with their racism and valorization of warfare, are more likely to act belligerently, and more likely to engage in atrocities than defensive wars or imperialism.  Finally, Neoconservatism is essentially Marxism for liberals, targeting non-democratic states in order to push it's worldwide revolutionary agenda.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 25, 2010, 06:57:42 PM
Thanks!  Now, to expose some more of my ignorance,

I'm concerned about two things:  The "bubble" of the Chinese economy and how it affects America, given how much we import from them and how much of American money they control.  The other thing is the teapartiers, who (I think) are threatening the existence of sane political discourse.  With China out of the picture and insane people in power, America will burn, won't it?  Gee, that's too bad.

Wish I could respond to all of this more cogently.  This is a lot to think about.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2010, 07:23:15 PM
It could do, yes.

I suppose it depends on exactly how the Chinese bubble bursts.  Outside of Beijing, organised crime has a lot of power, and there is a school of thought, popular among modern day criminologists and some IR theorists (I include myself in that, despite not actually having a theory yet) that the state is essentially organised crime, codified and writ large.  Protection rackets, private militias and local detachments of the PLA may be able to keep order where the central government cannot.  While this would definitely put a dampener on Chinese military spending, defensive weapons are a lot cheaper than offensive ones, and Chinese doctrine emphasizes asymmetric, unconventional attacks, and low-tech weapons designed to undercut more advanced American systems (look up the "Assassin's mace) sometime.

Either way, China still spends much less than America on its military, so I doubt this would make much of a difference on a military level.

However, the economic level is the worry, and you're right to be concerned there.  As I understand it, China welcomed American investment to make consumer items to sell to America, and buying up enough debt and dollars to keep the US afloat, so it could continue to keep buying Chinese made goods.  However, increasingly, China is cutting America out of the picture and selling to its enriched population.  America and China have also had a tense trading relationship for about a year and a half now.  There could be a move towards protectionism in both countries, and while decreasing trade is linked to war, the more immediate worry is the economic impact.

That will create a populist backlash, and since in modern day America populism is exclusively rightwing, that means a climate friendly to Teabaggers and the GOP.  I'm pretty convinced that in 2012 or 2016, whenever the Republicans win, there will be war with Iran, as a final military "stimulus" to jump start the economy, regardless of what actual reasons they give.  However, even if China does collapse or somehow become less powerful due to internal tensions, there are other nations willing to take advantage of that.  Namely, India and Russia.  The Russians are smart, very smart.  Their leadership is mostly made up of ex-KGB men who went on to make fortunes in the new capitalist Russia, so they're mostly pragmatists, not ideologues.  They also think in terms of geostrategy.  Russia's still a declining power in the long term, but in the short term, their army is in much better shape than at any time in history and they're sitting on 3,300 nukes.  Their weapons systems are also in high demand in the Middle East and Africa, giving them a fairly steady income.  Not to mention their use of energy resources.

Russia is also fairly chummy with Germany.  Putin's plan from 1999-2004 was to use a European-Russian alliance to reign in American unilateralism.  He pretty much abandoned that after Beslan though, due to some of the circumstances around that attack (Chechen terrorism is affiliated with some very pro-American and European groups).  But the friendship with Germany remains, and with Europe needing energy from any quarter willing to sell, the Russians might start playing their old trick of "lowering oil prices for friends".

OK, that got a little off course, but hopefully I answered the main questions.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 25, 2010, 07:38:33 PM
New thread started next door, with apologies to OP and Cain for my incessant off-topic querying. :)
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2010, 07:39:10 PM
I can split these posts into the new thread, no problem.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 25, 2010, 07:40:14 PM
<snip snip>

Moot post
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 25, 2010, 07:40:58 PM
Whoops.  Already did that, non-mod style.

Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2010, 07:43:35 PM
My way takes a little longer, but is ultimately more stylish.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on March 25, 2010, 07:44:47 PM
Very impressive.  Both the split, and the insight.

Someday, I hope to be able to comment intelligently on this sort of stuff.

Until then, I will sponge up information.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 25, 2010, 07:45:22 PM
Nice!

It won't just create a backlash of populism, but also of insularity, won't it?  For some time now people have bemoaned increased reliance on foreign resources, such as oil.  If our trade with china also becomes troublesome, "not invented here" has a chance of becoming more the norm.

Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2010, 07:49:36 PM
I don't know, there are too many invested interests who get rich off foreign oil right now.  And while it's something of a stereotype, many of those interests are close with the Republican Party and Teabaggers (one of the Teabagger's biggest backers is Koch Industries, who are heavily involved in the petroleum industry).

Plus the power of ideology.  Lots of the Teabaggers are "free market" diehards, at least in theory.  I can see the "buy American" thing being more popular in that sort of nationalistic mood, but what is produced in America any more?  That makes a profit, anyway.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 25, 2010, 07:53:48 PM
In short, weapons.  We make lots of weapons.

Granted, our AR-15 is downright atavistic compared to the Steyr or the AK-M.

Also, why do you think America has such a war-boner for Iran?  It's kind of a mystery to me.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2010, 08:02:12 PM
I'd say mainly for two reasons

a) its a hostile country sitting on top of a vital geostrategic choke point (the Hormuz Straits).  In the event of a possible war with China or Russia or even Iran itself, Iran can basically shut the Straits entirely, and that would probably result in a $300 oil barrel cost.  Especially with the problems in Nigeria right now.

b) Neocons are very invested in Israel, for basically mythic and in some cases tribal reasons.  With Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention it's general religious nuttery, they see it as an ongoing threat to Israel's existence, especially since Iraq was smashed, leaving the entire Middle East either in the US or Iran's sphere of influence.  I just realized that's really two combined reasons, but oh well.  Yeah, Iran is now the most powerful state in the region not allied to the US, and that's potentially pretty powerful given the above.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2010, 08:03:17 PM
A possible third reason is that Iran played American intelligence like a fiddle in the run up to the Iraq War, then used the Iraqi insurgency as a lab, to monitor American tactical expertise.  Some in American intelligence feel rather butthurt about that.

Edit: and of course, a fourth reason is that American companies are not welcome in Iran.  By installing a friendly government, American companies, including oil companies, can once again operate there.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 25, 2010, 08:07:41 PM
Going with realism, I'm willing to bet the first one is the real reason, while the second and third will be the reasons presented publicly.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2010, 08:10:59 PM
In my experience, you usually get a war when a convergence of various interests will all benefit from it.  So with Iraq, the "democratic revolutionaries" got their chance, those who believed Iraq was the bigges thread in the Middle East and should have been taken down earlier were satisfied, human rights activists who wanted Saddam to swing for war crimes were happy, various military-industrial companies and oil companies were happy, and the purely psychotic/those who wanted to use a war abroad to clamp down on dissent at home were happy
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 25, 2010, 08:18:02 PM
Weird how much sense that makes.  

I will post more questions later.  For now I've got a lot to think about.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2010, 08:20:54 PM
No problem.  I should probably be doing stuff anyway.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 25, 2010, 11:03:37 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 25, 2010, 07:53:48 PM
Granted, our AR-15 is downright atavistic compared to the Steyr or the AK-M.

I had to look this up, and this sentence still doesn't make much sense to me.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2010, 11:08:04 PM
You know, I don't understand some of the stuff in the more technical or science threads, but I don't see fit to try and hijack them with a declaration of my lack of knowledge, which I suspect no-one would give two shits about.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 25, 2010, 11:08:36 PM
An american assault rifle called AR-15, which is widely used by the military, is far and away an inferior design to other, less "traditional" designs such as a weapon known as the steyr, which (I am informed by a friend who studies this religiously) superior in every way.

Mostly I just mentioned it because I hear about it from that guy so often, and it's something I can add to the discussion.

The entire American gun industry is known to be exceptionally, well, they prefer guns that fit their idea of what a gun should be like, rather than stupid shit like ballistics testing, comparative analysis, effective range, new features, or reliability.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Kai on March 25, 2010, 11:11:03 PM
Cain, reading this thread I am so glad you are here rather than selling weapons internationally. Because your precognition here is just creepy, but there it would be downright terrifying.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 26, 2010, 12:14:51 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 25, 2010, 11:08:36 PM
An american assault rifle called AR-15, which is widely used by the military, is far and away an inferior design to other, less "traditional" designs such as a weapon known as the steyr, which (I am informed by a friend who studies this religiously) superior in every way.

Mostly I just mentioned it because I hear about it from that guy so often, and it's something I can add to the discussion.

The entire American gun industry is known to be exceptionally, well, they prefer guns that fit their idea of what a gun should be like, rather than stupid shit like ballistics testing, comparative analysis, effective range, new features, or reliability.

Ok... the AR-15 isn't used by the military, nor is it an assault rifle, its a semi auto version of the M-16 (which is an assault rifle thats heavily used by the military).  As for inferior.. well, the AR 15 basically survives on its relationship to the M-16, but the M-16 is an effective general purpose weapon.  There are certainly better weapons available, but none so much better that they would justify the cost of buying enough for the entire military, and retraining everyone so they can use the new model effectively.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 26, 2010, 12:22:23 AM
Yes, the M-16 is the weapon I meant to refer to.  Same difference to me, I don't study guns.

The whole point to my even mentioning guns was that America makes and exports lots and lots of guns, and they're not even the best guns because of people in the industry who cling to throwbacks.  I'm not even trying to argue about the practicality of rearming the US military with guns not invented here.  I never even implied that.  I'm saying that civilians who buy guns are silly to prefer American guns given the superiority of other designs.

Way to ignore almost everything I said.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 26, 2010, 12:48:44 AM
Throwback?  It might not be the most modern weapon in the world, but its over 50 years old, antique maybe, but not a throwback.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Telarus on March 26, 2010, 01:47:18 AM
Cain, seen this: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1221972/Pentagon-targets-Wiki-whistleblowers- ?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Jasper on March 26, 2010, 02:49:13 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 26, 2010, 12:48:44 AM
Throwback?  It might not be the most modern weapon in the world, but its over 50 years old, antique maybe, but not a throwback.

I'm not opposed to arguing about minutiae, but you're kind of derailing the thread.  Go start a gun thread if you feel you must make your case.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 26, 2010, 04:21:07 PM
Firstly, the most popular weapon in the world is the AK-47.  There is a reason for that.  It is cheap, durable and reliable.  Favourite of guerrilla and terrorist groups everywhere, who tend to place a high importance on utility.  Far more so than current American weapons, which are mostly made in order to leech more money off the Procurements Committee, and have little to do with what the Pentagon actually wants.

Quote from: Sigmatic on March 26, 2010, 02:49:13 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 26, 2010, 12:48:44 AM
Throwback?  It might not be the most modern weapon in the world, but its over 50 years old, antique maybe, but not a throwback.

I'm not opposed to arguing about minutiae, but you're kind of derailing the thread.  Go start a gun thread if you feel you must make your case.

Secondly, this.  Apparently my previous post wasn't clear enough.  Buzz off Requia.  If we want a pedant to argue minor points which have little to do with the overall direction of the thread, we know how to contact you.

Quote from: Telarus on March 26, 2010, 01:47:18 AM
Cain, seen this: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1221972/Pentagon-targets-Wiki-whistleblowers- ?

Yes, via 000's thread.  Bureaucrats thrive on controlling information, this isn't surprising.  It is also utterly useless, since there are military manuals published by the US available on every torrent site in the world.  It's a dumb fight, and the Pentagon are dumb.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on March 26, 2010, 04:37:32 PM
Quotethe Pentagon are dumb.


While patently obvious and true, this still disturbs me.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mangrove on March 26, 2010, 06:38:52 PM
Cain,

Given the amount of demonstrating going on in Iran, what are the chances of a popular uprising to overturn the Islamic Revolution of '79?


Side question: If there is enough juice in the protest movement to bring change in Iran, which countries would be dumb enough to a) Assist it?
                           b)  Thwart it?
 
 
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Elder Iptuous on March 26, 2010, 06:43:03 PM
Well, the US would certainly be breaking a time honored tradition if we were to pass up an opportunity to overthrow the existing regime in Iran....
:sad:
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 28, 2010, 08:26:46 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on March 26, 2010, 06:38:52 PM
Cain,

Given the amount of demonstrating going on in Iran, what are the chances of a popular uprising to overturn the Islamic Revolution of '79?


Side question: If there is enough juice in the protest movement to bring change in Iran, which countries would be dumb enough to a) Assist it?
                           b)  Thwart it?
 
 

There is next to no real possibility of the Green Movement overthrowing the government.  They want to reform the Islamic Republic, not undo it, and their membership mostly reflects that in their actions.  There might be a loosening of clerical power, as a concession to the Greens, but it wont be to remove clerical influence, only to open it up to more diverse opiion.

Elements in the US foreign policy community are certainly agitating to try and use the Green Movement to topple the government.  Richard Haass, head of the CFR, has suggested doing exactly that at least once before now.  The White House disagrees, for now, but depending how much of a hammering Obama takes in the mid-terms and Presidential election, that may soon change.

As for who would try and thwart it...Russia and China.  Both heavily support the clerical regime as it stands now, in return for oil (in the case of China) and geostrategic reasons in the case of Russia, though as always, their relationship with Iran is ambivalent and mostly out of mutual security needs.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mangrove on April 01, 2010, 05:56:39 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 28, 2010, 08:26:46 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on March 26, 2010, 06:38:52 PM
Cain,

Given the amount of demonstrating going on in Iran, what are the chances of a popular uprising to overturn the Islamic Revolution of '79?


Side question: If there is enough juice in the protest movement to bring change in Iran, which countries would be dumb enough to a) Assist it?
                           b)  Thwart it?
 
 

There is next to no real possibility of the Green Movement overthrowing the government.  They want to reform the Islamic Republic, not undo it, and their membership mostly reflects that in their actions.  There might be a loosening of clerical power, as a concession to the Greens, but it wont be to remove clerical influence, only to open it up to more diverse opiion.

Elements in the US foreign policy community are certainly agitating to try and use the Green Movement to topple the government.  Richard Haass, head of the CFR, has suggested doing exactly that at least once before now.  The White House disagrees, for now, but depending how much of a hammering Obama takes in the mid-terms and Presidential election, that may soon change.

As for who would try and thwart it...Russia and China.  Both heavily support the clerical regime as it stands now, in return for oil (in the case of China) and geostrategic reasons in the case of Russia, though as always, their relationship with Iran is ambivalent and mostly out of mutual security needs.

Thank you! I would've replied sooner but a) Been busy earning some $$s
                                                       b) Didn't notice that topic had slipped down as far as it did.

I may have some more questions upcoming.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on April 01, 2010, 06:07:36 PM
Thats fine, I've been very lazy of late, so other people not getting back sooner doesn't bother me much!  Looking forward to your questions.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mangrove on April 01, 2010, 08:37:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 01, 2010, 06:07:36 PM
Thats fine, I've been very lazy of late, so other people not getting back sooner doesn't bother me much!  Looking forward to your questions.

Upcoming questions - today!

How seriously should we take Ahmadineijad?(sp?). Is he a) Completely unhinged nuclear seeking Islamic nut-job who wants to destroy the West? (ie: Fox news version)

Or b) Basically the Persian G W Bush? (says dumbs things in public to cause uproar, doesn't really care what people think of him, basically in the pocket of the Clerics) <--- My personal suspicion.


                                             
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on April 01, 2010, 09:47:02 PM
Let's say the US slips up somehow and loses its hegemony. What are the most likely groups to step in and take advantage of this, and how might the situation manefest itself (would we get another hegemony, a bipolar system with a weakened US as one pole, a bipolar system with two non-US poles, a multipolar system? How might it affect the economic situation in the US, the political climate, etc?)
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on October 19, 2011, 08:00:41 AM
Quote from: Mangrove on April 01, 2010, 08:37:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 01, 2010, 06:07:36 PM
Thats fine, I've been very lazy of late, so other people not getting back sooner doesn't bother me much!  Looking forward to your questions.

Upcoming questions - today!

How seriously should we take Ahmadineijad?(sp?). Is he a) Completely unhinged nuclear seeking Islamic nut-job who wants to destroy the West? (ie: Fox news version)

Or b) Basically the Persian G W Bush? (says dumbs things in public to cause uproar, doesn't really care what people think of him, basically in the pocket of the Clerics) <--- My personal suspicion.


                                             

REALLY REALLY LATE ANSWERS (also I wanted to revive this thread).

I think Ahmadineijad should be taken semi-seriously.  He does act the clown in public, like Berlusconi and like Bush, and Iranian experts have referred to the group around him as the Iranian Neoconservatives.

Ahmadineijad's a shrewd bastard though, for all that.  He was the Mayor of Tehran before his role as President, which is quite usual in developing countries where urbanization has led to massive, swift growth of the capital city in particular.  He ran for President after the US invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent violence made it clear the Americans had no clue what they were doing there, his election was in part due to a backlash against more reformist and engage-focused candidates (Khatami).

Since becoming President, he has been effective in using populist rhetoric both against America and, more subtly, against the entrenched clerical elite to bolster his own position.  He has also been somewhat effective at getting his own people into influential posts, including commanding officers of the Qods Force and within the Foreign Ministry.

On the other hand, foreign pundits tend to over-exaggerate his strength within the Iranian system.  Essentially, although Iran has a "Presidential" constitution and style of rule, the "President" role is fulfilled by the Supreme Ayatollah, who has the final say on military and foreign affairs (which is why Ahmadineijad has been keen to get his own people in those two area of government).  The President of Iran is a role more akin to the Prime Minister in the French or Russian system, ultimately subordinate to the Head of State.

I can also see, due to his populist rhetoric, Ahmadineijad being convinced of the need to develop nuclear weapons potentially.  As a matter of prestige for Iran, if nothing else.  That Pakistan, a basket-case, quasi-military junta with no real history as a state (and Sunni besides) has the "Islamic Bomb" and they do not is rather humiliating, as far as some are concerned, as is the way those states with nuclear weapons (Pakistan, USA, Israel etc) can seemingly get away with whatever they want in the region.

At the same time, I suspect he more averse to undermining the regional status quo than pundits would believe.  Has Iranian rhetoric under Ahmadineijad been somewhat bizarre and worrying?  Sure.  But what has he actually done?  Not much, when you think about it.  Ahmadineijad, like most leaders, seems inclined to use foreign threats to bolster his own position at home and defeat his internal enemies in the Iranian regime.  And it seems he able to do just that without having to go to war with anyone, so far.   
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on October 19, 2011, 10:59:18 AM
Quote from: Bang Bang Zoom on April 01, 2010, 09:47:02 PM
Let's say the US slips up somehow and loses its hegemony. What are the most likely groups to step in and take advantage of this, and how might the situation manefest itself (would we get another hegemony, a bipolar system with a weakened US as one pole, a bipolar system with two non-US poles, a multipolar system? How might it affect the economic situation in the US, the political climate, etc?)

In the immediate future, I can only see a multipolar system emerging from a reduction in US power.  China is powerful, but seemingly disinclined to act much beyond their borders, though that may change with the US no longer providing security in certain regions.

China is the only nation that even has the potential to step in as a successor to the USA as a global hegemon.  But their military are not up to the task, and the (lack of) development (and pollution) of rural areas of the country is also capping their future potential.

Russia is still a power to be reckoned with, at least in the Near Abroad.  It's army is also not up to full potential, though scheduled weapons systems purchases should act as force multipliers.  Throw in their nuclear weapons, expertise in large-scale hacking, energy resources and economic growth, in addition to their cultural influence in the Baltic/Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan and military basing in Central Asia and Russia will continue to be an influential global player.

India is on the rise as well, though much slower than China, and is mostly being supported by the USA, as a hedge against any Chinese militarism in the future.  Still, India has even more problems than China, and less advantages or resources to deal with them.  India is also constrained by nuclear China on one side and nuclear Pakistan on the other.

If the EU gets through the current financial crisis, it will be in a much more unified form.  However, that it will get through the crisis is not a given.

Brazil is lagging behind India, but also on the rise.  Nevertheless, poverty and corruption are going to be a problem which will take a lot of work to solve, and will be a drag on their overall economic growth, as will their education system.  The oil deposits off the coast are no doubt a welcome find for the country.  There is also an element of cultural isolation, Brazil will not have a lot of soft power options in South America, other than economic ones, given their varying colonial pasts and linguistic differences.

Other players that may form "regional" poles of power linked to the above great powers would include Turkey, Iran, Nigeria, South Africa, Uzbekistan, Japan and Vietnam.  They dont have global reach, but their actions could have global repurcussions, for good or ill.

I can see the US seriously losing its shit once it realizes it is one great power among many.  "American Exceptionalism" is the unofficial ideology of the left and the right, whether it's "liberal interventionist" or "neocon" in flavour.  The US will likely not accept constraints on its power and ability to act until they are made obvious, ie; via military defeat.  I can see any period following such a defeat as one of economic instability within the US, political unrest and likely an increase in terrorism and political assassinations.  Think early Weimar Germany, and you're not far off.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Placid Dingo on October 31, 2011, 11:45:02 AM
I have a specific case you can pm me about Cain, if you're interested in the specifics but I won't ask it publically because there's elements told to me in confidence...

But I'm curious; what do you know about the Japanese S/M scene and the nature of the connections it has to activities of the Yakuza.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on October 31, 2011, 12:26:04 PM
Not much.  I would assume, much like everywhere else, organised crime caters to extreme tastes that could not be legally acquired.  Given the Yakuza reputation, for extreme body art, cutting off little finger's etc I imagine those tastes would be quite extreme indeed.  And given the Yakuza penetration of the business world, excellent blackmail material also.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Suu on December 17, 2011, 11:23:14 PM
Dear Mr. Cain.


Why the FUCK do people like Ron Paul? Is he really that good of a gerrymanderer? Or is that much of American stupid?


Hugs and Kisses,

Suu
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Chairman Risus on December 18, 2011, 05:15:48 AM
Quote from: Suu on December 17, 2011, 11:23:14 PM
Dear Mr. Cain.


Why the FUCK do people like Ron Paul? Is he really that good of a gerrymanderer? Or is that much of American stupid?


Hugs and Kisses,

Suu

(http://shewhoprecedesmen.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/inconceivable_means_02.jpg)
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on December 18, 2011, 07:58:13 PM
More to the point, why does Randall Munroe like Ron Paul?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mangrove on December 19, 2011, 01:05:12 AM
I'm glad this thread is back.

Dear Cain,

a) How likely is a Republican victory in the 2012 US presidential election?
b) Of the candidates on show which, in your estimation is the least insane?
c) Of the candidates, who do you think is the most likely nominee? (sanity/otherwise not withstanding)


PS Thank you for commentary on Iran. You confirmed my suspicion of 'he talks a good game but, so far, hasn't done anything much'.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Suu on December 19, 2011, 03:07:12 PM
Quote from: Risus on December 18, 2011, 05:15:48 AM
Quote from: Suu on December 17, 2011, 11:23:14 PM
Dear Mr. Cain.


Why the FUCK do people like Ron Paul? Is he really that good of a gerrymanderer? Or is that much of American stupid?


Hugs and Kisses,

Suu

(http://shewhoprecedesmen.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/inconceivable_means_02.jpg)

In one definition, it means selling yourself to the opposition in attempts to get more votes. Especially by using buzzwords and telling people what they want to hear. Otherwise, it has more to do with changing political boundaries, again, to steal votes. (We're dealing with it in RI now.)

Ron Paul is full of shit. He's a Republican, same as the other Republicans, he just calls himself a Libertarian to sound better.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 19, 2011, 03:18:48 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 17, 2011, 11:23:14 PM
Dear Mr. Cain.


Why the FUCK do people like Ron Paul? Is he really that good of a gerrymanderer? Or is that much of American stupid?


Hugs and Kisses,

Suu

Bits of both, and some other stuff.

Paul essentially appeals to both radical antiwar Democrats who have realised their own party is a corporatist owned death machine, and to left wing Democrats and really libertarian Republicans who want to end the War on Drugs.

There are large constituencies for both positions, however they are almost entirely unrepresented within American politics.  I believe a good 40-something % of the population buy into isolationist rhetoric of the kind Ron Paul sells, and a similar amount believe the War on Drugs has been a terrible strain on the judicial service and civil liberties.

However, there are also structural reasons for why Ron Paul can articulate such a position.  He's essentially Congressman-for-Life in his district - he will hold his seat until the day he dies.  Because he does not have to worry unduly about re-election, he can take positions which are unpopular with his party without suffering negative consequences.

Above and beyond all that though, what Ron Paul does is offer a simple, easy to understand and rhetorically palatable solution to Americans of the political problems of the moment.  That these solutions are wrong, and will not work, is irrelevant.  The appeal is almost religious in nature, and so rational argument has little effect here.  Paul is a "Crazy Eddie" with a bit of power and a secure position.

He will never ascend to the Presidency though.  Even if he did, you'd see the largest pushback and bipartisan consensus ever in Congress that the President must be undermined.  It would be hilarious, but brief.  Fucking with the profits of the military-industrial-congressional complex (people always leave out the last one, despite it being in the original draft of Eisenhower's speech) is not a move which will contribute to one's health.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 19, 2011, 03:26:13 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on December 19, 2011, 01:05:12 AM
I'm glad this thread is back.

Dear Cain,

a) How likely is a Republican victory in the 2012 US presidential election?
b) Of the candidates on show which, in your estimation is the least insane?
c) Of the candidates, who do you think is the most likely nominee? (sanity/otherwise not withstanding)


PS Thank you for commentary on Iran. You confirmed my suspicion of 'he talks a good game but, so far, hasn't done anything much'.

a) if they pick anyone but Romney, they have not got a chance in hell.  If they do eventually wise up and pick the Magic Underpants Candidate, I give him roughly 47% chance of success - Obama currently leads him in the polls, but not by much.  The economy could worsen in the meantime, or there could be pushback against Romney by the religious right - either way, it will be very close and the only real advantage Obama may have is being the incumbent.

b) Huntsman, followed by Romney.  Romney's still pretty mad, but his madness is that of the Beltway Consensus, and so most people wont notice.  Huntsman is mostly sane, as you would expect of someone who would be sent to China as Ambassador, but he has made a few...odd statements here and there.  And is committed to nuking the shit out of Iran, if necessary, which is not necessarily the judgement of a sound mind (the argument goes...."Iranians are a people repressed by a small theocratic elite, yearning for freedom, but if that theocratic elite do the wrong thing, we have no problem killing millions of Iranian people to teach them a lesson").

c) it's a two horse race at the moment, between Romney and Gingrinch.  The Democrats really want the latter to win, as they know he's so utterly divisive that they can easily beat him, and the polls seem to support that.  People who have worked with Gingrinch despise him, no-one in the party with any clout is looking to endorse him...his surge will probably fizzle out as the party elite reluctantly rally around Romney next year.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mangrove on December 19, 2011, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 19, 2011, 03:26:13 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on December 19, 2011, 01:05:12 AM
I'm glad this thread is back.

Dear Cain,

a) How likely is a Republican victory in the 2012 US presidential election?
b) Of the candidates on show which, in your estimation is the least insane?
c) Of the candidates, who do you think is the most likely nominee? (sanity/otherwise not withstanding)


PS Thank you for commentary on Iran. You confirmed my suspicion of 'he talks a good game but, so far, hasn't done anything much'.

a) if they pick anyone but Romney, they have not got a chance in hell.  If they do eventually wise up and pick the Magic Underpants Candidate, I give him roughly 47% chance of success - Obama currently leads him in the polls, but not by much.  The economy could worsen in the meantime, or there could be pushback against Romney by the religious right - either way, it will be very close and the only real advantage Obama may have is being the incumbent.

b) Huntsman, followed by Romney.  Romney's still pretty mad, but his madness is that of the Beltway Consensus, and so most people wont notice.  Huntsman is mostly sane, as you would expect of someone who would be sent to China as Ambassador, but he has made a few...odd statements here and there.  And is committed to nuking the shit out of Iran, if necessary, which is not necessarily the judgement of a sound mind (the argument goes...."Iranians are a people repressed by a small theocratic elite, yearning for freedom, but if that theocratic elite do the wrong thing, we have no problem killing millions of Iranian people to teach them a lesson").

c) it's a two horse race at the moment, between Romney and Gingrinch.  The Democrats really want the latter to win, as they know he's so utterly divisive that they can easily beat him, and the polls seem to support that.  People who have worked with Gingrinch despise him, no-one in the party with any clout is looking to endorse him...his surge will probably fizzle out as the party elite reluctantly rally around Romney next year.

Thank you!

Unintentionally comical 'candidate selection quiz':  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/fullpage?id=15177995
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Prince Glittersnatch III on December 19, 2011, 11:24:06 PM
If there is a war with Iran sometime soon how do you see that turning out? Would it be another "liberation" like Iraq where we go in and set up a new government, or would we just rape them to death with missiles and let the Iranians pick up the pieces? What do you think the chances of it becoming a nuclear conflict are?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Golden Applesauce on December 20, 2011, 12:00:03 AM
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on December 19, 2011, 11:24:06 PM
If there is a war with Iran sometime soon how do you see that turning out? Would it be another "liberation" like Iraq where we go in and set up a new government, or would we just rape them to death with missiles and let the Iranians pick up the pieces? What do you think the chances of it becoming a nuclear conflict are?

I think that Iran being just about to get functional nukes would be the trigger for the US and others to drop the covert war charade and really go nuts.  I'm not all that knowledgeable about modern nukes, but I'd think that intel that Iran actually had them would be a "now or never" kind of moment as far as starting a serious war.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 20, 2011, 11:07:57 AM
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on December 19, 2011, 11:24:06 PM
If there is a war with Iran sometime soon how do you see that turning out? Would it be another "liberation" like Iraq where we go in and set up a new government, or would we just rape them to death with missiles and let the Iranians pick up the pieces? What do you think the chances of it becoming a nuclear conflict are?

We wouldn't go in like Iraq, unless we were feeling suicidally stupid.  Iran has three times the population of Iraq, a lot less ethnic/religious strife and a much stronger cultural identity.  Throw in the typical Shiite opinion on martydom, and you're looking at mass resistance on a scale that would dwarf the Iraqi insurgency.

Iran's infrastructure is much stronger than Iraq's as well, which would facilitate, along with advanced Russian and Chinese arms, a much stronger pushback even before the government fell.  It would be a bloodbath.  While some analysts doubt their ability to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, I am of the opinion the Pentagon learnt nothing from the Millenium 2002 wargames, which had one Marine General - simulating a low-tech enemy - sink half of the Fifth Fleet.

So it'll be airstrikes and missiles and targeted attacks by Special Forces groups, aiding our proxies already on the ground in Iran, which are the MeK and Jundullah terrorist groups.  It'll probably ruin Iran and leave thousands dead, but unless it can trigger an uprising, chances are the government wont be overthrown.  War tends to produce a "rally around the flag" effect - look at the Blitz in the UK.  Germany pounded British cities, but it didn't convince the British public to overthrow the government.  And Britain did the same in return, with roughly the same effect in that sphere.  Strategic bombing is good for destroying the industries which back wars, but little else.

And it won't be a nuclear war.  The entire idea behind this is to overthrow the Iranian government before they have a nuclear weapon which makes such an overthrow impossible.  If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it makes attempting to subvert it, either internally or by force, so much more daneous that the US will be reluctant to attempt it.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 20, 2011, 11:13:43 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on December 20, 2011, 12:00:03 AM
Quote from: Prince Glittersnatch III on December 19, 2011, 11:24:06 PM
If there is a war with Iran sometime soon how do you see that turning out? Would it be another "liberation" like Iraq where we go in and set up a new government, or would we just rape them to death with missiles and let the Iranians pick up the pieces? What do you think the chances of it becoming a nuclear conflict are?

I think that Iran being just about to get functional nukes would be the trigger for the US and others to drop the covert war charade and really go nuts.  I'm not all that knowledgeable about modern nukes, but I'd think that intel that Iran actually had them would be a "now or never" kind of moment as far as starting a serious war.

If they actually tested a nuke, I think it would stop the US dead in its tracks.  While its unlikely they would use it in their own country to prevent falling to enemy attack, no-one wants to risk that.  Also Bahrain, with its Fifth Fleet and incredibly large financial sector are well within striking distance for Iran, and much more valuable to the USA than Israel.  If it was close to a nuclear weapon though, and the US had intelligence which strongly suggested it, then I think it would be go time.

Just look at  US conduct with Pakistan, or North Korea.  It was hostile as hell, then the weapons were dropped, and suddenly, the US was looking to to talk and negotiate.

The only complicating factor I can see is that public opinion is far more hostile to Iran than it ever was to those two countries, and could put pressure on the US to do something stupid.  But then again, the political machinery of the US is such that it only responds to public pressure, as a rule, when it was intending to do something along those lines anyway.  The character of the President would matter a lot.  Some Christian Zionist type would be more inclined to fight it out, an Obama or Mitt Romney may be less so.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Placid Dingo on January 15, 2012, 03:10:46 PM
Dear Cain,

Am I right in saying generally terrorists are actually more wealthy/educated than the general population they come from? If so is there an accepted reason? Could it be that in a kind of Maslow sense terrorism fills a higher need?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 15, 2012, 03:27:11 PM
As a rule, yes.  While in nationalist movements, such as the IRA and the various Loyalist groups there was much more of a "street presence" and working class component, groups such as the Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof, Al-Qaeda and the Patriot Movement types in the USA typically were educated to community college or degree level, and normally were at least middle class in terms of socio-economic background or status.

That this even holds true among religious groups suggests it is an overall trend, since religion and higher education are negatively correlated.

Now, there are a number of reasons why this may be.  No-one has come up with a fully plausible reason why this is so.  It has been noted, for example, that there are a high number of trained engineers, who are overrepresented within terrorist ranks, and it has been speculated that this is because the psychological traits that make someone suited to engineering also have significant crossovers with the mentality that might draw someone to terrorist activities.

There are other reasons as well.  University usually exposes students to a number of radical ideologies, and prove to be useful recruitment grounds.  In Italy, a large number of the Red Brigades were former students, most of whom had a formal passing knowledge of Marxism and revolutionary theory.  Those from a middle class background and with greater education are usually more aware of political situations which may cause them to feel terrorism is required to remedy them, and also normally have more resources and freedom to undertake such activities.

It is also probably the case that would-be terrorists who lack a certain level of intelligence are more likely to get caught before managing to carry out any attacks, whereas the most successful individual terrorists and terrorist organizations will have a higher education background.  Also worth noting is much of the data on terrorism comes from Europe, where higher education is generally more accessible for those from working class backgrounds and incomes than it is elsewhere in the world.  While the original Al-Qaeda seemed to follow the same pattern, it should be noted that particular organization was far more Western than it, or our leaders, would like to admit (its ideology is essentially Leninist, its members almost exclusively trained in Western Universities) and this may not hold true for other transnational terrorist groups such as LeT, or essentially nationalist terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mangrove on January 17, 2012, 11:25:18 PM
Dear Cain's Brain,

Your prophecies appear to be coming true (re: Republican candidates).

(Herman) Cain: Confused, inarticulate, wandering hands. Gone.
Bachmann: Insane. Gone. (Maybe she could get a job at the US Embassy in Iran?)
Gingrich: Unlikeable in every way.
Paul: Great if your libertarian, bad if you're not a racist asshole.
Perry: Insane and getting worse. I wonder if any of the soldiers peeing on the corpses were gay. That would be weird.
Santorum: Insane...possibly a communist. At least according to his Italian relatives that he doesn't visit anymore. 
Romney: The candidate the GOP will foist upon the republican voters like it or not.
Huntsman: Gone...but probably not completely yet.

Palin: I'm not running...OR AM I???? :ohnotache:


Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on January 17, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on January 17, 2012, 11:25:18 PM
Dear Cain's Brain,

Your prophecies appear to be coming true (re: Republican candidates).

(Herman) Cain: Confused, inarticulate, wandering hands. Gone.
Bachmann: Insane. Gone. (Maybe she could get a job at the US Embassy in Iran?)
Gingrich: Unlikeable in every way.
Paul: Great if your libertarian, bad if you're not a racist asshole.
Perry: Insane and getting worse. I wonder if any of the soldiers peeing on the corpses were gay. That would be weird.
Santorum: Insane...possibly a communist. At least according to his Italian relatives that he doesn't visit anymore. 
Romney: The candidate the GOP will foist upon the republican voters like it or not.
Huntsman: Gone...but probably not completely yet.

Palin: I'm not running...OR AM I???? :ohnotache:
Huntsman dropped out officially on Monday, he endorsed the inevitable.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: East Coast Hustle on January 18, 2012, 01:58:48 PM
Huntsman was just positioning himself for 2016.

And given the rest of the vultures circling that election, I hope it works.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 18, 2012, 02:11:47 PM
Yeah, Huntsman is definitely looking to play the long game there.  He schmoozed with the Beltway media and influence peddlers quite effectively, and I'm sure they'll keep his name circulating for a few more years yet.  Unless Romney wins, of course.  And even then, Huntsman might end up with a State Department gig, or being sent back to China.  The future is pretty rosy for him.

Ron Paul is also running for similar reasons.  I'd keep an eye on Rand Paul as a future Presidential contender.  I suspect one reason Ron has not gone to the Libertarian Party for this year is he doesn't want to be accused of splitting the vote, and lose the base of support he has built up in the party thus far.  Paul himself has far too much baggage to win, but he can pass his support network onto his son.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Placid Dingo on February 02, 2012, 09:42:29 PM
Is there a political explanation for the events in Egyot other than 'everyone is retarded?'
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 02, 2012, 09:53:48 PM
Which stuff in particular?  A lot is going on there right now.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Placid Dingo on February 03, 2012, 03:36:00 AM
Specifically the football deaths.

ReadingMore today. Getting a feeling the main issue is security forces simply aren't presently able to cope with something as big as a riot and were possibly slow to react having been instructed to avoid heavy handed responses.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 03, 2012, 08:20:42 AM
OK.  Well, football has a reputation for being violent in Egypt anyway.  Not normally 70+ deaths violent, but at least somewhat hazardous to one's health.

Suspicions in Egypt are the violence was allowed to happen, though, to bolster the position of the military and security services, which are under scrutiny from Egyptian liberals.  The Muslim Brotherhood, lately rumoured to be in a very cosy relationship with the military, released a statement that "the reason for this tragedy is the deliberate neglect and absence of the military and the police,".

It's worth noting that as in most developing countries, football also has political connotations.  Many football supporters, especially the more violent ones, formed the backbone of the 2011 protests that ousted Murbarak.  The economy is falling apart over there, and the military still hold many of the reins of power, in particular the economic ones.  Acting against the football fans allows them to pre-empt any attempts at further revolution.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on February 16, 2012, 10:16:18 PM
If the US goes to war with Iran and Putin gets into office, what side do you think Russia will end up on? Keeping in mind that many members of the Дума live in New York City...
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on February 18, 2012, 04:41:25 AM
Cain, Could I take a moment and ask for a current perspective on Libya? I believe it is close to a year since the start of the shift to whatever you'd currently call it at the moment? Militarization with a veneer?

With Syria and Iran still not doing anything particularly productive, and Israel being Israel, It'd be interesting to see predictions for the region for the coming year.

The current rounds of finger pointing about terrorist attacks makes it look like a fun year ahead. Last one to your deity is hell bound.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 22, 2012, 10:00:58 AM
Quote from: Phosphatidylserine on February 16, 2012, 10:16:18 PM
If the US goes to war with Iran and Putin gets into office, what side do you think Russia will end up on? Keeping in mind that many members of the Дума live in New York City...

I don't believe the Russians would overtly intervene against America.  Advisors, no doubt mercenary groups who operated in Chechnya but with strong FSB/GRU links...perhaps Belarussian, given what happened in Libya, targeting data maybe, if they were feeling confident, and no doubt build up arms beforehand...but all the major powers seems fairly convinced that no vassal is worth going for war against another major power with.

For now, at least.

I believe Russia's main concern with Iran is that an American-friendly regime would be installed, which would break the anti-American monopoly on energy routes into Europe (notably Nabucco would be back on the cards).  As such, while I think Russia will try and toughen Iran up and dissuade attacks on the regime, if it comes to military action by America, then they will take the loss and attempt to subvert the new regime - bankrolling political resistance, perhaps hacking attacks, a little sabotage and assassination even under the cover of whatever insurgency invariably springs up in the country.

But I'm not sure America will attack, at least under Obama.  Israel would have to force Obama's hand in a pretty spectacular way....and I don't think Romney would especially bow to pressure from Bibi either, for personal reasons if nothing else (Romney strikes me as rather vain, as does Obama in fact, and would not want some pissant American vassal ordering him around and trying to manipulate him), but eventually a movement conservative will take the White House, or Israel and Saudi Arabia will agree on a gambit which will force the US into a position where it has little choice but to go to war.

I suspect this is why I'm hearing rumours that the US is trying to normalize the regime's relations in the region and with the US.  They are only rumours, but it will be the only way to avoid war.  That the P5+1 talks have resumed is a good sign, at least.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 22, 2012, 10:39:51 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 18, 2012, 04:41:25 AM
Cain, Could I take a moment and ask for a current perspective on Libya? I believe it is close to a year since the start of the shift to whatever you'd currently call it at the moment? Militarization with a veneer?

With Syria and Iran still not doing anything particularly productive, and Israel being Israel, It'd be interesting to see predictions for the region for the coming year.

The current rounds of finger pointing about terrorist attacks makes it look like a fun year ahead. Last one to your deity is hell bound.

My current perspective is that Libya is a clusterfuck - essentially an Afghanistan on the Med.  Relations with Algeria and sub-Saharan nations continue to be poor, due to either previous links with Gadaffi (who was generous with the proceeds of his people's mineral wealth, to other countries) or due to how the militias tend to treat all black Africans as mercenaries and covert agents of the former regime.

Torture is pretty common still and no-one seems to be able to restrain the militias, of which there are hundreds.  As you may recall, the Benghazi based rebels, the NTC, had considerable difficulty advancing further than Misrata, and it was Qatari-backed Islamic militants with links to Al-Qaeda who actually managed to take Tripoli.  As such, these militants are the predominant power in the country, not the NTC government, and that their leader is in charge of the state military, such as it is, suggests a possible coup in Libya's future.

NATO are not happy with the entire state of affairs there.  In fact, initially, NATO did not want to intervene, but their hand was forced principally by Sarkozy and to a lesser extent by Cameron to get involved.  NATO officials and certain Western diplomats feel they were played by the Qataris and by the Gulf Co-opeation Group into doing their dirty work, just so they could intervene in the last minutes with their chosen proxies and have a government of their choosing in Libya, to advance their interests.

As for the greater region....I think the presence of Iranian and Russian naval forces has finally put a stop to serious calls for intervention in Syria.  NATO, in the personage of Secretary Ramussen, were not keen on an intervention there either, but, well, he's been overruled before.  Still, the Egyptian government, in an...interesting move, allowed an Iranian flotilla to pass through the Suez Canal, and will no doubt be docking in Tartus alongside the Russian fleet.  The "Syrian Free Army" is a disjointed mess of democracy activists, Islamist rebels and former regime elements (esp low ranking military personnel) with no coordination or overarching structure and strategy.  It will be messy and bloody, but with outside intervention now unlikely, the regime will probably survive, though it may have to make some concessions for the sake of future stability.

Iraq will remain as it ever was: a clusterfuck of warring Sunni and Shiite competing interests, with assassination and bombing being as common as corruption and back-room deals in negotiating overall control of the state.  Iraq looks like a more secure Libya right now, as their security services are thoroughly Shiite and used to acting with relative impunity.

And Iran....well, as mentioned above, I don't think the current US adminstration wants war.  Israel is clearly sponsoring terrorism inside Iran's borders, and may even be using black-flag ops to make America look responsible for it.  I suspect the Saudis also have a hand in whatever chaos is happening in Iran - they have too much invested in the downfall of the Mullahs for it to be otherwise.  Iran is allegedly responding via targeted assassinations by Hezbollah, but some of those incidents are...questionable.  That they precisely mirror the tactics used by the "mystery assassins" (MeK) in Iran, and that they were thwarted has suggested to some that they are also black-flag ops, designed to feed into the idea of Iran being a global sponsor of terrorism.  I'm not sure...I wouldn't put it pass the Israelis to fake such things, but on the other hand, I wouldn't put it past elements of the Revolutionary Guard to carry them out either.  Only I would have expected them to be more professional - as pointed out during the whole "Saudi assassination plot + Zetas!" idiocy, the Revolutionary Guard are professionals, and rarely screw up.

I'm hoping the US can resist the calls for war from Israel and the oil sheikhs, and the P5+1 talks restarting is certainly a good sign.  Still, there has been a steady call for war with Iran since about 2005 onwards...its been drilled into people's heads for 7 years as the only solution.  That kind of inertia will be very hard to overcome.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on February 24, 2012, 02:28:20 PM
Thanks Cain, Appreciate the perspective.

Looking at the U.S presidential candidates it seems to be an all party push to keep Obama where he currently sits. Assuming he gets another 4 years I'd guess "They" would be using this as a way to further push the "Iran is crazy" agenda. 10 years of pre-war prep sounds right considering how Iraq went. It would also be perfect for a Hawk candidate to get the AMERICA FUCK YEAH voters out.

Your point regarding nuclear weapons is fair. I still fail to understand the current fear of these when you can make chemical or biological weapons. Considering how much quicker and cheaper they are, it would seem remiss to not have at least a few stashed for a rainy day. Do they simply not have the needed horror value to instigate wars quickly? I really can't decide here as that was pretty much the case for Gulf #1 and #2.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 24, 2012, 06:22:53 PM
Well, as the Siftung Leo Strauss pointed out, not that long ago, some Republicans are privately musing that an Obama win might actually be personally better for them than a Republican win in general, and a Romney win in particular.  The funding for conservative think-tanks, pundits and action groups is at an all time high, as various rich and paranoid conservative reactionaries are filling the coffers of such groups.  If Romney were to win...well, then, who knows who he might appoint, other than his friends in high finance?  Staunch conservative movement types in good standing may well get snubbed...for all McCain's protests to the contrary, Romney is the real maverick when it comes to everything except defense of Wall Street.

That might also feed into Iran, but I'm not sure.  Iran's been at least public enemy #3 since the revolution, I'm pretty sure not much more propaganda is needed.  You have people who have spent their entire lives having been told that Iran is a fundamentally hostile, revolutionary and unstable state.

Still, support for military action is not currently a majority public opinion, "news" consensus otherwise.

Biological and chemical weapons pack nowhere near the punch of a nuclear weapon.  Biological weapons in particular are a difficult one, as only very few organisms are virulent, easy to transmit and dangerous enough to kill vast quantities of people (and the ones that are...well, how do you know they aren't going to come back on you?).  Chemical weapons are required in vast quantities to inflict mass casualties.  Look at the Tokyo subway attacks - only seven killed, despite good conditions for their use and a not unreasonable expected death toll of in the hundreds.

Chemical weapons tend to dissipate after a few hours, and biological attacks can be treated.  Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, cause far greater casualties, and the fallout can contaminate the area for decades to come.  Also, economics.  Despite their high cost, after a certain threshold, it is still cheaper to use nuclear weapons than biological or chemical weapons to inflict millions of casualties.

There's also the point that the US has never successfully and directly fought a nuclear power, or attempted to, but has fought states armed with biochem weapons.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on February 24, 2012, 06:40:50 PM
I'll be honest and admit ignorance on the true capabilities of all three types, I was assuming there would have been advances on bio/chem simply due to how long they had been around. These could also play more into guerilla tactics which I would imagine Iran to come down to.

Still, lots more to research and read up on, many thanks.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 24, 2012, 07:00:56 PM
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd.htm is a pretty good start.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mangrove on February 28, 2012, 04:44:47 PM
Dear Cain's Brain,

I came home from work yesterday, fed my dog and settled down to a bit of channel surfing. I stumbled upon Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" documentary. Scared the shit out of me.

Was this the correct response?

Free marketly yours,

Mangrove.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 28, 2012, 08:56:30 PM
Maybe, possibly, though I think Klein kinda tried to hard to make a "thing" out of something that is a universal human instinct - use a crisis to pass your own agenda.  I mean, that is pretty obvious.  And the desire to go back to a blank slate and rebuild everything from scratch is also pretty universal too - recall the Khmer Rouge's Year Zero.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mangrove on February 29, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 28, 2012, 08:56:30 PM
Maybe, possibly, though I think Klein kinda tried to hard to make a "thing" out of something that is a universal human instinct - use a crisis to pass your own agenda.  I mean, that is pretty obvious.  And the desire to go back to a blank slate and rebuild everything from scratch is also pretty universal too - recall the Khmer Rouge's Year Zero.

Thank you!

Seeing the footage of Thatcher chumming around with Pinochet coupled with police beating the shit out of miners in the early 80s pinged childhood memories.

I was glad to see this film because I am entirely ignorant of economics and didn't know anything about Milton 'Uncle Miltie' Friedman. Kind of weird to read about him. On one hand I was like "oh...he advocated a voluntary military" and yet he believed that all medical licenses should be abolished.  :?  (perhaps he should've signed a pention?)
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 04:28:43 AM
I occasionally try to figure out for myself whether I am for or against some sort of united Earth government (probably in the form of a confederacy or a beefed up UN). Sometimes I ham up support for it in order to troll people who think that the Rapture is imminent. If you have the time, could you make an argument for and against such a union? Obviously lack of war is a pro, and improbability of agreeing to any sort of unified policy on any subject a con (....or a pro....). I imagine that at the end of weighing everything, it's probably more trouble than it is worth and that it ends up being utopian balderdash, but I'm wondering if there would be a good reason(s) and a good method(s) of building up to some sort of planetary unity. And obviously there's the problem with getting the Christians on board without sending them to death camps, which only proves them right, and as such can't happen because we can't have them be right about the NWO.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 04:30:43 AM
And for bonus points, do you see the fairly recent trend of continental supranationalism a step in this direction (eg the EU, the AU and whatever they got in South America)
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on April 07, 2012, 02:55:19 PM
I don't see any good reasons to believe that global governance is necessary or desirable.  On the other hand, the only reason I can see it being worse than currently existing governments is that would have much more power.

My view of states is fairly cynical.  While there may be historical reasons why Belgium, for example, is a more valid nation-state than SouthDutchandFrenchistan, that doesn't invalidate my view that all government, unless you live in a city-state, is a bunch of people living far away from you, deciding to do lots of things and then saddling you with a bill.  My personal opinion, rootless cosmopolitan that I am, is that being ruled from London is no different than being ruled from Brussels (or Washington) in the grand scheme of things.  As such, being ruled by the United Federation of Planets, out of San Francisco (or, more likely, Geneva) wouldn't make a huge change in my opinion.  It would be a bunch of people, far away, delivering goods and services, some of questionable utility, others fairly useful, and charging me for them all.  Meh.

I would also posit that there is no reason to believe global government would bring about the end of war.  China was One Empire Under Heaven, yet was plagued by all kinds of civil wars, secessionist movements headed by rogue warlords, peasant uprisings, fanatical cults and insurgencies.  Europe was the same - in theory, it was Christendom, under the rule of the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, but the Byzantines and French tested that proposition and came away with rather different conclusions.  The Pope's blessing was required to be seen as a legitimate ruler, and often the Pope would revoke that blessing - going as far as to excommunicate entire country's of people.  And of course, there were the wars of dynastic succession and so on, battling for relative power and prestige within the confines of the existing system.

The other major issues would be that of culture and religion, and on what grounds would world government procede?  A lot of assumptions are that world government would be necessarily western in outlook - liberal, respectful of human rights, involve devolved power and multiple branches of government, secular. 

But Westerners only make up a fraction of the world population.  A democratic world government would have to accomodate the wishes of a billion Muslims, many of whom are insistent on trying out this Shariah Law thing they keep reading about.  It would have to contend with 1.3 billion Chinese - who even if they were not under the rule of the Communist Party, would still be heavily informed by a strong history of Confucian legalism.  And then there is nearly a billion Indians - many of whom are, of course Hindu.  Not forgetting the nearly two billion Christians - many from places like Uganda. Already we're looking at a world where being homosexual would be very dangerous. 

Without the withering away of these religious impulses and some kind of convergence on Western social and ethical norms (which, unlike certain people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama), I do not consider inevitable or irreversible), you can either have democratic global government, or you can have liberal global government, but you cannot have both.

As for regional bodies...they're mostly range between "ineffectual but harmless" (ASEAN) and "somewhat useful" (ECOWAS).  The main problem is that a lot of them seem to look to the EU for guidance, and the EU is, to put it mildly, not good at the whole democracy thing.  Still, regionalism as a general approach makes sense.  It allows for easier coordination of international issues, disease, smuggling, terrorism etc, usually they have a shared history and culture, so the barriers to cooperation are low, and when problems do arise they are the closest and most knowledgeable people about them, and best suited to consider a response.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 04:33:01 PM
Hmm.

This has given me more to chew on. And more to troll with.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Triple Zero on April 07, 2012, 05:32:47 PM
Another thing--although already somewhat implied in Cain's answer--is that running a useful and just government that benefits the people under it seems like a pretty damn hard job already. And the bigger, or rather the more complex the thing your governing, the harder I expect it to become.

You'd need to have a group of hyper-geniuses to run a world government, I'm afraid.

And who trusts a bunch of people that are 100x smarter than you? ;-) [seriously if they're significantly smarter, they're harder to identify with, and therefore harder to accept as leaders--at least, I'd think so, even if I'd know better]

Maybe if we'd clone Cain 50 times, and shake them a littlebit for variety (to avoid local minima in problem solving) and of course tweak them so they'd actually agree to do the task (not sure if our Cain would want the job, namely).
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 05:37:01 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 07, 2012, 05:32:47 PM
Another thing--although already somewhat implied in Cain's answer--is that running a useful and just government that benefits the people under it seems like a pretty damn hard job already. And the bigger, or rather the more complex the thing your governing, the harder I expect it to become.

You'd need to have a group of hyper-geniuses to run a world government, I'm afraid.

And who trusts a bunch of people that are 100x smarter than you? ;-) [seriously if they're significantly smarter, they're harder to identify with, and therefore harder to accept as leaders--at least, I'd think so, even if I'd know better]

Maybe if we'd clone Cain 50 times, and shake them a littlebit for variety (to avoid local minima in problem solving) and of course tweak them so they'd actually agree to do the task (not sure if our Cain would want the job, namely).

For the moment I have an image of you in a Cain factory picking Cains off of the conveyor belt and shaking them a few times and making notes on your clipboard.

Made even funnier by the fact that I have no idea what Cain looks like.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Don Coyote on April 07, 2012, 05:56:16 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 05:37:01 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 07, 2012, 05:32:47 PM
Another thing--although already somewhat implied in Cain's answer--is that running a useful and just government that benefits the people under it seems like a pretty damn hard job already. And the bigger, or rather the more complex the thing your governing, the harder I expect it to become.

You'd need to have a group of hyper-geniuses to run a world government, I'm afraid.

And who trusts a bunch of people that are 100x smarter than you? ;-) [seriously if they're significantly smarter, they're harder to identify with, and therefore harder to accept as leaders--at least, I'd think so, even if I'd know better]

Maybe if we'd clone Cain 50 times, and shake them a littlebit for variety (to avoid local minima in problem solving) and of course tweak them so they'd actually agree to do the task (not sure if our Cain would want the job, namely).

For the moment I have an image of you in a Cain factory picking Cains off of the conveyor belt and shaking them a few times and making notes on your clipboard.

Made even funnier by the fact that I have no idea what Cain looks like.

It's obvious. He is a British Clint Eastwood.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 06:34:19 PM
Im going to picture him as paul hogan. Accent probably fits.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on April 20, 2012, 09:02:27 AM
Got another question for you. Why are Socialists and Communists so long winded?

You have Chavez, whose doctor told him to stop talking so much for his laryngeal health
You had Castro who was almost as bad
You had Guevarra who would go on long tirades and then shoot you in the head...

I'm sure I'm missing a whole ton more, but I'm wondering if there's some sort of personality trait that makes one both a Leftist and a verbose bastard.

Twid,
relatively quiet Leftist.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on April 20, 2012, 10:22:44 AM
Marxism. 

You ever read Marx?  By German standards of writers, he is relatively good.  But those standards include Kant and Hegel.  "Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is a relatively succint phrase and understood concept, compared to "But the other side of its Becoming, History, is a conscious, self-meditating process — Spirit emptied out into Time; but this externalization, this kenosis, is equally an externalization of itself; the negative is the negative of itself."
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on April 20, 2012, 01:18:15 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 20, 2012, 10:22:44 AM
Marxism. 

You ever read Marx?  By German standards of writers, he is relatively good.  But those standards include Kant and Hegel.  "Revolutionary Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is a relatively succint phrase and understood concept, compared to "But the other side of its Becoming, History, is a conscious, self-meditating process — Spirit emptied out into Time; but this externalization, this kenosis, is equally an externalization of itself; the negative is the negative of itself."

I read the Communist Manifesto, which was kinda hard to get through and seemed rambly at points.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on April 20, 2012, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on April 07, 2012, 04:28:43 AM
I occasionally try to figure out for myself whether I am for or against some sort of united Earth government (probably in the form of a confederacy or a beefed up UN).

We - as a species, that is - cannot even run governments for a few million people.  Try the complexity of a government over 7 Bn + people.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: The Johnny on April 20, 2012, 02:36:38 PM
i tink that the problem with bigger and wider governments is that it homogenizes local communities that dont necessarily have the same needs and in a certain way alienates them from their laws.

the problem with the counterpart of local governments and autonomy is in part the infrastructure like water, energy, food, etc and the self defense needs that always arise due to human warmongering, so i think were stuck on our current political boundaries

sorry im in a bit of a rush if it sounds too vague
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Lenin McCarthy on April 20, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
I like the subsidiarity principle (that matters ought to be handled by the lowest competent authority), and if a world government were to follow that principle, IMO there wouldn't be many tasks left for the federal level that couldn't be dealt with more effectively on other levels. I can see it dealing with extraterrestrial affairs, war, peace and climate change, but not much more, just a slightly beefed up UN basically. And even then it would be difficult to keep it from doing too much/extending its own mandate.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on April 20, 2012, 04:15:26 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on April 20, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
I like the subsidiarity principle (that matters ought to be handled by the lowest competent authority), and if a world government were to follow that principle, IMO there wouldn't be many tasks left for the federal level that couldn't be dealt with more effectively on other levels.

Problem is, higher levels of government invariably begin to interfere with lower levels.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Elder Iptuous on April 20, 2012, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 20, 2012, 04:15:26 PM
Quote from: Lenin McCarthy on April 20, 2012, 03:09:31 PM
I like the subsidiarity principle (that matters ought to be handled by the lowest competent authority), and if a world government were to follow that principle, IMO there wouldn't be many tasks left for the federal level that couldn't be dealt with more effectively on other levels.

Problem is, higher levels of government invariably begin to interfere with lower levels.

which makes sense, as the higher level beauracracy is going to judge competency from the context of a different viewpoint.  and since the power distribution is uneven, it is only natural that the tasks drift ever upward.


Cain.  Do you have any suggestions or have you written any analyses on the city state form of governance?  I've always been fond of the notion.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on April 20, 2012, 05:12:12 PM
I haven't written any in depth analyses on them, but my general feelings are thus:

I like city-states.  They tend to be more politically involved, cosmopolitan and egalitarian than the citizens of nation-states, and they are of just the right size to get the balance between accountabilty, acessability and viability correct (note: may not apply to mega-cities), going by European history at least.

On the other hand, they tend to lose wars with distressing ease to nation-states.  And they tend towards financialization of their economy, which can turn out rather badly for them.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on April 20, 2012, 07:19:46 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 20, 2012, 05:12:12 PM
I haven't written any in depth analyses on them, but my general feelings are thus:

I like city-states.  They tend to be more politically involved, cosmopolitan and egalitarian than the citizens of nation-states, and they are of just the right size to get the balance between accountabilty, acessability and viability correct (note: may not apply to mega-cities), going by European history at least.

On the other hand, they tend to lose wars with distressing ease to nation-states.  And they tend towards financialization of their economy, which can turn out rather badly for them.

Until very recently, Tucson functioned very much like a city state, as nobody else in the state cares about us, and they keep all the federal money for Phoenix.

Recently, however, we have been getting more and more mandates from the state which are harder and harder to ignore.  We still don't get any money, though.  We get back about $0.40 in services for every dollar paid in state taxes, and no federal money for anything besides armored vehicles for the police.

Our roads are falling apart, but clearly it's more important for the cops and the DHS/ICE assholes to have tanks.

This is why I agree with Cain.  City states are the best solution.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on April 20, 2012, 07:30:23 PM
As I think I've said elsewhere, the rulers in city-states also tend to be more responsive to their citizens needs.

Normally because their citizens know where to find them in order to string them up, should they fuck it all up, and organizing a city-wide mob is not as hard as organizing a country-wide mob.  It's at just the right level for a lot of things when it comes to organization, economic viability, democratic governance and so on.

Unfortunately, the trend seems to be towards super-states, 1990s secession-mania nonwithstanding.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on April 20, 2012, 07:34:43 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 20, 2012, 07:30:23 PM
As I think I've said elsewhere, the rulers in city-states also tend to be more responsive to their citizens needs.

Hell, until last year, the cops carried a crate of bottled water in their trunks to hand out to homeless people.

But Mayor Walkup is gone now, and the new regime is trying to be Scottsdale. 

But Tucson knows how to deal with that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Placid Dingo on April 23, 2012, 02:32:31 PM
Considering Japan is economically destabilised, politically incoherent, perpetually dealing with the crisis that never ends in Fukushima and an Iranian conflict away from losing their ability to provide power to their people... is this sending a message that a policy of nonviolence is not pragmatic? Or is it just bad luck?

I guess I mean, if Japan had post WW2 been able to remain militarily strong and had activly participated in conflicts (in greater capacity than the Iraq involvement I mean) would they be facing the same problems now, or would they better equipped to deal with them?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on April 23, 2012, 02:44:59 PM
Well, I don't exactly see how a military could have helped in any of those situations.  Japan's always going to be an island with no natural resources of note, in a tectonically unstable region, reliant on outside fuel sources.

If you want oil, the cheapest way to get it is to buy it.  Unless wanting oil isn't the issue, and controlling it is...but as things stand, buying it is the cheaper option.

And for a country with "no military", they sure are spending a lot on military procurements.  Fifth biggest spenders in the world, according to the CIA.

I'm not entirely sure how you're getting that the economic and political crisis, as well as Fukushima and the Iranian crisis could have been prevented by a strong military.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Pergamos on August 14, 2015, 08:03:53 AM
Could you offer your Cainite wisdom on the situation in Rojava?  Are they, as some have suggested, the ideological successors to the Spanish Anarchists?  are they, as the Turkey seems to think, just one ore brand of Muslim terrorist?  Or are they something else entirely?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on September 15, 2015, 10:33:42 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2015, 08:03:53 AM
Could you offer your Cainite wisdom on the situation in Rojava?  Are they, as some have suggested, the ideological successors to the Spanish Anarchists?  are they, as the Turkey seems to think, just one ore brand of Muslim terrorist?  Or are they something else entirely?

Sorry, totally missed this.

Their ideology is, broadly speaking, left-libertarianism.  The PKK is the largest and most well organised of the Kurdish resistance groups, and they are, without a doubt, Marxist to the core (Ocalan, the leader, was a well known Marxist agitator and student of political science in Turkey).  Their offshoots, like the YPG, are very progressive by most Middle Eastern standards.

That said, they're also vulnerable to the less attractive aspects of leftwing ideology, notably cult of personality (Ocalan assassinated several PKK members he suspected of being insufficiently devoted to the cause) and political authoritarianism in the areas they control.  However, they are by far the most progressive groups in the Middle East when it comes to democracy, women's rights, separation of church and state and similar issues.

Turkey hasn't a leg to stand on when criticizing the PKK though.  It was their harsh, wholesale repression of Kurdish culture, which they tried to completely destroy, which led to the emergence of the PKK and their war against Ankara.  You can still be arrested in Turkey for performing "Kurdish dancing" for example, and any expression of Kurdish culture is seen as propaganda for the PKK - regardless of how innocent it may actually be.

With regards to the Islamic issue, many Kurds have resisted Turkish heavy-handed attempts to promote the version favoured by the ruling AKP in Kurdish majority areas.  They're definitely opposed to Salafism, Wahhabism and similar, and while a good number of Kurds are still Muslim, they usually consider themselves to be more culturally Muslim, or vague believers, than involved in definite creeds.  The strong influence of the PKK and Marxism on Kurdish groups means that religion, as a rule, is seen as the opiate of the people, and in particular responsible for the repression of women in the Middle East (the YPG has its own female only battalions, and both the YPG and PKK sites regularly post articles on feminism).

They're not perfect, but in many ways I would say they are some of the only few good guys fighting in the Middle East currently.  They've been dicked over by everyone, including most recently ourselves, but they're keeping a valuable and worthwhile struggle alive, with mostly reasonable means.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on November 05, 2015, 10:13:41 PM
So... what's the internet saying about the Russian plane explosion being a false-flag attack by the CIA, to get the Russians to focus their Syrian bombing attacks on the people the US would prefer they bomb?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on November 05, 2015, 10:56:46 PM
The internet is fucking dumb.  The Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis have been blowing up tanks in the Sinai since 2014, and pledged themselves to the Caliphate less than a month after it was declared.  No-one else bothered to pay attention to the insurgency there in the media, because it wasn't "sexy" enough, but the Sinai ISIS fanbois have been capping Egyptian police officers and carrying bombings at a fairly consistent rate.  Rumour has it they have support from Muslim Brotherhood aligned former military officers and Qatar, but that could be Sisi blowing smoke up everyone's arses, since it was his coup that toppled the democratically elected MB government.

And you'd have to be at least twice as dumb as the CIA actually are to think killing a couple of hundred civilians is going to affect a change in Russia's strategy in any way.  Russia already claims they're bombing the shit out of ISIS to the home crowd, even though they're clearly not.  If this was a CIA plot, Putin would respond by...doubling down on the propaganda.  Achievement Unlocked: I killed a couple of hundred people and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

American intelligence did apparently know something about a security lapse at the al-Sham airport, but it very much sounds like ad hoc signals intelligence that they only threw together recently.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on November 05, 2015, 11:49:07 PM
I love you, Cain.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on December 23, 2015, 07:12:20 PM
Thoughts on Hersh's latest speculator conspiracy piece? (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military)
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 26, 2015, 07:30:57 PM
It's a complex piece.  I'll tackle it when I'm back in town, in a few days.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 28, 2015, 10:41:38 PM
OK.

So, the Libyan arms pipeline is pretty much confirmed at this point.  Consider the words of  Libyan army commander Hamed Belkhair, when questioned about it by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-syria-idUSBRE95H0WC20130618):

Quote"The weapons are not supplied to extremists, but only to the Free Syrian Army".

Especially in conjunction with this:

QuoteA United Nations Panel report dated February this year also backs Haroun's assertions that weapons smuggling to Syria from Libya is widely known about.

"The Syrian Arab Republic has presented a prominent destination for some Libyan fighters and Libyan military materiel," the writers say.

Transfers have been organized under the supervision, or with the consent, of a range of actors in Libya and the Syrian Arab Republic."

The report adds: "the significant size of some shipments and the logistics involved suggest that representatives of the Libyan local authorities might have at least been aware of the transfers, if not actually directly involved."

The weapons then go to Turkey or Jordan, where they cross the border.  Jordan, as you may recall, was the site of a US training program for Syrian rebels (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-rebels-usa-idUSBRE9290FI20130310).

Of course, there's no smoking gun that the CIA were involved, but the transfers specifically to the FSA and to Turkey and Jordan are...telling.  The CIA would only oversee this kind of operation, working through local actors to actually procure and transfer the goods.  The CIA regularly works with arms dealers, so this kind of operation would be nothing new or exciting.  The FSA were not the richest, or biggest faction in Syria either, so monetary considerations or a desire to see Assad overthrown at all costs are clearly not paramount here.

A DIA report from 2012  (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-1-3-2-3-from-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812/)shows the US intelligence community were aware of weapon smuggling from Benghazi to Syria.

That Turkey co-opted the rebels and purposefully supported the most extreme elements is, I think, now without question.  They definitely backed Jabhat al-Nusra (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/11093478/Turkish-government-co-operated-with-al-Qaeda-in-Syria-says-former-US-ambassador.html), and I believe they back IS against the Kurdish YPG, and to a lesser extent against the regime and the Saudi-backed rebel groups.

QuoteGermany, Israel and Russia were in contact with the Syrian army, and able to exercise some influence over Assad's decisions – it was through them that US intelligence would be shared.

At least two of these are correct - it was recently confirmed the BND was in contact with Syrian state intelligence, and of course Russia is as well.  Via Russia (http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Netanyahu-Israeli-Russian-cooperation-has-successfully-prevented-unnecessary-accidents-435879), it appears Israel is cooperating and sharing intelligence with the regime (not that this will stop the tiresome ISIS = Israel theories).

This, however, is false:

QuoteRussia had an alliance of very long standing with Syria, and was worried by the threat to its only naval base on the Mediterranean, at Tartus.

Russia recently negotiated and renewed treaties with Cyprus which would offset the loss of Tartus.  Obviously, they'd rather not lose it, but it's not a vital strategic interest, per se.

US intelligence cooperation with Syria is definitely correct.  You may recall the Canadian citizen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar) America deported to Syria?  Can't comment on what caused the bust-up, maybe that is the case, maybe something else happened.

Can't comment on JCS circumventing Obama on Libyan arms, though there is definitely some intelligence sharing going on at a military level.  After a year of sorties and bombing raids, there hasn't been a single Syrian state on USAF fire incident.  Someone is clearly communicating US attack information, to prevent Assad's anti-airforce systems and fighters from engaging them.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Pergamos on December 29, 2015, 05:24:12 AM
So Israel is not supporting Daesh?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 29, 2015, 09:59:26 AM
Nope.  As far back as 2013, Israeli officials were being quoted as saying they would prefer Assad remain in power, however problematic he is, than Islamists take charge.

While ISIS isn't a primary concern, Jabhat al-Nusra are dangerously close to the border.

Not everyone in Israel agrees, of course, a recent publication by the National Security Institute argued the focus should still be on ousting Assad, while nevertheless supporting Russia's intervention in the country. 

The only evidence of support I have seen has been incredibly blown beyond all proportion, in that Israel provided humanitarian assistance, including medical care, to Syrian rebels who may have been part of ISIS.  Which is unlikely in the first place because the men were described as "Syrian", which most of ISIS is not, and because they were picked up across the border.  Israeli humanitarian aid may have been quid quo pro for being allowed access to civilians (fairly usual in these sort of conflicts...."treat my men and you can treat the civilians"), may also have been a military propaganda campaign to convince the rebels that Israel is not their enemy.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on December 29, 2015, 01:15:16 PM
Thank you, Cain!  There's more meat there than I expected.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 29, 2015, 02:41:18 PM
No worries.  It is also worth putting this in the context of a US military campaign that, as far as most people can see, is doing very little against ISIS.

I don't believe for a minute that the Pentagon are as on the ball as they're portraying themselves to be via Hersh.  Ramadi is the key example here: the Pentagon was claiming for at least a month it wasn't going to fall.  When ISIS did their customary blitzkrieg attack, the city was taken with relative ease, only the remnants of the Sons of Iraq denying them the city centre for a time (the Iraqi army retook Ramadi recently, but only with the help of Shiite militias.  The Sunni Sons of Iraq are not going to be happy, seeing government empowered death squads who, only a decade ago were targeting them strolling around what they consider their stronghold).

Partly this is due to political constraints, Obama does not want boots on the ground.  But partly this is the fault of the military, they've shown they don't have good tactical intelligence re: ISIS and they oversold the effect of a bombing and drone attack campaign.  If it weren't for the YPG and Syrian Democratic Forces, this would be an even bigger military disaster than it already is.  Hersh is clearly being used by the military to pre-emptively cover their arse.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on December 30, 2015, 04:13:34 AM
Cain,

What are your thoughts on the level of civilian support for ISIL from within Saudi Arabia?

Thanks,

Gray Area
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 30, 2015, 12:51:06 PM
There was a poll, by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last year, that suggested ISIS was viewed favourably by 5% of the Saudi population, or about half a million people.

Polls are notoriously unreliable in that part of the world, and especially in a dictatorship like that, but I would suggest that is in the right ballpark, it could be 3-5% higher, but I'd be surprised if it was any higher (or indeed lower at all).

Of course, it depends how we are defining civilian too.  For the purposes of this, I'll ignore the elements within the Saudi aristocracy who are still bankrolling the group, against the wishes of their government, and focus on what they call the "grassroots" support.

Out of that, a small fraction, likely less than 500 people, will be materially supporting the group.  ISIS has carried out successful attacks in Saudi Arabia, suicide bombings in particular.  Much like Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in 2002-4, they're probably sourcing and building locally as opposed to smuggling them in.  To do that, however, they will need safe houses, funding, banking expertise, a bombmaker....all the little necessities of a terrorist campaign.  More interestingly, ISIS border attacks have also succeeded, on at least two occasions, in killing high ranking Saudi military officers, one general and one...brigadier, I think.  Given how protected the Saudi military officer class normally are, and how insulated they tend to be from the front lines, that suggests they also have intelligence sources reporting to them.  AQAP also made great use of intelligence assets in their Saudi campaign, but having tactical intelligence on the location of a general for assassination...that's some serious assistance.

Also worth noting here that an estimated 1500-2000ish Saudi citizens have joined up to fight with ISIS.  Some of these may have returned, and could account for part of their support network in country, though I would expect only in a command and control capacity.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on December 30, 2015, 01:10:53 PM
I don't say it enough, but I feel genuinely lucky to have access to a brain and skills such as yours, Cain.  IR is something I have scant knowledge of.  It's like pulling back a curtain.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Freeky on December 30, 2015, 08:28:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 30, 2015, 01:10:53 PM
I don't say it enough, but I feel genuinely lucky to have access to a brain and skills such as yours, Cain.  IR is something I have scant knowledge of.  It's like pulling back a curtain.

I totally agree with this.  Cain, you are awesome.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on December 30, 2015, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on December 29, 2015, 05:24:12 AM
So Israel is not supporting Daesh?

Why would they?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on December 31, 2015, 12:08:24 AM
Thank you Cain,

If you would care to elaborate, I'd also like to know your thoughts on the Saudi aristocracy and their support for ISIL. I imagine the palace intrigue in a place like Saudi Arabia is quite interesting.

Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 31, 2015, 05:59:19 PM
Quote from: Gray Area on December 31, 2015, 12:08:24 AM
Thank you Cain,

If you would care to elaborate, I'd also like to know your thoughts on the Saudi aristocracy and their support for ISIL. I imagine the palace intrigue in a place like Saudi Arabia is quite interesting.

It is, but it's very hard for outsiders to actually find out anything about.  You have to be a dedicated House of Saud watcher, the equivalent of a Cold War Kremlinologist, to even scratch the surface of what is really going on.

I'm not one of those people.  I don't have the time and can't sustain the interest to the exclusion of other things.

That said, I'd say it goes something like this:

Hardliners in the Saudi secret service, especially around their former head (and former Ambassador to the USA, and former foreign policy tutor to George W Bush), Prince Bandar.  Bandar was someone who wanted to see the Assad regime gone, at any cost.  While I'm sure ISIS would not have been his main choice of horse to back, or even the primary beneficiary of Saudi largesse, there is little doubt that his appointment to lead the efforts to topple Assad, and subsequent "blind eye" to funding of jihadists coming from Saudi Arabia worked to their benefit.

Alongside that, there are always elements in the Saudi aristocracy who hate Shiites, hate modernity and hate the west.  These princes helped fund and protect Bin Laden, even after 9/11, and they likely fund ISIS now.  There is credible evidence that some members of Al-Qaeda even had highly ranked supporters in Saudi intelligence (one member of Al-Qaeda was tricked into believing he was being held by Saudi intelligence.  He gave them the number of Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,480226,00.html).  Prince Turki, the former head of Saudi intelligence, also allegedly kept close contact with Al-Qaeda).

Some Saudis see tactical and geopolitical advantages in these relationships.  Some of them, however, are hardliners who see the House of Saud as corrupt, too close to the Americans.  I'm sure they'd welcome a situation where more....pious custodians for the Holy Cities can come to power.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 31, 2015, 06:01:53 PM
Incidentally, I recommend everyone click on that link.  It really is amazing:

QuoteZubaydah, writes Posner, said the Saudi connection ran through Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdul Aziz, the kingdom's longtime intelligence chief. Zubaydah said bin Laden "personally" told him of a 1991 meeting at which Turki agreed to let bin Laden leave Saudi Arabia and to provide him with secret funds as long as al-Qaeda refrained from promoting jihad in the kingdom. The Pakistani contact, high-ranking air force officer Mushaf Ali Mir, entered the equation, Zubaydah said, at a 1996 meeting in Pakistan also attended by Zubaydah. Bin Laden struck a deal with Mir, then in the military but tied closely to Islamists in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (isi), to get protection, arms and supplies for al-Qaeda. Zubaydah told interrogators bin Laden said the arrangement was "blessed by the Saudis."

Zubaydah said he attended a third meeting in Kandahar in 1998 with Turki, senior isi agents and Taliban officials. There Turki promised, writes Posner, that "more Saudi aid would flow to the Taliban, and the Saudis would never ask for bin Laden's extradition, so long as al-Qaeda kept its long-standing promise to direct fundamentalism away from the kingdom." In Posner's stark judgment, the Saudis "effectively had (bin Laden) on their payroll since the start of the decade." Zubaydah told the interrogators that the Saudis regularly sent the funds through three royal-prince intermediaries he named.

The last eight paragraphs of the book set up a final startling development. Those three Saudi princes all perished within days of one another. On July 22, 2002, Prince Ahmed was felled by a heart attack at age 43. One day later Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, 41, was killed in what was called a high-speed car accident. The last member of the trio, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, officially "died of thirst" while traveling east of Riyadh one week later. And seven months after that, Mushaf Ali Mir, by then Pakistan's Air Marshal, perished in a plane crash in clear weather over the unruly North-West Frontier province, along with his wife and closest confidants.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Pergamos on December 31, 2015, 09:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wet mop not required on December 30, 2015, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on December 29, 2015, 05:24:12 AM
So Israel is not supporting Daesh?

Why would they?

Because Daesh is really bad news for Assad, and Hezbollah.  Also bad news for Saudi Arabia and Iran.  They tend to focus on other Muslims as their enemies, which could make Israel see them as a useful tool.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 31, 2015, 10:06:29 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on December 31, 2015, 09:59:35 PM
Quote from: Wet mop not required on December 30, 2015, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on December 29, 2015, 05:24:12 AM
So Israel is not supporting Daesh?

Why would they?

Because Daesh is really bad news for Assad, and Hezbollah.  Also bad news for Saudi Arabia and Iran.  They tend to focus on other Muslims as their enemies, which could make Israel see them as a useful tool.

Israel has a de facto alliance with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, and has vested interests in Christian militias in Lebanon, all of which are threatened by ISIS. 

They also may have learnt from their experience of tacitly backing Hamas against Fatah, after the first intifada.  ISIS, or more likely Jabhat al-Nusra, could try and set up shop in the Occupied Territories to gain greater legitimacy too.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on January 01, 2016, 01:12:26 AM
Cain,

Thanks, again, for sharing your knowledge of Middle Eastern politics. I have more questions, but I'll give it a rest for now. Have a happy New Year!
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 01, 2016, 02:06:13 AM
Quote from: Cain on December 31, 2015, 05:59:19 PM
Quote from: Gray Area on December 31, 2015, 12:08:24 AM
Thank you Cain,

If you would care to elaborate, I'd also like to know your thoughts on the Saudi aristocracy and their support for ISIL. I imagine the palace intrigue in a place like Saudi Arabia is quite interesting.

It is, but it's very hard for outsiders to actually find out anything about.  You have to be a dedicated House of Saud watcher, the equivalent of a Cold War Kremlinologist, to even scratch the surface of what is really going on.

I'm not one of those people.  I don't have the time and can't sustain the interest to the exclusion of other things.

That said, I'd say it goes something like this:

Hardliners in the Saudi secret service, especially around their former head (and former Ambassador to the USA, and former foreign policy tutor to George W Bush), Prince Bandar.  Bandar was someone who wanted to see the Assad regime gone, at any cost.  While I'm sure ISIS would not have been his main choice of horse to back, or even the primary beneficiary of Saudi largesse, there is little doubt that his appointment to lead the efforts to topple Assad, and subsequent "blind eye" to funding of jihadists coming from Saudi Arabia worked to their benefit.

Alongside that, there are always elements in the Saudi aristocracy who hate Shiites, hate modernity and hate the west.  These princes helped fund and protect Bin Laden, even after 9/11, and they likely fund ISIS now.  There is credible evidence that some members of Al-Qaeda even had highly ranked supporters in Saudi intelligence (one member of Al-Qaeda was tricked into believing he was being held by Saudi intelligence.  He gave them the number of Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,480226,00.html).  Prince Turki, the former head of Saudi intelligence, also allegedly kept close contact with Al-Qaeda).

Some Saudis see tactical and geopolitical advantages in these relationships.  Some of them, however, are hardliners who see the House of Saud as corrupt, too close to the Americans.  I'm sure they'd welcome a situation where more....pious custodians for the Holy Cities can come to power.

I'm gonna leave this open in my browser to check out after tomorrow's hangover wears off.

I appreciate your nutshell analyses, BTW, they are really really helpful. I trust your take a hell of a lot more than any media outlet I'm likely to come across under my own steam.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on January 03, 2016, 09:21:04 AM
Cain,

I was under the impression that the Iraqi Security Forces were little more than a corrupt, public welfare program. But it appears, for now at least, that the ISF are willing and capable of advancing into enemy held territory, capturing it, securing it, and holding it.

So, what's changed within Iraq to bring that about?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 03, 2016, 03:05:00 PM
They're still terrible.  It's every bit as awful as you've heard, and worse.  Entire platoons exist only on paper, so generals can line their pockets with their pay.  Procurement is a joke, most of the money is siphoned off and the stock sold on the black market, and those divisions that do have weapons usually have substandard ones.  Officer positions are essentially paid for and/or political appointees, meaning most officers in the Iraqi Army are Shiites with little military background or training, which puts them at a significant disadvantage against ISIS (whose strategists are Saddam-era Republican Guard senior officers).

Nothing much has changed, except that the Iraqi Army is now bolstered by irregulars who are significantly more motivated to fight and, in many cases, are almost as brutal as the ISIS fighters they are being sent against.

In Tikrit, they used Shiite death squads.  Literal death squads, Mahdi Army, Badr Organization guys, people involved in mass killings and disappearances during the occupation.  In Ramadi, they decided to use local tribes instead, alongside local police forces and an elite counter-terrorism unit (who are usually where the few professionals the ISF have invariably end up).  Ramadi is something of a special case, too, as it's a stronghold of the former Awakening Councils, aka The Sons of Iraq, aka Sunnis who remember how much Al-Qaeda sucked during the occupation and so teamed up with the Americans to kill them in droves.

The Sons aren't quite the force they used to be, but they will have the alleigance, if not comprise of, the local tribes and the local police force. 

The local element is probably the critical one.  In Fallujah, ISIS leveraged tribal discontent with the central Iraqi government and, as a consequence, roflstomped the loyal security forces there and have held the city for 2 years, despite attempts by the Iraqi Army to retake it (including an infamous effort to mortar the city centre.  Yes, you read that correctly.  This is the level of "professionalism" the Iraqi Army deals in).

The Iraqi Army has also allegedly been training its more competent troops in urban warfare.  As opposed to the tactics used in the occupation, which were more of a "hit-and-run" sort, ISIS seize territory and have no qualms about fighting in urban areas.  This may account for the...significant delay in their campaign to retake Anbar.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on January 03, 2016, 04:58:53 PM
From what you've said, it sounds to me like its going to be up to local forces to hold onto any ground taken back from ISIL.

Do you think the Iraqi central government will, at least, keep the local forces adequately supplied, or is it too corrupt to do even that much?

Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 03, 2016, 07:29:58 PM
I can't see the Iraqi government supplying weapons to Sunni groups under almost any circumstances.

A lot of the reason ISIS has made significant traction in Iraq is due to how Sunni Iraqis have been treated by a Shia dominated government with close links to Iran.  Sunnis were essentially cut out of most of the major government bodies, decision making etc...this led to a Sunni protest movement (in the wake of the Arab Spring).  This was countered with harsh security crackdowns, disappearances and torture.

ISIS exploited popular discontent, managed to win some tribes over to their side, and the rest is history.  While Maliki, who sanctioned much of this behaviour, has stood down as PM, his party still holds most of the power in the Iraqi Parliament and though they are not all as hardline as he was, they are nevertheless his supporters and allies.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on January 03, 2016, 11:30:39 PM
Thanks Cain,

I don't doubt ISIL has been able to recruit individuals from their areas of control in Iraq and Syria. And, I'm sure Sunni tribes within ISIL areas of control must cooperate with them on some level. I can also understand why some Sunni tribes revolted against Iraq's Shia dominated central government.

I do realize some wealthy Saudi Arabians are partially funding ISIL, and I can understand an enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend mindset.

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is Iraqi Sunni tribes buying into the Islamic fundamentalist Wahhabi movement of Saudi Arabia.

I was under the impression that the Iraqi Sunnis under Saddam Hussein were somewhat tolerant of other religions in the Middle East. I can understand Sunnis from Hussein's government and military fomenting revolt among their tribes after getting thrown out of power. But, going from a somewhat tolerant religious attitude to full-blown fundamentalism seems, to me at least, to be a big step. However, I'm not of Middle Eastern heritage, so I might be mistaken about that. 

To your knowledge, are any of the various Sunni tribes living within ISIL controlled areas really enthusiastically and wholeheartedly supporting ISIL's fundamentalism?

Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 05, 2016, 11:37:27 AM
I would be very surprised if they are buying into their ideology.  While a lot of these Sunni tribes and clans are quite conservative in their worldview, their focus is, as you would expect, not only waging global jihad.  The Al-Qaeda/ISIS ideology is quite distinctive in this respect amongst Islamist groups - almost all of them are focused on their respective national governments or else endorsing separatist ethnic groups within the nation-state setting.  Only Al-Qaeda, ISIS and a few of their affiliates are so focused on the "far enemy", on global conflict and of the restoration of the caliphate.

The alliances are almost certainly alliances of convenience.  The ex-Baathist cadre allied themselves with ISIS because it offered a way to attack the Occupation, the Iranians and the "traitors".  The local tribes are thinking much the same thing.  They've been cut out of the decision making, of access to central state funds etc....

This is another thing that Al-Qaeda and ISIS have proven themselves to be adept at.  After the invasion of Afghanistan, when Al-Qaeda fled across the border, they used their relationships with the local Pashto tribes - who didn't care a whit about America, but were very concerned with asserting their independence from political control in Islamabad - to give themselves a safe haven.  They've struck alliances with groups like the Haqqani (who may be a bit of an exception, as some of them have adopted the global view of Al-Qaeda) to augment their numbers and battlefield proficiency, and with other outcast Islamist groups who are also primarily concerned with their own national struggles (Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan).

The situation in Iraq is further complicated that the occupation either deliberately, or through a brilliantly incompetent approach that just happened to mirror colonial standard practice, went about exacerbating sectarian tensions.  Somehow, the Americans got it into their head, when they invaded, that Iraq was already a sectarian mess (they modelled Saddam Hussein as a "Sunni dictator", likely using the same logic that led them to conclude he was cooperating with Al-Qaeda) and so they favoured political actors based on those religious identities over more representative or suitable actors.  They then favoured a political system under which sectarian identification became the most important factor....which predictably led to sectarian violence as those actors disagreed over their divide of the political spoils.

This in and of itself is complicated by a general worldview that has built up over the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq that sectarian enemies are being sponsored by the Americans.  Lebanon is a perfect example of this - every side is convinced the Israelis and Americans are backing the other, and that the most pressing need is to fight the [ x ]-sectarian conspiracy.  Nir Rosen's book, Aftermath, details this quite well (and is worth reading besides).  Because America is seen in such a negative light, it's also helpful for national governments there which are allied to America to use them as bogeyman or convenient excuse for their own crimes....and thus the scapegoating has significant political benefits.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 05, 2016, 01:32:44 PM
Back to Hersh, you may find this interesting, LMNO: http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2015/12/hersh-gauthier-and-coming-of-terror-in.html

QuoteMy interest, naturally, was attracted to Hersh's description of a "Uyghur rat-line" organized by Turkey to funnel militants from the PRC's Xinjiang Autonomous Region into Syria:

The analyst, whose views are routinely sought by senior government officials, told me that 'Erdoğan has been bringing Uighurs into Syria by special transport while his government has been agitating in favour of their struggle in China. Uighur and Burmese Muslim terrorists who escape into Thailand somehow get Turkish passports and are then flown to Turkey for transit into Syria.' He added that there was also what amounted to another 'rat line' that was funnelling Uighurs – estimates range from a few hundred to many thousands over the years – from China into Kazakhstan for eventual relay to Turkey, and then to IS territory in Syria.

Hersh also quoted Syria's ambassador to the PRC:

'China is concerned that the Turkish role of supporting the Uighur fighters in Syria may be extended in the future to support Turkey's agenda in Xinjiang. We are already providing the Chinese intelligence service with information regarding these terrorists and the routes they crossed from on travelling into Syria.'

Hersh also consulted analyst Christina Lin (who quotes me! In her pieces) on the Uyghur issue.

So the Uyghur angle in the LRB article leans on "the analyst", a source Hersh has relied on since 9/11 and whose conspicuous single-sourciness has been a constant complaint of critics seeking to impugn Hersh's reporting; a Syrian official perhaps happy to add to Erdogan's woes by hanging the Uyghur issue around his neck; and an analyst dealing to a certain extent in open source information.

Therefore, I paid attention to a statement Hersh made during an interview with Democracy Now!, describing a study by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2013:

The third major finding [in the study] was about Turkey. It said we simply have to deal with the problem. The Turkish government, led by Erdogan, was—had opened—basically, his borders were open, arms were flying. I had written about that earlier for the London Review, the rat line. There were arms flying since 2012, covertly, with the CIA's support and the support of the American government. Arms were coming from Tripoli and other places in Benghazi, in Libya, going into Turkey and then being moved across the line. And another interesting point is that a lot of Chinese dissidents, the Uyghurs, the Muslim Chinese that are being pretty much hounded by the Chinese, were also—another rat line existed. They were coming from China into Kazakhstan, into Turkey and into Syria. So, this was a serious finding.

Unless Hersh is carelessly interpolating a non-sequitur about the Uyghurs in his remarks, it looks like his source told him there was a JCS/DIA finding, based on classified sigint/humint, about Erdogan playing footsie with Uyghur militants.

This is something I am inclined to believe, given the public record concerning the Turkey-Uyghur special relationship, and also the bizarre role of illicit Turkish passports in the travel of Uyghur refugees from Xinjiang, through Southeast Asia, and to their publicly acknowledged safe haven in Turkey.  I've written about the Turkey/Uyghur issue several times in 2015 including my July piece Uyghurs Move Edge Closer to Center of Turkish Diplomacy, Politics, and Geostrategic Calculation.

The other Uyghur related furor in the news concerns Ursula Gauthier, the Beijing correspondent for L'Obs.  It is speculated that Gauthier will not get her journalist's visa extended by the PRC, in retaliation for an article she wrote pouring scorn on the PRC's attempts to invoke a massacre of ethnic-Han security personnel and miners, apparently by Uyghurs, at Baicheng in Xinjiang, to claim "war on terror" parity with the November 13 Paris attack.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on January 05, 2016, 03:08:30 PM
Huh.  Interesting.  Thanks, Cain.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 05, 2016, 03:34:31 PM
That journalist's stuff on the Uighur fighters to Turkey pipeline is very interesting.  Lots of Uighurs running around with Turkish passports, these days...quite a few Uighurs in Syria (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/09/turkey-china-xinjiang-uighurs-isis-prevent-extremism.html), too.  Obviously Turkey, not content with just picking a fight with Russia, has decided to pick a fight with China too.

That or else someone in NATO decided the War Nerd's gameplan to militarize Xinjiang sepratists was a good idea.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on January 05, 2016, 04:00:53 PM
This is going to work out so well.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 05, 2016, 08:00:15 PM
Cain, what do you think of the idea that a lot of people are posting on the idiotbooks that the Malheur occupiers should be considered terrorists and treated as such? While I can see their point to some degree, regarding  the unbalanced response of the government compared to (thus far hypothetical situations) in which the occupiers are black or Muslim, they are occupying a completely uninhabited area, which I would tend to think makes them not terrorists. Or at least, very bad at it.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on January 05, 2016, 08:07:46 PM
First off, I'm not Cain.  Secondly, this post isn't about whether they should be called terrorists.  Ignore the following if you want to, I understand.

So, what I'm mainly seeing is that people are trying to underline a contrast between how we're treating the White Militants, and the various liberal protest movements (Black Lives Matter, etc).  But for me, they're drawing the arrow the wrong way.  What I see is them saying, "why aren't you shooting the hell out of the whites with guns, since that's what you do to unarmed black protesters?"

It seems to me the question should be framed as, "why didn't you leave the unarmed black protesters alone, like you are doing to the white militants?"  There's still hypocrisy being pointed out, but it sets the level of morality as peaceful law enforcement responses to protest, instead of violent ones.

I dunno.  Just what's been on my FB feed of late.


Anyway, that didn't answer your question.  Just wanted to comment.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 05, 2016, 08:26:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2016, 08:07:46 PM
First off, I'm not Cain.  Secondly, this post isn't about whether they should be called terrorists.  Ignore the following if you want to, I understand.

So, what I'm mainly seeing is that people are trying to underline a contrast between how we're treating the White Militants, and the various liberal protest movements (Black Lives Matter, etc).  But for me, they're drawing the arrow the wrong way.  What I see is them saying, "why aren't you shooting the hell out of the whites with guns, since that's what you do to unarmed black protesters?"

It seems to me the question should be framed as, "why didn't you leave the unarmed black protesters alone, like you are doing to the white militants?"  There's still hypocrisy being pointed out, but it sets the level of morality as peaceful law enforcement responses to protest, instead of violent ones.

I dunno.  Just what's been on my FB feed of late.


Anyway, that didn't answer your question.  Just wanted to comment.

I see their reasoning, but the problem is that the only events that I can think of in recent US history involving nonwhite protesters are the Native American occupations of Alcatraz and Wounded Knee, which were both handled very similarly to how this is going down. Then there are the many instances of white cults or militants holing up in some property, which were handled similarly or (as in the case of Ruby Ridge) more aggressively. By comparing the occupation of the forest service building to riots in Baltimore and Ferguson, in my opinion people are doing a disservice to the argument, because those situations are not comparable.

In fact, a lot about this situation is not comparable to most tense protest/occupation situations involving minorities, simply because this situation is about land rights -- white people feeling entitled to Federal property, which is an attitude minorities in the US typically just don't have. The closest thing to it is Native Americans protesting being robbed of their land, which also, while typically handled poorly, is usually (in the 20th century and beyond) not handled by declaring them terrorists and firebombing the occupation.

Saying "WHAT IF people of color were doing this?" is not a convincing argument, simply because it's a little like saying "WHAT IF people of color were responsible for the economic collapse?" It assumes a social structure in which people of color could reasonably conclude that  it is their god-given right to access the resources of Federal land without paying a lease just because they want to and their Daddy did it, which isn't the universe we actually live in. And if it was, the Feds would probably be handling it exactly as they are now, because in that universe, people of color have that level of privilege.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 05, 2016, 08:49:05 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 05, 2016, 08:00:15 PM
Cain, what do you think of the idea that a lot of people are posting on the idiotbooks that the Malheur occupiers should be considered terrorists and treated as such? While I can see their point to some degree, regarding  the unbalanced response of the government compared to (thus far hypothetical situations) in which the occupiers are black or Muslim, they are occupying a completely uninhabited area, which I would tend to think makes them not terrorists. Or at least, very bad at it.

It's a bit of a gray area, to be sure.

I would say it is, but I have a fairly expansive view of terrorism, and I wouldn't consider it an especially egregious case of terrorism, like the classic "plant a bomb in a cafe" sense.

Instead, I'd say this is more on a level with what eco-terrorists do.  As I'm sure you're aware, while eco-terrorists occasionally go into serious terrorism, sabotaging logging sites, assassinating scientists and similar, for the most part they bomb empty buildings to "make a point" and drive up insurance costs.  It is terrorism, but only in a very technical sense

In this case, I'd say the terrorism comes not from the occupation or the protest, but from the statements and the guns.  Protests are fine, occupation is a valid protest tactic.  However, when you throw guns into the mix, alongside comments about "being willing to use them" or words to that effect, it becomes a slightly more serious matter.  There the implication is that if law enforcement were to evict the occupiers, they would respond violently.  In effect, it's holding the property hostage, as a form of provocation, in hope of provoking a law enforcement response which would galvanise the militia movement (or at least that is how it appears - that they brought little in the way of supplies is telling).

I mean, I'd be fine if the American courts wanted to prosecute this as purely a criminal affair - it would in many ways be the best political response because it denies the legitimacy of any of the political greivances of the militia groups involved.  But under US law, if they wanted to pursue terrorism charges, I think they would have reasonable grounds to do so under existing domestic terrorism definitions (which would hinge on the "armed" and "coercing policy" aspects).  I obviously don't think that would be the smart move, and it would add credibility to the militia movement propaganda that Obama is a dictator, using anti-terrorism legislation to lock up loyal American citizens (which ironically is kinda what they're protesting about).

Academically, it would fit some definitions, but definitely on the lower end of the scale of political violence.  If wars and genocide are the top end of that scale, this would be right down on the bottom of the scale, the point after which things would turn into "arsey protests" and similar.

Some of the liberal responses have been a bit hyperbolic though, I definitely agree there.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 05, 2016, 09:02:35 PM
Thanks, Cain! I definitely agree that the purpose of the protest seems to be to goad the government into escalating the aggression so that the occupiers feel they will be justified in fighting back, and also so that more of these fringe militants will come to their aid. In that respect, I think the government's response of watching and waiting is exactly the correct one.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 05, 2016, 09:05:28 PM
Yeah, the Feds are playing it smart for a change.

I definitely think the provocation aspect is part of what makes me feel this is more terrorism.  It's very "People's Will"...carry out a small scale, illegal operation to provoke a massive state response to justify a campaign of violence.  They were hoping for Ruby Ridge 2.0...instead, they got "medieval warfare: seigecraft edition".
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 05, 2016, 10:09:56 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 05, 2016, 09:05:28 PM
Yeah, the Feds are playing it smart for a change.

I definitely think the provocation aspect is part of what makes me feel this is more terrorism.  It's very "People's Will"...carry out a small scale, illegal operation to provoke a massive state response to justify a campaign of violence.  They were hoping for Ruby Ridge 2.0...instead, they got "medieval warfare: seigecraft edition".

:lulz: My first thought when they took over the building is "Well, this'll be easy to wait out". There's nothing out there. Harney County has a total population of under 7500 people, and it's some of the least hospitable territory in Oregon. Plus, it's January, and the high desert is cold as fuck right now. I'm sure the building has heat... if it hasn't been shut down for the off-season.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 05, 2016, 10:18:51 PM
I mean, they decided to go here, in winter, with no snacks:

(https://oregondesert.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/sagehen_lake_w.jpg)

I'm not even sure how it's made international news.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 05, 2016, 10:24:38 PM
Patriots burn warm with the feeling of FREEDOM.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Freeky on January 09, 2016, 08:48:19 AM
Cain, why does the American government feel the need to control the entire god damn world? 


If this is a dumb question, my bad.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 09, 2016, 06:50:23 PM
Are we talking about any specific time period, or more generally?

Because it kinda varies post-WWI/WWII/ColdWar/current, in the specifics at least.  And while the generalised version ties all that together...it's pretty boring.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Freeky on January 14, 2016, 10:34:41 PM
Currently really.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 14, 2016, 10:42:16 PM
Answer forthcoming tomorrow.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Freeky on January 16, 2016, 09:41:42 PM
Yessss. :)
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 17, 2016, 09:54:14 AM
Basically, no-one ever really planned for a post-Cold War world.

Sure, I'm sure someone, in a basement in Langley or the Pentagon, wrote a speculative analysis of how the Soviet Union might collapse and the immediate aftermath....but chances were that person a) didn't have much of a career anyway, and b) wasn't taken seriously.  All the "serious" people were either the professional Kreminologists, who were so far in the box the idea that their may no longer even be a box couldn't occur to them, and the "Team B" style nutters who spent most of the 70s and 80s hyping the Soviet threat.

So, the Soviet Union collapses.  Russia undergoes a....worrying period where Soviet hardliners try to take power, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union, followed by Yeltsin taking power and ruthlessly crushing the competition.  Civil and interstate wars break out everywhere from Yugoslavia to the Caucasus to Central Asia as former Soviet states or factions within them try to settle scores and grab as much cash and land as possible (Pakistan played an interesting and covert role in helping stir up trouble in those states with a large number of Muslims, directing the mujahideen problem it helped create away from its own borders).

In addition to this, the collapse of Soviet support also impacted on groups in Africa.  Covert funding for wars in the USSR's interest dried up, giving a shot in the arm to groups who didn't rely on Moscow's benevolence.  Arms also flooded the market, as former Soviet military officers seized and stole military supplies in the collapse of the Union.  Ukraine in particular became a well known nexus of international arms smuggling.

So that's the background context.  In addition to that, the 1990s saw the vicious return of civil wars, religiously inspired terrorism and mass human suffering while, at the same time, the global economy was becoming more interconnected and international travel was becoming ever easier.  So you have Somalia, Rwanda, the rise of groups like Hamas and Al-Qaeda...and even internaly this was an issue in the USA.  WTC bombing in 1993, the rise of the militia/Patriot movement, culminating in the OKC Bombing in 96...and the spectre that, in this chaos, a terrorist group may acquire WMDs.  Aum Shinrikyo, even though they made their own, showed this fear was not without foundation, as did the constant smuggling of nuclear material into Europe by way of Russia (European police and intelligence agencies picked up a lot during the 90s).

The US, looking at this situation, can only come to one conclusion, "shit is fucked".  The Soviet Union's collapse created a global power vacuum which a thousand, tiny, disparate actors stepped into, spreading misery and ruin around the world.  NATO was "helpful", but Europe was barely unified, and its military spending was slacking off without a Russian threat on the borders to justify it.  China wasn't going to help...China wanted exactly two things, to make massive amounts of money, and to stare at its navel when asked about foreign issues.  Japan was constitutionally restrained, and economically a basket case.  Russia was a complete disaster in the making, and might not even be around in a decade the way things were going.

9/11 just reinforced alll these fears.

America, much like empires before it, needed to impose order on the world.  By integrating those states that stood outside the system into the global capitalist market economy, it could put them in a situation where they were inside a system in which America was dominant and impose a form of order on them.  Control outsourced, managed by foreign direct investment and Wall Street, the investment bankers and so on.  And if those nations werent willing to open their economies to such measures...well, that was what the military was for, right?  Go in, smash the existing system, depose the rulers and set up a new system run by whatever locals weren't profiting from the previous system.

Same for the terrorist groups, the nonstate actors, the insurgents.  They were hiding out at the borders of the nation-states, in places where there was no real rule of law, no effective governance.  Go in, smash the groups, and set up a new government to oversee integration into the global system.  It sounds so easy, right?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on January 17, 2016, 02:56:22 PM
Thanks for this. It's definitely a new perspective beyond the "American ego-driven empire".
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on January 17, 2016, 05:01:21 PM
Cain, that was great. Thanks.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Freeky on January 18, 2016, 12:00:46 AM
This makes so much sense.  Thanks a lot, Cain!
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on February 08, 2016, 08:05:09 AM
Cain,

What are your thoughts on the People's Republic of China's seemingly unwavering support of North Korea?

Is the PRC's want of a buffer state between them and South Korea really worth the price? Is the PRC really that afraid of a unified Korea?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 08, 2016, 09:24:03 AM
I think China wants in on the DPRK's vast mineral resources, which are not insignificant (http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/north-korea-may-have-two-thirds-of-worlds-rare-earths/).

Furthermore, supporting North Korea's acts of random omnibelligerence is a good reminder to Japan, who are poised to intervene (http://atimes.com/2016/01/japans-master-plan-to-destroy-the-chinese-navy-in-battle/) and lay waste to China's most heavily populated and economically successful region if demanded, that such actions are not without consequence.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on February 08, 2016, 11:26:07 AM
Quote from: Cain on February 08, 2016, 09:24:03 AM
I think China wants in on the DPRK's vast mineral resources, which are not insignificant (http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/north-korea-may-have-two-thirds-of-worlds-rare-earths/).

Furthermore, supporting North Korea's acts of random omnibelligerence is a good reminder to Japan, who are poised to intervene (http://atimes.com/2016/01/japans-master-plan-to-destroy-the-chinese-navy-in-battle/) and lay waste to China's most heavily populated and economically successful region if demanded, that such actions are not without consequence.

Thanks Cain,

I'm aware of the importance and value of rare earth elements. I did not, however, know that North Korea held the world's largest deposits. Thank you for that specific information. 

That, however, just makes Kim Jong-un's behavior even more perplexing to me. I mean, I did not know the man is sitting on top of a vast fortune, all the while allowing his people to live with the threat of starvation hanging over their heads. It's easy to say that the guy is crazy, but really, what the hell?

All that military activity in the South China Sea, etc. has me equally baffled, even more so after reading the article you posted. But, I'm going to take some time to gather my thoughts, and I'll post something more on that subject later on.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on February 08, 2016, 03:05:51 PM
Nothing substantial to add, I just wanted to call "Omnibelligerence" for a future company name.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on February 08, 2016, 03:32:54 PM
Also,
QuotePacific Century has been given a 25 year contract to develop the Jongju deposit, and reportedly intends to build a processing plant on site. However, the North Korean regime has a long history of abruptly cancelling long-term contracts with foreign companies, sometimes merely on a whim but also because of changes in the political relations between Pyongyang and the company's home country.

During the Sunshine Policy of the 1990s, for example, many South Korean mineral companies invested heavily in North Korea, only to lose their investments when tensions between the two Koreas returned. Equally troubling for SRE Minerals, at times North Korea has encouraged foreign companies to make huge initial human and capital investments in the country, only to kick out the companies after these investments had been made. This is what happened to the Xiyang Group, a huge Chinese mining conglomerate, who invested $40 million in building a mine and training North Koreans only to be ordered to leave the country once domestic workers could handle the work independently.

That's fucking hilarious.

And also surprising really. If you're the kind of outfit that can take a punt on this level of cash, surely you have ways and means of enforcing and securing your investment? Apparently not.

Or it's possibly a cracking tax write off. "Can't pay, NK stole my shit".
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 09, 2016, 08:04:02 AM
Quote from: Gray Area on February 08, 2016, 11:26:07 AM
Quote from: Cain on February 08, 2016, 09:24:03 AM
I think China wants in on the DPRK's vast mineral resources, which are not insignificant (http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/north-korea-may-have-two-thirds-of-worlds-rare-earths/).

Furthermore, supporting North Korea's acts of random omnibelligerence is a good reminder to Japan, who are poised to intervene (http://atimes.com/2016/01/japans-master-plan-to-destroy-the-chinese-navy-in-battle/) and lay waste to China's most heavily populated and economically successful region if demanded, that such actions are not without consequence.

Thanks Cain,

I'm aware of the importance and value of rare earth elements. I did not, however, know that North Korea held the world's largest deposits. Thank you for that specific information. 

That, however, just makes Kim Jong-un's behavior even more perplexing to me. I mean, I did not know the man is sitting on top of a vast fortune, all the while allowing his people to live with the threat of starvation hanging over their heads. It's easy to say that the guy is crazy, but really, what the hell?

All that military activity in the South China Sea, etc. has me equally baffled, even more so after reading the article you posted. But, I'm going to take some time to gather my thoughts, and I'll post something more on that subject later on.

Thanks again.

North Korea's political behaviour is constrained by specific internal conditions.  Specifically the North Korean military has a very large say in North Korean politics, and maintaining a state of affairs where North Korea is considered hostile and suspect by the world at large strengthens their hand in internal politics.  North Korea could open itself up to trade, liberalize...but that would weaken the military to the benefit of the North Korea Workers Party who, in this scenario, would quick likely develop along similar lines to the Chinese Communist Party.

My thinking is that China would like to see such a development, and indeed some of the early developments in North Korea when Jong-Un assumed power suggested this may be the case.  However, political leaders in North Korea who could've reigned in the military were either sidelined, or killed by Jong-Un for bizarre and implausible acts of "treason".  Jong-Un also wasn't seen publically for several months.  IMO, a palace coup occured, with the military taking firm control of the regime and leaving Jong-Un as a figurehead.

China isnt thrilled about that outcome, I suspect, but so long as North Korea's military is willing to stress its beserker opposition to South Korea, Japan and America, it acts as a potential headache for any future naval war between Japan and China.  So they're willing to live with it, for now.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 18, 2016, 05:07:17 AM
Any suggestions on a good, concise version of the Thai political crisis from 2008 on? Wikipedia article fried my damn brain.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 18, 2016, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 18, 2016, 05:07:17 AM
Any suggestions on a good, concise version of the Thai political crisis from 2008 on? Wikipedia article fried my damn brain.

As you may have guessed from the Wikipedia article, the Thai crisis has incredibly deep roots in Thai history, geography and politics, which means learning about it in any kind of depth means doing an undergrad course in Thai Modern History, in essence.

This (https://asiancorrespondent.com/2014/01/2006-2014-thailand-political-crisis-timeline/) is a pretty decent timeline, while this (http://blog) gives some more insight into the major players.  The influence of the royal family cannot be underestimated, so I'd also give this (http://www.economist.com/node/12724800) a look.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 18, 2016, 04:40:23 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 18, 2016, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 18, 2016, 05:07:17 AM
Any suggestions on a good, concise version of the Thai political crisis from 2008 on? Wikipedia article fried my damn brain.

As you may have guessed from the Wikipedia article, the Thai crisis has incredibly deep roots in Thai history, geography and politics, which means learning about it in any kind of depth means doing an undergrad course in Thai Modern History, in essence.

This (https://asiancorrespondent.com/2014/01/2006-2014-thailand-political-crisis-timeline/) is a pretty decent timeline, while this (http://blog) gives some more insight into the major players.  The influence of the royal family cannot be underestimated, so I'd also give this (http://www.economist.com/node/12724800) a look.

Thanks! I found this guy giving no fucks and the article was just a little too current events focused to get me all the way there: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/20/thailand
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 18, 2016, 05:58:29 PM
Yeah, back at the start of 2014 I wrote an article on Thailand for a website...did about three days worth of research to come to the conclusion "shit is fucked and won't get fixed very quickly".  I'm sure I still have it somewhere, if you want a look?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on February 18, 2016, 06:10:26 PM
I think I've got enough for the short blurb from that timeline. Not entirely sure I've got enough room in the ol' brainmeats for the full breakdown. Don't let my lameness stop you if it's something you want to dig up, though!
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on June 09, 2016, 10:34:55 AM
Hey Cain,

Seeing as how this ISIS thing has gone on for quite a while now, is there any chance of consolidating a nation state out of this? I'm guessing you could possibly get a Crimea situation where a large enough chunk "votes" to join a neighbouring nation, if said nation had the military facilities to back up it's claim.

More broadly, how possible is it in general for terrorists who hold territory to stake a claim for sovereignty? I'm guessing the answer varies vastly on what territory you're trying to hold which is why there's some resistance in the middle east and far less in Africa. 


Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on June 12, 2016, 05:47:55 PM
Usually terrorists trying to take over a state take over an already established one.  It's easier that way, in terms of international recognition, the existing machinery of state etc.  See the FLN in Algeria for possibly the ur-example of this type of thing (then watch Algiers).

ISIS isn't looking too hot right now.  Seems like everyone has decided to put them at the top of their shitlist, and their primary strength has been playing the sides against each other while it did its own thing.  Now the Iraqi Army (+ Shiite death squads) are attacking from one side, the Kurds and SDF are taking huge swathes of territory in the north and the Syrian Arab Army is attacking in the south.

They'd also probably be getting attacked from the west, only there's a desert and a bunch of mountains there, effectively pinning them in place.  So they're kinda fucked.

More broadly speaking it is very hard to get recognition for a breakway region without great power (and specifically American) backing.  Russia has been supporting breakway statelets with far more claim to nationhood than IS for decades, and no-one except Russia and Belarus recognise those poor sods.  By and large America supports the international status quo, and the international status quo is to accept existing boundaries and states where possible.  Compared with the previous 150 years, the post-Cold War period has been remarkably stable in this particular way, and I suspect American strategists are afraid what could happen to that stability if that norm were undermined. 

And quite frankly, no-one wants anything to do with ISIS.  Even Turkey keeps their support covert, because they find ISIS repugnant on a very basic level.  No-one is going to waste their political capital on putting forward the case for Islamic State at the UN.  No-one wants to give Islamic State the right to build embassies, or treat their insurgents as professional soldiers.

Sooner or later we will have to talk with ISIS, because the alternative is a neverending bloodbath.  But I suspect most of the world prefers that conversation be done at gunpoint, and involves convincing moderate elements to stand down and accept incarceration for war crimes.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on January 18, 2017, 05:14:53 PM
Cain, what do you think of Samantha Powers' assessment of Russia in her UN report?
Found here (yes, it's Vox): http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/18/14300598/samantha-power-russia-final-speech

Basically, Russia finds it easier to gain power by destroying existing frameworks, but doesn't have a plan how to build new ones.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 18, 2017, 05:35:43 PM
Pretty much.  The only noteworthy contributions by Russia to international stability is the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the Eurasian Economic Community, which are basically warmed over, watered down variations on the EU, with little attempt to further integrate and all involving former Soviet territory.

All of those were also organizations founded in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on February 14, 2017, 03:36:52 PM
Hey Cain,

I've been thinking about a few situations that may arise over the next few years in the US/UK and I think it may be worth talking about the national debts of both.

In the US, Trump has had no issues in going bang to escape debts. Is there any chance that he could try and pull the same shit on a nation state level? "It's too high, it's a bad deal, we're not paying it" kind of approach?

In the UK, in between the various bouts of brexit bullshit and austerity, the national debt gets a nod here and there too. I realised I had no idea what the total actually is, so wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt

QuoteThe British Government debt is rising due to a gap between revenue and expenditure. Total government revenue in the fiscal year 2015/16 was projected to be £673 billion, whereas total expenditure was estimated at £742 billion. Therefore, the total deficit was £69 billion. This represented a rate of borrowing of a little over £1.3 billion per week.

It strikes me that if people are willing to believe that the NHS will get XXX extra million because brexit, what will they buy into if there's a possibility of £1.3 billion extra kicking around every week? I know that's not what it says, but almost certainly how it would get spun.

To try and summarise:

1 - Could the UK/US refuse to service the debts?
2 - What would/could the consequences of this decision realistically be?
2b - If(when) brexit turns everything to shit, will this raise the possibility of fucking off further payments?

I do have a few more questions and this may be worth it's own thread as we've all been dealing with this austerity bullshit in one fashion or another but the root causes of it are rarely spoken about (South Sea Company fuckery for instance with the UK).
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 14, 2017, 09:05:31 PM
In theory yes, a nation-state can refuse to pay its debts.

These debts are created via the Treasury bonds.  In effect, the governments in question would refuse to pay owners of those bonds what they are owed.  So, as a consequence, the percieved value of those bonds would drop through a floor in such a steep way it would make the devaluation of sterling in the aftermath of the Brexit vote seem like a mere blip in comparison.  The yield of those who continued to purchase bonds would rise as a consequence, making borrowing more expensive while providing less benefit.

(incidentally, Japanese purchasers of US bonds are getting nervous enough about Trump that they are not buying bonds at previous levels under Obama and Bush II).

Markets would plunge around the world, and interest rates would also likely spike.  It would almost certainly lead to a depression in the country that did it, as well as large purchasers of bonds, such as Japan and China.

As for the UK doing it...I don't see it being likely.  They're not going to honour any promises regarding the NHS - what are people going to do, vote Labour or UKIP?  Trump...who the fuck knows what he is doing or thinking at any given time.  He's so economically naive he had to ring Michael "fired for consorting with the Russian Ambassador" Flynn and ask him if a weak or strong dollar was better for the US economy.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 14, 2017, 09:22:24 PM
And of course, aside from foreign governments, a large number of companies purchase UK bonds in particular.  The Bank of England also purchases them.  So companies would go bankrupt, in particular pension funds and other financial institutions.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on February 14, 2017, 09:42:24 PM
Much appreciated sir, this level of economics isn't a strong suit.

Still, I can't rule out trump trying something stupid here. It just seems inevitable, really. It worked for him on a personal level and I doubt any of the advisers are going to explain the consequences with the level of detail you just did. Hell, I'd bet that most of them couldn't anyway.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on February 22, 2017, 05:02:48 AM
Trump could try to default on debt, but I'm not sure he actually has the unilateral power to do that. It's a flagrant violation of a specific and explicit provision of the Constitution for starters, and also Congress is the branch that writes the budget, not the President. Even if Trump did try to do something like that by ordering the Treasury Secretary to do something monumentally stupid, I can't imagine Congress (even if it is absolutely worthless in every other respect) standing by and allowing it. If anything can move them toward impeachment, the willful destruction of the entire economy would have to be it. But then again, it's Congress, so who knows.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on June 06, 2017, 02:25:36 PM
Dear Cain:

On a scale from covfefe to bigly, how bad is the Qatar situation? (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/middleeast/saudi-bahrain-egypt-uae-qatar-terror/)

Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on June 06, 2017, 06:27:39 PM
It's somewhat bigly.

It's basically every measure short of slapping sanctions on them and declaring war.  Qatar has been acting like a dick for a long time, and its support for the Muslim Brotherhood has not won it allies in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, as well as its funding of extremist factions in Libya (which contributes to Egypt's mess).

It looks like the KSA, UAE and Egypt have decided to use Trump's speech as an opportune time to lay the blame at the feet of Qatar for all Sunni terrorist funding in the Middle East, and claim its conspiring with Iran at the same time (because that makes total sense).  Qatar has been trying to use its links to the MB and terrorist groups to improve its standing in the Middle East and make itself into a power player on a par with Iran, KSA and Turkey, but clearly they overstepped their boundaries with regards to the existing power players of the GCG. 

Qatar's foreign policy has also been on collision course with KSA for a while.  Yes, the KSA is going all out in Syria, but that's because Syria is an Iranian ally - it doesn't want the chaos to spread any further than that (of course, that maybe they shouldn't support terrorism in Syria to avoid overseas chaos never occurs...), while Qatar has, through the Muslim Brotherhood, undermining the more traditional monarchies and military dictatorships in the region.  That, Saudi Arabia does not like one bit.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on June 06, 2017, 06:58:57 PM
Wow.  So how do you see it all playing out?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on June 06, 2017, 10:56:47 PM
Poorly.  Qatar is the forward base for CENTCOM.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on June 06, 2017, 11:20:40 PM
And CNN just ran this...

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/politics/russian-hackers-planted-fake-news-qatar-crisis/index.html

QuoteUS investigators believe Russian hackers breached Qatar's state news agency and planted a fake news report that contributed to a crisis among the US' closest Gulf allies, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.

The FBI recently sent a team of investigators to Doha to help the Qatari government investigate the alleged hacking incident, Qatari and US government officials say.

Intelligence gathered by the US security agencies indicates that Russian hackers were behind the intrusion first reported by the Qatari government two weeks ago, US officials say. Qatar hosts one of the largest US military bases in the region.

The alleged involvement of Russian hackers intensifies concerns by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies that Russia continues to try some of the same cyber-hacking measures on US allies that intelligence agencies believe it used to meddle in the 2016 elections.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on June 07, 2017, 04:17:21 PM
Suddenly, isolationism is sounding less horrible...

[/selfish murkin]
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on June 20, 2017, 02:59:02 PM
What's going on in Yemen?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on June 20, 2017, 03:17:52 PM
Civil war, cholera and Saudi-led intervention.

Basically, the Houthis, a tribe traditionally discriminated against by the central government, started another round of insurgency recently.  This isn't exactly unheard of, except this time around they were backed by former President Saleh of Yemen (deposed in the Arab Spring) and sort of half-heartedly backed by Iranian arms.

Seeing an advantage, both Al-Qaeda in Yemen and ISIS in Yemen decided to add to the chaos, attacking each other, the central government and, especially in the case of ISIS, the Houthis (whose Shia beliefs are anathema to ISIS Sunni chauvinism).  So, in a 4-sided civil war, in the poorest Arab state, the country quickly fell apart. 

Saudi Arabia, disliking chaos on its southern border and the possibility for AQ in Yemen to expand (AQiY is essentially made up of the remnants of the fledging Saudi branch of AQ who fled across the border), launched an invasion with the backing of the Gulf Cooperation Group and the tacit approval of the USA/UK.  It's been sold as checking Iranian influence, but the Iranian influence over the Houthis is questionable, to put it mildly. 

The Saudis have covered themselves in glory by essentially carpet bombing civilian areas to the ground, targeting aid convoys, launching missile strikes on hospitals and basically living up to my own very low assessment of the Saudi military as a daycare centre for sociopathic Saudi youths who couldn't win a real fight if their lives depended on it, but would happily skewer a toddler to show you how "badass" they are.  Unsurprisingly, this has not helped the "official" government, who are steadily losing ground and have been driven from the capital, but it has done wonders for the prospects of cholera and other diseases, which in addition to famine promise to kill even more civilians than the Saudi Air Force (though not for lack of trying - the Saudi military labelled an entire 40,000 pop town as a "legitimate military target" a few months back).

Oh, and the whole country is awash with modern arms thanks to Bush II and Obama arming them to the hilt as part of a counter-terrorism program...even though it ended up that the US would go in and drone strike the target anyway, and let Yemen take the "credit" (which raises the question of why Yemen needs those arms at all...if you're thinking "defense industry kickbacks", then you're exactly right).
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on June 20, 2017, 03:46:09 PM
Thanks Cain!

Sounds like a proper clusterfuck.

So the UK isn't actually /at war/ with Yemen but by supporting/arming the Saudis are linked?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Vanadium Gryllz on June 20, 2017, 03:48:06 PM
Oh!

I would also be interested in hearing your thoughts on the implications of Russia's statement that they're gonna be shooting down any US jets they find in Syria?

All posturing or potential to fuel further conflict?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on June 20, 2017, 03:50:49 PM
Yes, and by providing a certain amount of political cover by way of complete disinterest in the conflict.

There are ongoing Scotland Yard investigations which link into war crime allegations against the KSA, but I don't hold out much hope of them going anywhere.  I think Scotland Yard will do the work, but as you know, everything to do with Saudi Arabia in the UK is a "matter of national security" and so at some point the whole thing will get stonewalled.  Just like the Al-Yamamah bribe allegations.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on June 20, 2017, 05:54:09 PM
Sorry, was writing.

Regarding Russia...the most dangerous as fuck statement out of that conflict so far. 

If Russia tries to shoot down a US military aircraft, the US military will respond.  Russia's air presence in Syria is modest, 70ish planes, and over half of those are tactical and strategic bombers.  On the other hand, the US has the entire USS George HW Bush carrier strike group, which can carry a similar amount of planes, and has the Charles de Gaulle French aircraft carrier backing them up.  In addition to that, the UK, Jordan and the Netherlands also have F-16s operating in the area.

But that doesn't matter so much as potentially causing a war with Russia.  That's a diplomatic crisis I don't think the US could handle at all right now...even putting aside misgivings about Trump's own Russia links.  The State Department has been gutted and the WH has no clue what its Syria policy is on a day to day basis.  I can see it being a complete mess.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Bruno on June 20, 2017, 06:39:53 PM
So, assuming for the moment that collusion happened, and a war between the U.S. and Russia was part of the plan all along, how does Putin benefit?

If this is the case, there are three possibilities on Trump's end. He could be:

A.) just an unwitting stooge
B.) in on the plan
C.) an unwitting stooge who is in on the plan, or at least thinks he is.

How could Trump benefit from this war?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on June 20, 2017, 07:44:48 PM
In the case of Syria?  US backs down in face of Russia, allowing them free reign to support Assad in country.  War would be in everyone's worst interests, I don't think anyone wants war between the major powers (even though Russia's only one on a technicality) but the previous scenario would work out nicely for Russia.

That said, I don't subscribe to the maximalist theory that "Trump is a Russian agent doing Putin's every bidding". 
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Bruno on June 20, 2017, 09:59:45 PM
Yeah, Probably not. Lately, my optimism has been on a bit of a downswing, though.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on June 21, 2017, 01:20:00 PM
Well, his authoritarian instincts and disdain for everything Obama did, no matter how sensible, do certainly look like something a Russian agent would do.  But if the Steele dossier is true, his hatred for Obama (due to being mocked at the WH Correspondents Dinner in 12?) outweighs a lot of his "political convictions".

I suspect the specific collusion with Trump was as follows: Russia will arrange damaging leaks about Clinton and set up generous loans for Trump org ventures via "independent" Russian banks.  In return, if Trump wins, sanctions on Russia go away, support for Ukraine is dropped.  In other words, it was tightly focused and a quid quo pro, not an open-ended arrangement.

However, I suspect other members of the Trump team had different arrangements.  Flynn, Manafort and Sessions, for example.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on June 21, 2017, 02:12:57 PM
There's also the fact that, from Putin's point of view, Trump just winning was a good enough endgame to be worth the effort. I can't imagine a player like Vlad would really need any leverage or inside track to capitalise on a complete retard being in charge of his biggest geopolitical rival.

Trump Potus will do as much damage to mainland USA as a dozen tactical nuclear strikes washed down with a land invasion chaser but with none of the guilt  :lulz:
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Bruno on June 21, 2017, 04:51:12 PM
Trump doesn't seem like the type who would live up to his end of a bargain for, say, ethics reasons. Once he has what he wants, the other guy can immediately go piss up a rope unless he has some expectation of further business. Same for Putin. I can't help but wonder what's going to happen once one of them has gotten everything they wanted.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on June 21, 2017, 05:25:33 PM
Well if Trump did have a deal, Russian intelligence would have blackmail material on him.  Either way, they win, because either he does what they say for fear of exposure, or the tape is released and the ensuing chaos brings down his presidency.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on January 24, 2019, 01:03:12 PM
Well, it's that time again.

What's your take on Venezuela?  Sounds like there's bad actors on every side, and there are more than three sides.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 24, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
1. Maduro is a bastard.  He's the worst of Chavez and not very smart to boot.
2. He blatantly rigged the last election.  The other guy is probably the legitimate leader, as per the US and EU's comments, though I'd personally prefer a re-run under the auspices of international observers.
3. The US actually doing anything will be horrific.  It is already trying to engineer a diplomatic and possibly hostage crisis with its own embassy staff.
4. Actual action by the US is probably the one thing left that could get people to unify behind Maduro.
5. Keep an eye on Brazil.  Their new President is a neofascist who admires Trump, and the US and Brazilian military have surprisingly strong links.  Colombia would be the more logical proxy, but they're currently having issues with regards to the peace process and may be too tied up keeping the border issue maintained to do much more.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on January 24, 2019, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 24, 2019, 09:29:15 PM
1. Maduro is a bastard.  He's the worst of Chavez and not very smart to boot.
2. He blatantly rigged the last election.  The other guy is probably the legitimate leader, as per the US and EU's comments, though I'd personally prefer a re-run under the auspices of international observers.
3. The US actually doing anything will be horrific.  It is already trying to engineer a diplomatic and possibly hostage crisis with its own embassy staff.
4. Actual action by the US is probably the one thing left that could get people to unify behind Maduro.
5. Keep an eye on Brazil.  Their new President is a neofascist who admires Trump, and the US and Brazilian military have surprisingly strong links.  Colombia would be the more logical proxy, but they're currently having issues with regards to the peace process and may be too tied up keeping the border issue maintained to do much more.

I absolutely guarantee that we will fuck the dog on this one.  169%.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 25, 2019, 07:37:26 AM
It's looking that way.  Brazil also worries me, because the President is already having a mini-scandal over his son's links to a Rio de Jainero death squad.  Is it Wag the Dog time? I'm not clear enough on Brazil's political culture right now to say for sure  (I was both disturbed and alarmed to see just how many inroads Evangelicals had made into the nominally still Catholic Brazil and its elite power structures), but the internal political conditions there will absolutely affect their and the US response.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on January 26, 2019, 04:33:59 AM
Quote from: Cain on January 25, 2019, 07:37:26 AM
It's looking that way.  Brazil also worries me, because the President is already having a mini-scandal over his son's links to a Rio de Jainero death squad.  Is it Wag the Dog time? I'm not clear enough on Brazil's political culture right now to say for sure  (I was both disturbed and alarmed to see just how many inroads Evangelicals had made into the nominally still Catholic Brazil and its elite power structures), but the internal political conditions there will absolutely affect their and the US response.

Does Brazil even have the infrastructure to attack Venezuela?  I know they can punch Uruguay, Argentina, etc, but Venezuela is on the other end of the rain forest.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 26, 2019, 10:27:43 AM
They've actually been relocating troops to the northern Amazon for a couple of decades now as part of a long-term plan to bolster border security in the north, but their overall prescence is pretty patchy.  The plan was to bring in the military, build the infrastructure, and populate the north with displaced residents from the northeast region, but with the fall of the military government, everything except the first one stalled.  They do have the airports, but the highways are in bad shape.

That said, my thinking was Brazilian soldiers (with US oversight) training Venezuelans and sending them through the barely defended border.  There's a lot of Venezuelan refugees in Florida (for the wealthy ones) and Colombia (for the poor ones), and with Elliot Abrams in the mix, we know death squads are going to be a plan somewhere along the way.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on July 07, 2019, 12:24:37 AM
Cain,

What is your take on this Daily Mail article? Is it legitimate?

"Britain's man in the the US says Trump is 'inept': Leaked secret cables from ambassador say the President is 'uniquely dysfunctional and his career could end in disgrace'"

Here's the link: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7220335/Britains-man-says-Trump-inept-Cables-ambassador-say-dysfunctional.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

Thanks.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on July 07, 2019, 07:25:19 AM
Probably, yes.

While it's worth taking anything in the Daily Mail with a pinch of salt, it should be noted that the former editor has stepped down and the Mail is now trying to fill the "centre-right" market in the UK newspapers, a position that has been vacated over the past decade or so by the Telegraph, which has seen a certain level of improvement in its reporting. Also this has been reported elsewhere.

Part of the ambassador's remit is to observe the political culture in the host country for how it may impact on their state's interests. Trump has been...disquieting for the UK, because he comes at a time when our relationship with Europe is poor, we are under increased pressure from Russia and China and we do not know if we can rely on our traditional transatlantic ally to make up the difference. Especially in military terms this is worrying, as America forms the backbone of NATO (by design, despite Trump's constant whining) and a decade of cuts, on the back of a decade of military adventurism, have left the UK armed forces in a precarious position.

In particular there are concerns that the President would use Brexit to advance an economic agenda not only damaging to the UK, but that he personally benefits from. In addition to that, his erratic, personalised style of leadership make him prone to sudden actions that don't fit a usual cost/benefit allowance and he has proven highly susceptible to flattery from some very unwelcome personalities, in lieu of traditional allies who may tell him things he does not want to hear. His slashing of the existing US government bureaucracy and reliance on "acting" heads of department also make it harder for the UK to coordinate action with American counterparts on a wide range of issues.

Iran is also a particular annoyance, as the UK government invested heavily into the negotiations and it was the Americans - not the Iranians - who torpedoed the deal.

I would like to know who leaked these memos, though. It seems calculated to weaken the UK's relationship with America even further.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on July 08, 2019, 04:50:44 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 07, 2019, 07:25:19 AM
Probably, yes.

While it's worth taking anything in the Daily Mail with a pinch of salt, it should be noted that the former editor has stepped down and the Mail is now trying to fill the "centre-right" market in the UK newspapers, a position that has been vacated over the past decade or so by the Telegraph, which has seen a certain level of improvement in its reporting. Also this has been reported elsewhere.

Part of the ambassador's remit is to observe the political culture in the host country for how it may impact on their state's interests. Trump has been...disquieting for the UK, because he comes at a time when our relationship with Europe is poor, we are under increased pressure from Russia and China and we do not know if we can rely on our traditional transatlantic ally to make up the difference. Especially in military terms this is worrying, as America forms the backbone of NATO (by design, despite Trump's constant whining) and a decade of cuts, on the back of a decade of military adventurism, have left the UK armed forces in a precarious position.

In particular there are concerns that the President would use Brexit to advance an economic agenda not only damaging to the UK, but that he personally benefits from. In addition to that, his erratic, personalised style of leadership make him prone to sudden actions that don't fit a usual cost/benefit allowance and he has proven highly susceptible to flattery from some very unwelcome personalities, in lieu of traditional allies who may tell him things he does not want to hear. His slashing of the existing US government bureaucracy and reliance on "acting" heads of department also make it harder for the UK to coordinate action with American counterparts on a wide range of issues.

Iran is also a particular annoyance, as the UK government invested heavily into the negotiations and it was the Americans - not the Iranians - who torpedoed the deal.

I would like to know who leaked these memos, though. It seems calculated to weaken the UK's relationship with America even further.

See, if I didn't know better, I'd say Trump is running Brexit.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on July 08, 2019, 10:08:39 AM
Well, you have to remember, 56% of the Tory Party think Trump would make a good Prime Minister, as of a very recent poll, and these are the people Tory MPs have to please in order to keep their jobs.

Trump's an opportunist, and not a very subtle one at that, but he provides cover for our own opportunists who are slightly - though in the grand scheme of things not by much - more subtle than Trump himself.

Assuming that this leak wasn't the result of a "third party" with a preference for vodka and furry hats (which I find unlikely, since the Mail apparently dealt directly with the source), a senior UK politician or member of the civil service (but lets be real here, it's a politician) has leaked information detrimental to the UK's foreign and security policy, undermining the confidential arrangements that ambassadors are presumed to operate under in reporting their observations.

Who would do such a thing?

Well, the article itself gives us some clues. Some people are annoyed at the current ambassador being a "remainer". All of a sudden, there are a slew of articles regarding making Farage the next ambassador to the US - you know, despite no diplomatic experience whatsoever and pursuing a narrow, partisan political objective as opposed to the traditional neutrality of the Civil Service. That's a clue.

Another interesting clue is that, as an employee of the Foreign Office, the Ambassador reported to both the men currently running for Prime Minister. Very likely, whoever succeeds will not include the other in the Cabinet. A senior Tory minister with Americanophile and pro-Trump tendencies could describe either of the men in question quite well. And perhaps they'd like the job for themselves, if not to open it for a preferred candidate of their choosing, should they become Prime Minister shortly.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2019, 12:01:19 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 08, 2019, 10:08:39 AM
Well, you have to remember, 56% of the Tory Party think Trump would make a good Prime Minister, as of a very recent poll, and these are the people Tory MPs have to please in order to keep their jobs.

Trump's an opportunist, and not a very subtle one at that, but he provides cover for our own opportunists who are slightly - though in the grand scheme of things not by much - more subtle than Trump himself.

Assuming that this leak wasn't the result of a "third party" with a preference for vodka and furry hats (which I find unlikely, since the Mail apparently dealt directly with the source), a senior UK politician or member of the civil service (but lets be real here, it's a politician) has leaked information detrimental to the UK's foreign and security policy, undermining the confidential arrangements that ambassadors are presumed to operate under in reporting their observations.

Who would do such a thing?

Well, the article itself gives us some clues. Some people are annoyed at the current ambassador being a "remainer". All of a sudden, there are a slew of articles regarding making Farage the next ambassador to the US - you know, despite no diplomatic experience whatsoever and pursuing a narrow, partisan political objective as opposed to the traditional neutrality of the Civil Service. That's a clue.

Another interesting clue is that, as an employee of the Foreign Office, the Ambassador reported to both the men currently running for Prime Minister. Very likely, whoever succeeds will not include the other in the Cabinet. A senior Tory minister with Americanophile and pro-Trump tendencies could describe either of the men in question quite well. And perhaps they'd like the job for themselves, if not to open it for a preferred candidate of their choosing, should they become Prime Minister shortly.

Nigel Farage as an ambassador?   :lulz:

Jesus Christ, that's like slapping someone with an iron glove.  It would be interesting to watch Trump decide if he wants to give Farage a blowjob, or have the secret service have him killed, or maybe both.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on July 09, 2019, 08:16:56 AM
Yeah, though I suspect it's purposefully being put out there so whoever the real candidate is looks sane by comparison.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2019, 05:41:50 PM
So, how bad is this Kashmir crap gonna get?  I swear, it's like once every century, the entire world goes nationalist as hell and then suddenly Serbia.

I would have thought India would have more sense than this.  I assume this is the Indian president propping himself up.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 12, 2019, 08:47:30 PM
Without Pakistan getting involved, which they genuinely seem loathe to do right now, it's going to be somewhere between an ethnic cleansing and a genocide.

The thing to remember about India is that it's run by Indian, Hindu ultranationalists. Modi infamously encouraged the 2002 Gujarat riots, which "officially"saw 700+ Muslims killed, and unofficially killed a hell of a lot more. Modi was effectively boycotted by the UK and USA after that, including refusing him a visa to visit the US in 2005. That's the calibre of the man now running India.

So Kashmir's a difficult one, because historically there has been ethnic cleansing by Kashmiri militant groups, but the Indian security services have also been operating as de facto death squads in the region in response. We're talking mass graves, rape, torture, disappearances...all that kind of thing.  This was under relatively more benign leadership, and, well, Modi... Not to mention that the Indian Army had a very unsatisfactory standoff with the Chinese only a couple of years ago. I suspect a few generals are thinking they can win some plaudits by bringing home an impressive body count in Kashmir to compensate.

It's going to be bloody.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on November 27, 2019, 07:16:38 PM
Dear Mr. teh Cain man,

The 45th president of the US is in the process of declaring Mexican drug cartels Foreign Terrorist Organizations. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=G-8PemAzaNc&feature=emb_logo)

I'm not sure they should be categorized as terrorists, as I don't believe they have a political agenda, per se.  However, I wanted to get the opinion from someone who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: The Johnny on November 27, 2019, 07:34:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on November 27, 2019, 07:16:38 PM
Dear Mr. teh Cain man,

The 45th president of the US is in the process of declaring Mexican drug cartels Foreign Terrorist Organizations. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=G-8PemAzaNc&feature=emb_logo)

I'm not sure they should be categorized as terrorists, as I don't believe they have a political agenda, per se.  However, I wanted to get the opinion from someone who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do.

Thoughts?

Sorry to butt in, but if that's what it takes to prosecute the ATF for selling high caliber weapons to cartels, Im down.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on November 27, 2019, 07:47:16 PM
Quote from: LMNO on November 27, 2019, 07:16:38 PM
Dear Mr. teh Cain man,

The 45th president of the US is in the process of declaring Mexican drug cartels Foreign Terrorist Organizations. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=G-8PemAzaNc&feature=emb_logo)

I'm not sure they should be categorized as terrorists, as I don't believe they have a political agenda, per se.  However, I wanted to get the opinion from someone who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do.

Thoughts?

A political agenda isn't required, AFAIK.  An economic terrorist is still a terrorist.

This, however, implies the USA playing monkeyfuck in Mexico on a covert basis.  Which will end well for all concerned.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on November 27, 2019, 08:38:39 PM
Quote from: LMNO on November 27, 2019, 07:16:38 PM
Dear Mr. teh Cain man,

The 45th president of the US is in the process of declaring Mexican drug cartels Foreign Terrorist Organizations. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=G-8PemAzaNc&feature=emb_logo)

I'm not sure they should be categorized as terrorists, as I don't believe they have a political agenda, per se.  However, I wanted to get the opinion from someone who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do.

Thoughts?

Well, everyone has a political agenda in some sense of the word. The Italian mafia was blowing up entire streets to take out judges in the 1980s, as I'm so fond of reminding people.

But are they actually aiming to displace the state through political violence? Or are they merely using a mixture of violence and corruption to deter local law enforcement and politicians from interferring in their profitable ventures? Are they, as groups, pushing overtly or covertly for political outcomes that cannot be related just to the survival and profitability of the cartels?

I'm not convinced, as you can tell.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: altered on November 27, 2019, 08:44:09 PM
One day I need to to give me a book to read about the whole P2 thing, Cain, because I'm weirdly obsessed with it.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 01, 2019, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: nullified on November 27, 2019, 08:44:09 PM
One day I need to to give me a book to read about the whole P2 thing, Cain, because I'm weirdly obsessed with it.

I had a good one, it was mostly focused on the wider terrorist situation in Italy at the time, but it touched on it.

Ah, here we go.  Philip Willan's Puppetmasters: The Political Use of Terrorism in Italy. Dead tree format isn't cheap, but the Kindle version should be. Beyond that, they're mentioned as piece players in other books, mostly on the mafia.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: LMNO on August 21, 2020, 09:58:32 PM
Dear Mr Cain,

Maybe I'm not as plugged in as I could be, but with all the national attention on Qanon these days (NPR has had a segment on them just about every day for the past week or more), the White Hats haven't gotten around to doxxing Q?  I'd think even if it wasn't for ethical reasons, outing Q would be mega lulz.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 22, 2020, 12:17:16 AM
Because it's not really possible. Q started off on 4chan, then moved to 8chan. You'd need to hack their databases, see which IPs used the triptych and then you'd hit a brick wall. Because of the nature of 4chan and 8chan's anonymous posting, the IP address would be functionally worthless without a larger list of users to reference it against.

Q could be Jim Watkins, owner of 8kun. He could be a Falun Gong member (their websites have heavily pushed Qanon content), seeking to have American evangelical insanity take down China. He could be a Russian FSB cyber disinfo program gone wildly right, at least from the FSB's point of view. Any combination of these could be correct, as all three have vested interests in not just being Q, but amplifying Q's message.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Elder Iptuous on August 22, 2020, 12:23:23 AM
I'm curious to hear more what your analysis of Q is, Cain.
I've got a coworker that is into it, and feeds me from that bubble.
He convinced me that Trump was aware of it, and was, at the least, playing into it.  After enough time, I became convinced that Trump is actively coordinating with whoever it is.  Beyond that, I reserve judgement.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 22, 2020, 12:32:56 AM
I think that's very plausible. I don't think Trump himself is deeply involved, but people in Trump's circle are definitely aware of it, and trying to milk it for all its worth.

I suspect Q was initially viewed by these people as a simple way to deflect Trump's own links with sex traffickers like Epstein, but as the mythos grew, and became correspondingly more insane, it took on a life of its own and escaped their ability to control it. But by that point, it was too late, Q was running riot through Trump support networks and it was a case of "swim with the current or drown".

At this rate, Q will be the mainstream Republican position in 4 years. 2, if Biden becomes President.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Elder Iptuous on August 22, 2020, 12:51:03 AM
Where do you see the line of plausibility ending, and the bat shit starting?
I seems very clear to me that there are powers at play that use compromising material in the form of pedophilia and freaky cult shit to control folks in positions of influence.
It feels so strange having my bullshit detector so far out of cal, but ridiculous things seem quite plausible to me these days.
What disqualifies the Q narrative from being true, essentially as they portray it?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 22, 2020, 01:00:19 AM
Basically as soon as adrenochrome starts being mentioned. Hunter S. Thompson made that bullshit up, and freely admitted it. Or how all the elite pedophiles are of a particular political bent (if anything, pedophilia's political inclination is towards fascism). Any elite pedophile is going to do what any successful corporation does and play both sides of the aisle.

I have no problem with the idea that Epstein was an intelligence asset, using video evidence of what people did to the girls he arranged for underage rape sessions as blackmail material.

Anything beyond that gets really questionable, really fast. Let alone Q's retread of the "Satanic panic" conspiracy theories - that's always a classic sign of impending insanity, when there's a global Satanic network involved.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Elder Iptuous on August 22, 2020, 01:28:18 AM
Satanic panic is what keeps me reserved on the issue.
The adrenochrome is ridiculous, and when I point out the hunter s Thompson connection, the retort is that it was a signal veiled in fiction.   Also the same claim made with eyes wide shut.
So that seems weak.  But it's also not really the central claim of the cult...
What do you make of the claim that there is an organized effort at using kompromat at a global level (deep state), and that there is a group of military intelligence, utilizing trump presidency, trying to fight it?
Where does that claim fail?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 22, 2020, 11:51:04 AM
Well, my principle objection would be that nothing I have seen Trump doing would actually be helpful in that situation, and a number of things (like the FEMA camps) are actually creating a pool of easily trafficked and abusable children.

Beyond that it's all classic conspiracy theory wank. An organised effort to use compromising information at a global level, undertaken by a single group? Like that wouldn't fall apart in five minutes, with various factions running at counter-purposes. The CIA and FBI can't even share information on terrorists without turning it into a pissing match. And why would an opposing cabal use a malignant narcissist who is friends with known organised crime figures and human traffickers in the first place? Why would they use someone who is so obviously open to not just blackmail but is easily bribed off with not just actual bribes, but even public flattery?

If there was any such cabal, they would have killed Trump for being a goddamn walking national security disaster first and foremost, and quite frankly I'm more surprised that some off the books CIA Russia desk asset hasn't tried whacking him already.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Elder Iptuous on August 22, 2020, 08:19:41 PM
Mmm. Yes. I'm surprised there hasn't been any serious state run attempts at assassination that were clearly evident.

My coworker views *everything* through the lense of the Q narrative.  I criticize him for making his mind up about things based on whether it fits the story or not without actual evidence.

It itches my mind that the best argument against the central claim, however, is personal incredulity.

Oh well.  If there's anything to it, I guess we'll  find out.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 22, 2020, 09:01:45 PM
Well when the whole thing's based on "trust me, I'm a super secret insider" I'm not sure what else you can expect. It's not like there has been any evidence forthcoming for any of this.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on February 19, 2021, 01:33:31 PM
Hey Cain, what's happening with greenwald/the intercept? Looks like a total shitshow, on both sides.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 19, 2021, 05:17:40 PM
Greenwald has, perhaps unsurprisingly for anyone familiar with his work, decided that "being edited" is "cancel culture" and so thrown a huff and decided to build his own newsletter, with blackjack and hookers. Essentially his article for the Intercept had some questionable assertions within and the editors wouldn't run it unless he removed them, which he refused to do.

Greenwald has been out the outs with The Intercept for a while though. As you may recall, he badly bungled the Reality Winner situation, which almost certainly led directly to her arrest and subsequent prison sentence. His frequent insistence that the Trump campaign Russia links were little more than a "witch hunt" by establishment Dems also caused him to essentially overlook one of the major intelligence stories of the decade - which is not exactly helpful, when you're making a name writing on security adjacent issues. Between the two, I suspect sources simply aren't coming to The Intercept with useful info anymore and even before the article issue they were probably looking at letting him go in some fashion.

I give it maybe 4 months before Glenn goes full alt-lite.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: altered on February 20, 2021, 01:28:41 AM
I have one for this too.

With the Republicans moving to left wing economics tied to racist legislation now (see Romney and Cotton's latest bill), what does this say about the future of the Republican Party in the US? Just... a best guess. Based on historical precedent. Not looking for a crystal ball here.

I have a theory, but I don't have as much background with this stuff as you do, and this seems to be specifically and explicitly your wheelhouse if I'm seeing what's happening correctly.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 20, 2021, 03:11:49 PM
I can honestly see them going the way of the Law and Justice Party in Poland or Fidesz in Hungary - both manage an extremely conservative/reactionary social agenda with a racialised welfare state approach. In the case of Fidesz, this has created even more opportunities for graft and corruption among the politically connected and has additionally allowed them to create economic incentives for their preferred social agenda, such as tax breaks for larger families and married couples.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on February 20, 2021, 03:29:21 PM
Thanks, have missed the winner stuff, funny enough to look at or third rate drama?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 20, 2021, 03:39:30 PM
Depressing, if anything. Winner provided them with docs, which they then put online and published to prove what they were saying.

The thing is, the US government uses canary traps to embed information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap#Embedding_information) in files provided, allowing them to identify leakers quickly and accurately. By providing the raw materials to the government, they allowed her to be identified almost right away. Mister "I'm an expert on espionage" Greenwald got taken in by one of the most basic counterintelligence precautions, one that has been around for literally hundreds of years.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on February 20, 2021, 03:43:00 PM
Jesus wept. Dunning krueger strikes again. Or, it throws your whole body of work and reputation under question.

Yeah, alt lite in 4 months, full on "microphones in the cheese!" meth standard in 8.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: altered on February 20, 2021, 06:41:58 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 20, 2021, 03:11:49 PM
I can honestly see them going the way of the Law and Justice Party in Poland or Fidesz in Hungary - both manage an extremely conservative/reactionary social agenda with a racialised welfare state approach. In the case of Fidesz, this has created even more opportunities for graft and corruption among the politically connected and has additionally allowed them to create economic incentives for their preferred social agenda, such as tax breaks for larger families and married couples.

This is basically what I was thinking. If I'm not mistaken, Fidesz in particular is functionally a modern day Fascist party?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 21, 2021, 05:14:44 PM
They're definitely in that grey area between right-wing, illiberal populism and fascism. About the only thing holding them back is a more overtly imperialistic foreign policy. There has been a level of soft militarism under Orban's leadership, not unsurprisingly, but it's been more internally directed than anything. Their military is also pretty hopelessly outdated, so it's hard to tell what is "legitimate" upgrades needed for actual self-defence versus a potential military build-up.

Also not unsurprisingly Hungary's history means there is a lot of irrenditism on the far-right. I haven't seen much exploitation of that by Fidesz, but I would be moderately concerned if I were Slovakia. Both NATO and the EU, in theory, require a settlement of all territorial claims before joining, but obviously signing a piece of paper isn't going to change many people's minds.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: altered on February 21, 2021, 05:27:11 PM
Yeah, that's basically what I was worried about.

I have other questions, but they're not really your deal at this point and also I don't want to ask those questions in the clear. Thanks, Cain.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on February 21, 2021, 10:15:53 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 20, 2021, 03:39:30 PM
Depressing, if anything. Winner provided them with docs, which they then put online and published to prove what they were saying.

The thing is, the US government uses canary traps to embed information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap#Embedding_information) in files provided, allowing them to identify leakers quickly and accurately. By providing the raw materials to the government, they allowed her to be identified almost right away. Mister "I'm an expert on espionage" Greenwald got taken in by one of the most basic counterintelligence precautions, one that has been around for literally hundreds of years.

I use canary traps in software comments and in secure white papers all the time.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 22, 2021, 05:05:50 PM
Quote from: altered on February 21, 2021, 05:27:11 PM
Yeah, that's basically what I was worried about.

I have other questions, but they're not really your deal at this point and also I don't want to ask those questions in the clear. Thanks, Cain.

No problem.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 21, 2021, 10:15:53 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 20, 2021, 03:39:30 PM
Depressing, if anything. Winner provided them with docs, which they then put online and published to prove what they were saying.

The thing is, the US government uses canary traps to embed information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap#Embedding_information) in files provided, allowing them to identify leakers quickly and accurately. By providing the raw materials to the government, they allowed her to be identified almost right away. Mister "I'm an expert on espionage" Greenwald got taken in by one of the most basic counterintelligence precautions, one that has been around for literally hundreds of years.

I use canary traps in software comments and in secure white papers all the time.

It's a classic technique...hence the utter contempt I have for Greenwald over this. Like, you were supposedly not just a journalist (lets be honest, he was an op-ed writer, not a practiced investigative journalist in any sense) but also a lawyer and you don't know this shit? Jesus fucking Christ man, at least hire a private detective to act as a consultant, if you don't know what you're doing, don't simply Dunning-Kruger your sources into prison.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on March 21, 2021, 11:17:54 PM
Jesus christ, they never downloaded a screener from TPB and wondered why the fuzzy bit? :lulz:
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on July 10, 2021, 05:40:55 AM
Hey Cain, what's the deal with the Haitian assassination? Big bag of fun?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: rong on July 10, 2021, 03:02:47 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 10, 2021, 05:40:55 AM
Hey Cain, what's the deal with the Haitian assassination? Big bag of fun?

i like to believe this is somehow related https://www.the-sun.com/news/3156537/john-mcafee-death-sparks-activated-dead-mans-qanon/ (https://www.the-sun.com/news/3156537/john-mcafee-death-sparks-activated-dead-mans-qanon/)

oh yeah, this too: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/us/miami-building-investigation-clues.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/us/miami-building-investigation-clues.html)
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on July 10, 2021, 10:46:53 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 10, 2021, 05:40:55 AM
Hey Cain, what's the deal with the Haitian assassination? Big bag of fun?

Well that the hitters are from Columbia is quite telling.

Columbians are cheap, and usually well-trained. By Americans. My guess is that most of them went through an American-sponsored counter-terrorism or counterinsurgency training program at some point. We know one of them certainly did, Manuel Antonio Grosso. Army, urban counter-terrorism outfit. Likely several of the others also. Two US-citizens of Haitian descent were also arrested alongside them.

However, the opposition in Haiti are claiming that Moïse's own Presidential guard did it. There's also some time discrepancies on the Colombian hitters story, video reportedly does show them arriving...at least an hour later then initial reports have said.

Working theory? Moïse was whacked by a team put together by the Americans for this kind of work in the central Americas. Now whether the Americans were explicitly on the trigger on this it's harder to say...it wouldn't surprise me, but at the same time it doesn't take a genius to hire a bunch of paramilitaries for an assassination, and if the CIA can do it, then Haitian oligarchs also certainly can. We also know the Americans have been a bit trigger-happy with their cut-outs in that region of late, so it's possible the DIA or CIA or someone is making their own foreign policy.

Beyond that, I'll have to look into who Moïse has been pissing off lately, and who's most likely to step into his shoes.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on July 11, 2021, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 10, 2021, 10:46:53 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 10, 2021, 05:40:55 AM
Hey Cain, what's the deal with the Haitian assassination? Big bag of fun?

Well that the hitters are from Columbia is quite telling.

Columbians are cheap, and usually well-trained. By Americans. My guess is that most of them went through an American-sponsored counter-terrorism or counterinsurgency training program at some point. We know one of them certainly did, Manuel Antonio Grosso. Army, urban counter-terrorism outfit. Likely several of the others also. Two US-citizens of Haitian descent were also arrested alongside them.

However, the opposition in Haiti are claiming that Moïse's own Presidential guard did it. There's also some time discrepancies on the Colombian hitters story, video reportedly does show them arriving...at least an hour later then initial reports have said.

Working theory? Moïse was whacked by a team put together by the Americans for this kind of work in the central Americas. Now whether the Americans were explicitly on the trigger on this it's harder to say...it wouldn't surprise me, but at the same time it doesn't take a genius to hire a bunch of paramilitaries for an assassination, and if the CIA can do it, then Haitian oligarchs also certainly can. We also know the Americans have been a bit trigger-happy with their cut-outs in that region of late, so it's possible the DIA or CIA or someone is making their own foreign policy.

Beyond that, I'll have to look into who Moïse has been pissing off lately, and who's most likely to step into his shoes.

I was just reading that he was getting in the way of profits for some of the fat cats who have been more or less running the joint since 2010.

By which I mean drug traffickers.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on July 11, 2021, 04:51:02 PM
Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me. Drug traffickers would have the connections and the money to afford this kind of hit...Colombian mercs are "cheap", but we're speaking comparatively here, so it's not like they're within everyone's means. If that's right, then we'll have to see who the traffickers are affiliated with, internationally or otherwise.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on July 11, 2021, 04:52:31 PM
I also do think it's plausible that the "inside job" theory being floated by the opposition has some merit. It's not impossible that the Colombian team had a guy on the inside to help bring them in, disable the alarms or whatever, it's not like the two theories are *entirely* incompatible.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on July 11, 2021, 05:46:00 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 11, 2021, 04:52:31 PM
I also do think it's plausible that the "inside job" theory being floated by the opposition has some merit. It's not impossible that the Colombian team had a guy on the inside to help bring them in, disable the alarms or whatever, it's not like the two theories are *entirely* incompatible.

I tend to agree with this.  The timeline of when the mercs arrived isn't entirely consistent with the events that occurred.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on July 11, 2021, 06:43:57 PM
Much obliged gents, will dig into it over the next few weeks.

I'm honestly surprised more isn't being made of this generally.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2021, 04:13:18 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 11, 2021, 06:43:57 PM
Much obliged gents, will dig into it over the next few weeks.

I'm honestly surprised more isn't being made of this generally.


The first world has abandoned the pretense that anyone gives a shit about the Caribbean.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on July 12, 2021, 02:03:55 PM
Yeah, Haiti in particular has basically been crapped on by everyone, repreatedly.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on July 13, 2021, 08:05:05 AM
So, this is just slightly (https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/12/americas/haiti-assassination-plot-us-law-informants/index.html) suspicious.

QuoteSeveral of the men involved in the assassination of Haiti's President previously worked as US law enforcement informants, according to people briefed on the matter, as US investigators grapple with an increasing number of Florida links to the alleged hit squad.

Haitian President Jovenel Moise was killed last Wednesday in an operation that Haitian authorities say involved at least 28 people, many of them Colombian mercenaries hired through a Florida-based security company.

At least one of the men arrested in connection to the assassination by Haitian authorities previously worked as an informant for the US Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA said in a statement in response to CNN.

As is this:

Quote"Following the assassination of President Moise, the suspect reached out to his contacts at the DEA. A DEA official assigned to Haiti urged the suspect to surrender to local authorities and, along with a US State Department official, provided information to the Haitian government that assisted in the surrender and arrest of the suspect and one other individual," the DEA said.

The DEA said it is aware of reports that some assassins yelled "DEA" at the time of their attack. The DEA said in its statement that none of the attackers were operating on behalf of the agency.

Other suspects also had US ties, including working as informants for the FBI, the people briefed on the matter said. The FBI said in response to CNN's reporting that it doesn't comment on informants, except to say that it uses "lawful sources to collect intelligence" as part of its investigations.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on July 13, 2021, 08:06:50 AM
It is perhaps especially ironic that I've recently been reading about the DEA's peripheral role in the Lockerbie bombing recently (Cypriot-based DEA cell was piggybacked by the DIA using sloppy tradecraft, targeted PFLP-GC linked traffickers and so on).
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on July 13, 2021, 08:08:45 AM
If people want to check out the other links before I get to them:

QuoteAuthorities on Monday announced the arrest of a suspect who they say orchestrated the assassination. Haitian-born Christian Emmanuel Sanon, 63, entered the country on a private jet in June, Police Chief Leon Charles said at a news conference.

Haitian authorities say that Sanon hired the Florida-based company CTU Security, which they alleged recruited men initially to provide security for Sanon, though their mission appears to have changed thereafter.

"He came to Haiti accompanied by a few people in the beginning of June, these people were supposed to ensure his security and his business," said Charles at the news conference. "He came with the intention to take over as President of the Republic."

Two Colombian suspects who were killed in Haiti by police also had links to CTU Security, which is owned by a Venezuelan national, said Colombian police on Monday. They have requested assistance from the US Interpol office to investigate the company's data.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on July 13, 2021, 12:48:08 PM
From what I've seen so far, there's some kind of 3 way power struggle going on, which is great. Nothing like trying to do a kind of coup and having 2 other fucks join in.

So, might just be the start of a huge shitshow.

Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on July 13, 2021, 09:22:23 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 13, 2021, 12:48:08 PM
From what I've seen so far, there's some kind of 3 way power struggle going on, which is great. Nothing like trying to do a kind of coup and having 2 other fucks join in.

So, might just be the start of a huge shitshow.

It's Haiti.  Nothing good ever happens to Haiti.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on July 23, 2021, 09:13:55 PM
I'm in the UK.

I can strongly empathise with both an island nation and urge to do a coup. And if I did, I'd be sure at least two other fucks would join in. Itd Probably be at least be between farage, piers Morgan, count binface, p3nt Cain, blair and me. And I'm reasonably certain we're each waiting for the other to go first.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on July 26, 2021, 03:55:53 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 23, 2021, 09:13:55 PM
I'm in the UK.

I can strongly empathise with both an island nation and urge to do a coup. And if I did, I'd be sure at least two other fucks would join in. Itd Probably be at least be between farage, piers Morgan, count binface, p3nt Cain, blair and me. And I'm reasonably certain we're each waiting for the other to go first.
I'm in the USA.  A bunch of yokels went first.  It ended well for everyone.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 19, 2021, 02:19:27 AM
Interesting, the "inside job" angle is now looking significantly stronger:

QuoteMeanwhile, police have also arrested five officials who were part of the president's security in connection to the assassination. One of those arrested includes Dimitri Hérard, the chief of the General Security Unit of the National Palace, which is responsible for guarding the President's residence.24 police officers who protected Moïse were also being questioned.

Colombian media said Hérard allegedly visited Colombia a few weeks before the assassination, and the Center for Economic and Policy Research reported he is being investigated by US law enforcement for links to arms trafficking. Between January and May 2021, Dimitri Hérard made 7 trips from and to Colombia, Dominican Republic and Ecuador. Hérard had allegedly used an Ecuadorian identification document to travel from and to Haiti. On 22 July 2021, the Ecuadorian President Guillermo Lasso confirmed Hérard had access to an Ecuadorian identity card, due to his scholarship in the Eloy Alfaro Higher School of Military.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Faust on August 19, 2021, 09:29:43 AM
What are your thoughts on the Afghanistan Disaster, I see people saying they could have expected the whole country to fall in about a year but not 30 days?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 19, 2021, 11:30:52 AM
I'm honestly not surprised.

As far back as 2016, about half of the districts of Afghanistan were under the de facto control of the Taliban when night fell. There was also a priority of overlooking the Taliban (to the point of practically supporting them) in order to contain ISIS in Afghanistan - who were and continue to be a very minor threat by comparison.

Beyond that, the Afghanistan Army only had one capable combat unit, it's counterterrorism forces that had been trained by the US - beyond that it was graft and corruption all the way down. Not to say these guys aren't fighting, because they are - Afghan forces have taken more casualties in some years than the US has had for the entire invasion - but when your commander is stealing the pay and will have you beaten to death for complaining, there's not going to be a whole lot of loyalty.

Of course the problem is more entrenched then that, in that the US never had a plan on how to integrate the Taliban back into power on any level. How best to put this...? In any kind of war, you have two options. Either you're going to kill absolutely everyone who belongs to the enemy team, precipitate a massacre. Or, at some point, you need to sit down and talk with them. Most historical war tends closer to the second, war is a continuation of politics by other means, military force is used to gain the most advantageous position in the negotiations to follow. We see this with regard to things like Nazi Germany - while the hardcore were (rightfully) hanged for their crimes, former Nazis with relatively minor blood on their hands were put in charge of Germany while the Occupation forces set about establishing ground rules. No-one liked it, but you needed these people to convince the ones behind them to lay down arms and agree to the new way of doing things.

And then you have the "no people, no problem" approach. However, and importantly, this does rely on you actually being able to kill all of them, which in Afghanistan was always going to be tricky.

Now the US had the chance to do the former. In 2001, the Taliban offered to put Mullah Omar under house arrest, enter negotiations to lay down arms and act as a political party in the new Afghan government system. Rumsfeld told them to piss up a rope, because the US policy at the time is "we do not negotiate with terrorists" and "we do not differentiate between terrorists and those who support them". That's the message they wanted to send, and as rhetoric goes it's not bad. But turning down the deal allowed the Taliban to disperse physically, build up support among the Pashto clans and tribes and put us in the situation that exists today. Between having no end-game for the conflict and not being willing to supply the forces necessary to achieve the outcome they had decided to pursue (again, logistical difficulties played a role here - supporting that many troops in Afghanistan would be hell on public finances) they always put themselves in a position where they'd be propping up a government with only partial legitimacy.

And this is without going into the very real clustefuck that is competing agencies in Afghanistan. The political types were cut out by the Pentagon. The Pentagon and the spies played at loggerheads. Different branches of the Pentagon pursued their own policies. There's whole books that focus just on that and that there wasn't a single person who ultimately controlled Afghanistan policy is part of the reason why it turned into a clusterfuck, other than the more theoretical problems of war termination presented above.

And so the moment they moved to leave, it was always going to come tumbling down. That it tumbled down this fast is mostly because the Taliban are very organised and already had an advantageous position due to previous decades of war minsmanagement.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Faust on August 19, 2021, 11:52:36 AM
So, what you are describing there, that has me very worried, is that the Taliban are now more organized, war hardened, know the US playbook and are back in charge, in short, Afghanistan is in a much worse place then where the US found it.
Would I be right in thinking that unless they decide of their own accord to soften some of their stances on civilian side (Religious fundamentalism, homosexuality and women's rights) as to legitimise themselves in the eyes of the world as the rightful government of the country, the citizens are under a more oppressive, efficient and methodical regime then prior to 2001?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 19, 2021, 01:31:37 PM
It's actually not entirely clear. The Taliban do know that their attitudes on women, religious minorities etc have given them bad PR, and they do want investment coming into Afghanistan, because they are acutely aware that their inability to provide basic goods is part of what sealed their fate last time around. So they've definitely signalled rhetorically that they might be a bit softer on such things this time around.

Of course, it's easy to make a sales pitch when you're out of power, only to then go back on it once you're in control.

The thing is, the Taliban leadership is quite opaque. Haibatullah Akhundzada allegedly sits at the head of their leadership council, but he only makes statements a few times a year and wasn't very well known before the 2001 invasion. Whether he's actually in control, a figurehead or even still alive are all up for debate. Akhunzada was also a compromise candidate, back in 2016. Among the other more notable members of the Quetta Shura are Abdul Ghani Baradar, who heads the Taliban "political office" in Doha, Mohammad Yaqoob (son of Mullah Omar), who has spearheaded the current military campaign, and Sirajuddin Haqqani, son of the infamous Jalaluddin Haqqani and current head of the Haqqani network. He has close ties to Al-Qaeda and the ISI and oversees their financial and military assets in Pakistan. His relative, Abdul Hakim Haqqani, heads up the Taliban's negotiation team, at the personal request of Akhundzada, and is considered a hardliner - compared with the more moderate Baradar anyway.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Faust on August 24, 2021, 11:35:04 AM
There was an article about the afghan army capturing a couple of rural cities, but considering they all wandered off, and these cities were traditionally not Taliban cities, is it more likely that these are the rival warlords re-emerging?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on August 24, 2021, 04:39:24 PM
Quote from: Faust on August 19, 2021, 11:52:36 AM
So, what you are describing there, that has me very worried, is that the Taliban are now more organized, war hardened, know the US playbook and are back in charge, in short, Afghanistan is in a much worse place then where the US found it.


We're known for doing that sort of thing.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on August 26, 2021, 05:46:08 PM
So, what's the current expectation on going back? I was guessing 5 years or so, but with a couple of bombs today in kabul I'm cutting that to under 3. One successful bombing on us/associates soil and its prime fodder for a particular kind of electioneering.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 27, 2021, 05:23:05 PM
Which cities are you referring to, Faust? I've tried looking but obviously there's a lot of Afghanistan news lately.

As for going back in...depends. I can't see Biden doing a U-turn, even in light of current events. I can see him launching drone strikes at whomever is deemed the responsible party...but in the longer term it will depend how much the Taliban pivot between their "responsible members of the international community with extreme views" and "actually supporting international terrorism and genocide" wings.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Faust on August 27, 2021, 07:31:16 PM
I'm having trouble finding the original link and all I can find is India today but it was the same gist

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/afghanistan-taliban-latest-news-developments-kabul-airlift-biden-resistance-forces-recapture-districts-1843523-2021-08-21

Not sure if cities was the right word, or if its substatiated
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on August 27, 2021, 08:35:47 PM
Ahah. Looks like Northern Alliance remnants. Or, well, younger siblings and sons and daughters of Northern Alliance remnants, since all of that was 20+ years ago.

I suspect Atta Mohammad Noor and Rashid Dostum, two of the most notorious Afghan warlords, are currently in Uzbekistan as well, though there's nothing to confirm this other than their last reported location ("north of Mazar-i-Sharif") and what they did in the previous conflicts and whenever they got into legal trouble.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on August 29, 2021, 07:28:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 27, 2021, 05:23:05 PM
Which cities are you referring to, Faust? I've tried looking but obviously there's a lot of Afghanistan news lately.

As for going back in...depends. I can't see Biden doing a U-turn, even in light of current events. I can see him launching drone strikes at whomever is deemed the responsible party...but in the longer term it will depend how much the Taliban pivot between their "responsible members of the international community with extreme views" and "actually supporting international terrorism and genocide" wings.

From the reports  of various arms, biometric data, aircraft etc. That got abandoned, it feels like 1 wing got a bit of bonus.

Is it just me that finds it incredible that not only has a 20 odd year conflict been totally lost, the fleeing nations have chosen to arm the erstwhile for to fuck on the way out? Realistically, if its a logistics problem and you just can't shift all your shit in time, moving it into a big pile and throwing a match is surely both the spiteful and sensible option. This is shit that is designed to explode. The problem can literally solve itself.

So, with more than a few states probably willing to supply training, parts etc. I'm cutting my guess down to 2 and a half. Bidens not got the balls to launch what I assume would be needed to be several hundred drone strikes in a leaving blitzkrieg and doing so would make the US into a bit of a pariah state. Easier to wait for an atrocity or two and start again. Probably better for the war economy too.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on September 02, 2021, 03:21:15 PM
I suspect the Pentagon was counting on a last minute change of heart from the White House, even though their hands were tied by Trump.

And besides, do they really care? The top brass will be going on to defence contractor jobs, which is notoriously unconcerned with the military having to replace stuff and indeed is rather keen on the idea, and the accountants probably ran a cost/benefit analysis and figured that dumping the stuff was probably the cheaper option than maintaining, securing and disposing of it. The Taliban won't exactly be able to order replacement parts, so they're probably not too concerned in the long run.

And basically the agreement Trump made with the Taliban was a peace deal. While the US could violate it, in theory US troops aren't allowed to attack the Taliban except in self-defence, and the Taliban have ordered their people to steer clear of remaining American forces. So unless someone does something stupid and there's an obvious fingerprint on it, like the suicide bombing the other week but with intel linking it to the Taliban, nothing will happen.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on September 02, 2021, 09:21:52 PM
Would parts really be a problem? I would heavily assume the arms manufacturer creed of "if I don't sell it to them, someone else will" would apply. A bit of lobbying and trade deal/sanctions and sooner or later its all operational enough.

And that's without random idiot acts, just corporate logic.

Hells, the way reality currently works there was probably never a war to begin with.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on September 02, 2021, 09:41:32 PM
Parts are pretty major, most modern weapons systems are pretty complex and keeping the parts in-company only is a good way to ensure an ongoing revenue stream for arms contractors. No doubt you can finagle something to tide a system over, if you have enough engineers look at the problem, but since it's a way to ensure revenue for companies, they tend to be rather creative in making that difficult to achieve.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on September 08, 2021, 01:30:11 AM
Haqqani is assigned as the minister of the interior and Yacoob as minister of war.

It's pretty clear the hardliners are in charge of the Taliban regime, with appointments like this.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on February 25, 2022, 06:50:59 PM
(Assuming this is about Picking Cain's Brains in general, and not just about Middle East conflict. Please let me know if this should go somewhere else.)

I'm familiar with the history of NATO's expansion and Russia's realistic geostrategic concerns surrounding Ukraine joining NATO. What I can't wrap my head around is why we left the table of Diplomacy for this and guaranteed an invasion of Ukraine? Russia openly bolstered their Economic Security for years to ensure that sanctions would no longer be very effective (Except for oil, but my reading tells me this has a massive impact on other NATO countries like Germany, and otherwise backs Russia into an even more precarious corner that might make conflict less predictable.), and the State Department/President knew this, so obviously their plan wasn't to Sanction Russia out of conflict again. The only conclusion I can come to is that we generally saw this coming a mile away, and pretty bluntly did nothing about it because the path of least resistance from a Cost-Benefit scenario was to:

1. Let Russia invade Ukraine
2. Send Ukraine weapons/support that would barely constitute a drop from our military budget to maintain the appearance of caring about their sovereignty

Did we actually do this? Did we push these tensions by expanding NATO just so Russia could take Ukraine? It technically removes the conflict, as there would then be no nation to have join NATO, and therefore nothing to fight with Russia over for now.

I feel like I have to be missing something pretty big and obvious. Even a Capitalist/Imperialist country like the US couldn't be so apathetic that they saw the easiest solution to the crisis being the absorption of Ukraine into Russia via all-out war. Also, wouldn't this embolden Russia to push the envelope further once they realized they could get away with it? Wouldn't they wanna push to expand further? I feel like this is just an attempt to create the conditions that make the "New Russian Sphere of Influence" argument a material justification for further demonization of Russia.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on February 25, 2022, 08:35:36 PM
Quote from: POFP on February 25, 2022, 06:50:59 PM
(Assuming this is about Picking Cain's Brains in general, and not just about Middle East conflict. Please let me know if this should go somewhere else.)

I'm familiar with the history of NATO's expansion and Russia's realistic geostrategic concerns surrounding Ukraine joining NATO. What I can't wrap my head around is why we left the table of Diplomacy for this and guaranteed an invasion of Ukraine? Russia openly bolstered their Economic Security for years to ensure that sanctions would no longer be very effective (Except for oil, but my reading tells me this has a massive impact on other NATO countries like Germany, and otherwise backs Russia into an even more precarious corner that might make conflict less predictable.), and the State Department/President knew this, so obviously their plan wasn't to Sanction Russia out of conflict again. The only conclusion I can come to is that we generally saw this coming a mile away, and pretty bluntly did nothing about it because the path of least resistance from a Cost-Benefit scenario was to:

1. Let Russia invade Ukraine
2. Send Ukraine weapons/support that would barely constitute a drop from our military budget to maintain the appearance of caring about their sovereignty

Did we actually do this? Did we push these tensions by expanding NATO just so Russia could take Ukraine? It technically removes the conflict, as there would then be no nation to have join NATO, and therefore nothing to fight with Russia over for now.

I feel like I have to be missing something pretty big and obvious. Even a Capitalist/Imperialist country like the US couldn't be so apathetic that they saw the easiest solution to the crisis being the absorption of Ukraine into Russia via all-out war. Also, wouldn't this embolden Russia to push the envelope further once they realized they could get away with it? Wouldn't they wanna push to expand further? I feel like this is just an attempt to create the conditions that make the "New Russian Sphere of Influence" argument a material justification for further demonization of Russia.

After some further reading, it appears the main goal of this tactic was to ensure Russia had more work to do in order to expand and undo NATO, while simultaneously preventing direct conflict between NATO and Russia in the short term. If we let Russia invade Ukraine but ensure Ukraine's defenses are bolstered with modern NATO Defense systems, Russia has to expend more effort and resources to go beyond Ukraine. Combined with Sanctions that extricate Russia from the Global Economy, it appears the general goal is to bleed them out before they can pick up Westward momentum.

But this just begs the question, considering Russia's efforts to defend against Sanctions: Isn't this just kicking the can down the road? Or worse, backing them into a more desperate corner?

And isn't the easiest way out of this situation to back off NATO expansion and talk Ukraine and any other Russian neighbors "off the [NATO Membership] ledge"? I mean, what good is a military-based Peace Alliance like NATO if membership increase feeds conflict? Russians have made it clear that further expansion Eastward is fatal.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on February 26, 2022, 09:46:06 AM
I think you're giving too much credit to the US here and too little agency to the Russians.

Let's be very clear here: Russia had a choice. I thought up until about a week ago that this was simply then playing hardball on the Minsk agreement - a framework agreed upon by Russia, the US, the EU and Ukraine that in theory would have resolved Russia's concerns about NATO on their borders without dismembering Ukraine entirely. The essence of it would have been that the separatist regions of Ukraine would have been recognised as having a special regional status and greater freedoms to institute their own laws but in return would get a veto over future national security arrangements. This would have allowed for Russia to covertly control them from behind the scenes and use them to keep them out of the NATO framework. Again, this was agreed to by the US, though Ukraine was dragging it's feet on implementing it.

However, we can now clearly see that was not the case. Indeed, Russia was engaging in duplicitous diplomacy with France and Germany right up until the point the invasion started precisely to convince them that this was their aim.

Furthermore, the Ukraine of today is not the Ukraine of ten years ago. Despite not being a member of NATO, it's armed forces have been considerably hardened by US and EU aid, most notably advanced Stingers and MANPADs were unlocked for sale a couple of months back - in conjunction with everything else they've been given over the past eight years, they have the means to turn Ukraine into a hellish insurgent landscape. The kind of urban fighting that commanders hate and irregular fighters love - that's what awaits the Russians currently in Kiev and Odessa, and they are going to be bloodied night and day until they leave. Bombs on the street, rat poison and glass in their food...it's never going to end and they'll be looking over their backs every moment they're there.

Finally, Russia's economy cannot afford a protracted conflict, and nor can their military. They are trying to run a superpower on an economy the size of Texas. Three-quarters of their available manpower is now concentrated on Ukraine or the borders around it. That means they are weaker everywhere else - and the longer this goes on, the weaker they will get. NATO won't take direct advantage of this, because no-one wants two nuclear powers fighting - but you can bet Russia's partners in the Middle East, the Caucasians and in Central Asia will feel their absence.

In short, there were a lot of reasons to believe that Russia would not invade, because invading is about the dumbest thing Putin could do. But he did. Putin chose to wage a war of aggression, when he had other options available, and the reasons for that are complicated but essentially there is a revanchist, nationalistic movement within the Russian "mainstream" that wishes to rectify the "mistakes" of history, such as the dissolution of the Russian Empire and it's successor state in the Soviet Union.

This movement views countries like Ukraine and even Belarus as illegitimate creations of the Soviet state that should have returned to a Russian status at the end of the Cold War. It's this movement which managed to get a vote through the Russian Parliament that those Ukrainian regions be recognised as independent - and certainly it can be argued that such a proposal never would have made it through without being agreed on from higher up. But Russia is not a straightforward dictatorship where a single man rules - there are factions and key constituencies who need to be listened to and supported, and there is negotiation back and forth between these groups and various power centres in the Russian state, which includes oligarchs who stand to profit not only from a conflict in Ukraine but the establishment of new markets where sanctions are not applied to them. These power centres, for their various reasons, decided a Ukrainian invasion was the way to go, and so allowed the vote to go ahead.

That's not to say that the US and NATO do not share some blame - they certainly could have done more, both historically and in the present to try and assure Russia of it's security aims. At the same time, given what has already been provided, it's hard to say what would have actually convinced the Russians to back off, without a complete change in NATO policy going back to the early 1990s or similar. A democratic Ukraine was always going to be on contentious ground with an autocratic Russia - and would naturally seek allies and frameworks agreed on with them to try and blunt any Russian aggression. The lack of natural barriers - barring the Dnieper - in the region mean security is always going to be fraught and hard to obtain in any concrete way except through these alliances and agreements, and short of telling Ukraine to fend for itself and leaving it to the Russians to absorb, I think any degree of assistance was always going to be looked upon by a suspicious Kremlin as the first step in a NATO agreement. In short, Russia views Ukraine in a simple binary position of either it is with them, or it is against them. Clearly it is not with them for now, so the only thing to do is secure a regime change to ensure that is not the case in the future.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on February 26, 2022, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 26, 2022, 09:46:06 AM
I think you're giving too much credit to the US here and too little agency to the Russians.

Let's be very clear here: Russia had a choice. I thought up until about a week ago that this was simply then playing hardball on the Minsk agreement - a framework agreed upon by Russia, the US, the EU and Ukraine that in theory would have resolved Russia's concerns about NATO on their borders without dismembering Ukraine entirely. The essence of it would have been that the separatist regions of Ukraine would have been recognised as having a special regional status and greater freedoms to institute their own laws but in return would get a veto over future national security arrangements. This would have allowed for Russia to covertly control them from behind the scenes and use them to keep them out of the NATO framework. Again, this was agreed to by the US, though Ukraine was dragging it's feet on implementing it.

However, we can now clearly see that was not the case. Indeed, Russia was engaging in duplicitous diplomacy with France and Germany right up until the point the invasion started precisely to convince them that this was their aim.

Furthermore, the Ukraine of today is not the Ukraine of ten years ago. Despite not being a member of NATO, it's armed forces have been considerably hardened by US and EU aid, most notably advanced Stingers and MANPADs were unlocked for sale a couple of months back - in conjunction with everything else they've been given over the past eight years, they have the means to turn Ukraine into a hellish insurgent landscape. The kind of urban fighting that commanders hate and irregular fighters love - that's what awaits the Russians currently in Kiev and Odessa, and they are going to be bloodied night and day until they leave. Bombs on the street, rat poison and glass in their food...it's never going to end and they'll be looking over their backs every moment they're there.

Finally, Russia's economy cannot afford a protracted conflict, and nor can their military. They are trying to run a superpower on an economy the size of Texas. Three-quarters of their available manpower is now concentrated on Ukraine or the borders around it. That means they are weaker everywhere else - and the longer this goes on, the weaker they will get. NATO won't take direct advantage of this, because no-one wants two nuclear powers fighting - but you can bet Russia's partners in the Middle East, the Caucasians and in Central Asia will feel their absence.

In short, there were a lot of reasons to believe that Russia would not invade, because invading is about the dumbest thing Putin could do. But he did. Putin chose to wage a war of aggression, when he had other options available, and the reasons for that are complicated but essentially there is a revanchist, nationalistic movement within the Russian "mainstream" that wishes to rectify the "mistakes" of history, such as the dissolution of the Russian Empire and it's successor state in the Soviet Union.

This movement views countries like Ukraine and even Belarus as illegitimate creations of the Soviet state that should have returned to a Russian status at the end of the Cold War. It's this movement which managed to get a vote through the Russian Parliament that those Ukrainian regions be recognised as independent - and certainly it can be argued that such a proposal never would have made it through without being agreed on from higher up. But Russia is not a straightforward dictatorship where a single man rules - there are factions and key constituencies who need to be listened to and supported, and there is negotiation back and forth between these groups and various power centres in the Russian state, which includes oligarchs who stand to profit not only from a conflict in Ukraine but the establishment of new markets where sanctions are not applied to them. These power centres, for their various reasons, decided a Ukrainian invasion was the way to go, and so allowed the vote to go ahead.

That's not to say that the US and NATO do not share some blame - they certainly could have done more, both historically and in the present to try and assure Russia of it's security aims. At the same time, given what has already been provided, it's hard to say what would have actually convinced the Russians to back off, without a complete change in NATO policy going back to the early 1990s or similar. A democratic Ukraine was always going to be on contentious ground with an autocratic Russia - and would naturally seek allies and frameworks agreed on with them to try and blunt any Russian aggression. The lack of natural barriers - barring the Dnieper - in the region mean security is always going to be fraught and hard to obtain in any concrete way except through these alliances and agreements, and short of telling Ukraine to fend for itself and leaving it to the Russians to absorb, I think any degree of assistance was always going to be looked upon by a suspicious Kremlin as the first step in a NATO agreement. In short, Russia views Ukraine in a simple binary position of either it is with them, or it is against them. Clearly it is not with them for now, so the only thing to do is secure a regime change to ensure that is not the case in the future.

Thank you for this, Cain. This details exactly the nuances and finer history I was missing.

I guess the perspective I was coming from was that the US's role in the history of the tension, especially in Bush's open backing of Ukraine's entry into NATO in 2008, combined with the US's undeniable influence and influential capabilities involving the current situation, made them responsible to some degree. The old addage "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility" and so on. In my view, Ukraine asking to join NATO and the US openly inviting them (Even after that request to join) look very different from the perspective of a country who's worried about Western aggression and their security. And I feel like if that were the case, the State/Defense Departments knew that and were still okay with it anyways.

But also, as an American who's sick of seeing its leaders use other Countries as Chess Pawns for financial gain, I couldn't help but feel like many of these scenarios were already accounted for by US Defense/State Departments, and that steps were taken to ensure only one or two scenarios were possible - Neither of them involving peace.

At the very least, the US's stance in most cases is "How can this situation be used to benefit me the most?", and I would argue that that starting point skews almost every single International discussion on conflict in a dangerous long term direction.

That being said, I'm not suggesting that the US is solely responsible. We know the Russian Oligarchs are a bunch of cunts, and what you've said about Ukraine's new defenses and tactics has given me a much brighter outlook on the results of the conflict, and put me in the mood of "Fuck it, let's send in as much support to Ukraine as possible and make Russian Oligarchs go 'On second thought, let's not go [further West]. T'is a [scary] place.'"

Gangster-ass Ukraine, understanding fully the dangers of joining NATO being a Russian neighbor, still wants to join. If anyone deserved to join, it'd be them. So I guess let's give Russia Hell.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on February 27, 2022, 08:00:29 PM
On second thought, I'm back to thinking this War shouldn't have been considered an option by any party, and that any inaction or provocative action that contributed to it by any of the world powers, be it the Ukrainian, US, or Russian governments or otherwise, is unacceptable. I think the fact that we keep accepting Imperialist strategies in National Security discourse is part of what's contributing to their popularity, beyond their general effectiveness in securing Coercive Control (Not that you were or anything - I just mean about supporting things like NATO or other systems that contrute to conflict-for-profit.). I would rather concede money and resources to Dictators in exchange for other concessions in Power or expansion, and encourage healthy dissent in their populations through Discordian propaganda.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Faust on February 28, 2022, 02:23:45 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 26, 2022, 09:46:06 AM
I think you're giving too much credit to the US here and too little agency to the Russians.

Let's be very clear here: Russia had a choice. I thought up until about a week ago that this was simply then playing hardball on the Minsk agreement - a framework agreed upon by Russia, the US, the EU and Ukraine that in theory would have resolved Russia's concerns about NATO on their borders without dismembering Ukraine entirely. The essence of it would have been that the separatist regions of Ukraine would have been recognised as having a special regional status and greater freedoms to institute their own laws but in return would get a veto over future national security arrangements. This would have allowed for Russia to covertly control them from behind the scenes and use them to keep them out of the NATO framework. Again, this was agreed to by the US, though Ukraine was dragging it's feet on implementing it.

However, we can now clearly see that was not the case. Indeed, Russia was engaging in duplicitous diplomacy with France and Germany right up until the point the invasion started precisely to convince them that this was their aim.

Furthermore, the Ukraine of today is not the Ukraine of ten years ago. Despite not being a member of NATO, it's armed forces have been considerably hardened by US and EU aid, most notably advanced Stingers and MANPADs were unlocked for sale a couple of months back - in conjunction with everything else they've been given over the past eight years, they have the means to turn Ukraine into a hellish insurgent landscape. The kind of urban fighting that commanders hate and irregular fighters love - that's what awaits the Russians currently in Kiev and Odessa, and they are going to be bloodied night and day until they leave. Bombs on the street, rat poison and glass in their food...it's never going to end and they'll be looking over their backs every moment they're there.

Finally, Russia's economy cannot afford a protracted conflict, and nor can their military. They are trying to run a superpower on an economy the size of Texas. Three-quarters of their available manpower is now concentrated on Ukraine or the borders around it. That means they are weaker everywhere else - and the longer this goes on, the weaker they will get. NATO won't take direct advantage of this, because no-one wants two nuclear powers fighting - but you can bet Russia's partners in the Middle East, the Caucasians and in Central Asia will feel their absence.

In short, there were a lot of reasons to believe that Russia would not invade, because invading is about the dumbest thing Putin could do. But he did. Putin chose to wage a war of aggression, when he had other options available, and the reasons for that are complicated but essentially there is a revanchist, nationalistic movement within the Russian "mainstream" that wishes to rectify the "mistakes" of history, such as the dissolution of the Russian Empire and it's successor state in the Soviet Union.

This movement views countries like Ukraine and even Belarus as illegitimate creations of the Soviet state that should have returned to a Russian status at the end of the Cold War. It's this movement which managed to get a vote through the Russian Parliament that those Ukrainian regions be recognised as independent - and certainly it can be argued that such a proposal never would have made it through without being agreed on from higher up. But Russia is not a straightforward dictatorship where a single man rules - there are factions and key constituencies who need to be listened to and supported, and there is negotiation back and forth between these groups and various power centres in the Russian state, which includes oligarchs who stand to profit not only from a conflict in Ukraine but the establishment of new markets where sanctions are not applied to them. These power centres, for their various reasons, decided a Ukrainian invasion was the way to go, and so allowed the vote to go ahead.

That's not to say that the US and NATO do not share some blame - they certainly could have done more, both historically and in the present to try and assure Russia of it's security aims. At the same time, given what has already been provided, it's hard to say what would have actually convinced the Russians to back off, without a complete change in NATO policy going back to the early 1990s or similar. A democratic Ukraine was always going to be on contentious ground with an autocratic Russia - and would naturally seek allies and frameworks agreed on with them to try and blunt any Russian aggression. The lack of natural barriers - barring the Dnieper - in the region mean security is always going to be fraught and hard to obtain in any concrete way except through these alliances and agreements, and short of telling Ukraine to fend for itself and leaving it to the Russians to absorb, I think any degree of assistance was always going to be looked upon by a suspicious Kremlin as the first step in a NATO agreement. In short, Russia views Ukraine in a simple binary position of either it is with them, or it is against them. Clearly it is not with them for now, so the only thing to do is secure a regime change to ensure that is not the case in the future.

Thanks Cain,

I haven't been able to get my head around it, I expected posturing but not an outright invasion, is there really that much support for it back in Russia?
What do you think of the economic sanctions, will they be tight enough screws to finally get people to turn on Putin and end this mess, say if it was coupled with heavy losses in Ukrain when they expected a cake walk?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 01, 2022, 02:03:50 PM
The thing is, if Russia's going to threaten to invade if Ukraine's part of NATO or not, then they might as well join, since the opportunity cost is exactly the same. "Neutrality" isn't really an option here, even that will be taken as trying to remove themselves from Russia's sphere of influence. That's what is so damning about the whole thing, the Minsk agreement would have effectively made them neutral, but that apparently wasn't acceptable enough to Putin's people.

Quote from: Faust on February 28, 2022, 02:23:45 PM
I haven't been able to get my head around it, I expected posturing but not an outright invasion, is there really that much support for it back in Russia?
What do you think of the economic sanctions, will they be tight enough screws to finally get people to turn on Putin and end this mess, say if it was coupled with heavy losses in Ukrain when they expected a cake walk?

Honestly, it's hard to say where Russian public opinion is. My impression is that the war is not popular at home, given the protests that occured and the messages on social media. At the same time, this is a modern war, so my assumption is that any such messages are being amplified to try and undermine Russian morale and feelings of legitimacy. On top of that, Russian TV and social media is controlled to a certain extent that such popular expressions will be scrubbed. And it's worth noting that the Russian opposition movements were proscribed as terrorist organisations and dismantled last year, so the state of the Russian opposition is pretty poor rigt now.

I doubt the sanctions will be tight enough, though kicking them out of SWIFT and the rapidly depreciating value of the ruble are going to hit ordinary people hard. Could cause them to get angry at Ptin, could create a "rally around the flag" effect. Hard to say. I also think it's fair to say that any UK sanctions in particular will be extremely lacklustre and riddled with loopholes, because the Tories need that funding. And I do think people will not be impressed once this bogs down into an insurgency, which increasingly seems to be the case. The Russians tried a blitzkrieg but their logistics and supply lines apparently suck pretty hard.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on March 02, 2022, 02:04:47 AM
Quote from: Cain on March 01, 2022, 02:03:50 PM

The thing is, if Russia's going to threaten to invade if Ukraine's part of NATO or not, then they might as well join, since the opportunity cost is exactly the same. "Neutrality" isn't really an option here, even that will be taken as trying to remove themselves from Russia's sphere of influence. That's what is so damning about the whole thing, the Minsk agreement would have effectively made them neutral, but that apparently wasn't acceptable enough to Putin's people.


If Ukraine is a part of NATO, doesn't that obligate the US and NATO to do a lot more than send them weapons when attacked? Theoretically pushing us closer to direct conflict and subsequent Nuclear Annihilation? Based on a lot of talk going around by World Leaders, Military Strategists, and every-day idiots on my Facebook feed, I no longer buy the assumption that everyone believes in MAD. And that should have been pretty predictable, considering it's merely an extrapolation of the concept of "Chicken" to Global proportions. I can find article after article of that game ending in countless dead idiots on the freeway. For that reason, we shouldn't consider direct conflict and invocation of MAD as an option. It might have been a pretty concept when even the Nuclear Arsenals of two countries couldn't turn our planet into a soot-covered, radioactive icy hellscape, but we're past that now.

Putin couldn't have been completely unaware of how much Ukraine has been building its Defenses since 2014. I refuse to believe that even a frustrated Putin would consider a direct Military Conflict to be cheaper than the de facto conditions of the Minsk 2 Agreement (Culture Wars and Intelligence/Espionage operations to establish Hegemony over Ukraine with the help of Political Factions from the Donbas and Crimean Peninsula.). If the US and NATO were willing to do the bare minimum, like talk Ukraine off the ledge Re: NATO membership (Which literally no one wanted anyways.) and actually moving forward with the Minsk 2 despite its disagreement on the interpretation, and overall cared more about preventing escalating conflict even when inconvenient, I think Russia would have avoided a full invasion and countless lives could have been saved.

I speak as someone who knows their own signaling couldn't possibly affect a foreign country. Nothing I say or do is going to affect Putin's decision-making. But if I kick up enough shit about my own country's actions/inaction, I have a higher, even if negligible chance of making someone in Washington attribute more value to human life and do better.

We're able to properly condemn the actions of people within a country/society using the Justice System. When their actions put the Liberty of others in Jeopardy, we quite literally have the ability to, with a seemingly external overwhelming force, put them in their place and maybe even rehabilitate them when we're feeling humane. When we're talking about the scale of World Super-Powers with the ability to end organized Human Life as we know it in less than an hour, there is no external overwhelming force that can come to the rescue. We actually have to take into account the concerns of absolute pieces of shit, and concede when it means living to find another way to beat them. I don't think we can continue treating War on the World Stage like some Moral pissing contest between opposing views on "Nation Sovereignty", as if the US Government or NATO ever gave a shit about that anyways. Countries do not exist in a vacuum - Sovereignty does not mean "Can act without consequences". There are ways of organizing against Autocrats that don't involve putting us all at risk, even if those methods might require us to admit that our own forms of Human Organization are inherently violent and wrong. I'm done pretending like the World Leaders should get a free pass to play ignorant every time another country starts a very predictable and preventable catastrophe.

/rant

Not directed at anyone here. Just completely disgusted by our general views of conflict as a species right now.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 02, 2022, 02:08:15 AM
Sometimes a war happens and America isn't the bad guy.

Call me crazy, but there you are.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on March 02, 2022, 02:29:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 02, 2022, 02:08:15 AM
Sometimes a war happens and America isn't the bad guy.

Call me crazy, but there you are.

I didn't say America was solely responsible. They didn't invade Ukraine. That's Putin's sin. I'm saying America's inaction, through either laziness or ignorance, helped build the conditions that made it a reality. They are complicit, and if they continue down this line of reasoning with Russia, we're no longer going to be alive to bitch about it. It's our responsibility to pressure our government to do better.

Giving them the out is like giving American Corporate Oligarchs an out for having lived through and been brainwashed by Capitalist Propaganda into thinking their persistent exploitation of their fellow countrymen and the environment is okay because profits are up this quarter. They chose to keep overwhelming Power. They are culpable for how they've used and abused it, regardless of whether they understand their role in the resulting dystopia.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on March 02, 2022, 03:20:45 AM
It doesn't even matter at this point. NATO all but just collectively agreed to shoot down Russian planes in their air space. Because backing a solipsistic nut job with Nuclear Launch Codes, who's just humiliated himself in front of the entire World, even further into a corner is sure to work out well for everyone.

I mean, seriously? Is no one else getting "Don't Look Up" vibes right now? What in the actual fuck is going on?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 02, 2022, 10:10:41 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 02, 2022, 02:04:47 AM
Quote from: Cain on March 01, 2022, 02:03:50 PM

The thing is, if Russia's going to threaten to invade if Ukraine's part of NATO or not, then they might as well join, since the opportunity cost is exactly the same. "Neutrality" isn't really an option here, even that will be taken as trying to remove themselves from Russia's sphere of influence. That's what is so damning about the whole thing, the Minsk agreement would have effectively made them neutral, but that apparently wasn't acceptable enough to Putin's people.


If Ukraine is a part of NATO, doesn't that obligate the US and NATO to do a lot more than send them weapons when attacked? Theoretically pushing us closer to direct conflict and subsequent Nuclear Annihilation? Based on a lot of talk going around by World Leaders, Military Strategists, and every-day idiots on my Facebook feed, I no longer buy the assumption that everyone believes in MAD. And that should have been pretty predictable, considering it's merely an extrapolation of the concept of "Chicken" to Global proportions. I can find article after article of that game ending in countless dead idiots on the freeway. For that reason, we shouldn't consider direct conflict and invocation of MAD as an option. It might have been a pretty concept when even the Nuclear Arsenals of two countries couldn't turn our planet into a soot-covered, radioactive icy hellscape, but we're past that now.

Putin couldn't have been completely unaware of how much Ukraine has been building its Defenses since 2014. I refuse to believe that even a frustrated Putin would consider a direct Military Conflict to be cheaper than the de facto conditions of the Minsk 2 Agreement (Culture Wars and Intelligence/Espionage operations to establish Hegemony over Ukraine with the help of Political Factions from the Donbas and Crimean Peninsula.). If the US and NATO were willing to do the bare minimum, like talk Ukraine off the ledge Re: NATO membership (Which literally no one wanted anyways.) and actually moving forward with the Minsk 2 despite its disagreement on the interpretation, and overall cared more about preventing escalating conflict even when inconvenient, I think Russia would have avoided a full invasion and countless lives could have been saved.

I speak as someone who knows their own signaling couldn't possibly affect a foreign country. Nothing I say or do is going to affect Putin's decision-making. But if I kick up enough shit about my own country's actions/inaction, I have a higher, even if negligible chance of making someone in Washington attribute more value to human life and do better.

We're able to properly condemn the actions of people within a country/society using the Justice System. When their actions put the Liberty of others in Jeopardy, we quite literally have the ability to, with a seemingly external overwhelming force, put them in their place and maybe even rehabilitate them when we're feeling humane. When we're talking about the scale of World Super-Powers with the ability to end organized Human Life as we know it in less than an hour, there is no external overwhelming force that can come to the rescue. We actually have to take into account the concerns of absolute pieces of shit, and concede when it means living to find another way to beat them. I don't think we can continue treating War on the World Stage like some Moral pissing contest between opposing views on "Nation Sovereignty", as if the US Government or NATO ever gave a shit about that anyways. Countries do not exist in a vacuum - Sovereignty does not mean "Can act without consequences". There are ways of organizing against Autocrats that don't involve putting us all at risk, even if those methods might require us to admit that our own forms of Human Organization are inherently violent and wrong. I'm done pretending like the World Leaders should get a free pass to play ignorant every time another country starts a very predictable and preventable catastrophe.

/rant

Not directed at anyone here. Just completely disgusted by our general views of conflict as a species right now.

You're now conflating Ukraine's wish to join NATO with NATO actually allowing them to join.

Under the Minsk agreement, not only would Russia have had a veto over NATO membership, NATO is bound by it's own charter which requires countries that have "ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance." No-one wants to get into a nuclear war for the Donbas.

Clearly even with the Minsk agreement, Ukraine was not going to be any position to join NATO any time soon. The same issues are why Georgia has not yet joined NATO, despite it being even more popular there.

As for Putin, look at the number of wars he's launched at this point. He's drunk on impunity, he thought his military logistics were better than they were and that he had a plan to knock Ukraine out in a blitzkrieg strike. Clearly he was wrong.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 02, 2022, 10:13:23 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 02, 2022, 03:20:45 AM
It doesn't even matter at this point. NATO all but just collectively agreed to shoot down Russian planes in their air space. Because backing a solipsistic nut job with Nuclear Launch Codes, who's just humiliated himself in front of the entire World, even further into a corner is sure to work out well for everyone.

I mean, seriously? Is no one else getting "Don't Look Up" vibes right now? What in the actual fuck is going on?

"All but agreed? (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_192582.htm)"

Quote from: NATO Secretary General Jens StoltenbergNATO is not going to send the troops into Ukraine or move planes into Ukrainian airspace.

Quote from: President of Poland Andrzej DudaGentlemen, as Secretary General has now said, we are not sending any jets to Ukraine because that would open a military interference in the Ukrainian conflict. We are not joining that conflict. NATO is not a party to that conflict. However as I said, we are supporting Ukrainians with humanity aid. However, we are not going to send any jets to the Ukrainian airspace.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on March 02, 2022, 12:39:26 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 02, 2022, 10:13:23 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 02, 2022, 03:20:45 AM
It doesn't even matter at this point. NATO all but just collectively agreed to shoot down Russian planes in their air space. Because backing a solipsistic nut job with Nuclear Launch Codes, who's just humiliated himself in front of the entire World, even further into a corner is sure to work out well for everyone.

I mean, seriously? Is no one else getting "Don't Look Up" vibes right now? What in the actual fuck is going on?

"All but agreed? (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_192582.htm)"

Quote from: NATO Secretary General Jens StoltenbergNATO is not going to send the troops into Ukraine or move planes into Ukrainian airspace.

Quote from: President of Poland Andrzej DudaGentlemen, as Secretary General has now said, we are not sending any jets to Ukraine because that would open a military interference in the Ukrainian conflict. We are not joining that conflict. NATO is not a party to that conflict. However as I said, we are supporting Ukrainians with humanity aid. However, we are not going to send any jets to the Ukrainian airspace.

"Their" was in reference to NATO, not Ukraine. I know US/NATO aren't that stupid. Some would argue NATO airspace doesn't matter in terms of escalation, but I disagree.

And yeah, obviously Ukraine wasn't going to be joining NATO. That's why US/NATO's position is so irredeemably stupid. We openly invited them after their request to join, and then even after a direct military response from Russia, guaranteeing the clause you just quoted would take effect, WE DUG OUR HEELS IN ON THE IDEA OF THEM JOINING. Why not just focus on de-escalation, and have Ukraine/Georgia join later after Putin croaks? Why put us all at further risk over some legal bullshit we can ignore after everyone who cares about it is dead? Not that the US actually follows International Law unconditionally anyways.

We're spending too much time trying to justify escalation, and not enough time de-escalating. It's as simple as that. Conceding anything to Putin would be painful and heartbreaking, but it would either de-escalate the situation, or prove he was lying with no further risk.

NATO: "Okay, Ukraine can't join NATO and you can have de facto control over their foreign policy via Minsk 2"

Russia: "Oh, well actually that's not gonna work anymore."

World: *Facepalm*


Literally, the only way I can see our current trajectory making sense is if someone secretly replaced all of Russia's Nuclear Arsenal with cartoonishly big flags that say "Boom!" on them.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Faust on March 08, 2022, 12:23:02 PM
So a week in and I am still not sure what to make from it. I dont like getting my information off whats being shared on social platforms and if you were to go off of reddit news articles the Ukranians have decimated the Russians.

Does it hold up, has Russia taken enough of a black eye to consider withdrawing, or is the damage they have taken inconsequential for their goal of capturing Ukraine and all this is doing is delaying the inevitable?
How can Putin still have support from this back home surely at home in Russia there would be:
Those who oppose the war
Those who dont really care but intend to use it as a cudgel to remove Putin and take power for themselves?

Or is his own support base so unwavering that he still able to weather this?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2022, 12:27:13 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 02, 2022, 02:29:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 02, 2022, 02:08:15 AM
Sometimes a war happens and America isn't the bad guy.

Call me crazy, but there you are.

I didn't say America was solely responsible. They didn't invade Ukraine. That's Putin's sin. I'm saying America's inaction, through either laziness or ignorance, helped build the conditions that made it a reality. They are complicit, and if they continue down this line of reasoning with Russia, we're no longer going to be alive to bitch about it. It's our responsibility to pressure our government to do better.

Giving them the out is like giving American Corporate Oligarchs an out for having lived through and been brainwashed by Capitalist Propaganda into thinking their persistent exploitation of their fellow countrymen and the environment is okay because profits are up this quarter. They chose to keep overwhelming Power. They are culpable for how they've used and abused it, regardless of whether they understand their role in the resulting dystopia.

Russia is solely responsible.  Nobody held a gun to Putin's head and told him to invade.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: lexi on March 09, 2022, 03:16:11 PM
If successful, Putin acting out in this way and seizing Ukraine may give him.. what.. another decade of power?

How long would he have had if he never followed through on his aging threat to invade?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on March 09, 2022, 06:21:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2022, 12:27:13 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 02, 2022, 02:29:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 02, 2022, 02:08:15 AM
Sometimes a war happens and America isn't the bad guy.

Call me crazy, but there you are.

I didn't say America was solely responsible. They didn't invade Ukraine. That's Putin's sin. I'm saying America's inaction, through either laziness or ignorance, helped build the conditions that made it a reality. They are complicit, and if they continue down this line of reasoning with Russia, we're no longer going to be alive to bitch about it. It's our responsibility to pressure our government to do better.

Giving them the out is like giving American Corporate Oligarchs an out for having lived through and been brainwashed by Capitalist Propaganda into thinking their persistent exploitation of their fellow countrymen and the environment is okay because profits are up this quarter. They chose to keep overwhelming Power. They are culpable for how they've used and abused it, regardless of whether they understand their role in the resulting dystopia.

Russia is solely responsible.  Nobody held a gun to Putin's head and told him to invade.

I'm not disagreeing with that. But there is no justification for US/NATO explicitly choosing the path of most escalation every time a decision needed to be made on the crisis. Even if the Invasion has nothing to do with Ukraine's NATO membership, for 20+ years, US/NATO have been giving Putin every bit of ammunition he could possibly want to justify an invasion. I consider that irresponsible, and justification for the label of "complicit".

I understand fully WHY they made those choices. Zelenskyy and Ukrainians in general feel that they'd rather risk it all for freedom from Russia's grip. They're clearly the ones telling the US/NATO not to back down on their NATO membership message on principle, fully acknowledging that it would lead to continued military conflict, and I commend that courage. I'm sure we'd feel the same way if we were fighting against a Fascist superpower on our doorstep. But we have to ask ourselves:

Is Ukraine's temporary, de facto lack of sovereignty (Which could be resolved if the US pushed and fed Leftist Organized Labor Movements in Russia and Ukraine.) a problem that we're willing to risk Humanity's existence on to solve with a Proxy War?

I know if WE were fighting a Fascist nuclear superpower on our doorstep, I wouldn't want the rest of the world to continuously escalate on every bluff that superpower made. I would just want them to keep some pressure on and provide resources to extend the Defense.


The fact that Russia is currently targeting civilian structures, which they would need to expend resources to rebuild if they were intending to absorb them into an Empire, demonstrates to me that they really do consider the NATO membership aspect to be an existential threat (Their words.). They're decimating Ukraine to ensure it's no longer a threat. They will continue until Ukraine is a pile of ashes. We need to decide soon if we want to entertain other options besides further escalation, and letting them burn all of Ukraine to the ground.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2022, 11:55:19 PM
Quote from: POFP on March 09, 2022, 06:21:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2022, 12:27:13 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 02, 2022, 02:29:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 02, 2022, 02:08:15 AM
Sometimes a war happens and America isn't the bad guy.

Call me crazy, but there you are.

I didn't say America was solely responsible. They didn't invade Ukraine. That's Putin's sin. I'm saying America's inaction, through either laziness or ignorance, helped build the conditions that made it a reality. They are complicit, and if they continue down this line of reasoning with Russia, we're no longer going to be alive to bitch about it. It's our responsibility to pressure our government to do better.

Giving them the out is like giving American Corporate Oligarchs an out for having lived through and been brainwashed by Capitalist Propaganda into thinking their persistent exploitation of their fellow countrymen and the environment is okay because profits are up this quarter. They chose to keep overwhelming Power. They are culpable for how they've used and abused it, regardless of whether they understand their role in the resulting dystopia.

Russia is solely responsible.  Nobody held a gun to Putin's head and told him to invade.

I'm not disagreeing with that. But there is no justification for US/NATO explicitly choosing the path of most escalation every time a decision needed to be made on the crisis. Even if the Invasion has nothing to do with Ukraine's NATO membership, for 20+ years, US/NATO have been giving Putin every bit of ammunition he could possibly want to justify an invasion. I consider that irresponsible, and justification for the label of "complicit".


Well, obviously.  Nothing ever happens if the USA isn't there to make it happen.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on March 10, 2022, 07:43:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2022, 11:55:19 PM
Quote from: POFP on March 09, 2022, 06:21:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2022, 12:27:13 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 02, 2022, 02:29:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 02, 2022, 02:08:15 AM
Sometimes a war happens and America isn't the bad guy.

Call me crazy, but there you are.

I didn't say America was solely responsible. They didn't invade Ukraine. That's Putin's sin. I'm saying America's inaction, through either laziness or ignorance, helped build the conditions that made it a reality. They are complicit, and if they continue down this line of reasoning with Russia, we're no longer going to be alive to bitch about it. It's our responsibility to pressure our government to do better.

Giving them the out is like giving American Corporate Oligarchs an out for having lived through and been brainwashed by Capitalist Propaganda into thinking their persistent exploitation of their fellow countrymen and the environment is okay because profits are up this quarter. They chose to keep overwhelming Power. They are culpable for how they've used and abused it, regardless of whether they understand their role in the resulting dystopia.

Russia is solely responsible.  Nobody held a gun to Putin's head and told him to invade.

I'm not disagreeing with that. But there is no justification for US/NATO explicitly choosing the path of most escalation every time a decision needed to be made on the crisis. Even if the Invasion has nothing to do with Ukraine's NATO membership, for 20+ years, US/NATO have been giving Putin every bit of ammunition he could possibly want to justify an invasion. I consider that irresponsible, and justification for the label of "complicit".


Well, obviously.  Nothing bad ever usually happens if the USA isn't there to make it happen ignore the warnings of foreign policy specialists, humanitarians, and academics for years, and openly support and directly fund predatory, Imperialist murder campaigns that push every country South of the Equator, Left of George Bush, and previously/currently opposed to American Hegemony further into existential crises that prop up Populist/Fascist Dictators, or provide false hope to geo-strategically fucked countries sitting next to them.

Fixed.

(https://c.tenor.com/VVgssji2_gwAAAAC/youre-welcome-awkward.gif)
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: chaotic neutral observer on March 11, 2022, 01:02:49 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 09, 2022, 06:21:09 PM
But there is no justification for US/NATO explicitly choosing the path of most escalation every time a decision needed to be made on the crisis.
That's obviously not happening.  The current refusal to implement a no-fly zone, and the US not facilitating the donation of Polish MIGs is not "the path of most escalation".

Quote
Even if the Invasion has nothing to do with Ukraine's NATO membership, for 20+ years, US/NATO have been giving Putin every bit of ammunition he could possibly want to justify an invasion.
No, they haven't given Putin "every bit of ammunition he could possibly want."  Offering immediate NATO membership, or stationing NATO troops in Ukraine would be much better than Putin's stated justification of "de-nazifying Ukraine".   Which is, frankly, pretty lame.

Quote
I consider that irresponsible, and justification for the label of "complicit".
No matter what the action movies tell you, the US is not responsible for maintaining the peace of the world.

Quote
(Which could be resolved if the US pushed and fed Leftist Organized Labor Movements in Russia and Ukraine.)
I've noticed that the people who accept the narrative that NATO is responsible for the invasion also tend to have an idealistic view of socialism or communism.  It's probably an artifact of where they go to get their news.

Quote
I know if WE were fighting a Fascist nuclear superpower on our doorstep, I wouldn't want the rest of the world to continuously escalate on every bluff that superpower made.
It's a good thing the rest of the world isn't continuously escalating, then.  (Financial sanctions aren't an escalation, they're retribution).

Quote
I would just want them to keep some pressure on and provide resources to extend the Defense.
That's what's happening.

Quote
The fact that Russia is currently targeting civilian structures, which they would need to expend resources to rebuild if they were intending to absorb them into an Empire, demonstrates to me that they really do consider the NATO membership aspect to be an existential threat (Their words.). They're decimating Ukraine to ensure it's no longer a threat.
Russia's slow progress in the invasion suggests that they badly underestimated Ukraine.  They thought this would be over in a few days.  That's not the kind of judgement you make of someone you consider a "threat".  Destroying Ukraine wasn't part of the original plan; rather, it's Putin's alternative to losing.  His first choice was a subdued, mostly intact client state, with his goons in control of the government.  His second choice is doing whatever it takes to hold onto power, up to and including scorched earth.  Because if he loses this war, he'll lose his presidency, if not his life.

Quote
We need to decide soon if we want to entertain other options besides further escalation, and letting them burn all of Ukraine to the ground.
"We" are already executing other options.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 12, 2022, 01:03:58 AM
I'm really not here to argue with people who make excuses for Putin.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on March 15, 2022, 10:04:28 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 12, 2022, 01:03:58 AM
I'm really not here to argue with people who make excuses for Putin.

Whatever. I'm done trying to explain the difference between:

- Making the case for less Imperialistic motivation behind foreign policy, in favor of humanitarian/diplomatic bridge building
and
- Justifying crimes against humanity by the dictators that Imperialism feeds



Apparently that level of nuance is just impossible to comprehend after the War Machine shuffles its queue cards a few times. Another Power that the US/NATO have been xenophobically ostracizing for a century, no matter what they did, finally did something openly and globally unacceptable and consequential. So that must mean the US/NATO were right all along, and that we all need to stand behind every decision they make in response. Anything suggesting that there were/are other options at any time are clearly just Pro-Putin propaganda.

Now don't get me wrong, there's plenty of Pro-Putin bullshit floating around out there, too. I even see some Lefties who rose to fame under Trumpism just openly pushing stuff that's either inconsequentially anti-US (The arguments they were making were weak or minor in comparison to other more important arguments. This clearly demonstrates intentional pandering.), or pretty bluntly pro-Putin in the form of "Putin did nothing wrong, the US/NATO didn't give anyone a choice," which is taking my argument to a stupid extreme.

I just think it's utterly bullshit that "We had other options, we have other options, we are ignoring all options that relate to realistic diplomacy - and at the cost of increased tension and lower and middle-class suffering" gets lumped in with all of that. It's an insult to healthy dissent.


Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on March 11, 2022, 01:02:49 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 09, 2022, 06:21:09 PM
But there is no justification for US/NATO explicitly choosing the path of most escalation every time a decision needed to be made on the crisis.
That's obviously not happening.  The current refusal to implement a no-fly zone, and the US not facilitating the donation of Polish MIGs is not "the path of most escalation".

Quote
Even if the Invasion has nothing to do with Ukraine's NATO membership, for 20+ years, US/NATO have been giving Putin every bit of ammunition he could possibly want to justify an invasion.
No, they haven't given Putin "every bit of ammunition he could possibly want."  Offering immediate NATO membership, or stationing NATO troops in Ukraine would be much better than Putin's stated justification of "de-nazifying Ukraine".   Which is, frankly, pretty lame.

Quote
I consider that irresponsible, and justification for the label of "complicit".
No matter what the action movies tell you, the US is not responsible for maintaining the peace of the world.

Quote
(Which could be resolved if the US pushed and fed Leftist Organized Labor Movements in Russia and Ukraine.)
I've noticed that the people who accept the narrative that NATO is responsible for the invasion also tend to have an idealistic view of socialism or communism.  It's probably an artifact of where they go to get their news.

Quote
I know if WE were fighting a Fascist nuclear superpower on our doorstep, I wouldn't want the rest of the world to continuously escalate on every bluff that superpower made.
It's a good thing the rest of the world isn't continuously escalating, then.  (Financial sanctions aren't an escalation, they're retribution).

Quote
I would just want them to keep some pressure on and provide resources to extend the Defense.
That's what's happening.

Quote
The fact that Russia is currently targeting civilian structures, which they would need to expend resources to rebuild if they were intending to absorb them into an Empire, demonstrates to me that they really do consider the NATO membership aspect to be an existential threat (Their words.). They're decimating Ukraine to ensure it's no longer a threat.
Russia's slow progress in the invasion suggests that they badly underestimated Ukraine.  They thought this would be over in a few days.  That's not the kind of judgement you make of someone you consider a "threat".  Destroying Ukraine wasn't part of the original plan; rather, it's Putin's alternative to losing.  His first choice was a subdued, mostly intact client state, with his goons in control of the government.  His second choice is doing whatever it takes to hold onto power, up to and including scorched earth.  Because if he loses this war, he'll lose his presidency, if not his life.

Quote
We need to decide soon if we want to entertain other options besides further escalation, and letting them burn all of Ukraine to the ground.
"We" are already executing other options.


This is mostly just Straw Men, or completely missing the point/making bad assumptions about my position. I might respond to it piecemeal, later.

One thing I did find disturbing, although not surprising due to the fairly unified War Propaganda flowing around, is that you identified Sanctions as "retribution." If I didn't know any better, I'd consider the statement xenophobic, but these are somewhat unique times and I'll let it slide.

Unless specific assets/markets can be used to target those in Power (And they are just starting to do so successfully now, over the last few days.), Sanctions only really directly impact the general population, and are intended to slow/halt the conflict by putting general economic pressure on the country and, subsequently, its leadership. All of these companies/Blue-Checks suddenly demanding we don't do business with Russian civilian companies and organizations, etc. is honestly fucking disgusting. The Russian civilians, victims of a pretty brutal dictatorship, are now also being forced out of the global economy for Putin's actions and pushed into socioeconomic decline that will likely take decades to recover from. That's of course assuming that the sanctions are removed after the conflict. Last I checked, NATO/US don't have a really good rollback record on Sanctions, although I'll take evidence of the contrary.

Neither the Russian People, nor the global population deserve the socioeconomic pressure from massive sanctions on a highly globalized economic Power. Was it the safest way to end the conflict? I'm sure History will say so. But regardless of where you stand on that debate, sanctions like the ones implemented guarantee that millions of innocent people will suffer, and that's nothing to be proud of - Nothing worth considering to be "retribution," as if most of those affected "had it coming," or even played a role in the conflict.


When you're in the upper echelons of Global Power Structures, the lower-level consequences of your actions are generally reduced to impersonal numbers in the form of "acceptable collateral risk" to aid their compartmentalization and coping mechanisms. News Media that's closest to those Power Structures design their narratives to further depersonalize the results to make them more palatable for the rest of us. This filtering, when we don't combine it with some healthy re-evaluation and historical context, leads to recklessly positive views of our State Leadership's actions. As a result, our State Leadership rarely concedes anything in diplomacy. They ignore humanitarian requests by the World that it finds inconvenient, and brutally dominates countries who openly dissent, or supports their domination if they happen to be enemies of our allies in conflict. If our general view of US Foreign Policy wasn't always unanimous support, our leadership would have a higher chance of doing something morally acceptable to other countries. I would imagine that if that kind of pattern was more consistent, we would have less countries throughout the world in conflict, and in need of exclusive military alliances.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: chaotic neutral observer on March 15, 2022, 10:58:17 PM
Quote from: POFP on March 15, 2022, 10:04:28 PM
This is mostly just Straw Men, or completely missing the point/making bad assumptions about my position. I might respond to it piecemeal, later.

No need.  Your worldview is too simplistic for me to engage with, and enough noise has been added to Cain's thread already.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on March 16, 2022, 03:02:48 AM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on March 15, 2022, 10:58:17 PM
Quote from: POFP on March 15, 2022, 10:04:28 PM
This is mostly just Straw Men, or completely missing the point/making bad assumptions about my position. I might respond to it piecemeal, later.

No need.  Your worldview is too simplistic for me to engage with, and enough noise has been added to Cain's thread already.

:lol: Oh yeah, I can tell you have me figured out :roll:

This board is literally for extensive discussion and idea interrogation, not just getting talked at by the admins in lengthy sermons and rants (I enjoy that too.). That being said, the admins have always been free to move my drivel to Randomness or the Peanut Gallery when appropriate. I come back every other year or so to stir the pot and get people thinking about how they present their ideas, and usually they end up flipping me on one or two points, and everyone ends up learning something. However, it doesn't work if you're already committed to the mainstream, media-backed position AND have a non-malleable view of all opposition. That's the coward's way out. I can't think of anything more pathetic than someone who's right, but doesn't have the decency to direct it at the opposition and generate the friction that energizes and strengthens 'right' signal. Even more-so in a world uniformly dominated by bad signal.



@Cain - The most recent requests so far for your convenience:

*Tips Fedora* - "Ma-lady"

Quote from: Faust on March 08, 2022, 12:23:02 PM
So a week in and I am still not sure what to make from it. I dont like getting my information off whats being shared on social platforms and if you were to go off of reddit news articles the Ukranians have decimated the Russians.

Does it hold up, has Russia taken enough of a black eye to consider withdrawing, or is the damage they have taken inconsequential for their goal of capturing Ukraine and all this is doing is delaying the inevitable?
How can Putin still have support from this back home surely at home in Russia there would be:
Those who oppose the war
Those who dont really care but intend to use it as a cudgel to remove Putin and take power for themselves?

Or is his own support base so unwavering that he still able to weather this?



Quote from: purpleXi on March 09, 2022, 03:16:11 PM
If successful, Putin acting out in this way and seizing Ukraine may give him.. what.. another decade of power?

How long would he have had if he never followed through on his aging threat to invade?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: PretentiousMovieDirector on March 16, 2022, 03:12:17 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 16, 2022, 03:02:48 AM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on March 15, 2022, 10:58:17 PM
Quote from: POFP on March 15, 2022, 10:04:28 PM
This is mostly just Straw Men, or completely missing the point/making bad assumptions about my position. I might respond to it piecemeal, later.

No need.  Your worldview is too simplistic for me to engage with, and enough noise has been added to Cain's thread already.

:lol: Oh yeah, I can tell you have me figured out :roll:

This board is literally for extensive discussion and idea interrogation, not just getting talked at by the admins in lengthy sermons and rants (I enjoy that too.). That being said, the admins have always been free to move my drivel to Randomness or the Peanut Gallery when appropriate. I come back every other year or so to stir the pot and get people thinking about how they present their ideas, and usually they end up flipping me on one or two points, and everyone ends up learning something. However, it doesn't work if you're already committed to the mainstream, media-backed position AND have a non-malleable view of all opposition. That's the coward's way out. I can't think of anything more pathetic than someone who's right, but doesn't have the decency to direct it at the opposition and generate the friction that energizes and strengthens 'right' signal. Even more-so in a world uniformly dominated by bad signal.



Sadly in agreement - This is undoubtedly another B-Roll Season.



TRENT, I DIDN'T GIVE YOU A 10-CENT RAISE SO YOU COULD LET MY LATTE GET COLD. Stir it for 5, let it settle for 20, AND THEN HEAT IT BACK UP AGAIN. AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE, I WANT IT BACK IN MY HANDS IN 10 MINUTES...


GET FUCKED! THE 10-CENT RAISE WAS ALSO NOT FOR YOU TO DO MATH!
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: chaotic neutral observer on March 16, 2022, 01:47:10 PM
Quote from: PretentiousMovieDirector on March 16, 2022, 03:12:17 AM
Sadly in agreement - This is undoubtedly another B-Roll Season.



TRENT, I DIDN'T GIVE YOU A 10-CENT RAISE SO YOU COULD LET MY LATTE GET COLD. Stir it for 5, let it settle for 20, AND THEN HEAT IT BACK UP AGAIN. AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE, I WANT IT BACK IN MY HANDS IN 10 MINUTES...


GET FUCKED! THE 10-CENT RAISE WAS ALSO NOT FOR YOU TO DO MATH!
hey, I only took this job because you said i could have my name in the movie credits

and my name's not trent
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 16, 2022, 05:03:04 PM
Quote from: POFP on March 16, 2022, 03:02:48 AM
This board is literally for extensive discussion and idea interrogation, not just getting talked at by the admins in lengthy sermons and rants (I enjoy that too.). That being said, the admins have always been free to move my drivel to Randomness or the Peanut Gallery when appropriate.

There is precisely zero chance that any of this conversation is getting moved anywhere.

It is all very on topic, even if I think you're wrong.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: PretentiousMovieDirector on March 16, 2022, 06:19:05 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on March 16, 2022, 01:47:10 PM
Quote from: PretentiousMovieDirector on March 16, 2022, 03:12:17 AM
Sadly in agreement - This is undoubtedly another B-Roll Season.



TRENT, I DIDN'T GIVE YOU A 10-CENT RAISE SO YOU COULD LET MY LATTE GET COLD. Stir it for 5, let it settle for 20, AND THEN HEAT IT BACK UP AGAIN. AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE, I WANT IT BACK IN MY HANDS IN 10 MINUTES...


GET FUCKED! THE 10-CENT RAISE WAS ALSO NOT FOR YOU TO DO MATH!
hey, I only took this job because you said i could have my name in the movie credits

and my name's not trent


TRENT!...

*Eyes dart left - Sudden and hurried shuffling as Trent runs off to find something to do*

...is my soon-to-be-street-ridden assistant.


The only "credit" you're going to get at this rate is in the form of a tribunal conviction for this Holocaust of a Romantic Buildup scene! Pucker up, buttercup!  :argh!:   


TRENT! WHERE THE FUCK IS THE DOLLY OPERATOR?! YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO PICK HIM UP FROM HOT TOPIC 2 HOURS AGO!
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on March 16, 2022, 06:24:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 16, 2022, 05:03:04 PM
Quote from: POFP on March 16, 2022, 03:02:48 AM
This board is literally for extensive discussion and idea interrogation, not just getting talked at by the admins in lengthy sermons and rants (I enjoy that too.). That being said, the admins have always been free to move my drivel to Randomness or the Peanut Gallery when appropriate.

There is precisely zero chance that any of this conversation is getting moved anywhere.

It is all very on topic, even if I think you're wrong.

Foiled again, but so close.

One day...  One day I'll make it to the Peanut Gallery. Then you'll see... YOU'LL ALL SEE...


MUAHAHAHAHAA
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 17, 2022, 12:04:18 AM
Quote from: POFP on March 16, 2022, 06:24:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 16, 2022, 05:03:04 PM
Quote from: POFP on March 16, 2022, 03:02:48 AM
This board is literally for extensive discussion and idea interrogation, not just getting talked at by the admins in lengthy sermons and rants (I enjoy that too.). That being said, the admins have always been free to move my drivel to Randomness or the Peanut Gallery when appropriate.

There is precisely zero chance that any of this conversation is getting moved anywhere.

It is all very on topic, even if I think you're wrong.

Foiled again, but so close.

One day...  One day I'll make it to the Peanut Gallery. Then you'll see... YOU'LL ALL SEE...


MUAHAHAHAHAA

One day.

But TODAY, *I* have turned "being reasonable and fair-minded" into a DICK MOVE.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: altered on March 17, 2022, 06:33:15 PM
Anyone who says "mainstream, media-backed position" as a serious response to the regulars of this forum has made a serious mistake. I'd wager that if people here aren't sure of what to think but have the fear of saying "I don't know," they'd go with the goddamn contrarian position for fucking kicks. Get real, please.

Also, POFP, you have a habit of using loads of words to say nothing. It's very, how do I put this kindly, first year philosophy student of you.

Say what you fucking say, direct and simple. Because no one has time for these walls with no paragraph breaks and no fucking point. And before you even go there, it isn't like we don't read text walls, it's that yours suck.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: chaotic neutral observer on March 22, 2022, 02:16:59 PM
Quote from: altered on March 17, 2022, 06:33:15 PM
Anyone who says "mainstream, media-backed position" as a serious response to the regulars of this forum has made a serious mistake. I'd wager that if people here aren't sure of what to think but have the fear of saying "I don't know," they'd go with the goddamn contrarian position for fucking kicks. Get real, please.
I'd love for some actual discussion of the propaganda stream.

I hear a lot about Russian military casualties and destroyed materiel, and there's a lot about Ukrainian civilian casualties (and footage of blown-up apartment buildings), but there's practically nothing about Ukrainian military losses.  I understand that broadcasting information on the state of your troops isn't exactly good practice, but the lack of even casualty numbers is conspicuous to say the least.  Just how bad is it?

The videos of Ukrainians towing Russian tanks and disarming bombs are great for morale, but doesn't say much about the real situation (and I think the bomb disarming one may have been staged).

And what's up with Russia deciding to break out the hypersonic missiles?  It's nifty tech and all, but... those things have to be stupidly expensive, they probably don't have many to spare, and if they provided a path for Russia to wrap this up quickly, they'd have done so long ago.  Is this just Putinesque dick-waving?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: altered on March 22, 2022, 07:16:59 PM
Serbia is theoretically neutral but practically somewhat Russia-aligned, so some Serbian people I know have been giving me information there.

Estimated Ukrainian military losses are pretty small, actually. Their materiel isn't being captured. They lose troops mostly to shelling, and Russia is sort of just shelling at random, they don't have good intelligence on potential strongpoints (which is why doofuses posting their location on social media and Russia bombing the fuck out of them is such a common theme right now, it's literally the best intel Russia can get).

And while Ukraine's economy is hurting on small arms, they have two refurb programs ongoing for updating captured mounted machine guns into practical man-portable shoulder-fired units, they have taken a page out of the Kurdish resistance book and begun putting together cheap anti-materiel rifles to match them, and they have at least Germany providing SUBSTANTIAL arms assistance, including the PzF3s they donated most recently (which even the latest Russian tanks should be total kills with).

One problem I see continuing to come up with Russia's approach is that they have no combined arms doctrine worth mentioning. Their tanks are in all-armor units, making them easy kills for sneaky mechanized infantry. Their infantry are not well-organized either, it seems.

I can't speak to the hypersonic missiles with confidence, Cain might be able to. I can say there are two LIKELY scenarios:
1: Putin waving his dick.
2: Pattern of escalation. "We don't want to do this but you give us no choice." The T-14s rolling out en masse to get totally fucking crushed by Ukrainian anti-armor units should be next if that's the case, and after that we might be in danger territory for actual nukes -- probably tactical payloads on theater ballistic missiles to start with. I think Russia would deploy any potential "Wunderwaffen" they have before that point. It's a really WW2 playbook Putin's using as a general rule, so I am not ruling out Russia having some under-baked top mega secret weapons programs they think they can deploy before the big guns come out.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2022, 08:59:30 PM
Quote from: altered on March 22, 2022, 07:16:59 PM
Serbia is theoretically neutral but practically somewhat Russia-aligned, so some Serbian people I know have been giving me information there.

Estimated Ukrainian military losses are pretty small, actually. Their materiel isn't being captured. They lose troops mostly to shelling, and Russia is sort of just shelling at random, they don't have good intelligence on potential strongpoints (which is why doofuses posting their location on social media and Russia bombing the fuck out of them is such a common theme right now, it's literally the best intel Russia can get).

And while Ukraine's economy is hurting on small arms, they have two refurb programs ongoing for updating captured mounted machine guns into practical man-portable shoulder-fired units, they have taken a page out of the Kurdish resistance book and begun putting together cheap anti-materiel rifles to match them, and they have at least Germany providing SUBSTANTIAL arms assistance, including the PzF3s they donated most recently (which even the latest Russian tanks should be total kills with).

One problem I see continuing to come up with Russia's approach is that they have no combined arms doctrine worth mentioning. Their tanks are in all-armor units, making them easy kills for sneaky mechanized infantry. Their infantry are not well-organized either, it seems.

I can't speak to the hypersonic missiles with confidence, Cain might be able to. I can say there are two LIKELY scenarios:
1: Putin waving his dick.
2: Pattern of escalation. "We don't want to do this but you give us no choice." The T-14s rolling out en masse to get totally fucking crushed by Ukrainian anti-armor units should be next if that's the case, and after that we might be in danger territory for actual nukes -- probably tactical payloads on theater ballistic missiles to start with. I think Russia would deploy any potential "Wunderwaffen" they have before that point. It's a really WW2 playbook Putin's using as a general rule, so I am not ruling out Russia having some under-baked top mega secret weapons programs they think they can deploy before the big guns come out.

It's worth mentioning that the latest Russian tanks are less survivable than the older ones.  The T90 is a piece of shit that is useful only as a crematorium coffin.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: altered on March 22, 2022, 09:09:46 PM
BUT IT GOES FAST. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ARMOR IS ALL ABOUT SPEED. SURVIVABILITY IS FOR MECHANIZED INFANTRY!
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: altered on March 22, 2022, 09:23:24 PM
Also, cause I just got what you were trying to say: I was mostly talking about their T-14.

The PzF3 is, IIRC, close to penetrating the theoretical maximum for practical ERA, so even if the Armata's goofy Malachit ERA performs 1000% efficiently it's probably a tactical kill at the bare minimum. But I think it's a total kill: the interior armored capsule won't protect the crew because of edge effect, based on leaked schematics, so if you get past the ERA its all toast. And the turret's unmanned... so they stow all the ammunition in it. So if you blow open the crew capsule you probably detonate the magazine. Goodbye tank, seeya later.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 23, 2022, 09:18:28 PM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on March 22, 2022, 02:16:59 PM
Quote from: altered on March 17, 2022, 06:33:15 PM
Anyone who says "mainstream, media-backed position" as a serious response to the regulars of this forum has made a serious mistake. I'd wager that if people here aren't sure of what to think but have the fear of saying "I don't know," they'd go with the goddamn contrarian position for fucking kicks. Get real, please.
I'd love for some actual discussion of the propaganda stream.

I hear a lot about Russian military casualties and destroyed materiel, and there's a lot about Ukrainian civilian casualties (and footage of blown-up apartment buildings), but there's practically nothing about Ukrainian military losses.  I understand that broadcasting information on the state of your troops isn't exactly good practice, but the lack of even casualty numbers is conspicuous to say the least.  Just how bad is it?

The videos of Ukrainians towing Russian tanks and disarming bombs are great for morale, but doesn't say much about the real situation (and I think the bomb disarming one may have been staged).

And what's up with Russia deciding to break out the hypersonic missiles?  It's nifty tech and all, but... those things have to be stupidly expensive, they probably don't have many to spare, and if they provided a path for Russia to wrap this up quickly, they'd have done so long ago.  Is this just Putinesque dick-waving?

Honestly? The casualty numbers look worse for the Russians right now, though of course any hard data is tricky. Estimates put Ukrainian military casualties between 2000 and 4000 at the moment. I assume this excludes paramilitary groups like Azov, because no-one cares about them.

At the same time, Russian military casualties are estimated to be between 4000-10,000. Komsomolskaya Pravda, a pro-Putin outlet, reported a casualty number of 9,861 from Russian MoD sources, but quickly scrubbed it from the internet.

What we can say with some certainty is that Russian tactical intelligence sucks on the ground, while Ukrainian intelligence seems very much on the ball. Five different Russian generals have been killed by the Ukrainians since the start of the conflict, some with service records going back to the Chechen conflicts. That's not sheer luck, I can assure you.

As for the hypersonic missiles, while a psychological shock factor certainly can't be ruled out, the Pentagon believe it's because Putin is running low on precision-guided weaponry. Ukranian air defence has denied Russia the air superiority it needs to turn this campaign around, and so this could be a case of throwing everything that has a chance of getting through at them, and hoping it's enough to put a dent in their defences to allow that.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2022, 11:58:01 PM
Quote from: altered on March 22, 2022, 09:09:46 PM
BUT IT GOES FAST. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ARMOR IS ALL ABOUT SPEED. SURVIVABILITY IS FOR MECHANIZED INFANTRY!

But it doesn't go fast.  They're still using ancient diesels.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: altered on March 25, 2022, 01:39:01 AM
The T-90 has a turbine-powered variant (which is actually the original variant, and not the modernized "upgrade") that is indeed pretty nimble. By, you know, Cold War standards. Its not very powerful as tank turbine engines go, as I recall, so they did that by having absolutely garbage conventional armor and relying entirely on ERA. So vulnerable to mines, any decently heavyweight KE projectile, thermal (i.e. not learning your lessons, they should have known better from the Continuation War) and basically made out of tissue paper and hope once the ERA blows.

The joke is that the armchair tactician types have been saying for years that the speed of the T-90s makes them a serious threat to NATO armor. To which I have only question marks. I thought we learned that lesson in WW2, but apparently...
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on March 25, 2022, 01:57:28 AM
Quote from: altered on March 25, 2022, 01:39:01 AM

The joke is that the armchair tactician types have been saying for years that the speed of the T-90s makes them a serious threat to NATO armor. To which I have only question marks. I thought we learned that lesson in WW2, but apparently...

Bugs hit my window at high speed.  One day, one of them will stop me.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Bruno on March 25, 2022, 01:32:58 PM
Hey, Cain. How much of an issue do you think the food/grain/fertilizer/etc shortages are going to be?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 25, 2022, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: Bruno on March 25, 2022, 01:32:58 PM
Hey, Cain. How much of an issue do you think the food/grain/fertilizer/etc shortages are going to be?

In combination with a lot of other factors, it's not pretty. Uptake from Canada, Australia and China is helping offset a significant loss from the Ukrainian and Russian markets but it only goes so far and China in particular will likely be struggling due to harvest conditions there. I'd say further price rises are all but inevitable at this point.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Bruno on March 26, 2022, 12:14:57 AM
Quote from: Cain on March 25, 2022, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: Bruno on March 25, 2022, 01:32:58 PM
Hey, Cain. How much of an issue do you think the food/grain/fertilizer/etc shortages are going to be?

In combination with a lot of other factors, it's not pretty. Uptake from Canada, Australia and China is helping offset a significant loss from the Ukrainian and Russian markets but it only goes so far and China in particular will likely be struggling due to harvest conditions there. I'd say further price rises are all but inevitable at this point.

Are we looking at a situation where millions of impoverished people die of starvation? That bad?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on March 26, 2022, 02:20:24 PM
Quote from: Bruno on March 26, 2022, 12:14:57 AM
Quote from: Cain on March 25, 2022, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: Bruno on March 25, 2022, 01:32:58 PM
Hey, Cain. How much of an issue do you think the food/grain/fertilizer/etc shortages are going to be?

In combination with a lot of other factors, it's not pretty. Uptake from Canada, Australia and China is helping offset a significant loss from the Ukrainian and Russian markets but it only goes so far and China in particular will likely be struggling due to harvest conditions there. I'd say further price rises are all but inevitable at this point.

Are we looking at a situation where millions of impoverished people die of starvation? That bad?

Potentially. Any price instability when people are on thin margins is always going to carry that risk, and this disruption is significant (low double digits of global trade, but that's still a big plurality given we're talking about...well, global trade).

The countries I would worry about most are Afghanistan, which is already suffering a starvation crisis partially created by the freezing of assets by the US State Department, Ethiopia and Yemen. All three rely primarily on a mix of Russian and Ukrainian exports and are also suffering from ongoing fighting, and so are extremely exposed to this kind of thing. To a lesser extent Egypt, Syria and Iran are also heavily affected and there may be increased domestic instability as a result of this
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: POFP on July 27, 2022, 09:06:28 PM
Okay, I'm thoroughly caught up on it all, including the context of the decades of Russian State propaganda I was not yet aware of and certainly didn't understand in modern contexts around the Ukraine conflict. The brainrot I was spouting before, while primarily just irrelevant outside of the context of the Russian Propaganda, was highly offensive in the worst cases, and highly insensitive in the best cases, specifically when the Russian Propaganda is taken into account.

I'm sorry for being such a dumbass.

And also an asshole.

I've also been trying my best, for a couple months, to battle that same kind of brainrot wherever I see it online.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2022, 02:59:00 AM
Okay, Cain, what's the scoop on Rishi Sunak?  Never heard of him.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 25, 2022, 05:37:10 PM
Me either. Everybody seemed to be worried it would be Johnson, Braverman, or Patel. Or Coffey:

(https://i.ibb.co/LZmzjnf/0-Spectator-Magazine-Summer-Party-01-Jul-2015.jpg)

This is one of those "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't" things, isn't it?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on October 28, 2022, 03:38:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2022, 02:59:00 AM
Okay, Cain, what's the scoop on Rishi Sunak?  Never heard of him.

He's twice as rich as the King of England.

Literally that's all you need to know, it tells you everything about him. But for a brief rundown, he's a creature of the banks, he was willing to serve in Boris Johnson's cabinet, he has the same cavalier belief that he is above the rules that Boris Johnson does and he's already mislead Parliament, engaged in antisemitic dogwhistles and re-appointed significant nutters and criminals to high office.

He is more competent than Truss, probably one of the most competent front bench Tories in all honesty. But given their baseline competence, you shouldn't expect much.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on October 28, 2022, 04:11:06 AM
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2022, 03:38:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 25, 2022, 02:59:00 AM
Okay, Cain, what's the scoop on Rishi Sunak?  Never heard of him.

He's twice as rich as the King of England.

Literally that's all you need to know, it tells you everything about him. But for a brief rundown, he's a creature of the banks, he was willing to serve in Boris Johnson's cabinet, he has the same cavalier belief that he is above the rules that Boris Johnson does and he's already mislead Parliament, engaged in antisemitic dogwhistles and re-appointed significant nutters and criminals to high office.

He is more competent than Truss, probably one of the most competent front bench Tories in all honesty. But given their baseline competence, you shouldn't expect much.

Why don't they just say "fuck it" and put Rees-Mogg in?
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on October 28, 2022, 04:55:48 AM
He's pissed off the half of the party that still have holiday homes in reality. Sunak, who is one of those, noticeably banished him to the back benches, because the man's not only malevonent he's useless, even by current Tory party standards. Putting him in power would be even worse than Truss.

Plus, remember, this was an MP stitch-up this time around, and not the party membership. The party membership are insane, which is why they wanted Truss. The MPs actually have to worry about re-election, which is why they rallied around the more moderate and competent candidate, relatively speaking, while everyone else stood down. The candidate they can actually potentially not get wiped out in a future election with, unlike Truss or Rees-Mogg. Sunak did have glowing profiles written about him for his Covid budget measures, after all.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on December 11, 2022, 04:45:13 AM
Evening Cain,

Can I get a drop of prophecy for the future? I'm guessing early election, but how early and why? Probably not by next summer, but by say September after everyones holidays are fucked again through a shitshow 40c summer.

I'm giving 3/1 on riots by April ish, small scale but widespread.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Doktor Howl on December 11, 2022, 05:16:19 AM
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2022, 04:55:48 AM
He's pissed off the half of the party that still have holiday homes in reality. Sunak, who is one of those, noticeably banished him to the back benches, because the man's not only malevonent he's useless, even by current Tory party standards. Putting him in power would be even worse than Truss.

Plus, remember, this was an MP stitch-up this time around, and not the party membership. The party membership are insane, which is why they wanted Truss. The MPs actually have to worry about re-election, which is why they rallied around the more moderate and competent candidate, relatively speaking, while everyone else stood down. The candidate they can actually potentially not get wiped out in a future election with, unlike Truss or Rees-Mogg. Sunak did have glowing profiles written about him for his Covid budget measures, after all.

From what I've seen so far, he's not a complete shitshow.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Junkenstein on December 11, 2022, 09:31:39 PM
Can't recall who said it but the just was "instead of getting trussterfucked we are just sunknackered".

Given the list of things on strike it may be underestimating things.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 12, 2022, 03:10:14 AM
Hmm. The way I see it, unless there's an igniting crisis, Sunak will just glide along until election day.

That said, there are so many looming crises that you can almost take your pick. At this point I consider public sector strikes escalating into wildcat strikes and the government trying to bring in emergency powers to curb their ability to legally strike to be a leading contender. Mike Lynch is charismatic and eats government reporters for breakfast, people are sympathetic to nurses and when the army inevitably gets pulled in, people will feel sorry for the squaddies and blame the suits, not the unions, for their woes.

Energy and cost of living crisis factors into that. Government continues to sit on its hands and do nothing. How many more businesses need to go under before the combination of those out of work and those in work but severely underpaid threaten to tilt into a crisis? How many families having to chose between heating and going bankrupt during what's projected to be an especially harsh winter?

EU negotiations are going suspiciously well...which means the Brexit gang are working themselves up to calling treason on Sunak. They're already putting Priti Patel forward to test the waters, but I think she's just to see how things look and not the real contender.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 12, 2022, 03:13:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on December 11, 2022, 05:16:19 AM
From what I've seen so far, he's not a complete shitshow.

Only because he hides from critical press and doesn't go out of a way to make a prat out of himself. He was one of Johnson's top cabinet members. This is just Johnsonianism without Johnson. So real problems are getting ignored in favour of asset-stripping and cronyism, and nothing will be done about any real issue ever.

Most MPs have already given up. They know the next general election is going to be a slaughter, so they're stealing office supplies and putting in sick days.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: altered on December 27, 2022, 04:47:06 AM
How bad is this Russian bank thing for Putin? We all know he's going to win any elections had anyway, so I'm more wondering if one of his inner circle might see about having him be the latest mysteriously defenestrated Russian.

And more importantly, how bad is this for Russia? Will it survive to the end of 2023 without fragmenting? I can see a lot of separatist movements gaining ground under these circumstances, particularly with the military busy out West.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on December 29, 2022, 02:09:52 PM
In the short term, I believe the Central Russian Bank will recover and reorientate from the shock. The move came as a surprise - both the timing and that it happened at all - and so they're scrambling to recover, obviously hampered by the existing sanction regime narrowing their options. But the current run is mostly a consequence of that shock.

Longer term, the damage is done, it's just not equally distributed. EU price caps and bans on Russian oil sales, capital flight and sourcing for parts will hit harder once winter properly settles in and starts breaking things down. Being unable to source replacements, while revenue drains away and international companies refuse to work in the region will hit them hard. I don't think we'll see a dramatic tipping point like the bank run or anything, but the damage it'll do to the average Russian and the Russian military (which is already on its last legs) will almost certainly be more noticeable. Ukraine is already penetrating Russia's air space with drones, so I expect if we see mass defeats in the field, that may cause more panic than anything on the economic front - or pre-empt it.

(as an aside, still impressed with how Biden and NATO have thrashed their biggest regional rival with what is effectively a rounding error on the US military budget, and shown that NATO's combined arms docrine is still very relevant)
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on December 30, 2023, 09:30:07 PM
Cain,

As you haven't been very active on the forum since my own return, I hesitated to ask about a reliable source(s) for news about the ongoing war in Ukraine.

I've been relying primarily on the following sources: www.criticalthreats.org, Reporting from Ukraine on YouTube, and Military Lab on YouTube.

Other sources I've found are spotty on reporting, and often overly sensationalistic for my taste. So, can you recommend what you consider to be a reliable source(s) for the latest news from the front lines?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 03, 2024, 10:39:57 PM
Front line news is...tricky. I'll admit, I don't follow the front line, open source stuff for the most part. I've found a lot of sources lately are very...lax on showing some pretty horrific scenes, the kind of stuff that will definitely put you off your dinner. Not to mention Twitter is now full of paid blue check mark "open source intel" dipshits who are being aggressively pushed by Musk, whose own position on the conflict is suspect.

Unless you're looking for specific weapon system or tactical disposition information, I would honestly suggest not focusing on that level. Taking a step or two back and looking at the bigger picture will allow for the trends to be more broadly visible, and is less susceptible to being gamed, simply because Ukraine can't hide it's been pushed out of so and so a city, or Russia can't hide it lost 50 tanks in it's last idiot push.

In general, I'd prefer something like various university and think tank analysis centres for stuff like this, as they will usually provide daily to weekly updates and fairly dispassionate analysis. Some of these will undoubtedly be biased, you've got your Atlantic Council and RUSI official blogs and such after all, but they're still pretty useful, and tend to bullshit a lot less than TV talking heads do. But that's where I'd look, Eurasia-focused security think tanks and research programs.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on January 04, 2024, 02:43:18 AM
Cain,

Thanks for the advice. I will widen my search for accurate intel accordingly.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Cain on January 04, 2024, 02:00:15 PM
Not a problem. I will admit a slight preference for such sources overall, myself. Unless you really want to delve into the tactical level stuff, which I find a bit unnecessary (though sometimes interesting), the more operational level and strategic stuff is usually more rewarding.

I will say that though I haven't followed it for the current conflict much, I've found the Jamestown Foundation quite helpful. They are a small c-conservative defence based think tank, but they're very much establishment DC types more than anything else. And between them and the Institute for the Study of War, I've been able to use their data and projections to come up with some pretty significant and correct predictions before.
Title: Re: Picking Cain's Brains
Post by: Brother Mythos on January 04, 2024, 06:49:09 PM
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is on my long list. However, the Jamestown Foundation is not, but I will check it out. And, I agree with you, strategic situations are far more important than any day-to-day tactical situation.

Still, I do have a bias towards wanting to know what's happening on the tactical level/at the contact line/on the front lines. This is partly because, way back in the day, a friend and I unknowingly walked right into the middle of a very uncomfortable situation, because we had been given absolutely zero intel from our superiors. It was one of those once bitten, twice shy learning experiences.

Thanks again.