[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

If you are unfamiliar with Peter Zeihan:

He is a geopolitical strategist. I have been following him for a few years and have found him to offer insightful & sobering analysis. If you got an hour or so to spare, he makes a good listen. In particular, watch the section where he shows the capital flows out of China into the USA (which is a major reason the dollar has remained strong).


Zeihan did a presentation last month:

https://vimeo.com/215078563

[Kid Twist]

Good stuff. I just randomly clicked before 10 minutes and am fascinated already, because of his Bretton Woods references. Recall that I made a post about the Triffin Dilemma a while back, totally apropos. I'll check it out in its entirety tonight, a bit later.

[Kid Twist]

Ok, now I've seen two of his presentations, mostly the same stuff, the other was a 2016 presentation where at the end he interesting says the debt doesn't matter. So I'm guessing that's how he is answering the Triffin Dilemma question. But Martin Armstrong uses history to suggest that the outside crumbles in on the world reserve currency, which is an interesting point because Zeihan basically suggests the same thing is happening in the near War period coming up. Yet he maintains the US is self sufficient and can say "so what who cares" --- which I think is actually largely true.

What he doesn't really address, and perhaps this is due to always talking about pure survival and that he's in front of investor types or those of means frequently, is the social erosion of the USA while materialism reigns. No one denies that the US will continue to be a major player, but I think he's missing something on the meaningful and cultural part of social or cultural fabric, which is really disjointed at this point.

I was thinking a possible solution to this is actually strong right wing rule to solve that type of problem precisely because the nation is so self sufficient.

As an aside, the cultural and transparency aspect of America with all that wealth continuing also creates problems, such as increasing wealth disparity. I don't see that stopping, either.

I think the part he lacks is the common man point of view that rejected globalist idea, something we can and will do, but it neglects that this common man is still WAY far away from elites who will continue to increase their wealth. He says consumption is why Y-millenial is great but where the F is he claiming these youngsters are even getting the money from? I don't get that either. That's all more BS debt. Has to be.

[Kid Twist]

I wonder why Zeihan doesn't take US internal, potential problems as much of a threat to it as a nation moving ahead. It's not like we haven't been a materialist superpower for a long time now. Perhaps it's because:

* hese are made for global thinkers and investor types (upper classes/elitists wondering what to do with money)
* It requires a broad and long, in depth understanding of government, history, progressivism, etc.
* He is a libertarian who believes as most modern people in the 1st world do, that materialism rules all and a people or its path ahead are not that relevant

America is a nation increasing in wealth disparity and I don't buy the demographic benefit we have, given the debt levels, which will undoubtedly increase:

How do "millenials" keep consuming if they are in school debt and have bad to decent, if any, jobs? And if the debt doesn't mean anything, how did the 2008 collapse or near disaster happen? Why wouldn't it happen again if debt goes to 30-40 trillion?

Trump seems to be the only non-globalist candidate, and we don't hear that from many other leaders, yet Zeihan thinks all of a sudden we'll be isolationist on many fronts. Hmm.

China and Russia are homogeneous populations pulling all in the same direction. The USA is not one of these.

Materialism doesn't seem to have given the USA a purpose or unified strength, things have gotten worse from a nation state point of view over time. I think this is where Zeihan is missing many crucial "details."

[Dan Woolf]

(05-09-2017 12:06 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

China and Russia are homogeneous populations

Yeah, no.

[Kid Twist]

Bumping this as he has put out a few new presentations and predictions, interesting. I see that he is an old Stratfor guy, which is also amusing. I think realvision is the most recent interview he did, but there are interesting .pdf you can find on the net from January 2018 that had some solid insight. I thought the same thing as I wrote above about him though, when I saw the recent interview; the social and institutional problems and doubt in the US are huge issues that he doesn't treat at all --- but most here realize they can't truly be ignored. You can check it out, but he's hugely bearish on China and Germany. Bullish on France, Argentina, and Turkey.

[beta_plus]

Everyone on this forum should watch his videos on youtube. They are fantastic.

Also, his 2 books are excellent as well. Russia's, Saudi Arabia's, and Iran's behavior make complete sense afterwards, as well as China's behavior in the south china sea.

His first book, "The Accidental Superpower", published in 2014, predicted the rise of something like Donald Trump, since internationally (not domestically), Trump represents one thing: the renegotiation and possible complete collapse of Bretton Woods. Ultimately, that's why so many of the world's leaders are freaking out about him.

(05-09-2017 12:06 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

I wonder why Zeihan doesn't take US internal, potential problems as much of a threat to it as a nation moving ahead. It's not like we haven't been a materialist superpower for a long time now. Perhaps it's because:

* hese are made for global thinkers and investor types (upper classes/elitists wondering what to do with money)
* It requires a broad and long, in depth understanding of government, history, progressivism, etc.
* He is a libertarian who believes as most modern people in the 1st world do, that materialism rules all and a people or its path ahead are not that relevant

America is a nation increasing in wealth disparity and I don't buy the demographic benefit we have, given the debt levels, which will undoubtedly increase:

How do "millenials" keep consuming if they are in school debt and have bad to decent, if any, jobs? And if the debt doesn't mean anything, how did the 2008 collapse or near disaster happen? Why wouldn't it happen again if debt goes to 30-40 trillion?

Trump seems to be the only non-globalist candidate, and we don't hear that from many other leaders, yet Zeihan thinks all of a sudden we'll be isolationist on many fronts. Hmm.

China and Russia are homogeneous populations pulling all in the same direction. The USA is not one of these.

Materialism doesn't seem to have given the USA a purpose or unified strength, things have gotten worse from a nation state point of view over time. I think this is where Zeihan is missing many crucial "details."

Peter Zeihan makes his money by giving highly paid speeches to industrial associations, oil firms, and investment firms. Even if he is aware of these issues, there are certain questions that he has to avoid if he wishes to continue making a living.

He is still very useful to understanding how the world works, especially if you combine it with what we discuss here.

As well, even if you disagree with him, he is a very good way of showing people above the age of 50 how the later 1/2 of Generation X (born 1970 to 1980 - my 1/2 generation) thinks.

[Kid Twist]

Yes, that's why I bumped.

[beta_plus]

Peter Zeihan takes some interesting racial risks near the end of this video, though probably not what any side hoped for. Watch the whole thing. It's excellent.

[The Beast1]

Zeihan has been one of the few strategists out there who has an accurate picture and an intelligent grasp of the world at large.

Hacks like Martin Armstrong miss the point and largely are there to feed a thirst for doom porn. I wouldn't make trades based on any of his calls.

Zeihan gets it. Follow the money.

The world needs America more than America needs it. The Chinese elite aren't stupid . They're rushing to get their money out of China. That to me speaks volumes about the long term viability of their little experiment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: America will descend into a military doctatorshop before it will collapse.

[Aquarius]

(01-29-2019 12:43 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Zeihan has been one of the few strategists out there who has an accurate picture and an intelligent grasp of the world at large.

Hacks like Martin Armstrong miss the point and largely are there to feed a thirst for doom porn. I wouldn't make trades based on any of his calls.

Zeihan gets it. Follow the money.

The world needs America more than America needs it. The Chinese elite aren't stupid . They're rushing to get their money out of China. That to me speaks volumes about the long term viability of their little experiment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: America will descend into a military doctatorshop before it will collapse.

I actually agree with the military dictatorship, but can you elaborate on how you think a military dictatorship will look like? Both in terms of domestic politics and the effects on international geopolitics/trade.

I'd like to hear some deeper insights on this!

[rockoman]

(01-29-2019 12:43 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

The world needs America more than America needs it.

So, why has America had a trade deficit every single year since 1975?

If, for the last 44 years I have only been able to cover 80% of my expenses with my own work and I have to issue IOUs to my neighbours for the rest, then I need them more than they need me.

[getdownonit]

^ If your neighbors let you pay them with IOUs for 44 years, they need you more than you need them.

[rockoman]

(01-29-2019 10:06 AM)getdownonit Wrote:  

^ If your neighbors let you pay them with IOUs for 44 years, they need you more than you need them.

That's been taken care of. The neighbours are pretty much ready.

http://goldswitzerland.com/wp-content/up...buying.jpg

[EndsExpect]

(01-29-2019 05:21 AM)rockoman Wrote:  

So, why has America had a trade deficit every single year since 1975?
If, for the last 44 years I have only been able to cover 80% of my expenses with my own work and I have to issue IOUs to my neighbours for the rest, then I need them more than they need me.

I used to ask this same question all the time when I was younger. However, now I realize that if China makes 300 billion selling to the US... then Chinese Elites take that money and then spend $400 billion on buying US assets. That includes stock, real estate, yachts... pretty much everything.

What we don't realize is that China is still communist and if you have money they can take if from you... execute you and 3 generations of your family... and nobody will care. Chinese rich know this... so they put their family in the US, where its safe, along with as much money as they can.

[rockoman]

(01-29-2019 11:02 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 05:21 AM)rockoman Wrote:  

So, why has America had a trade deficit every single year since 1975?
If, for the last 44 years I have only been able to cover 80% of my expenses with my own work and I have to issue IOUs to my neighbours for the rest, then I need them more than they need me.

I used to ask this same question all the time when I was younger. However, now I realize that if China makes 300 billion selling to the US... then Chinese Elites take that money and then spend $400 billion on buying US assets. That includes stock, real estate, yachts... pretty much everything.

Yes, turning debt into equity - getting rid of dollars. Very rational I would say.

In my original 'neighbours analogy' this equates to the neighbours who hold my IOUs using them to buy my furniture, my tools and my garden, which then no longer belong to me and which will not be inherited by my children.

Eventually if taken to its logical conclusion I- and my children - will work for the 'neighbours'.

[The Beast1]

(01-29-2019 11:26 AM)rockoman Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 11:02 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(01-29-2019 05:21 AM)rockoman Wrote:  

So, why has America had a trade deficit every single year since 1975?
If, for the last 44 years I have only been able to cover 80% of my expenses with my own work and I have to issue IOUs to my neighbours for the rest, then I need them more than they need me.

I used to ask this same question all the time when I was younger. However, now I realize that if China makes 300 billion selling to the US... then Chinese Elites take that money and then spend $400 billion on buying US assets. That includes stock, real estate, yachts... pretty much everything.

Yes, turning debt into equity - getting rid of dollars. Very rational I would say.

In my original 'neighbours analogy' this equates to the neighbours who hold my IOUs using them to buy my furniture, my tools and my garden, which then no longer belong to me and which will not be inherited by my children.

Eventually if taken to its logical conclusion I- and my children - will work for the 'neighbours'.

I'm going on a limb here, are you a gold bug?

Let's break these points down, because I can tell you've been consuming doom porn media for a long time.

(01-29-2019 05:21 AM)rockoman Wrote:  

So, why has America had a trade deficit every single year since 1975?
If, for the last 44 years I have only been able to cover 80% of my expenses with my own work and I have to issue IOUs to my neighbours for the rest, then I need them more than they need me.

The trade deficit is a means towards creating an interdependence upon America's financial empire and encourage adoption of the dollar as a reserve currency.

The end goals are:
1. US asset inflation.
2. T-Bills as a means of pushing USD out into the world economy for balance of payments.
3. Discourage nations from attacking America or its allies.
4. Encourage co-operation through manufacturing and conspicuous consumption.

The truth of the matter is, after the 60s, America's economic output was so great and powerful that the world would not have fully recovered if America maintained its factory output. No one consumes as much as America does. America could have taken a small haircut and closed it borders to all trade and be fine while the rest of the world would have languished in economic malaise.

This would have lead to a world economy similar to when the great powers were all kicking each other pre WW1.

So, to discourage that from happening again, this leads us to the next point: encouraging world wide dependence on the dollar and America's financial system.

Let's look at a graph of who holds the most T-Bills in 2018:



So no, your kids aren't going to be working as servants to some squinty eyed midgets.

China holds only 5.6% of T-Bills. Not a remarkable number at all. In fact, the majority of T-bills are hilariously owned by US pensioners and social security.

Another graph from 2018 to prove that point,


If you want your kids to not be slaves to rich people, I'd suggest you not buy consumables like furniture, tools, and other such stuff like in your example and instead focus your efforts on buying assets instead. The Americas who lost out because of globalization were shortsighted and thought they could continually keep trading their labor for wealth forever. The majority of the Chinese aren't this stupid hence their insistence on gobbling up tons of properties in empty ghost cities (albeit another problem for a different discussion).

Anywho, that 5.6% constitutes $1.18 trillion and that income feeds much needed USD reserves into China if the Chinese wish to be able to purchase exports.

If China were to attack America or one of its allies. , 5.6% of that debt would disappear. As in "poof" and no it wouldn't affect America's credit rating either because what China did was an act of war.

(01-29-2019 11:26 AM)rockoman Wrote:  

Yes, turning debt into equity - getting rid of dollars. Very rational I would say.

In my original 'neighbours analogy' this equates to the neighbours who hold my IOUs using them to buy my furniture, my tools and my garden, which then no longer belong to me and which will not be inherited by my children.

Eventually if taken to its logical conclusion I- and my children - will work for the 'neighbours'.

I'm going to assume you mean foreign ownership of companies, property, and IP. This one is easy, what happened to the Japanese and German foreign owned businesses and property during WW2?

It was seized and in many cases it was never given back.

Secondly, you discount legal system xenophobia. Dealing with an American court as a foreigner is a nightmare and most people correctly wish to avoid it. Courts will rule in the favor of the home court and push a home field advantage. Look at the Huawei case. Similarly, look at what happens in China when an American company tries to sue for IP theft.

Also, and let's tackle an unmentioned point. America is the world's greatest consumer, built a giant system to ensure other countries buy into this system to feed our conspicuous consumption, and those other countries built factories to sustain that want.

What happens when America stops buying? You'll probably say, "they'll go find another customer."

Ok, good luck with that. In the meantime, what are you going to pay your idling workforce? What about the capital costs to keep that factory clean and up to date?

In China, the government pays industries to keep them open to avoid civil unrest. How long will that keep up? They're called zombie industries for a reason.

Your thinking is too linear. Yes, i'd say that your thesis would be correct if absolutely nothing changed course for the next 25 years. But when has that ever happened?

It hasn't.

My own opinion? Look at the Taiwan and China issue as the flashpoint for the next world war. Taiwan is our century's Poland and will be China's downfall.

Oh and precious metals will never be the foundation of the world economy ever again. He who has the most guns, makes the rules. And at the moment, that's America.

[911]

Eventually though, the countries with more butter are going to win out. The US middle class has been shrinking, while China's been undergoing explosive growth. Neocon interventionism and usury central banking have been stunting the US' economic potential, while China has grown its industrial base, the most solid economic pillar a country could have, to the point where it's already the world's biggest.

[The Beast1]

(01-30-2019 01:29 PM)911 Wrote:  

Eventually though, the countries with more butter are going to win out. The US middle class has been shrinking, while China's been undergoing explosive growth. Neocon interventionism and usury central banking have been stunting the US' economic potential, while China has grown its industrial base, the most solid economic pillar a country could have, to the point where it's already the world's biggest.

I agree 911, however that's assuming absolutely nothing changes.

While history doesn't repeat, it certainly rhymes. China to me looks like the German Empire of the early 20th century. A loose collection of competing monied interests, a strongman (aka Bismarck) that's holding it all together, and of course a massive industrial base to power it all with an intelligent population to boot. I bet if we search newspapers from the early 20th century, we'd see similar comparisons that we have today.

"German Empire to Overtake Britain in 20 Years"

"Germans Encroaching on American Regional Influences"

Strongmen can only do so much. What if Xi has a heart attack? Or there is some sort of economic calamity that reduces QoL, or even some sort of geopolitical loss of face like the Taiwan issue?

There's just too many variables not to discount when making claims like this. The Taiwan issue alone is really the 500 lbs gorilla in the room.

Between China's aspirations for hegemony in Asia, the USA's MIL warhawks, and other competing interests in Asia the whole region is a flashpoint for war.

We also forget about India who is technically China's regional rival with a population of a close enough size. Last I heard, China was building bunkers on their border and helping Pakistan do the same thing. We have 3 powers with nukes, two who hate each other, and one who is looking for hegemonic control. That's a recipe for disaster right there.

Maybe if the CCP leadership reforms itself to a more open society, then I would be worried about them outgrowing the US. Until then, it's strongman vs strongman.

America may be decadent, lazy, and slovenly. But at least we only have 2 neighbors and two giant moats surrounding us.

Interesting times.

[Aquarius]

(01-30-2019 02:22 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(01-30-2019 01:29 PM)911 Wrote:  

Eventually though, the countries with more butter are going to win out. The US middle class has been shrinking, while China's been undergoing explosive growth. Neocon interventionism and usury central banking have been stunting the US' economic potential, while China has grown its industrial base, the most solid economic pillar a country could have, to the point where it's already the world's biggest.

I agree 911, however that's assuming absolutely nothing changes.

While history doesn't repeat, it certainly rhymes. China to me looks like the German Empire of the early 20th century. A loose collection of competing monied interests, a strongman (aka Bismarck) that's holding it all together, and of course a massive industrial base to power it all with an intelligent population to boot. I bet if we search newspapers from the early 20th century, we'd see similar comparisons that we have today.

"German Empire to Overtake Britain in 20 Years"

"Germans Encroaching on American Regional Influences"

Strongmen can only do so much. What if Xi has a heart attack? Or there is some sort of economic calamity that reduces QoL, or even some sort of geopolitical loss of face like the Taiwan issue?

There's just too many variables not to discount when making claims like this. The Taiwan issue alone is really the 500 lbs gorilla in the room.

Between China's aspirations for hegemony in Asia, the USA's MIL warhawks, and other competing interests in Asia the whole region is a flashpoint for war.

We also forget about India who is technically China's regional rival with a population of a close enough size. Last I heard, China was building bunkers on their border and helping Pakistan do the same thing. We have 3 powers with nukes, two who hate each other, and one who is looking for hegemonic control. That's a recipe for disaster right there.

Maybe if the CCP leadership reforms itself to a more open society, then I would be worried about them outgrowing the US. Until then, it's strongman vs strongman.

America may be decadent, lazy, and slovenly. But at least we only have 2 neighbors and two giant moats surrounding us.

Interesting times.

WW3 with China will only occur if Taiwan formally declares independence as the Republic of Taiwan. This requires both a strong supermajority DPP government and the Pentagon giving them the green light doing so. Right now, it doesn't seem likely, with the DPP losing steam and the US military so far uninterested in supporting a full Taiwanese declaration of independence. On top of that, trade between China and Taiwan has never been stronger. But things might change in the next few decades.

What I'm worried about is Russia. This is a country with strong interdependence with the EU, which the US doesn't want to be a strong player, but very little relations with the US. And at the same time, SJWs, neocons, and the Pentagon are united by a mixture of hatred and fear of Russia to varying levels, some factions of which have reached unreasonable, messianic levels. Eventually, some type of offensive attack on Russia has to happen as this type of hatred/fear doesn't just dissipate on its own. Unless of course, Russia collapses and undergoes regime change, but this is impossible now due to its current unprecedented prosperity.

I'd say that Ukraine would be a flashpoint. Once Ukraine gets a permanent US military base and/or joins NATO, its game over. Both political and economic relations between Ukraine and Russia are already suspended (only a few trains run a day, no more flights, and Russian males are banned from entering Ukraine), and given how important Ukraine is to the Russians historically (and Eastern/Southern Ukraine was actually part of the core Russian Empire e.g. Odessa), this won't end well.

However, when the US becomes some type of military dictatorship, possibly a Californian-style leftist one, I see its foreign influence decline. The US is in many ways just a continuation of the British Empire, and it will start to decline the same way the British Empire did before 2050 (a slow but steady loss of allies/vassals, many of whom will likely maintain good relations with the US, but no longer in mutual defense pacts or have favorable trade deals with the US). On the other hand, its domestic shift in this period will align much more closely with the Roman Empire than the UK, due to historical parallels with demographics, domestic government structure, cultural decline etc.

As examples of future paths of US allies, South Korea might move back to its historical status as a Chinese vassal state, the EU either falling apart into smaller but nationalist states, or morphing into being a de facto union-based nation similar to the USSR that will become a top global power on its own, becoming a strategic and perhaps also military competitor to the US, Japan preferring to chart a more independent geopolitical that reflects its already isolationist economy.

India might become a bit more powerful, and perhaps Russia can match its military capabilities with a civilian economy the same size.

Given the international trade and globalization system that the US built in the past decade, its possible that the Westphalian "balance of power" system returns in the 21st century.

[PUA_Rachacha]

Funny enough, I've been following his Twitter account for the last month since he posted a few comments on Scott Adams' twitter feed.

Unquestionably intelligent dude, but he doesn't skew partisan or hyperbolic, rather calmly talks about interesting geopolitical issues. A breath of fresh air where you can be stimulated by new ideas while not having to put up your defenses right away b/c he's spinning it as pro-right or pro-left. He's not pro- or anti-Trump, rather he tries to understand Trump's policies through an objective lens.

His thoughts feel like the early days of the internet where you encountered new ideas of understanding the world, but there was no spin to the idea to convert you to one side or the other, or buy one product over the other.

What I've found most interesting is how dubious he is of converting our national grid from primarily gas/coal/nuclear derived to mostly sustainable solar/wind/hydro. You have issues of scale, you have issues of availability during peak-consumption periods, etc. There are some parts of the country where you could maybe get away with mostly solar/wind, but they're very finite. The rest you'll need to fill out with nuclear and gas.

He's against The Wall since he believes that it would become as porous as the Gaza Wall. I don't know anything about the Gaza wall, but dollars to donuts it offers more protection than nothing at all.

Peter only offers the solution that you would need to erect a wall along the southern Mexican border since most of the illegal migration hails from Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. I guess, but erecting a wall in southern Mexico is not an option and has nothing to do with Trump's relationship with Obrador.

[Kid Twist]

As I've criticized before involving most types like Peter (Stratfor former intel guys), who I always find interesting, is that they are remarkably void of anything of insight or interest involving cultural issues. He mentioned cultural dominance once in the hour here, but it was in a string of pro-American benefits or strengths, and it wasn't necessarily good; it just meant powerfully exported. Unless there is a turnaround truly in the cultural aspect of the newly aligned parties, a real rejection of the madness of the left and media, the future can't be that bright. This is why I also agree with Beast in the sense that a strongman dictator type is coming at the major shift in power/economics or market crash in the next 10 years. The government is outright lying to our faces, without shame, they keep running foolish marketing puppet types like Kamala Harris (as if we didn't notice she's a poor man's Obama part deux) and the gargantuan gov't entities are deeply entrenched and anti democratic or properly republic oriented and constituted, are totally dishonorable and politically motivated. There are traitors like John Brennan that I would hope get what they deserve but being honest about the world and what happens in it, it's equally likely they'll again get away scot-free because the system truly is sick.

Regarding the German cycle back to alternate (Neo Nazi? Come on Peter) how can you blame them? More failed leadership selling out a country, that should be the expectation of the age. Just like with Trump, the elites sold out their own citizens and then expect them to just take it on the chin while the historical identity, which has produced so much good for the history of the world is done away with? This lack of understanding of pushing people's back to the walls is why there are always cycles of wars and the globalist types, if not by war, always get rejected. It is in our DNA if we are a strong nation with a great foundation --- as long as the foundation hasn't been forgotten, another one of their tricks to indoctrinate the youth (out of).

[The Beast1]

(01-30-2019 03:26 PM)Aquarius Wrote:  

WW3 with China will only occur if Taiwan formally declares independence as the Republic of Taiwan. This requires both a strong supermajority DPP government and the Pentagon giving them the green light doing so. Right now, it doesn't seem likely, with the DPP losing steam and the US military so far uninterested in supporting a full Taiwanese declaration of independence. On top of that, trade between China and Taiwan has never been stronger. But things might change in the next few decades.

Interesting take on the situation Aquarius. I don't have feet on the ground, though I do have a close friend who lives in Taipei and his opinion is contrary to this.

(01-30-2019 03:26 PM)Aquarius Wrote:  

What I'm worried about is Russia. This is a country with strong interdependence with the EU, which the US doesn't want to be a strong player, but very little relations with the US. And at the same time, SJWs, neocons, and the Pentagon are united by a mixture of hatred and fear of Russia to varying levels, some factions of which have reached unreasonable, messianic levels. Eventually, some type of offensive attack on Russia has to happen as this type of hatred/fear doesn't just dissipate on its own. Unless of course, Russia collapses and undergoes regime change, but this is impossible now due to its current unprecedented prosperity.

I'd say that Ukraine would be a flashpoint. Once Ukraine gets a permanent US military base and/or joins NATO, its game over. Both political and economic relations between Ukraine and Russia are already suspended (only a few trains run a day, no more flights, and Russian males are banned from entering Ukraine), and given how important Ukraine is to the Russians historically (and Eastern/Southern Ukraine was actually part of the core Russian Empire e.g. Odessa), this won't end well.

Eh, my own opinion is that Russia and the Ukraine situation is just small potatoes. Ukraine was just something to piss off Russia. Syria strained the Russians hard, I don't see them being able to sustain a long term war at all. In fact, if a WW3 in Asia starts I'd be willing to bet that the Russians would just steer well clear of it. Opting to fund both sides of the conflict.

(01-30-2019 03:26 PM)Aquarius Wrote:  

However, when the US becomes some type of military dictatorship, possibly a Californian-style leftist one, I see its foreign influence decline. The US is in many ways just a continuation of the British Empire, and it will start to decline the same way the British Empire did before 2050 (a slow but steady loss of allies/vassals, many of whom will likely maintain good relations with the US, but no longer in mutual defense pacts or have favorable trade deals with the US). On the other hand, its domestic shift in this period will align much more closely with the Roman Empire than the UK, due to historical parallels with demographics, domestic government structure, cultural decline etc.

I cordially disagree with you on this. I didn't want to address your question to me earlier because at this point it's conjecture that strays outside of the point of this thread but it's worth addressing nonetheless.

Historically, the US viewed the British Empire as a thorn in America's side on the international stage. Even though America and Britain were trading partners for a long time, the 2nd world war offered America a great opportunity to put pressure on England and break apart the empire.

As for your claim of a California style leftist dictatorship, I caution you to avoid the doom style porn that calls for this. Look at who funds, staffs, and controls the military industrial complex. Yes, there are Obama lackies who are placed all over the DoD but the military is very much a bastion of conservative politics. Leftist politicians are openly contemptuous of the military and want to dismantle the MIC, defund it, and roll back American imperialism for freebies.

You can't do that. Too much power and money involved. Doubly so, there's a large contingent of leftists who are anti Israel. While we rage against my (((people))), the enemy of my enemy is my friend and in this case the Jews are going to quickly find themselves against it.

We may never see an outright military dictatorship like the way Rome went, but if Alexandria Ocasia Cortez were to get elected, we'd probably see her do a 180* on her politics with back room threats against her and her family unless she tows the party line.

The deep state is in this for the long haul and that's continued American dominance in the form of a powerful military even if Texas and California start speaking Spanish. The power is just too much to let go.

It's fun to think about. My gut still has "war" as the immediate future.

[Kid Twist]

How quickly is "immediate"? I thought you said slow burn collapse, Beast?

[The Beast1]

Hey KT, i meant immediate (2-5) year span for ww3. As in an Asian theater world war with the actors being China and the US allies. Not speaking about collapse which I see as not happening anytime soon.

Hope that clarifies it!