Generational Dynamics World View News

[Navigator]

The most immediate situation is that in Iran. I will post on the Russia situation later, when I have more time to write.

Iran is controlled by a bunch of religious fanatics (the Ayatollahs) and their henchmen (the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - IRGC). The paramilitary arm of the IRGC is the Basij. Iran reports that Basij numbers about 250,000, but others more reasonably estimate 1-2 million.

From an Australian News Outlet: "Completing the training in Basij is a prerequisite to receiving social privileges… financial bonuses, loans on favourable terms, discounts on religious trips to holy places, social welfare or access to universities," the Journal of Modern Science reported last year.
"Depending on their rank, Basij members also receive financial compensation."

Both the IRGC (600-700K soldiers) and the Basij have no qualms about shooting anybody (I would hope their immediate family is the exception, though I doubt it at this point). They would massacre MILLIONS of other Iranians if that's what it would take to protect their power/priveledge/compensation.

Popular demonstrations only work when the soldiers/police/paramilitary are unwilling to shoot the demonstrators. This is what happened in the Philippines, Eastern Europe and even Russia. It is not what happened in China or multiple times already in Iran. The same probably goes in Cuba, and most likely in Venezuela.

Unfortunately, those opposing these regimes will have to take up arms and start killing the oppressors. This means clandestine activity such as ambushes and assassinations. Arms have to be provided to them in order to do this. And it takes years for these insurgencies to have a chance at overthrowing the established power.

Also, unfortunately, such revolutions are generally led by the underclass who are comfortable with breaking the law. The "middle class", well to do people with careers, are usually extremely hesitant to join such movements. So, if/when the revolution is successful, you can end up with rather unsavory characters running the government. Plus, the revolution has made it acceptable to challenge authority, so the new government has difficulty quelling anarchy.

Basil Liddel Hart, one of the great military theorists of the 20th century, pointed out that guerilla wars and insurgencies generally led to the destabilization of the country so affected for generations. He pointed to what happened in Spain after the Napoleonic Wars, and France post WW2, when in both situations, most of the population of those two countries had been involved in insurgencies against an occupier.

At this point, I don't think there is an alternative outside of supplying arms/ammunition to anti-government forces in Iran. It may soon come to that in Venezuela, where Maduro also set up a pro-Maduro paramilitary.

Iran is NOT going to have a peaceful "orange type" revolution and turn into a US ally anytime soon. It will take quite a while to get rid of the IRGC, and Iran has no democratic tradition to speak of. The best I can hope for is that Iran is neutered by an internal bloodbath.

[tim]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l86zUCh5FOg

This Fourth Turning's Market Crash Risks Are 'Exceptional' | Neil Howe

Today's guest has long predicted that widespread systemic change would occur during the 20-teens and 20-20s -- as America and much of the rest of the world experience a replacement of the old order and the birthpangs of a new one.

All of us who have lived through this period and especially the year 2025 that just ended probably find it hard to argue that massive change -- culturally, politically, geo-strategically and economically -- is indeed now afoot.

So how much more of this change still lies ahead?

How disruptive will it likely be?

And what kind of new system does it look like we'll have on the other side?

For perspective, we have the privilege of welcoming back to the program demographer Neil Howe, co-author of the seminal book "The Fourth Turning" and its sequel "The Fourth Turning Is Here".

[Navigator]

I cannot fathom the reasoning behind Trump's actions regarding Greenland.

Yes, Greenland is very strategic. Sure, the US can defend it much better than Denmark. But, by defense treaties already in place, we could just build more bases there and station more troops and aircraft and other equipment there. The Danes would be more than happy for the US to do that.

Why do we have to actually own the place? Sure it may have some rare earth minerals, but so does California and Texas, and those places are way more accessible.

This whole bit about invading Greenland is most likely hyperbole. But it is putting great strain on the NATO alliance, which is still critical to Western (ie non-Russia, China, Iran) defense.

I have often thought that NATO would somehow shoot itself in the foot, but I figured it would be do to the actions (or rather inactions) of European players like Germany, Spain, the UK or even Turkey.

It would be a monumental mistake for Trump if he actually caused it.

[Wolf359]

Greenland is vital to America's interests because of missile defense and shipping lanes. Denmark is incapable of defending it and insists that the US do it for them. It is intolerable that the US would have to ask for permission to defend ourselves when no one else can do anything to assist us. And it is not really Denmark, it is the EU. The EU wants to control what happens in the Arctic without having any ability to project power there. As the US is not a member of the EU, why would the US allow the EU to have a say in how we defend ourselves? As for NATO, that alliance is dead, it's purpose no longer exists. Russia has proven it has no ability to conquer any significant amount of territory. Russia can, however, still launch thousands of nukes which would fly over Greenland.

[Navigator]

Thank you for posting Trump's talking points on why Greenland is so important.

Yes, Greenland is important to Missile Defense. We have a base there to do that already (Thule). The Danes are more than happy to allow us to build even more such bases there. We don't have to own Greenland to do that.

Yes, Denmark on its own would have difficulty defending Greenland. We could, by the agreements already in place, build more bases and station more troops, aircraft and so on there. The Danes would be more than happy for us to spend the money to do that.

BTW, all of the above apply to Northern Canada as well.

As for the EU wanting to control what happens in the Artic, the Norwegians have claim to a significant portion of it. The Canadians even more so. Are we going to try and take Canada and Norway as well? Frankly, that's ludicrous.

The EU is basically NATO without the US or Canada. We belong to NATO as a member of it as a "Treaty Organization". It is meant for common defense. And it is not just for European security, it is for defense against an attack from ANY direction. NATO actually activated for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, Russia, on its own, is no longer capable of attacking another country with a significant military (such as, say, Poland). However, Russia is allied with China, and Europe would have a major problem if a couple of million Chinese troops showed up to bolster the Russians (which is what I believe will eventually happen).

NATO is not dead. But is has been hibernating while the US carries the vast majority of the load. Trump's efforts to get the Europeans to increase defense spending has worked somewhat, but the Europeans, being the liberal socialists that they are, are not going to reduce social spending to increase military spending, until they themselves get attacked.

Russian land based nukes would fly over Greenland and Canada on their way to US targets. But for the past fifty years, the real threat is from submarine launched missiles, which the Russians would launch off of the East Coast, the West Coast, or from the Caribbean. There is no real defense against these things, as the flight times are so short compared to land based missiles. Plus, their trajectories cannot be anticipated, as the launching submarine can change its launch location, whereas we know pretty much where the Russian land based missile silos are (the mobile launchers can obviously also move, but they don't go far from their bases, and if they did, we would track them by satellite).

What you did not get into is the economic situation. Western Europe is a MAJOR trading partner for the USA. Trump is threatening to disrupt trade over Greenland and destabilize a lot of important markets.

Then there is the childishness over the Nobel Peace prize. Yes, Trump definitely deserves it more than Obama (who literally did NOTHING other than give up in Iraq, handing it to Iranian control). Trump actually accomplished the Gaza cease fire, and handled a number of other conflicts quite well. But the Nobel prize is awarded by a committee of committed leftists. They will only give it to people who adhere to their ideology (Obama) and will NOT give it to a conservative, no matter what they do. But, being a sore loser about it is no basis for foreign policy.

[Trevor]

Thank you for posting Trump's talking points on why Greenland is so important.

Yes, Greenland is important to Missile Defense. We have a base there to do that already (Thule). The Danes are more than happy to allow us to build even more such bases there. We don't have to own Greenland to do that.

Yes, Denmark on its own would have difficulty defending Greenland. We could, by the agreements already in place, build more bases and station more troops, aircraft and so on there. The Danes would be more than happy for us to spend the money to do that.

BTW, all of the above apply to Northern Canada as well.

As for the EU wanting to control what happens in the Artic, the Norwegians have claim to a significant portion of it. The Canadians even more so. Are we going to try and take Canada and Norway as well? Frankly, that's ludicrous.

The EU is basically NATO without the US or Canada. We belong to NATO as a member of it as a "Treaty Organization". It is meant for common defense. And it is not just for European security, it is for defense against an attack from ANY direction. NATO actually activated for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, Russia, on its own, is no longer capable of attacking another country with a significant military (such as, say, Poland). However, Russia is allied with China, and Europe would have a major problem if a couple of million Chinese troops showed up to bolster the Russians (which is what I believe will eventually happen).

NATO is not dead. But is has been hibernating while the US carries the vast majority of the load. Trump's efforts to get the Europeans to increase defense spending has worked somewhat, but the Europeans, being the liberal socialists that they are, are not going to reduce social spending to increase military spending, until they themselves get attacked.

Russian land based nukes would fly over Greenland and Canada on their way to US targets. But for the past fifty years, the real threat is from submarine launched missiles, which the Russians would launch off of the East Coast, the West Coast, or from the Caribbean. There is no real defense against these things, as the flight times are so short compared to land based missiles. Plus, their trajectories cannot be anticipated, as the launching submarine can change its launch location, whereas we know pretty much where the Russian land based missile silos are (the mobile launchers can obviously also move, but they don't go far from their bases, and if they did, we would track them by satellite).

What you did not get into is the economic situation. Western Europe is a MAJOR trading partner for the USA. Trump is threatening to disrupt trade over Greenland and destabilize a lot of important markets.

Then there is the childishness over the Nobel Peace prize. Yes, Trump definitely deserves it more than Obama (who literally did NOTHING other than give up in Iraq, handing it to Iranian control). Trump actually accomplished the Gaza cease fire, and handled a number of other conflicts quite well. But the Nobel prize is awarded by a committee of committed leftists. They will only give it to people who adhere to their ideology (Obama) and will NOT give it to a conservative, no matter what they do. But, being a sore loser about it is no basis for foreign policy.

Trump could cure cancer, deliver world peace, reveal the secret to immortality, and they still wouldn't give him the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama won it, essentially, for not being Bush, and even he was a little embarrassed at the open fawning.

Greenland is important to missile defense, not to mention its strategic location and natural resources. Problem is, Trump's going about it in the worst way possible, as he has a habit of doing. They'd be willing to let us begin mining operations, add strategic bases, all without causing such friction... but that just isn't his style, sadly.

Hence my feeling that NATO will not be a U.S. ally when this breaks out. We've been splitting into different camps since the War on Terror, especially over the Iraq War. They've always looked down on us and while the Soviet Union was enough to silence this for a while, Russia isn't strong enough. Hopefully, Trump abandoning them will spur them to stand on their own, but we'll have to see.

Of course, China might be in the superior position now, but that can change. They have no ability to stop us from blockading the Malacca Strait, with Japan blockading from the north. We can also bomb their pipeline and refineries, meaning they'd have little choice but to buy from Russia. I guarantee Putin would squeeze every concession from them he can, knowing China would have little alternative but to comply.