Ralphw2 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2023, 20:29
Texas is threatening to bar Biden from the election.
Back in the UK, judging by the voting on the bbc news web site, the UK public still want Ukraine to be given more weapons to win this war, by a margin of at least 4 to 1
Here in the US, for example, we've already seen public support begin to shift. A recent Gallup poll found that 41% of Americans believe the US is doing too much to help Ukraine, up from 24% in August 2022 and 29% in June this year.
This shift has been reflected on Capitol Hill, where Republicans lawmakers - particularly in the House of Representatives - have also begun questioning how Ukraine aid is used and what the eventual end goals are.
If that figure continues to rise, it's possible that US lawmakers will be less likely to help Ukraine, as it will no longer be politically expedient for them to do so. These are, after all, elected officials who have to answer to constituents.
Public support for Ukraine seems to be much higher in the UK and Western Europe.
Perhaps Europe could pay the US for Ukrainian arms. A bit like paying for your security or an insurance premium. If I was a Republican US Congressman with a constituency that manufactures arms that sounds like good business to me. What's not to like?
Also I think there needs to be good thought on what weapons to supply. I read an article that suggests that Russia can train 300,000 men a year and that is the number that the arms supplied to Ukraine need to kill. Fancy tanks are all and well but the anti-personnel devices that cost <$10,000 per kill are the way to go.
On Spengler I think he said that the West will have its heyday from 1800 to 2000 and he seems not too far off. Then comes the age of Caesars, or something like that.
The West has been under assault from Global Communists and arguably Global Capitalists alike for over 100 years now. People are just too stupid to realize.
One would assume that the more likely Russia is to invade your country the higher your support for arms to Ukraine. Self preservation really.
BritDownUnder wrote: ↑22 Dec 2023, 04:49
Perhaps Europe could pay the US for Ukrainian arms. A bit like paying for your security or an insurance premium. If I was a Republican US Congressman with a constituency that manufactures arms that sounds like good business to me. What's not to like?
Also I think there needs to be good thought on what weapons to supply. I read an article that suggests that Russia can train 300,000 men a year and that is the number that the arms supplied to Ukraine need to kill. Fancy tanks are all and well but the anti-personnel devices that cost <$10,000 per kill are the way to go.
On Spengler I think he said that the West will have its heyday from 1800 to 2000 and he seems not too far off. Then comes the age of Caesars, or something like that.
The West has been under assault from Global Communists and arguably Global Capitalists alike for over 100 years now. People are just too stupid to realize.
One would assume that the more likely Russia is to invade your country the higher your support for arms to Ukraine. Self preservation really.
I understand that facts can be pesky and, indeed, psychologically painful things when they come up against a prejudiced mind. But, they remain facts nonetheless.
Russia is not occupying the majority of Western Europe and large swathes of the rest of the world with military bases. That would be America.
Russia is not pushing its military bases right up to the borders of America. But the reverse is, indeed, literally the case.
These are facts.
Last edited by northernmonkey on 22 Dec 2023, 11:28, edited 1 time in total.
clv101 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2023, 22:38
It's only really US support that matters.
So what happens if there is significant Russian interference in the US election process, in order to try to tip the balance in favour of a Trump win, in the hope this increases the chance of the US withdrawing support for Ukraine? This is not some outside probability either -- surely we can expect Russia to at least attempt precisely this: an army of Russian trolls, pretending to be non-Russians, posting pro-Trump propaganda.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
clv101 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2023, 22:38
It's only really US support that matters.
So what happens if there is significant Russian interference in the US election process, in order to try to tip the balance in favour of a Trump win, in the hope this increases the chance of the US withdrawing support for Ukraine? This is not some outside probability either -- surely we can expect Russia to at least attempt precisely this: an army of Russian trolls, pretending to be non-Russians, posting pro-Trump propaganda.
I'm not sure if Trump will need much external help against Biden. If Trump is allowed to run and if the Democrats chose to stick with Biden, I think Trump will win legitimately *and* there'll likely be pro-Trump propaganda from outsiders.
clv101 wrote: ↑21 Dec 2023, 22:38
It's only really US support that matters.
So what happens if there is significant Russian interference in the US election process, in order to try to tip the balance in favour of a Trump win, in the hope this increases the chance of the US withdrawing support for Ukraine? This is not some outside probability either -- surely we can expect Russia to at least attempt precisely this: an army of Russian trolls, pretending to be non-Russians, posting pro-Trump propaganda.
Got some evidence for the above?
You want evidence for something that hasn't happened yet? Or you want evidence this is probable? It is not the sort of thing that easy to prove, rather obviously. That doesn't mean it isn't true.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
BritDownUnder wrote: ↑22 Dec 2023, 04:49
Perhaps Europe could pay the US for Ukrainian arms. A bit like paying for your security or an insurance premium. If I was a Republican US Congressman with a constituency that manufactures arms that sounds like good business to me. What's not to like?
Also I think there needs to be good thought on what weapons to supply. I read an article that suggests that Russia can train 300,000 men a year and that is the number that the arms supplied to Ukraine need to kill. Fancy tanks are all and well but the anti-personnel devices that cost <$10,000 per kill are the way to go.
On Spengler I think he said that the West will have its heyday from 1800 to 2000 and he seems not too far off. Then comes the age of Caesars, or something like that.
The West has been under assault from Global Communists and arguably Global Capitalists alike for over 100 years now. People are just too stupid to realize.
One would assume that the more likely Russia is to invade your country the higher your support for arms to Ukraine. Self preservation really.
I understand that facts can be pesky and, indeed, psychologically painful things when they come up against a prejudiced mind. But, they remain facts nonetheless.
Russia is not occupying the majority of Western Europe and large swathes of the rest of the world with military bases. That would be America.
Russia is not pushing its military bases right up to the borders of America. But the reverse is, indeed, literally the case.
These are facts.
I am not sure where I denied some facts that were painful and pesky but here's a few facts for you.
When the countries of Eastern Europe became democracies they decided to leave the Warsaw Pact and the Russians had to close their bases. The Russians of course were a bit upset as they had believed their own bullshit about Communist Brotherhood of Nations.
The countries of NATO are generally democratic; exceptions are Spain, Turkey, Portugal and Greece for some of their NATO tenure were autocratic, but as far as I know no NATO country except France has asked the Americans to close their bases there and the Americans did close the French NATO bases. The Afghans and Vietnamese did ask the Americans to close their bases and the Americans grudgingly obliged. I believe the Czechs and Hungarians asked the Russians to close their bases in 1968 and 1956 respectively but the Russians declined.
You need to have lived in and visited a totalitarian state to appreciate the freedoms that you have. Perhaps as a student you had a bust of Lenin on your desk or a Che Guevara poster or something but I suggest you read and travel a bit more.
Have you ever been to Russia? I suggest you visit. It's a great place. My favourite was the Gulag museum in Moscow.
I think it unlikely that the "west" will collapse uniformly before other areas and political ideologies in the world. The US may descend into civil war, but it is close to energy independent and has huge food and mineral resources and some of the population is highly educated. I suspect it will retain most of the trappings of civilisation but descend into dictatorship. Parts of Europe will survive better than others. Scandinavia is still very strong and stable, France has a huge legacy of nuclear reactors which will be kept running many decades after their design life. The Mediterranean countries have plenty of solar potential, but will suffer more with climate change, and are on the front line of the migrant crisis. Germany is facing a significant step down due to energy shortages, but have been the powerhouse of Europe for many decades. They may not take kindly to losing top dog status. Australia is going to be baked dry, but is still a major coal and mineral exporter. The UK has traded on its "financial services" sector far too long and is likely to get its comeuppance once the US goes isolationist..
Elsewhere, China has a huge demographic time bomb and will stagnate economically as Japan did 20 years ago. They have been playing fast and lose with their financial sector, as much as any Western country, and the people may not like it when their life savings vanish. Many Muslim countries are in major population overshoot and will be in deep trouble when the cheap food imports dry up for economic or political reasons. Russia also has a demographic crisis made all the worse by their brutal disregard for the lives of their conscript army, and Putin has doubled down in Ukraine by moving the economy into war mode. If he fails to make significant territorial gains in the next few years the economy will implode under him. Some small islands are for all practical purposes already in collapse, Haiti comes to mind.
I think industrial civilisation is in terminal decline, but it's end will be patchy and messy.
Ralphw2 wrote: ↑22 Dec 2023, 14:40
I think industrial civilisation is in terminal decline.
Could you precisely define this? There is no question that civilisation as we know it is heading for serious trouble, but I find that when I try to define exactly what this means, things become more complicated. When trying to organise my own thoughts, I have to consider it from the point of view of western civilisation, because I know so little about what it is actually like to live in China, Russia or anywhere else non-western. What makes western civilisation different to what went before it? My best answer is: capitalism, science and democracy/liberalism (in no particular order). But is that what is in decline?
Growth based economics must end, with huge implications. For me the fate of democracy and liberalism is a huge question. Until very recently I have been strongly defending them, but I feel now I've been forced to reconsider whether it is even possible to preserve them in their current forms. The problem is it ultimately depends on trusting humans to make good-enough decisions, and there's no sign we're collectively capable of doing it. I don't know whether this problem has a cultural solution. Maybe evolution needs to do some further biological work on Homo sapiens.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
I have been strongly influenced by the reduction in complexity definition of civilisation collapse as developed by Tainter, Limits to Growth, and Diamond among others. This is predicated on EROEI or net energy of a society, which peaked at something like 100 to 1 in the mid 20th century, and is now down to 15 to one or less. We no longer have enough surplus energy to properly maintain our built infrastructure, and the more we skimp on maintenance, the faster the infrastructure will decay. We will get more bridge collapses, nuclear meltdowns, etc., and as social “maintenance” in the form of social care, health care, education, international aid budgets decline, our workforce productivity will decline, social unrest rise, and wars break out. All this, plus the positive feedbacks from climate heating and biodiversity loss and other environmental pollution like endocrine disrupters, etc, will accelerate death rates and reduce live birth rates. Then, of course, come the unpredictable shocks to the system like earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, maybe even rarer events like meteor strikes, which could easily tip struggling societies into full collapse. Not to mention major wars, although I suspect the damage these will be able to inflict will become much more regional as societies drop down the energy curve.
One hundred years from now, world population will a fraction of current, social complexity will be much narrower, the majority of the workforce will be in food or energy production, education levels will be well below current, and material lifestyle will be much simpler but harder and shorter.
clv101 wrote: ↑22 Dec 2023, 17:36
"Collapse is the super-exponential irreversible decline of the global capacity to consume primary energy resources."
~Tim Garratt
Is that much different to saying "growth-based economics must end"? Isn't consumption of fossil fuels the ultimate manifestation of growth-based economics?
I can see no direct or immediate reason why the impossibility of consuming fossil fuels forever must lead to the end of capitalism, science or democracy/liberalism. There may be some systemic causal connection, but I don't think it is clear.
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
clv101 wrote: ↑22 Dec 2023, 17:36
"Collapse is the super-exponential irreversible decline of the global capacity to consume primary energy resources."
~Tim Garratt
Is that much different to saying "growth-based economics must end"? Isn't consumption of fossil fuels the ultimate manifestation of growth-based economics?
I can see no direct or immediate reason why the impossibility of consuming fossil fuels forever must lead to the end of capitalism, science or democracy/liberalism. There may be some systemic causal connection, but I don't think it is clear.
Increased energy = increased societal complexity
Decreased energy = decreased societal complexity
