The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Author: Ian Welsh Page 14 of 421

Ukrainian War End Prediction

When the war started, I predicted that Russia would win militarily. That was an easy, obvious prediction based on the fact that Russia is larger, has more industry, and that China would not allow sanctions to take out Russia, knowing it would be next, but would keep the Russian economy running.

This prediction is a little more risky because the war could end due to a peace deal. There’s no question that Ukraine is losing, and that the battlefield is getting worse and worse for them.

Russian forces are back within 300 kilometers of Kiev. While advances are slow, they are speeding up. The Ukrainians are running out of manpower, are considering mobilizing women for infantry, and have huge problems with desertion and recruitment. Russia has ramped up weapon production far more than the West.

So I’m going to keep this one simple: The war will end next year with the Ukrainian army collapsing. Ukraine will be forced into an unconditional surrender, and Russia will take what it wants.

There’s lots of ways this could go wrong. The Euros could rush in “peacekeeping forces.” Putin could agree to peace before then. The “Ukrainians” could provoke Russia into using tac nukes with their strikes of strategic nuclear infrastructure. Putin might die, and if he does he’ll be replaced by someone far more aggressive. So this isn’t a “sure thing” prediction, just a best guess.

But basically, that guess is that the Ukrainian army collapses next year, and we see huge “big arrow” movement.

Putin is likely to remember the lessons of Syria’s frozen conflict, and of Russia and Ukraine’s fake peace of 2014/2015. No frozen conflicts, no fanatical enemies still able to fight. Russia has paid dearly to crush Ukraine, and it would be foolish to throw away what is being won on the battlefield at a fake peace conference with Europeans and Americans who have no intention of keeping any deal.

So, most likely, he will win the war and impose the peace. If he’s really smart, he’ll take Odessa and turn Ukraine into a landlocked state, even if that means some extra casualties and time.

Russia was always going to win the war. The questions are simply when, by how much, and what Ukraine is left with afterwards.

***

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of my articles, you might wish to donate or subscribe. I’ve written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

 

Greta Did Her Job

What a lot of people don’t know is that the aid ship Greta was on wasn’t the first ship sent. The last one didn’t get to Israel either, but because there were no major celebrities on it, most people who aren’t 24/7 news or Gaza obsessives don’t know it even existed.

This aid ship was never expected to be able to deliver food and medical supplies. Everyone knew Israel would stop it. It was meant to highlight the fact that Israel has created a deliberate famine in Gaza.

Because Greta, in particular, was there, it succeeded. That was her job. She wasn’t required to die, or to wind up in prison, though both were possible. She’s just a lightning rod. I’ve seen at least half a dozen op-eds, most of them negative, about Greta and the relief ship.

But negative is fine. Neolibs and right-wingers love to hate Greta. They can’t shut up and not talk about her, which is what they should have done. Instead, they have to take their potshots, and so far, more people know that a ship full of food was hijacked in international waters, and that Israel is starving Palestinians to death.

Celebrities, and Greta is a celebrity, have one main job when it comes to whatever causes they champion: to get press. That’s what Greta did, and good for her.

As for all the haters, well, Greta’s right that genocide is bad, and she’s right about the environment, so hating her most likely means someone wants mass death, or that they’re stupid and think environmental issues aren’t real.

***

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of my articles, you might wish to donate or subscribe. I’ve written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

 

The L.A. Riots/Protests & the Paradox of Protest

The Course of Empire by Thomas Cole

The Course of Empire by Thomas Cole

So, there were protests in L.A. over Trump’s immigrant removal strategy, some turned violent, and Trump is calling in the National Guard and talking about using the military.

It’s worth pointing out that Trump has deported less undocumented immigrants than Biden did over comparable periods. But this isn’t about deportation, as such.

What it is about is Gestapo tactics: Sending people to torture prisons without due process; wearing masks and refusing to show badges or warrants; giving ICE the right to create its own warrants without judicial oversight (clearly unconstitutional), and; seizing people who are showing up for meetings at immigration facilities or immigrant courts.

It’s not what Trump is doing, it’s how he’s doing it —- in the cruelest, most lawless, and unconstitutional way possible.

The message is, “We can do whatever we want, and you can’t stop us.”

Thus, the protests, and, thus, Trump escalating immediately to the National Guard (i.e., military force –that’s what the Guard is. Military.)

Protestors are caught in the paradox of protest in a fascist state: If you don’t protest the powers that be, they assume they’ve gotten away with it and will escalate. If you do protest, they use that as an excuse to escalate.

(Forget the whole violence / non-violence thing. That’s just another excuse.)

The US isn’t a meaningful democracy, and even oligarchic elites who aren’t Trump-aligned are under assault right now, as in the case with Harvard.

The choice is to bend the knee or fight. But ordinary people, especially immigrants, unlike Harvard-aligned elites, don’t have much to fight with. All they can do is put their bodies on the line.

At which point, those bodies will be assaulted, locked up, and otherwise abused, because cruelty with impunity is how the fascist right shows its power. Again, “We can do anything we want to you, and you can’t stop us. No one can.” It’s a toned down version of what Israel does to Palestinians.

There are three ways to go.

  1. Keep throwing bodies into the grinder and pray that the legal system still works with a stacked Supreme Court.
  2. Give in. Hide, stop protesting, and go with the legal attempt.
  3. Move to real violence, which this is not.

The police and National Guard have huge, easily-exploited weaknesses if anyone does decide to get serious, and there are plenty of people in immigrant and immigrant-adjacent communities who have the necessary experience and skills to exploit those weaknesses.

Of course, if real violence is used, Trump and his allies will escalate even more. At the extreme end, part of the country turns into “no go” zones, and the monopoly of force is broken. This is more than possible: the US is huge, their military is overrated, and their police are weak and have been trained to be cowards.

Trump’s trying to bring Americans to bridle. Some are already there, the natural fascists, the people who would have signed up with Hitler as soon as they realized he was serious and stood a chance.

But others? Others need to feel the whip.

So, will Americans kneel, then fall to their bellies? Will the legal system and the constitution work? Or will this escalate until the US is a failed state?

***

If you’ve read this far, and you read a lot of my articles, you might wish to donate or subscribe. I’ve written over 3,500 posts, and the site, and Ian, take money to run.

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

China’s Rare Earth Ban Starts Shutting Down Auto Production

Both Germany and Japan have reported the first shutdowns. These shutdowns will become worse over time. While China is providing some licenses for Rare Earths, they’re slow walking them and customs approval, and I’ve been told (though cannot confirm) that so far they have given none to Indian companies. (Maybe that little Pakistan kerfuffle wasn’t cost free?)

This is all very amusing and instructive on a number of levels. America banned something that China could handle the bans on: semiconductors. China, after much provocation, banned something that there is simply no way of replacing in the next few years:

“There is no solution for the next three years except to come to an agreement with China,” said Andreas Kroll, managing director of Noble Elements, rare earths importer for medium-sized companies and startups without their own inventories.
“China controls practically 99.8 percent of global production of heavy rare earths. Other countries can only produce these in minimal quantities, virtually on a laboratory scale.”

This is why Trump was begging for a call with Xi, and why he’s going hat in hand to China, rather than the other way around.

It’s not that there aren’t reserves elsewhere, though China does have the most:

Now what I find funny about this is that we’ve known about this vulnerability for ages. I remember writing about it back in the 00s. We did nothing. Nothing.

And it isn’t just about automobiles, a vast amount of weapons need rare earths, and the Chinese controls are ostensibly about “dual use” — aimed explicitly at military production.

The West has no foresight. No one did anything because China’s production is cheap, cheaper than any alternative would be. But anyone with sense would see that not having an alternative was allowing China to hold a gun to our heads, and would have subsidized production to make it cost competitive.

This summarizes so many of our problems: we know they exist, there’s a solution, but no one important can get rich off it, so nothing is done until it turns into a crisis, at which point much of the damage cannot be mitigated.

We have few real problems we can’t (or couldn’t, sometimes the deadline has passed) fix, and almost no real problems we’re willing to fix.

Since it started in 2019 this blog has published over 16,000 articles. That’s a lot of writing. If you value it, I’d appreciate it if you would donate or subscribe by clicking on this link. It makes a difference and it keeps me writing.

When Financiers Win, They Lose

One of the simplest lenses to look at an industrial society is whether it’s run by financiers or capitalists.

Socrates famously noted that some people live to eat and others eat to live.

Capitalists need money so they can do things. Financiers do things so they can get money. To a financier it doesn’t matter how money is made, so long as they won’t go to prison. All that matters is rate of return.

A capitalist has something they want to do: Ford wanted to build cars. Edison wanted to invent. The Wright Brothers wanted to fly. They need money so they can do whatever it is that turns their crank.

Capitalists create great societies. Financiers destroy them.

As soon as rate of return becomes the only consideration, a society becomes less interested in doing new things or doing old things well and starts searching for “unfair advantages.” They offshore and outsource jobs to lower cost domiciles: either for labor or for environmental regulations. They seek a monopoly or oligopoly positions in businesses where people have to buy: healthcare is the gold standard. They buy functioning businesses and load them up with debt. The business dies, but they are richer than they would have been had they run it.

Systematically they run the economy down. They become rich, but the society suffers.

This isn’t to say that finance isn’t necessary. As the saying runs “financiers make good servants and terrible masters.” But when finance becomes the primary driver of any economy: when it becomes a better way to get rich than being a capitalist, they ruin societies.

You can see this clearly in the West, especially in America and Britain. Sixty percent of people now can’t afford a decent lifestyle in the US, but America has the richest rich who ever lived.

This may seem like a victory for financiers, but it’s a Pyrric on. Yes, the America’s rich in 1950 or 1980 or even 2000 were not nearly as rich as America’s rich today, BUT America was the most powerful nation in the world, with the strongest economy. Now American elites are filthy rich, but rule of the second strongest economy, and China is pulling away from them: the difference is accelerating.

Do you want to be king shit of turd mountain? That’s the choice that America’s elites made. “Our country will suck ass and no longer be dominant but we will be rich, rich, rich!”

Ask Britain’s elites how that worked out. Would you rather be a British industrialist in 1870 or today, even if today you’re richer?

And as financialization destroys a country, that money matters less and less. In time, American elites will have to buy the best from China: cars, planes, electronics, etc, etc… Most of what they really want, America won’t make, because America will be backwards.

All this before losing the joys of being a super power.

Financialization is the destruction of countries, and the elites who pursue it lose more than they gain. Better to be a millionaire in 1955’s America, than a billionaire in America today, because wealth is always trumped by power.

Since it started in 2019 this blog has had over 16,000 articles. That’s a lot of writing. If you value it, I’d appreciate it if you would donate or subscribe by clicking on this link. It makes a difference and it keeps me writing.

The Best Short Summary of Why China Is Winning & the West Fading

It’s about living in reality:

The main difference between American and Chinese society today is less that one has more dumb people and one has more smart people and more that within public life, being stupid is relentlessly shamed as stupid in one and being smart is relentlessly shamed as stupid in the other.

These days, American society assigns intelligence credentials based not on who can demonstrate a meticulous, well-developed understanding of how anything works, but on who can give the smartest sounding, post-hoc rationalization for the half-baked ideas people desperately want to be true.

If you do the former, and it yields answers people don’t like, they’ll reach deep into their bag of fantasyland narratives to try to invalidate your credibility. If you provide the latter, you’re celebrated — not only as a genius, but a champion. When things don’t work as promised?

They’ll have already sunk so much personal credibility and self esteem into the fantasy they’d rather burrow deeper into delusion than backtrack. In other words, “smart” is whatever helps nurse fragile self esteems rather than whatever helps them understand and work with reality.

In Chinese society today, intelligence is still very much a consequential trait that demands its keep via real, effective results. In the US, it’s turned into another fake self esteem signifier in a culture that’s long stopped caring about anything but fake self esteem signifiers.

I observed this a long time ago, personally. I had predicted the financial crisis, right down to the month. I had been right about Iraq and a variety of other important issues. I was discussing the “Arab Spring,” and said, “It isn’t over till the army votes.”

There was argument back and forth, and I said, in effect, “Look, I have a track record, and so do you. I’m usually right, and you’re usually wrong.”

The response was furious, and I was booted off that particular forum.

In my last major blog role as managing editor, I was able to increase traffic by 60 percent in less than a year, and I felt onto most of it after the election of Barack Obama. Other Netroots sites were bleeding readers, but not us. I could say exactly what had been done to increase traffic. But the publisher was sure they knew better, so I left. That site no longer exists.

People who were for the Iraq war, who made claims that it would work and be easy are now major pundits. Both Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein were for the war. Indeed, Yglesias wanted to take out all of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. A study in the L.A. Times found that media figures against the war were fired, laid off, or had their careers stagnate. Those who were for it had their careers prosper.

A correspondent once did a serious search on who had been right, in public and in advance, about the financial crisis. The number was in the 40s. That means that almost no economists, the people who, you know, study this stuff and claim to know something, predicted an obvious bubble. You only had to look at a couple charts. It wasn’t rocket science.

For most of my life, development economists claimed that free trade without protection for local industry was how countries should industrialize and that they should move to cash crops and sell commodities. Every country that tried this failed. The ones who succeeded at industrializing did so behind some form of protection for new industry: China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and so on. They certainly didn’t double down on commodities. The only thing that has ever worked is exactly what development economists advised against.

Fools like Francis Fukuyama became famous and wealthy by saying nonsense things like how “democracy and capitalism are two sides of the same coin” and “the end of history has arrived.” Those of us who warned that it mattered where industry was, and that sending your industry to other countries was the equivalent of shipping away your power and prosperity, were sneered at.

Climate change has, for decades, come in “over,” which is to say worse, than the consensus predictions. Almost every single bad event has happened sooner than the IPCC said it would. You’d think, after a while, they’d ask themselves, “Why are we getting this wrong all the time?” and self-correct. If you can’t figure out why, just look at the windage, make your predictions, then add the average error rate. “Events usually happen X percent sooner than our models predict, so here’s the dates taking that into account.”

It’s not rocket science.

Most Western pundits thought that Ukraine would “win” a war against Russia. No. Pundits told us over and over again that NATO expansion wouldn’t cause a war. Wrong. Pundits told us that Russia was weak compared to NATO and that GDP accurately measured their strength. Pundits thought that sanctions would collapse the Russian economy, not taking into account that China had a veto over that, and a reason to use it.

In every single case, the discourse had, and has been, seized by what people want to believe, or what oligarchs want people to believe. They want people to believe what pays, not what is true. There are no consequences for being wrong and no self-awareness. I am bad at electoral predictions. So when I make one, I always note that I suck and am probably a negative indicator. (I thought Harris would win, for example, though I did get the Canadian election right.)

Now, it isn’t entirely true that there’s no accountability in the West. There is. There is only one rule that the West insists always be followed:

The rich must keep becoming richer, no matter the cost to anyone or anything else.

Because that is the only form of Western accountability, the West will keep losing, because richer rich and higher inequality do not cause or even correlate with any of the main constituents of power, prosperity, or technological progress

Our entire discourse system, our entire media, and our entire elite class have zero accountability outside of ensuring the rich get richer.

At this they have succeeded and at nothing else.

This blog has always been free to read, but it isn’t free to produce. If you’d like to support my writing, I’d appreciate it. You can donate or subscribe by clicking on this link.

Us vs. Them / Our Government vs. the Government

I think it’s clear that democracy and capitalism don’t work together. Capitalists always wind up buying the government, and the only solution is a Great Depression-sized catastrophe to help reset capitalist wealth. But then, over time, they will capture the government again.

This isn’t to say much good may not be done at various times. Usually, after things get bad enough, a generation winds up in power who is determined to make government work “for the people” because they’ve seen what happens when it doesn’t. War, revolution, poverty, depression, and so on. The second generation staggers on. They don’t really understand in their bones that government must be made to work for the people, and they compromise, but they keep it going, more or less. Then the third generation says, “Hey! If we ran the government for us and the people who can afford to pay us the most, well, we could live very, very well. Who cares about the “people?”

Often, the third generation needs to lie to themselves. They believe some intellectual charlatans: Milton, Friedman, Laffer…and later on, Fukuyama (of “We’ve won, it’s all over, it’s the end of history!” fame). The fourth generation doesn’t even pretend. It’s their government, and you peons can suck it up. (Everyone from Bush Jr. to Bush Sr. thought that neoliberalism was garbage, even as he implemented some of it. Billy Clinton appears to have been a true believer and made it work on sheer brilliance and micromanagement.)

But there’s another problem with representative government: Much like with the police, most people who want the power of government are the sort of people who shouldn’t have it.

What happens, one way or the other, is that government is run by people who run it for themselves, not for the people. It’s “the government,” not “our government.”

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I’ve come down on the side of sortition. Just pick leaders based on a lottery. Then run some medical tests on the ones chosen, to make sure they aren’t chronically sick or mentally disabled. Give them ten-year terms so they are in office long enough to have some institutional knowledge and have elections every two years for one-fifth of the number.

Anyone who serves gets a full pension of three times median income for the rest of their lives, and is disallowed from any other income. If you aren’t willing to do that, you can decline office.

I’m quite positive that random people who know that they’re going back to being almost regular citizens whose income is dependent on how society performs in the future will do a better job than normal politicians.

Oh, there are plenty of details to sort out, to be sure, but this is far more likely to produce “our government” than the current regime.

The next article on this subject will be on the next important change: How we do taxation? How do people contribute to “our government” and “society?” Spoiler: Taxing money is not the right way.

 

This blog has always been free to read, but it isn’t free to produce. If you’d like to support my writing, I’d appreciate it. You can donate or subscribe by clicking on this link.

Page 14 of 421

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén