Signature Strikes: Today's Hit List!
Someone help me... I'm just an addict... I'm addicted to plane. Just keep doing plane...
Engels Airbase Hit Again.
Not sorry. YGWYFD. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=https://www.5.ua/ru/myr/khlopok-na-voennikh-aerodromakh-rf-vzrivi-prohremely-v-morozovske-y-enhelse-chto-yzvestno-325562.html Anything else ya want me to sign Off on?
Who else needs some medicide?
Eisk airbase, that's who! https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=https://censor.net/ru/news/3482643/v_eyiske_krasnodarskogo_kraya_rf_progremeli_moschnye_vzryvy_na_voennom_aerodrome_byla_slyshna_strelba
Morozovsk also hit. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=https://fakty.com.ua/ru/svit/20240405-u-morozovsku-engelsi-ta-yejsku-chuty-vybuhy-v-rajoni-aerodromiv/
In sum: It is the Genocide of Russian Airbases: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=https://war.telegraf.com.ua/war-in-ukraine/2024-04-05/5844509-genotsid-rosiyskikh-aerodromiv-u-eysku-ta-engelsi-prolunali-vibukhi
Occupied Sevastopol also goes Boom. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=https://fakty.com.ua/ru/proisshestvija/20240405-vybuh-u-sevastopoli-5-kvitnya-shho-vidbuvayetsya-v-poky-shho-okupovanomu-krymu/
Results? -6 aircraft, 8 more heavily damaged
“We’re putting the Band back together.”
Luttwak claims UK, France secretly planning to send soldiers to Ukraine.
Консультант госдепа США: Великобритания и Франция тайно готовятся отправить войска на Украину https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=https://m.business-gazeta.ru/news/628814
The Russian language version may be over-Stating it here's what Edward Luttwak (he is a Big Name in NATSEC!) actually wrote:
Do what Luttwak says to do. The more you hit Russian airbases, war industries, gas and oil infrastructure the less I have to tell other people “fuck it, I don’t care, go for it!” and then what.
China: Grappling with Marx
Our best way to approach Marx, or any other contender, is to see what their goals are, compare our goals to there, and then seek to resolve any contradictions between those goals. If we however have the same or very largely similar goals we may then engage with them to try to draw out the best ways to attain our mutual goal or goals.
For example, Marx and Marxists want peace and prosperity, no hunger, no wars, education for all, medical care for all. It is easiest for rich Westerners (all of You are rich) to understand those goals as a giant wish list, like an amazon wish list or even a Christmas wish list. So accustomed to floating in wealth, Westerners don't really see the fact that a workers state means people actually work. All that cheap Chinese swag you've been swilling is sweatshop labor, or at least was back in the 1990s, and the only time the liberals really got concerned about Chinese labor standards is when they think they can call labor training in Xinjiang concentration camps and whip up extremists to try to overthrow the CCP. More or less they want to feast on Chinese wealth and don't understand that they too can "kill the goose that lays golden eggs". But back to our common goals:
peace, prosperity, education, medical care, clean drinking water, no corruption.
Unfortunately, Marx figured the best way to get there was through a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat (workers and farmers) and that to install a workers' dictatorship he would have to resort to "red terror".
Dictatorships are never temporary, though most only last the lifetime of the dictator. Dictatorship as a governance form generally suffers from bad intelligence, lack of critical feedback and thus no self-reform or institutional learning since dictatorship is personal rule of the dictator.
Currently, China is a party-political state. So is my beloved Germany. What this means is there are parties of governance which are lawful and capable of weilding state power and that certain political parties can be outright banned and made illegal. You liberals might not like that but then against you also did not like the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). See why we have a party political state?
China, currently, has at least one governance party and other minor parties which are capable of legally influencing state power. I say at least one since there are non-CCP members who hold consultative governing offices.
Very few Westerners understand, and no Chinese person will gladly admit this: the reason China has a single governing party is to prevent Yet Another Chinese Civil War. The CCP has legitimacy not only by governing in such a way as to build real prosperity for ordinary Chinese people but also for governing in a way that stifles bloodthirsty, crazy, greedy, opportunists of various stripes and colour who might, willfully or not, spark another Chinese Civil War.
I think the great Chinese tragedy is that both Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Zedong wanted to be Sun Yat Sen, and neither was. This isn't because I'm a great fan of liberalism: I am not a liberal. I just recognize that the national bourgeoisie in a colonized or imperialized land can be globally progressive and thus should be fostered both to build prosperity and to prevent war.
Marx was wrong about the uses of "red terror" to end class conflict and war. He drew the wrong lessons from Robbespierre.
So if Marx was wrong about Dictatorship and wrong about Red Terror what can we draw from his works?
1. Historical Materialism
2. Dialectical Materialism
3. The decline of war and crime due to the inevitable rise of prosperity thanks to inventions and technology.
Basically you must truly understand Marx and Marxists' ideas so as to intelligently negotiate with your Chinese counterparts. One is much more effective advocating for one's goals using your counterpart's words and ideas. This is just one of the reasons I emphasize learning languages and understanding others' ideas. More or less if you feel disgruntled at historical excesses in someone else's country you better be able to talk with them about that in their language using their ideas so you can help them grapple with and overcome whatever errors you think they are making.
Coming to Terms with Chinese Characteristics
In the case of China however it is entirely evident we must now understand not only Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, maybe even Ho Chi Minh and Juche theory we must also understand Chinese history and Chinese ideas. Regarding ideas we must understand Taoism, Buddhism, Folk religion(s), Confucianism, Legalism, Mohism. Regarding history, we must likewise understand a vast amount of information in at least superficial detail (the deeper the better). Thus the myths and legends, kings and sovereigns, spring and autumn, warring states, and the dynasties thereafter. At least we can enjoy seeing something powerful beautiful and attractive growing more certain and clearer emerging from the mists of pre-written history.
Here is an example why: It is likely the Chinese government views the current global condition as somehow similar to the three kingdoms era, making parallels between China, Russia, and the United States with the three kingdoms. This is in one sense happy,for of course ultimately China united itself and peace emerged.
Unfortunately, the parallels would be lost on just about all China’s Western counterparts. Whether that is good or bad is a fair question.
History shapes the present yet we can influence it. Expressed in modern liberalism , path dependant variables such as culture (religion, language, education, food), demography, history, geography, climate, technology -- past choices which influence future outcomes -- constrain leaders, whether the leaders know it or not.
Dialectical materialism in contrast would simply say that these are objective material facts, which constrain our actions, with less emphasis on individual leaders and past choices shaping the present with a much greater emphasis on the idea of dialectics proceeding as a spiral of development driven by conflicting forces which resolve themselves to a greater level of organization.
Both views are correct.
We, in our life, shall see the planet continue to unify itself. It is a mistake to think of that unification as driven or mastered by China or the USA. This is because each of their viewpoints are correct, despite differences, and drive toward the same conclusions, again, despite differences. They will live together in a planet of prosperity because they have more in common than in conflict. Good ideas attract support, adherents, compliance, and replication. A correct idea attracts support. So when we say we want a planet which is peaceful and prosperous, whether we live in Beijing or Washington does not matter much, we actually mean it.
Marx was most correct in predicting that property would become less important and that conflicts would subside as wealth grows greater thanks to technological innovation. As property becomes less a matter of life or death war subsides, and other crimes too. Marx made many other errors, some of which Stalin made too, but more of which Mao corrected.
I would encourage Wang Huning to keep striving for an inward reform of Marxism as well as an outward integration of some of the liberal ideas with Marxist ideas. I would especially encourage him to correct Marx's errors. Marx is not god, should not be worshiped like god, is not flawless, and 175 years or so have passed since Marx looked at a world of starvation and war and could see something better growing out of those nightmares. Of course he made mistakes! Like I am so perfect?
There used to be famines. People used to regularly die of hunger. That ended.
There are still wars. One day they too will end.
We really shall see a world of peace.
Taming Dragons:
1. The USA will contain China militarily and will be able to do that successfully in any scenario.
2. China cannot win an arms race with the USA though an arms race could result in the same economic impoverishment which led to the collapse of the USSR.
U.S. leaders attitudes and likely actions:
What China can do to cope with the fact it shall be constrained and contained militarily and why that will be acceptable to China.
"The security dilemma".
The security dilemma is a central concept in international relations and describes the fact that the pursuit of security by one state can paradoxically lead to decreased security for all: this is a "spiral" of action and reaction leading to wasted resources for ordinary consumption and greater risk of war. Security dilemmas have occurred throughout history, contributing to some of the most devastating conflicts the world has seen.
The first observation of the security dilemma can be traced back to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who observed how the rise of Athens and the fear it instilled in Sparta led to the Peloponnesian War. This dynamic was later formalized by scholars like John Herz and Robert Jervis, who described how a state's efforts to bolster its own defenses can be perceived as aggressive by its neighbors, prompting them to take countermeasures and also Graham Allison.
A classic example is the arms race between the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War. As each superpower sought to deter the other through military buildups, the result was a spiraling competition that increased the risk of catastrophic conflict, even though neither side may have actually intended aggression.
Similar dynamics have played out in other contexts as well. In the years leading up to World War I, for instance, the naval arms race between Britain and Germany, coupled with a web of alliances and security guarantees, created an environment of heightened suspicion and fear that contributed to the outbreak of the war.
More recently, the security dilemma has been evident in regional conflicts like the India-Pakistan rivalry or the tensions in the South China Sea. As states take steps to bolster their defenses, their neighbors interpret these moves as threats, leading to further escalation.
The security dilemma results from psychological and perceptual factors (superstructure) as well as from material factors like military capabilities or geography (base). Misunderstandings, miscalculations, and the tendency to assume the worst about others' intentions can all exacerbate the security dilemma.
Addressing the security dilemma is notoriously difficult, as it requires states to overcome deep-seated fears and mistrust. Confidence-building measures, transparent communication, and a willingness to consider the perspectives of others can help, but the fundamental challenge remains.
See, e.g. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/26/misperception-security-dilemma-ir-theory-russia-ukraine/
See also: Guns or Butter.
Guns or Butter?
Balancing military expenditure and domestic welfare spending requires tought trade-offs that impact national priorities, security strategies, and global diplomacy. Historical examples and contemporary case studies can help us understand this ongoing challenge and its meaning in modern geopolitics.
This metaphorical conflict pits military expenditure against domestic welfare spending, raising the question of the optimal allocation of resources and the role of government in addressing both external threats and internal needs. As nations struggle to strike a balance between these competing demands, they must navigate a web of political, economic, and ethical considerations that can have far-reaching consequences for their security, prosperity, and global standing.
Origins of the Dilemma
The term "guns versus butter" was first coined during World War II, when American economist and Nobel laureate James Tobin used it to describe the tension between military spending and civilian consumption. However, the underlying concept has been a part of human history for centuries, with leaders facing similar choices since the dawn of civilization. From ancient empires to modern nation-states, rulers have had to decide whether to invest in armaments or allocate resources toward improving the well-being of their subjects.
Contemporary Case Studies
Today, the guns versus butter debate continues to be relevant, particularly in light of shifting global power dynamics, emerging security challenges, and growing concerns over economic inequality. Let's examine some recent examples that illustrate the complexity of this dilemma:
United States: The US has long struggled with balancing its military commitments with domestic needs. The post-9/11 era saw a significant increase in defense spending, with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq driving much of this growth. However, the subsequent draw-down of troops and shift toward counter-terrorism operations have led to renewed calls for greater investment in areas such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
China: China's meteoric rise has been accompanied by a substantial buildup of its military capabilities, including a massive army, advanced missile systems, and a rapidly expanding navy. While Beijing's assertiveness in the South China Sea and its handling of territorial disputes have raised concerns among neighbors, the country still faces pressing domestic issues, such as environmental degradation, income inequality, and an aging population.
European Union: The EU member states face a unique set of challenges, as they strive to maintain their security while also addressing pressing social and economic problems. With terrorism and migration posing threats to regional stability, many countries have increased their defense budgets. At the same time, there is pressure to address issues like youth unemployment, economic disparities, and climate change.
India: India's rapid economic growth has enabled it to bolster its military capabilities, with a focus on modernizing its armed forces and projecting power in the region. However, the country still grapples with entrenched poverty, corruption, and a lack of access to basic services like healthcare and education for millions of citizens.
Theoretical frameworks :
Economists generally view defense spending as a public good, as it provides collective benefits that extend beyond individual consumers. However, this perspective assumes that defense spending is fungible, meaning it can be easily redirected towards other purposes without significant loss in efficiency. Not all technologies have both civil and military applications.
Political scientists examines the relationship between military spending and regime type. Autocracies tend to prioritize military might over social welfare, whereas democracies supposedly favor butter over guns due to electoral pressures and accountability. However, this dichotomy is not always clear-cut, as some democratic governments may prioritize defense for reasons of national security or strategic interests.
International relations Realist theory posits that states prioritize military power to ensure survival in an anarchic system where there is no higher authority to enforce laws or protect them from harm. Liberal theory, on the other hand, argues that economic interdependence and institutionalized cooperation can reduce the need for military force, allowing states to focus on domestic development. Realists go “all in” on guns. Liberals are more willing to risk the luxury of consumption.
I haven't pointed it out before: Professor Julian Spencer Ward Churchill is brilliant. He's even better than Jim Dunnigan. I cannot name any better contemporary military analyst and i suspect such does not exist. This is a must watch.
If you think something is impossible, it is: For You.
Even if you think something is possible, it might in fact be impossible.
Ideas can influence facts, but are also constrained by facts. Lack of dialectical reasoning explained the collapse of that civilization.