🆓🕮THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

解放西伯利亞！

What should we destroy in Russaia next?

I couldn’t include another option for “factories”. Or airliners. Or subways. Or carbombs. Or Or Or.

By switching targeting objects and targeting modalities we can and do consistently keep Russia paralyzed. They cannot defend all of it or even most of it. I also didn’t include the targeting of Russian boats. I wonder if the options I included are hints of what gets hit next, or the options I didn’t include are the hints?
Hit it.

Free Ebooks! MORE CHINESE WORDS!

Real Estate Transactions Law

Real Property Law Quiz Questions & Explanatory Answers

The Tao of Christ

Globalization with Chinese Characteristics

火炎焱燚 Krasnodar (news report follows essay)

The Foundations of Stability: Strategic Principles for a Peace-Prone World

Introduction

The world of today is not the world of yesterday. The strategic, economic, and technological conditions that shaped antiquity, and even the tumultuous early 20th century, no longer apply in the same way because of new ideas and newer technologies. Yet, some persist in misunderstanding the fundamental principles that now undergird international stability. These principles, largely established between 1942 and 1950 as a direct corrective to the catastrophic miscalculations of 1914, have proven resilient. However, they are now being tested once more—by revanchist autocrats, populist bluster, and misinformed skepticism about the nature of modern peace. This essay seeks to elucidate the key ideas that sustain global stability and respond to common but misguided challenges to these ideas.

The Rejection of Perpetual War

Serious actors in global politics—those who actually make decisions rather than indulge in ideological fantasies—understand one core truth: modern war between major powers is ruinous. The era of states engaging in constant wars of territorial predation, so common in antiquity and even the early modern period, is largely over. Why? Because it is fundamentally unprofitable. The productive capacities of modern economies are so immense that seizing land and resources through conquest is a losing proposition when compared to trade and investment. The architects of post-World War II stability recognized this reality, embedding it in institutions and doctrines that make war an unattractive option for rational state actors.

While some attempt to argue that historical path dependency dooms us to repeat the cycles of war seen in earlier epochs, they fail to account for the technological and economic transformations that have reshaped international relations. Unlike in the past, where states were trapped in cycles of scarcity and military predation, today’s global order operates under vastly different conditions. These conditions allow for the implementation of a suite of peace-promoting ideas: collective security, deterrence, peace through trade, the rule of law, functionalism, and other political and economic philosophies that were historically unavailable or unworkable. See: Engle, The Art of War and Peace.

The Geostrategic Realities of 2025

In the contemporary landscape, threats to stability come not from great power competition in the traditional sense, but from actors who misunderstand or seek to undermine the principles of the modern order.

Take Vladimir Putin—a man who imagines himself a master strategist but whose actions betray a fundamental misreading of modern geopolitical dynamics. His invasion of Ukraine was predicated on the antiquated belief that territorial conquest remains a viable path to power and wealth. In reality, he has merely demonstrated why such thinking belongs to a bygone era. The West has not fractured; it has coalesced against him. His economy has suffered immense attrition. Even China, a state keen on strategic ambiguity, sees his approach as reckless and counterproductive. Beijing does not want a world where strongmen arbitrarily redraw borders through force—such instability is bad for business, and in the modern world, business is what drives state power.

Similarly, concerns about populist figures like Donald Trump tend to be overblown. While he may bluster and grandstand, his actions are unlikely to fundamentally upend the structural realities of international politics. Institutions, economic interdependence, and entrenched strategic interests limit the capacity of any one leader to unilaterally dismantle the global order. In the end, rhetoric is not policy, and policy is constrained by reality.

Health, Decision-Making, and Strategic Competence

The capacity for sound decision-making—whether in diplomacy, military strategy, or economics—is deeply connected to the principles of discipline, rationality, and long-term thinking. This extends beyond geopolitics into personal choices, including health. A society that embraces poor health habits—smoking, drug use, lack of exercise—is one that signals deeper cognitive and cultural deficiencies. These choices are not just individual failings; they reflect a broader inability to recognize and act upon self-evident truths. In a competitive world, nations that cultivate a healthier, more disciplined populace will inherently possess an advantage over those that do not.

This principle extends beyond individuals to the strategic culture of states. Nations that embrace rational planning, adaptability, and technological progress will outcompete those mired in outdated modes of thinking. The United States, despite its internal debates, remains at the forefront precisely because it continuously innovates, both technologically and strategically. Conversely, regimes that rely on brute force and corruption—whether in Russia or elsewhere—find themselves increasingly outmaneuvered by the demands of the modern world.

Technological Evolution and the Future of Power

One of the great mistakes of geopolitical analysis is to underestimate the role of technological evolution in shaping global stability. The exponential advances in communications, surveillance, artificial intelligence, materials science, and medicine mean that the conditions under which states operate are shifting more rapidly than ever before.

For example, while some assume that human conflict remains driven by the same factors as in the past, they fail to recognize how technology disrupts old paradigms. The deterrent effect of precision weaponry, the economic incentives created by digital trade, and the strategic leverage provided by advanced surveillance all contribute to an environment where traditional forms of warfare become increasingly untenable.

Moreover, the trajectory of economic development suggests that major technological leaps—such as advances in life sciences and resource extraction—will continue to reshape power dynamics. The commercialization of space mining, for instance, may not be the revolution some claim, but the automation of lunar and asteroid mining could become viable within decades. Such advances will further shift the calculus of economic competition, favoring those who invest in cutting-edge research rather than outdated expansionist ambitions.

Conclusion: 2025 A.D., Not 2025 B.C.

We do not live in an era dictated by the logic of the ancient world. This is just one of the reasons why “Thucydides Trap” is somewhat inadequate. The conditions -poverty, ignorance, lack of adequate communications- that once made constant warfare a necessity for survival no longer apply. Those who fail to grasp this—whether autocrats clinging to the politics of conquest or skeptics who misunderstand the foundations of modern peace—are doomed to irrelevance. The strategic principles established in the mid-20th century, refined by decades of practice, continue to guide us toward a world where war is increasingly unprofitable, unnecessary, and undesirable. They’re not going to disappear no matter how many opportunistic profiteering fools think otherwise. Put plainly: don’t expect “truce” or “ceasefire” in Ukraine — because if you tolerate a criminal once, you will get more and more crime.

Understanding these principles is a necessity for anyone involved in serious decision-making. The future belongs to those who recognize and act on the realities of the modern era, not those who seek to resurrect the ghosts of a bygone past.

The post-1945 international order emerged as a deliberate corrective to the catastrophic failures of the 1919 Versailles system, which prioritized punitive measures over structural stability. Where the League of Nations relied on moralistic idealism and disjointed enforcement, architects like George Kennan and Dean Acheson institutionalized five bedrock principles informed by technological progress and systemic realism:

I. The Strategic Architecture of Deterrence

The advent of nuclear weapons and globalized supply chains fundamentally altered cost-benefit calculations for interstate conflict. Unlike antiquity’s zero-sum resource wars, modern states face:

• Asymmetric economic annihilation: A single sanctions regime can collapse currency reserves (e.g., Russia’s 2022 loss of $300B in frozen assets)

• Deterrence through transparency: Satellite networks and AI-driven intelligence negate the fog of war that enabled opportunistic invasions pre-1950.

• Collective security: NATO’s Article 5 reduced defense spending burdens for members by 18–34% compared to standalone militarization Collective security dividends: NATO’s Article 5 reduced defense spending burdens for members by 18–34% compared to standalone militarization

NATO’s eastward expansion was not a provocation but was a stabilization mechanism: integrating former Warsaw Pact states into a rules-based ecosystem disrupted Russia’s revanchist patronage networks in Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine6.

II. The Functionalist Imperative

Jean Monnet’s integration model recognized that shared infrastructure binds states more effectively than treaties. The EU’s energy grids, cross-border R&D consortia (e.g., Horizon Europe), and Schengen Area reduced Eastern Europe’s susceptibility to hybrid warfare by:

• Diluting resource monopolies: Baltic LNG terminals broke Gazprom’s regional stranglehold post-2014

• Incentivizing institutional compliance: Poland’s $160B in cohesion funds since 2004 created constituencies opposed to authoritarian drift6

• Standardizing legal frameworks: The 1995 EU Association Agreements mandated anti-corruption reforms that reduced Ukrainian oligarchic control by 42%8

Technological interoperability—5G networks, blockchain supply chains—now extends this logic, making territorial conquest economically futile.

III. Deterrence and Russian Overreach

Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine exposed the Kremlin’s strategic anachronism:

1. Sanctions: SWIFT expulsion immobilized 63% of Russia’s export revenue streams within 90 days 1

2. Resource obsolescence: Shale energy eroded the petrostate leverage that funded Soviet expansion

3. Alliance cohesion: NATO defense budgets surged 12% post-invasion, accelerating F-35 deployments to Romania and hypersonic countermeasures 3 7

China’s refusal to back Russian energy decoupling ("no limits" rhetoric notwithstanding) underscores a pivotal shift: autocracies prioritize market access over ideological blocs.

IV. Path Dependency and the Innovation Threshold

Premodern states relied on predation due to stagnant productivity (GDP/capita growth ≤0.3% annually). Post-1950 innovations altered this calculus. Wars of conquest are less profitable than peaceful trade since at least 1945.

AI-driven targeted sanctions, drone swarms, and cyber attrition mechanisms render territorial wars unwinnable—a reality Moscow ignored at $211B in direct invasion costs 6.

V. The Health of Nations Metaphor

Geopolitical instability arises from unaddressed systemic risks (stem from cumulative neglect):

• Resource Dependence: Germany’s 2011–2021 renewables pivot cut Russian gas imports from 55% to 35% pre-invasion 8

• Military Readiness: Sweden’s 2023 accession brought NATO Arctic monitoring capabilities to 94% coverage vs. 68% in 2020 3

• Alliance Cohesion: The 2024 Steadfast Defender exercises integrated 31 cyber-response teams, deterring Belarusian provocations 7

Half-measures like the Minsk Protocols failed because they treated symptoms (Donbas hostilities) rather than the pathogen (Kremlin revanchism).

Conclusion: The 1945 system’s genius lay in its adaptive rigidity—principles anchored to material realities rather than dualism, magical thinking, wishful thinking, or opportunisti “moralising”. NATO’s expansion, far from a "triumphalist" overreach, applies Kennan’s containment logic to an era where economic entanglement and precision deterrence preclude great-power war. Autocrats betting on Westphalian chaos misread the innovation threshold: drones, not diplomats, now patrol borders, and blockchain ledgers, not bullets, enforce norms. The task for policymakers is to weaponize interoperability—ensuring that Beijing’s Belt and Road and Moscow’s gas pipelines cannot resurrect a world where conquest pays.

Vladivostok, Kamchatka. Like I said last time, we can hit Anywhere in Russia we want.

Here, have a truck bomb.

Volgograd Refinery goes boom.

Krasnodar Refinery Fire Spreads with a little help from my friends.