Q: is anyone thinking/talking about this in terms of deterrence? Deterrence, something that has existed between the US and Russia/USSR for long periods of time, requires DEMONSTRATION. Think about this particularly from the Russian perspective. The challenge is that we don’t know what the US was hoping to accomplish, making a real assessment difficult.
Also, is anyone talking about the obvious fractures in the “deep-state” that allows for a portion to allow the US to be involved at this level?
It is this fracturing (new Digital Paradigm) and lack of a plan that leads to potential further conflict/ “chaos.” Interesting to see what the Trump “plan” is to accomplish peace.
"and lack of a plan that leads to potential further conflict/ “chaos.”
Exactly....back in the Cold War the USA and USSR both understood boundaries and the Key phrase. "Spheres of influence".
The dunder heads currently in DC are infantile ideologues who are incapable of understanding such concepts. Thats why there is "no Plan".
Except to destroy a Traditionalist type of culture that opposes progressive liberalism. Combine that with the additional goal of returning Russia to some Yeltsin period Weimar 2.0 with a weak economy dominated by the West and establishing a corrupt "failed state" swiming in mire.
Hate to tell them, but the NEOCON plan Ain't going to happen. The problem is the necons ideology does not allow them to have a back up plan or option 2.
So that is why they do not dial down the tension and go on stumbiling towards war.
"Q: is anyone thinking/talking about this in terms of deterrence?"
Unfortunately, I believe the answer is, Yes. I say 'unfortunately' for this reason. Neocons have long argued that we can fight and "win" a nuclear war. But as Scott Ritter argues, that can only be done via a preemptive strike--annihilate the other guy (and the only other guy in this scenario is the Russians) before he has a chance to even respond. Verifiable treaties to deter this scenario obviously are an obstruction to the scenario--us nuking Russia first.
Thanks Mark. In short term, say until Inauguration day, is it important that Putin understands the need for demonstration (the weapon was filmed in flight and impact so that everyone on the planet could see it) and deterrence, since the US and Brits may push the limit? The fact that the weapon is nuclear capable is important from a deterrence perspective.
Putin is under extreme pressure internally. He understands the need to mitigate against what the US/Brits may do in the next couple of months. Will the US/Brits go further?
The counter example is the US/China where there is no history, official or unofficial, of deterrence/demonstration.
The sever fracturing of the deep-state is a real thing and one to explore more. The folks under Biden are all likely going to be cleared out and a younger group brought in as well as promoted, and perhaps a few older ones brought back. Interested to see what the “plan” is going forward.
Pay attention to what we do with China and India, which we are dealing with differently. China is going through what can be described as a second opening. Finance/settlements is something to pay attention to and what agreements are made.
A word for relations with the East/China is “synchronicity” NOT harmony.
Synchronicity simply means at the same time, though it has expanded to encompass meaningful coincidences. Pray tell how that applies to Western-Chinese relations.
Hello Karen. You are quite correct. There cannot be “harmony” between East and West. Different grounds and origins leads to different civilizations. The best that can be achieved is “synchronization.” This was not possible under the Globalism/Television paradigm. But everyone everywhere is now in the Digital Paradigm (ubiquitous adoption of this as the communication/psycho environment). The Chinese have done at least two things the US/West has not. It has attempted at the state level to understand the groundings of the West/US. They do this through their cadre schools for the prospective elites. Whether they get this understanding correct is a different matter, but they have a formal process for educating their elites about the West. We have nothing like this regarding the East/China. Second, they are very forward and out in front in the adoption of Digital technology as the vehicle for propelling their civilization forward. The Daoists (Xi, his wife, their families and a few hundred others) are in charge now. The Daoists, as opposed to the Confucians and Buddhists, were the ones that were “pro” tech (think printing press) and were defeated. Now they are in charge. Their aim is a retrieval of their Medieval culture and civilization. China views history in cycles. The next high point of Chinese civilizational height is about 100-125 years from now. They think in these terms: decades/centuries forward and back. They know what the West did to them in the in the 1600 to 1900s.
So how is “peace” and movement forward civilization wise for the West/US achieved long term? It will be the West taking advantage of Digital technology and retrieving its own Medieval groundings. It will not be by seeing China as a hegemonic rival/enemy, etc.
China has recently opened itself to working with the West on Digital technology, kind of a second opening, the prior one being in the 1980s. China does not want AI to run amok or allow just anyone to do whatever they want with AI. That leads to unforeseen consequences.
Synchronous versus antagonism. China is about itself first. Unlike the West, it does not have a history of going around the world and trying to change places.
Chinese academics have written about the US getting away from its Founding and taking the place of the Brits.
Those are good points and I understand your argument more clearly thank you Jeff. In answer to your closing question, I very much hope that the West will recognize the world has changed and capitalize upon their own strengths. But I fear that the more likely outcome is yet another all-in pounce to see what they can steal. Some bullies just never learn.
FAFO
Putin: US/UK, it’s your move.
Q: is anyone thinking/talking about this in terms of deterrence? Deterrence, something that has existed between the US and Russia/USSR for long periods of time, requires DEMONSTRATION. Think about this particularly from the Russian perspective. The challenge is that we don’t know what the US was hoping to accomplish, making a real assessment difficult.
Also, is anyone talking about the obvious fractures in the “deep-state” that allows for a portion to allow the US to be involved at this level?
It is this fracturing (new Digital Paradigm) and lack of a plan that leads to potential further conflict/ “chaos.” Interesting to see what the Trump “plan” is to accomplish peace.
"and lack of a plan that leads to potential further conflict/ “chaos.”
Exactly....back in the Cold War the USA and USSR both understood boundaries and the Key phrase. "Spheres of influence".
The dunder heads currently in DC are infantile ideologues who are incapable of understanding such concepts. Thats why there is "no Plan".
Except to destroy a Traditionalist type of culture that opposes progressive liberalism. Combine that with the additional goal of returning Russia to some Yeltsin period Weimar 2.0 with a weak economy dominated by the West and establishing a corrupt "failed state" swiming in mire.
Hate to tell them, but the NEOCON plan Ain't going to happen. The problem is the necons ideology does not allow them to have a back up plan or option 2.
So that is why they do not dial down the tension and go on stumbiling towards war.
"Q: is anyone thinking/talking about this in terms of deterrence?"
Unfortunately, I believe the answer is, Yes. I say 'unfortunately' for this reason. Neocons have long argued that we can fight and "win" a nuclear war. But as Scott Ritter argues, that can only be done via a preemptive strike--annihilate the other guy (and the only other guy in this scenario is the Russians) before he has a chance to even respond. Verifiable treaties to deter this scenario obviously are an obstruction to the scenario--us nuking Russia first.
Thanks Mark. In short term, say until Inauguration day, is it important that Putin understands the need for demonstration (the weapon was filmed in flight and impact so that everyone on the planet could see it) and deterrence, since the US and Brits may push the limit? The fact that the weapon is nuclear capable is important from a deterrence perspective.
Putin is under extreme pressure internally. He understands the need to mitigate against what the US/Brits may do in the next couple of months. Will the US/Brits go further?
The counter example is the US/China where there is no history, official or unofficial, of deterrence/demonstration.
The sever fracturing of the deep-state is a real thing and one to explore more. The folks under Biden are all likely going to be cleared out and a younger group brought in as well as promoted, and perhaps a few older ones brought back. Interested to see what the “plan” is going forward.
Pay attention to what we do with China and India, which we are dealing with differently. China is going through what can be described as a second opening. Finance/settlements is something to pay attention to and what agreements are made.
A word for relations with the East/China is “synchronicity” NOT harmony.
Interesting times…
Synchronicity simply means at the same time, though it has expanded to encompass meaningful coincidences. Pray tell how that applies to Western-Chinese relations.
Whether within the digital paradigm or otherwise.
Harmonious those relations are not, correct.
Hello Karen. You are quite correct. There cannot be “harmony” between East and West. Different grounds and origins leads to different civilizations. The best that can be achieved is “synchronization.” This was not possible under the Globalism/Television paradigm. But everyone everywhere is now in the Digital Paradigm (ubiquitous adoption of this as the communication/psycho environment). The Chinese have done at least two things the US/West has not. It has attempted at the state level to understand the groundings of the West/US. They do this through their cadre schools for the prospective elites. Whether they get this understanding correct is a different matter, but they have a formal process for educating their elites about the West. We have nothing like this regarding the East/China. Second, they are very forward and out in front in the adoption of Digital technology as the vehicle for propelling their civilization forward. The Daoists (Xi, his wife, their families and a few hundred others) are in charge now. The Daoists, as opposed to the Confucians and Buddhists, were the ones that were “pro” tech (think printing press) and were defeated. Now they are in charge. Their aim is a retrieval of their Medieval culture and civilization. China views history in cycles. The next high point of Chinese civilizational height is about 100-125 years from now. They think in these terms: decades/centuries forward and back. They know what the West did to them in the in the 1600 to 1900s.
So how is “peace” and movement forward civilization wise for the West/US achieved long term? It will be the West taking advantage of Digital technology and retrieving its own Medieval groundings. It will not be by seeing China as a hegemonic rival/enemy, etc.
China has recently opened itself to working with the West on Digital technology, kind of a second opening, the prior one being in the 1980s. China does not want AI to run amok or allow just anyone to do whatever they want with AI. That leads to unforeseen consequences.
Synchronous versus antagonism. China is about itself first. Unlike the West, it does not have a history of going around the world and trying to change places.
Chinese academics have written about the US getting away from its Founding and taking the place of the Brits.
Globalism is dead. What will the US/West do?
Those are good points and I understand your argument more clearly thank you Jeff. In answer to your closing question, I very much hope that the West will recognize the world has changed and capitalize upon their own strengths. But I fear that the more likely outcome is yet another all-in pounce to see what they can steal. Some bullies just never learn.