History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Skallagrim]

A while back on this very thread, I believe it was mentioned one of the really important aspects of a “High Culture” is not just its heartlands, but the frontier. It is the marcher state that is able to approach all this wonderful culture with a hint of pragmatism (they have to be pragmatic due to enemies pressing on the border). Thereafter, the marcher state grows so strong that it ultimately surpasses the heartlands (Rome and Greece, Qin and the other states, Carthage and Phoenicia, etc), if I recall correctly.

Taking that into account, we can somewhat apply it to even the Islamic world. Because whilst the initial Caliphates gained great glory they usually fell apart soon after. A true and long lasting Islamic Empire was ultimately forged in the frontier of the Islamic world, who won its long war against the last vestiges of Rome and would rise to utterly eclipse Old Arabia.

Am I calling the Turks the “Romans” of the Islamic World?

Yes, I think I am. Of course, with Islam being Islam, they got through their time in the sun a little quicker than other empires did, but I think my point still stands as the Ottoman Empire reigned for roughly five centuries.

That is, indeed, the general thesis regarding Islam and the Ottoman Empire. There are certainly convincing points.

However... there's something very off about the timing. A universal Empire arriving early, sure. But that early? More importantly, though, the Ottomans never controlled very large parts of the Islamic world. I can understand a far-flung region like Indonesia remaining independent (in the same way that I could easily see Argentina or Australia staying formally apart from a "Western" universal empire). But surely to qualify as the universal state of Islamic civilisation, one would have to unite...

...well, basically the big dark green blob in the middle there:

The Ottomans didn't do that. Moreover, and this is quite telling, they were never recognised as the rightful Caliphs by huge swathes of the Islamic world. A universal empire at the very least demands that its nominal authority is recognised fairly... universally.

For this reason, my own interpretation is that they represent the foremost of the "national empires" that a civilisation produces before it reaches its universalist phase. In the West, this role occupied by Britain. Which was also a national empire, not a civilisational-universalist one, but which nevetheless held sway over a quarter of the planet. In fact, we might observe that Britain itself was also peripheral to Europe. So it may well be argued that the "frontier factor" can play a role in enabling the success of both national empires-in-the-making and of incipient universal empires.



...As far as the "universal empire" of Islam is concerned: I think it never manifested at all, because Islam was ove-taken by the West. Note that the Islamic world had all manner of feroured religious(-political) movements (not limited to the emergence of Wahhabism and Mahdism) from the mid-18th century onward. Which is precisely what you'd expect. Note also the decay of the Ottoman authority, and the emergence of new powers with distinct ambitions of their own (such as embodied by
Muhammad Ali of Egypt, for instance).

I feel that if all Westerners had magically dropped dead before the era of major colonial imperialism got going, we'd have still seen the Ottoman Empire fall by the early 20th century. But in that case, presumably to a messianic movement of Muslims, thus initiating their equivalent of Caesarism after a few centuries of increasing chaos. Writing on that topic two years ago, I imagined:


"(...) the undivided Caliphate is established with unexpected alacrity, and a meteoric figure -- for a time -- dominates the most civilised regions of the world. He is the Mahdi, his acolytes whisper, even as his enemies call him the Dajjal. Personally, he only styles himself the rightful CaIiph, the legitimate heir to both branches of the long-divided world. Ruler of Cairo and Baghdad, protector of Mecca, guide to the faithful in their multitudes.

If we have any sense of narrative artistry, we must imagine him stabbed to death during the Hajj, dying under a traitor's blade during the Tawaf al-Wadaa (the "farefell"!), stretching out his fingers to touch the Hajar al-Aswad in his last moments."


But that's not how it played out. There was no "Caesar of the muslims". By the time the Ottomans were crushed beneath the wheels of a world-system overtaking them, the Western powers had already been meddling, annexing and policing their way across the Islamic world for quite some time. (Look only to "Chinese" Gordon, putting a decisive stop to one of the Messianic uprisings that define this age of Islam.) So, in the end, there was no great native Islamic power to step into the vacuüm. Instead, Western mandates and yoked vassal-states dotted the landscape. Colonies and puppets.

If you look at the reason why the Islamic radicals (...which is, in fact, a significant segment of the population...) hate the West, it's not just the self-ruining tenets of their religion, although those certainly play a part. They also hate us because we robbed them of their destiny. And they know it. Not intellectually, but in their guts. They know. And they'll always hate us for it. They are doomed to create sad little murderous parodies of their ideal (such as ISIS), and they pour all their spite into it, because they know it's all they can have. They fly airliners into buildings, because that's the closest imitation of a victory that they can muster.

They are fellaheen, living in the ruins of the past-- but they have become so even before they ever had the chance to taste the sweet reward of universal hegemony. That kind of wound is fatal, but the death it deals is slow.

 

[Cherico]

That is, indeed, the general thesis regarding Islam and the Ottoman Empire. There are certainly convincing points.

However... there's something very off about the timing. A universal Empire arriving early, sure. But that early? More importantly, though, the Ottomans never controlled very large parts of the Islamic world. I can understand a far-flung region like Indonesia remaining independent (in the same way that I could easily see Argentina or Australia staying formally apart from a "Western" universal empire). But surely to qualify as the universal state of Islamic civilisation, one would have to unite...

...well, basically the big dark green blob in the middle there:

The Ottomans didn't do that. Moreover, and this is quite telling, they

For this reason, my own interpretation is that they represent the foremost of the "national empires" that a civilisation produces before it reaches its universalist phase. In the West, this role occupied by Britain. Which was also a national empire, not a civilisational-universalist one, but which nevetheless held sway over a quarter of the planet. In fact, we might observe that Britain itself was also peripheral to Europe. So it may well be argued that the "frontier factor" can play a role in enabling the success of both national empires-in-the-making and of incipient universal empires.



...As far as the "universal empire" of Islam is concerned: I think it never manifested at all, because Islam was ove-taken by the West. Note that the Islamic world had all manner of feroured religious(-political) movements (not limited to the emergence of Wahhabism and Mahdism) from the mid-18th century onward. Which is precisely what you'd expect. Note also the decay of the Ottoman authority, and the emergence of new powers with distinct ambitions of their own (such as embodied by
Muhammad Ali of Egypt, for instance).

I feel that if all Westerners had magically dropped dead before the era of major colonial imperialism got going, we'd have still seen the Ottoman Empire fall by the early 20th century. But in that case, presumably to a messianic movement of Muslims, thus initiating their equivalent of Caesarism after a few centuries of increasing chaos. Writing on that topic two years ago, I imagined:


"(...) the undivided Caliphate is established with unexpected alacrity, and a meteoric figure -- for a time -- dominates the most civilised regions of the world. He is the Mahdi, his acolytes whisper, even as his enemies call him the Dajjal. Personally, he only styles himself the rightful CaIiph, the legitimate heir to both branches of the long-divided world. Ruler of Cairo and Baghdad, protector of Mecca, guide to the faithful in their multitudes.

If we have any sense of narrative artistry, we must imagine him stabbed to death during the Hajj, dying under a traitor's blade during the Tawaf al-Wadaa (the "farefell"!), stretching out his fingers to touch the Hajar al-Aswad in his last moments."


But that's not how it played out. There was no "Caesar of the muslims". By the time the Ottomans were crushed beneath the wheels of a world-system overtaking them, the Western powers had already been meddling, annexing and policing their way across the Islamic world for quite some time. (Look only to "Chinese" Gordon, putting a decisive stop to one of the Messianic uprisings that define this age of Islam.) So, in the end, there was no great native Islamic power to step into the vacuüm. Instead, Western mandates and yoked vassal-states dotted the landscape. Colonies and puppets.

If you look at the reason why the Islamic radicals (...which is, in fact, a significant segment of the population...) hate the West, it's not just the self-ruining tenets of their religion, although those certainly play a part. They also hate us because we robbed them of their destiny. And they know it. Not intellectually, but in their guts. They know. And they'll always hate us for it. They are doomed to create sad little murderous parodies of their ideal (such as ISIS), and they pour all their spite into it, because they know it's all they can have. They fly airliners into buildings, because that's the closest imitation of a victory that they can muster.

They are fellaheen, living in the ruins of the past-- but they have become so even before they ever had the chance to taste the sweet reward of universal hegemony. That kind of wound is fatal, but the death it deals is slow.

so when do you think their civilization falls?

 

[Simonbob]

The Ottomans didn't do that. Moreover, and this is quite telling, they

You skipped something, I think.

 

[Skallagrim]

so when do you think their civilization falls?

For a given value of "fallen", it already has. I see no realistic perspectives for (or even indications of efforts towards) the revitalisation of the Islamic world. It's a collection of (in macro-historical terms) "barbarous" remnant-states. They no longer produce culture: they damage surrounding cultures through endemic violence.

-- The only prospect for serious revival would be if the muslims in Europe initiate a reformation movement and co-opt European cultural modes even as the European political order crumbles. In that case, "Euro-Islam" could be a new strain of syncretised Islamic culture, rejecting the anti-reason tenets that have been ruinous to Islam for the past millennium. However, as I said, I see zero indications in that direction. On the contrary: muslims in Europe (and epecially the young ones!) seem to revel in embracing and celebrating anti-Western stupidity. This will cause them to remain utterly unacceptable to the common people in Europe. The implication is that when things really collapse, angry (rural) natives will enjoy watching the (largely urban) muslim migrants starve to death in the doomed cities... and butcher them when they inevitably venture out to pillage...

-- An alternative would be that the West completely collapses. This still produces no enlightened Islam, but it would give the post-civilisational muslim "barbarians" room to expand into ruined Europe, and colonise the scorched Earth. Several centuries thereafter, a new cycle of Islamic history could potentially begin, with conqueror-kings setting up new foundational realms and instigating the new civilisational cycle. This assumes, of course, that China or India wouldn't be able to just crush them completely before that can happen (which I personally view as a more likely outcome). Regardless, I don't think the West will collapse so completely. Too many people confuse "collapse of the socio-political order" with "collapse of the civilisation". There is still a lot of vitality left in the West, and that shouldn't be under-estimated.

-- In any case, the notion peddled by some fear-mongers (namely that Europe is doomed and a Caliphate will surely triumph there) is complete nonsense. The muslims don't appear at all capable of pulling it off. Even if nothing stands in their way... their own utter incompetence stands in their way! To impose a civilisational empire, you must have a living civilisation. Islam doesn't qualify.

You skipped something, I think.

Thanks! Yes, I somehow deleted some text there. I've edited it. What I meant to express was:

"Moreover, and this is quite telling, they were never recognised as the rightful Caliphs by huge swathes of the Islamic world. A universal empire at the very least demands that its nominal authority is recognised fairly... universally."

Basically: if half the civilisation says you're not the emperor... then you're not the universal emperor of that civilisation. At least not until you compel them to think otherwise.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Basically: if half the civilisation says you're not the emperor... then you're not the universal emperor of that civilisation. At least not until you compel them to think otherwise.

would Biden qualify as being in that situation? Huge Swathes of the population think somthing was screwy with that election and even the ones who don't find Biden to be a puppet president at best. The only ones in his corner don't love him so much as they hate trump.

 

[Simonbob]

would Biden qualify as being in that situation? Huge Swathes of the population think somthing was screwy with that election and even the ones who don't find Biden to be a puppet president at best. The only ones in his corner don't love him so much as they hate trump.

No, there's enough grudging acceptance, mostly in the officals.


That's where the primary issue with Trump is, too. The officals are the ones who are most against him, and it was largely the mass of the populace that saw him as President. That's why you have officals lying to his face, when they think they can get away with it.

 

[Skallagrim]

would Biden qualify as being in that situation? Huge Swathes of the population think somthing was screwy with that election and even the ones who don't find Biden to be a puppet president at best. The only ones in his corner don't love him so much as they hate trump.

What @Simonbob said. In addition: the actual comparison goes a bit off, because Biden is evidently not the universal emperor of anything at all. No more than the Consuls Publius Popillius Laenas or Gnaeus Octavius were universal emperors of Clasical civilisation.

("Who?" you ask. "Exactly," I respond. Biden is barely a historical footnote.)

The fact of an unrecognised claim to any authority is of course applicable on any level, but the specific claim I was discussing doesn't apply here. And it wouldn't be relevant to Biden's case anyway, as @Simonbob noted.

 

[Poe]

For a given value of "fallen", it already has. I see no realistic perspectives for (or even indications of efforts towards) the revitalisation of the Islamic world. It's a collection of (in macro-historical terms) "barbarous" remnant-states. They no longer produce culture: they damage surrounding cultures through endemic violence.

-- The only prospect for serious revival would be if the muslims in Europe initiate a reformation movement and co-opt European cultural modes even as the European political order crumbles. In that case, "Euro-Islam" could be a new strain of syncretised Islamic culture, rejecting the anti-reason tenets that have been ruinous to Islam for the past millennium. However, as I said, I see zero indications in that direction. On the contrary: muslims in Europe (and epecially the young ones!) seem to revel in embracing and celebrating anti-Western stupidity. This will cause them to remain utterly unacceptable to the common people in Europe. The implication is that when things really collapse, angry (rural) natives will enjoy watching the (largely urban) muslim migrants starve to death in the doomed cities... and butcher them when they inevitably venture out to pillage...

-- An alternative would be that the West completely collapses. This still produces no enlightened Islam, but it would give the post-civilisational muslim "barbarians" room to expand into ruined Europe, and colonise the scorched Earth. Several centuries thereafter, a new cycle of Islamic history could potentially begin, with conqueror-kings setting up new foundational realms and instigating the new civilisational cycle. This assumes, of course, that China or India wouldn't be able to just crush them completely before that can happen (which I personally view as a more likely outcome). Regardless, I don't think the West will collapse so completely. Too many people confuse "collapse of the socio-political order" with "collapse of the civilisation". There is still a lot of vitality left in the West, and that shouldn't be under-estimated.

-- In any case, the notion peddled by some fear-mongers (namely that Europe is doomed and a Caliphate will surely triumph there) is complete nonsense. The muslims don't appear at all capable of pulling it off. Even if nothing stands in their way... their own utter incompetence stands in their way! To impose a civilisational empire, you must have a living civilisation. Islam doesn't qualify.





Thanks! Yes, I somehow deleted some text there. I've edited it. What I meant to express was:

"Moreover, and this is quite telling, they were never recognised as the rightful Caliphs by huge swathes of the Islamic world. A universal empire at the very least demands that its nominal authority is recognised fairly... universally."

Basically: if half the civilisation says you're not the emperor... then you're not the universal emperor of that civilisation. At least not until you compel them to think otherwise.

I think there's another path forward for Islam where the US backs out and Iran does come to dominate Iraq and Syria. If that could be followed by some kind of persian nationalist revival while keeping the Islamic faith you could see a new high culture take shape in the form of a new, Islamic, Persian Empire.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

But we beat Russia now, and absorb its Western regions, then that border will at least be settled early on

Could you explain what you mean by this exactly? Because short of Putin dying resulting in a succession crisis and turmoil, I don't see aborbing significant territory as feasible not while they have a nuclear umbrella. The attempt might actually strengthen Putin's hold as he presides over a now defensive war against imperialist Westeners and push Russia further into China's sphere of influence.

 

[Skallagrim]

I think there's another path forward for Islam where the US backs out and Iran does come to dominate Iraq and Syria. If that could be followed by some kind of persian nationalist revival while keeping the Islamic faith you could see a new high culture take shape in the form of a new, Islamic, Persian Empire.

Generally speaking, the concept itself is not implausible. Its viability under the current circumstances looks rather iffy to me, though. The Islamic Republic is, ultimately, a regime of retardation. They are not significantly better than the Wahhabists, the Musim Brotherhood, ISIS, or Boko Haram. Tellingly, the 'front-line' exponent of Iranian power on the Western end is Hezbollah. More to the South, we have.... the Houthis. What I'm trying to say is that Iran has chosen a dead-end road, culturally and intellectually speaking. How are they going to effect a cultural rebirth, if they've undertaken the cultural equivalent of self-mummification? (Because that is what has happened to Islam.) They are no more capable of this than the Sunnis are. Their denomination is just as fossilised.

Putting that objection aside for the sake of agument, the practical process of making it happen also has several major challenges to overcome. If the USA (and by extension the West in general) withdraws, the result will be rather chaotic. The Saudi monarchy, for instance, will in that event have to start catering to the Wahhabist radicals to a great degree, or it will be toppled. (Indeed, the latter is the more likely outcome regardless.) Iran would surely dominate Mesopotamia, but Syria? How? You'd see Sunni radicals of the ISIS variety running the show from Aleppo to Aden.

Conceivably, Iran could ally with Russia in propping up Assad, but how long will that be workable? There's also the issue that Russia isn't going to be in a good state to prop up much of anything. Alternatively: an unholy Turko-Persian alliance to maintain a semblance of order? Problem is that they'd both want to be top dog...

The most likely result of "a retreat by the West", I think, would be a great big mess. Turks, Persians and Arabs -- all with their local proxies and stooges -- trying to come out on top of the heap, and the whole affair becoming a very dirty fight. Highly destructive, with few prospectives for real victories.

Now, if Persia had continued on the overall path it was on before the Islamic Revolution, I'd consider your alternative scenario not only plausible, but quite likely. Because in that case, they'd be evolving towards what its leadership at the time envisioned: a more innovative society, emulating the successes of the West. But precisely because they wholly rejected that path, I no longer see that kind of outcome as realistic.



-------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you explain what you mean by this exactly? Because short of Putin dying resulting in a succession crisis and turmoil, I don't see aborbing significant territory as feasible not while they have a nuclear umbrella. The attempt might actually strengthen Putin's hold as he presides over a now defensive war against imperialist Westeners and push Russia further into China's sphere of influence.

Putin is not the youngest fellow. There is the outside possibility that he clings to power until he's 95, Mugabe style, but that kind of thing tends to be an outlier. Probability-wise, Putin's odds of still being alive in ten years aren't even that good, both because of simple life expectancy, and because when the old man starts doddering around and outstaying his welcome, the young(er) guard will be increasingly happy to... help him retire.

Depending on how things play out regarding the whole Ukraine debacle, that "retirement" may come earlier than many now expect. As I've argued before: the situation isn't very good for Russia. In fact, things have been so structurally bad that I've been saying that Russian stability will last about as long as Putin... and then it's back to the chaos he brought to heel in the first place. Putin hasn't saved Russia: he's put its collapse "on hold" through an autocratic freezing of the situation. If the Yeltsin years had gone on for another decade (or even less...) Russia would have fallen apart. I've argued for many years now that when Putin croaks (and/or is removed from power), Russia will pick up where the messy '90s left it, and finish the process that Putin managed to arrest for over two decades.

It should be noted that until this Ukrainian "adventure", I certainly haboured a significant degree of respect for Putin. He was an asshole, to be sure, but he was also the man who had kept Russia from collapse. His tactics by no means repaired Russia in any way, so he wasn't really averting the big crash at all... but postponing it for more than twenty years is, in itself, a remarkable achievement. I could -- and, in a sense, still can -- respect that.

But now, Putin is undoing all his own hard work. The war in Ukraine is ruinous to Ukraine-- but to Russia, as well. Russia is demographically speaking a dwarf, compared to the powers of consequence. Economically speaking, it is of similar unimpressive stature. Now, we can watch live as its demography and its economy are both getting shot to hell. (Not just the men dying, but also those getting crippled and thus bound to be a burden on the system thereafter. And also the children not getting born due to the worsening economy; baby booms are for triumphant nations where the economy soars post-war. Russia has no such prospects to look forward to.)

Coldly speaking: even if every last Ukrainian dies in this war, Russia still loses it. Because the cost of the war is greater than the benefits they can derive from any conquest in anything resembling a useful time-frame. Sacrificing Ukrainians to bleed Russia to death is an excellent deal for the West. Naturally, the ideal outcome for the West is that Ukraine triumphs, but that's not actually a victory condition. The purpose is to bleed Russia. All Ukrainians are essenially just tools for that, and if any of them survive it... that's a bonus.

Yes, that's very cynical. But that's the reality of it.

But although this war being a (serious) net loss for Russia is by now a given, there is another factor to consider. This is a proxy war. The real enemy is China. They don't support Russia as eagerly as the West supports Ukraine, but the reason for that is simple: they also see that Russia is bleeding. And they, too, want to profit from that. They don't border on Ukraine, after all. But they do border on Russia. If Russia is weakened, it becomes more dependent on China-- just as you have said. And this prepares the way for China to step in when Putin croaks and Russia really goes down the crapper. And there lies the danger to which I referred.

If we push now, and go all in on helping Ukraine, then Russia loses hard. If you send a serious number of modern fighters, a magnificent shitload of long-range missiles, and a solid bunch of Warthogs over there, it'll be over in three months tops. Russia's ability to hold their ground will collapse, and their occupation will end. The near-inevitable result of such a defeat will be that Putin unexpectedly falls out of a window very shortly thereafter. And then Russia is in turmoil. And then you move in. You offer Marshall Aid. Not just a rebuilding of Ukraine, but of Russia as well. China will try the same in the East, but China has less to offer. China is aiming for a weakened Russia, becoming ever more dependent, so they can turn most or all of it into an economically vassalised amalgamation of puppets.

Therefore, if we push now, and go all the way, the circumstances favour the West, and we'll get the most out of it. Post-Putin Russia will be generously rebuilt with extensive Western help, and China will at most get the Far East.

However, if we wait, then circumstances will more likely favour the Chinese ambitions. If Putin can sell a long-term stalemate as a supposed victory (even though in reality, it's ruinous for him), he can cling to power for longer. And he'll rely on Chinese economic support to stay afloat. Once he croaks, they swoop in. At best, if we're quick then, we can get a sphere of influence in the Western reaches. But potentially, China makes itself the effective hegemon over all of Russia.

That's the worst case scenario.

And so, my position is that the long-term interests of the West as a whole demand that we act decisively now. That Russia is expelled from Ukraine as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. And that when the political repercussions of such a massive military humiliation present themselves to Vlad Putin (in the form of sudden defenestration or similar event), prompt intervention is undertaken, and massive support in the form of modern-day Marshall Aid is offered to help stabilise and rebuild Russia. Thus keeping it out of the Chinese sphere, and effectively winning the civilisational war against China before it truly begins.

Or, to put it another way: we must not just think about the next battle, or even about just the course of this current conflict. We must think about the course of the next century, and what we want that century to look like. We must take the long view.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Putin is not the youngest fellow. There is the outside possibility that he clings to power until he's 95, Mugabe style, but that kind of thing tends to be an outlier. Probability-wise, Putin's odds of still being alive in ten years aren't even that good, both because of simple life expectancy, and because when the old man starts doddering around and outstaying his welcome, the young(er) guard will be increasingly happy to... help him retire.

Depending on how things play out regarding the whole Ukraine debacle, that "retirement" may come earlier than many now expect. As I've argued before: the situation isn't very good for Russia. In fact, things have been so structurally bad that I've been saying that Russian stability will last about as long as Putin... and then it's back to the chaos he brought to heel in the first place. Putin hasn't saved Russia: he's put its collapse "on hold" through an autocratic freezing of the situation. If the Yeltsin years had gone on for another decade (or even less...) Russia would have fallen apart. I've argued for many years now that when Putin croaks (and/or is removed from power), Russia will pick up where the messy '90s left it, and finish the process that Putin managed to arrest for over two decades.

It should be noted that until this Ukrainian "adventure", I certainly haboured a significant degree of respect for Putin. He was an asshole, to be sure, but he was also the man who had ket Russia from collapse. His tactics by no means repaired Russia in any way, so he wasn't really averting the big crash at all... but postponing it for more than twenty years is, in itself, a remarkable achievement. I could -- and, in a sense, still can -- respect that.

But now, Putin is undoing all his own hard work. The war in Ukraine is ruinous to Ukraine-- but to Russia, as well. Russia is demographically speaking a dwarf, compared to the powers of consequence. Economically speaking, it is of similar unimpressive stature. Now, we can watch live as its demography and its economy are both getting shot to hell. (Not just the men dying, but also those getting crippled and thus bound to be a burden on the system thereafter. And also the children not getting born due to the woesening economy; baby booms are for triumphant nations where the economy soars post-war. Russia has no such prospects to look forward to.)

Coldly speaking: even if every last Ukrainian dies in this war, Russia still loses it. Because the cost of the war is greater than the benefits they can derive from any conquest in anything resembling a usefl time-frame. Sacrificing Ukrainians to bleed Russia to death is an excellent deal for the West. Naturally, the ideal outcome for the West is that Ukraine triumphs, but that's not actually a victory condition. The purpose is to bleed Russia. All Ukrainians are essenially just tools for that, and if any of them survive it... that's a bonus.

Yes, that's very cynical. But that's the reality of it.

But although this war being a (serious) net loss for Russia is by now a given, there is another factor to consider. This is a proxy war. The real enemy is China. They don't support Russia as eagerly as the West supports Ukraine, but the reason for that is simple: they also see that Russia is bleeding. And they, too, want to profit from that. They don't border on Ukraine, after all. But they do border on Russia. If Russia is weakened, it becomes more dependent on China-- just as you have said. And this prepares the way for China to step in when Putin croaks and Russia really goes down the crapper. And there lies the danger to which I referred.

If we push now, and go all in on helping Ukraine, that Russia loses hard. If you send a serious number of modern fighters, a magnificent shitload of long-range missiles, and a solid bunch of Warhogs over there, it'll be over in three months tops. Russia's ability to hold their groand will collapse, and their occupation will end. The near-inevitable result of such a defeat will be that Putin unexpectedly falls out of a window very shortly thereafter. And then Russia is in turmoil. And then you move in. You offer Marshall Aid. Not just a rebuilding of Ukraine, but of Russia as well. China will try the same in the East, but China has less to offer. China is aiming for a weakened Russia, becoming ever more dependent, so they can turn most or all of it into an economically vassalisede amalgamation of puppets.

Therefore, if we push now, and go all the way, the circumstances favour the West, and we'll get the most out of it. Post-Putin Russia will be generously rebuilt with extensive Western help, and China will at most get the Far East.

However, if we wait, then circumstances will more likely favour the Chinese ambitions. If Putin can sell a long-term stalemate as a supposed victory (even though in reality, it's ruinous for him), he can cling to power for longer. And he'll rely on Cginese economic support to stay afloat. Once he croaks, they swoop in. At best, if we're quick then, we can get a sphere of influence in the Western reaches. But potentially, China makes itself the effective hegemon over all of Russia.

That's the worst case scenario.

And so, my position is that the long-term interests of the West a a whole demand that we act decisevely now. That Russia is expelled from Ukraine as quickle and as thoroughly as possible. And that when the political repercussions of such a massive military humiliation present themselves t Vlad Putin (in the form of sudden defenestration or similar event), prompt intervention is undertaken, and massive support in the form of modern-day Marshall Aid is offered to help stabilise and rebuild Russia. Thus keeping it out of the Chinese sphere, and effectively winning the civilisational war against China before it truly begins.

Or, to put it another way: we must not just think about the next battle, or even about just the course of this current conflict. We must think about the course of the next century, and what we want that century to look like. We must take the long view.

I see. That's better than actually invading Russia.

Personally I'm not as optimistic in the proposed timeline. Hitler died in a bunker as Germany was burned to ash around him so I have reservations even a smashing defeat in Ukraine will send him "through a window" assuming Putin has done a good job of killing any would be successors. He is the man holding the country together and he can also spin the defeat, where the Western World seemingly ganged up on them, as proof to the oligarchs they are better off under him than gambling on whoever comes next. So from a coldly, cynical viewpoint we, the US, could expend a great deal of expensive hardware in exchange for merely shortening the lifespan of an already dying power that is Russia.

Once he does die, whether assisted or natural, then there is the issue that Russia has every reason to hate the West and be suspicious if not down right hostile to any aid offered either denying it, much like the USSR did with the Marshal plan, and take what deal they can get from the Chinese whose interest and shared ambitions against the West more align, or play the two powers off of each other taking as much money as they can and still end up as part of an Anti-West bloc.

I could easily see this being a repeat of the 20's and 30's when American industrialists helped to set up plants in the USSR where American know-how and money turn into weapons posed back at us. In which case it likely would be wiser not to invest money in a likely enemy/Chinese vassal.

For myself I lean towards destabilizing the region turn as much of Russia into a balkanized hell hole to the point they can't maintain or build their infrastructure. Force the Chinese not only to pay for a Marshal Plan but move their own forces into the region for security and order. Every warlord they have to buy off, every soldier stuck watching over a Russian village, every piece of equipment they have to build to harvest Russia's resources is one less that can be spent anywhere else. All while in the background fund and equip Russian Nationalists, be they Fascist, communist or Tsarist persuasion, to harry the overtly taking over Chinese and make it a wonderful moneypit quagmire.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Generally speaking, the concept itself is not implausible. Its viability under the current circumstances looks rather iffy to me, though. The Islamic Republic is, ultimately, a regime of retardation. They are not significantly better than the Wahhabists, the Musim Brotherhood, ISIS, or Boko Haram. Tellingly, the 'front-line' exponent of Iranian power on the Western end is Hezbollah. More to the South, we have.... the Houthis. What I'm trying to say is that Iran has chosen a dead-end road, culturally and intellectually speaking. How are they going to effect a cultural rebirth, if they've undertaken the cultural equivalent of self-mummification? (Because that is what has happened to Islam.) They are no more capable of this than the Sunnis are. Their denomination is just as fossilised.

Putting that objection aside for the sake of agument, the practical process of making it happen also has several major challenges to overcome. If the USA (and by extension the West in general) withdraws, the result will be rather chaotic. The Saudi monarchy, for instance, will in that event have to start catering to the Wahhabist radicals to a great degree, or it will be toppled. (Indeed, the latter is the more likely outcome regardless.) Iran would surely dominate Mesopotamia, but Syria? How? You'd see unni radicals of the ISIS variety running the show from Mosul to Aden.

Conceivably, Iran could ally with Russia in propping up Assad, but how long will that be workable? There's also the issue that Russia isn't going to be in a good state to prop up much of anything. Alternatively: an unholy Turko-Persian alliance to maintain a semblance of order? Problem is that they'd both want to be top dog...

The most likely result of "a retreat by the West", I think, would be a great big mess. Turks, Persians and Arabs -- all with their local proxies and stooges -- trying to come out on top of the heap, and the whole affair becoming a very dirty fight. Highly destructive, with few prospectives for real victories.

Now, if Persia had continued on the overall path it was on before the Islamic Revolution, I'd consider your alternative scenario not only plausible, but quite likely. Because in that case, they'd be evolving towards what its leadership at the time envisioned: a more innovative society, emulating the successes of the West. But precisely because they wholly rejected that path, I no longer see that kind of outcome as realistic.



-------------------------------------------------------------------





Putin is not the youngest fellow. There is the outside possibility that he clings to power until he's 95, Mugabe style, but that kind of thing tends to be an outlier. Probability-wise, Putin's odds of still being alive in ten years aren't even that good, both because of simple life expectancy, and because when the old man starts doddering around and outstaying his welcome, the young(er) guard will be increasingly happy to... help him retire.

Depending on how things play out regarding the whole Ukraine debacle, that "retirement" may come earlier than many now expect. As I've argued before: the situation isn't very good for Russia. In fact, things have been so structurally bad that I've been saying that Russian stability will last about as long as Putin... and then it's back to the chaos he brought to heel in the first place. Putin hasn't saved Russia: he's put its collapse "on hold" through an autocratic freezing of the situation. If the Yeltsin years had gone on for another decade (or even less...) Russia would have fallen apart. I've argued for many years now that when Putin croaks (and/or is removed from power), Russia will pick up where the messy '90s left it, and finish the process that Putin managed to arrest for over two decades.

It should be noted that until this Ukrainian "adventure", I certainly haboured a significant degree of respect for Putin. He was an asshole, to be sure, but he was also the man who had ket Russia from collapse. His tactics by no means repaired Russia in any way, so he wasn't really averting the big crash at all... but postponing it for more than twenty years is, in itself, a remarkable achievement. I could -- and, in a sense, still can -- respect that.

But now, Putin is undoing all his own hard work. The war in Ukraine is ruinous to Ukraine-- but to Russia, as well. Russia is demographically speaking a dwarf, compared to the powers of consequence. Economically speaking, it is of similar unimpressive stature. Now, we can watch live as its demography and its economy are both getting shot to hell. (Not just the men dying, but also those getting crippled and thus bound to be a burden on the system thereafter. And also the children not getting born due to the woesening economy; baby booms are for triumphant nations where the economy soars post-war. Russia has no such prospects to look forward to.)

Coldly speaking: even if every last Ukrainian dies in this war, Russia still loses it. Because the cost of the war is greater than the benefits they can derive from any conquest in anything resembling a usefl time-frame. Sacrificing Ukrainians to bleed Russia to death is an excellent deal for the West. Naturally, the ideal outcome for the West is that Ukraine triumphs, but that's not actually a victory condition. The purpose is to bleed Russia. All Ukrainians are essenially just tools for that, and if any of them survive it... that's a bonus.

Yes, that's very cynical. But that's the reality of it.

But although this war being a (serious) net loss for Russia is by now a given, there is another factor to consider. This is a proxy war. The real enemy is China. They don't support Russia as eagerly as the West supports Ukraine, but the reason for that is simple: they also see that Russia is bleeding. And they, too, want to profit from that. They don't border on Ukraine, after all. But they do border on Russia. If Russia is weakened, it becomes more dependent on China-- just as you have said. And this prepares the way for China to step in when Putin croaks and Russia really goes down the crapper. And there lies the danger to which I referred.

If we push now, and go all in on helping Ukraine, that Russia loses hard. If you send a serious number of modern fighters, a magnificent shitload of long-range missiles, and a solid bunch of Warhogs over there, it'll be over in three months tops. Russia's ability to hold their groand will collapse, and their occupation will end. The near-inevitable result of such a defeat will be that Putin unexpectedly falls out of a window very shortly thereafter. And then Russia is in turmoil. And then you move in. You offer Marshall Aid. Not just a rebuilding of Ukraine, but of Russia as well. China will try the same in the East, but China has less to offer. China is aiming for a weakened Russia, becoming ever more dependent, so they can turn most or all of it into an economically vassalisede amalgamation of puppets.

Therefore, if we push now, and go all the way, the circumstances favour the West, and we'll get the most out of it. Post-Putin Russia will be generously rebuilt with extensive Western help, and China will at most get the Far East.

However, if we wait, then circumstances will more likely favour the Chinese ambitions. If Putin can sell a long-term stalemate as a supposed victory (even though in reality, it's ruinous for him), he can cling to power for longer. And he'll rely on Cginese economic support to stay afloat. Once he croaks, they swoop in. At best, if we're quick then, we can get a sphere of influence in the Western reaches. But potentially, China makes itself the effective hegemon over all of Russia.

That's the worst case scenario.

And so, my position is that the long-term interests of the West a a whole demand that we act decisevely now. That Russia is expelled from Ukraine as quickle and as thoroughly as possible. And that when the political repercussions of such a massive military humiliation present themselves t Vlad Putin (in the form of sudden defenestration or similar event), prompt intervention is undertaken, and massive support in the form of modern-day Marshall Aid is offered to help stabilise and rebuild Russia. Thus keeping it out of the Chinese sphere, and effectively winning the civilisational war against China before it truly begins.

Or, to put it another way: we must not just think about the next battle, or even about just the course of this current conflict. We must think about the course of the next century, and what we want that century to look like. We must take the long view.

Well Crud... you might have persuaded me into supporting Ukraine.

 

[Blasterbot]

I don't believe we in the west are capable of pulling off a Marshall plan at this point. especially not for russia where the population has been groomed to hate us and we also have a significant population that views them merely as orcs to be disposed of and not people. at best russia balkanizes and we get a couple of the former states to side with us through a lot of bribery while Ukraine gets it's old borders back and we have to foot the bill for rebuilding it.

 

[ATP]

A while back on this very thread, I believe it was mentioned one of the really important aspects of a “High Culture” is not just its heartlands, but the frontier. It is the marcher state that is able to approach all this wonderful culture with a hint of pragmatism (they have to be pragmatic due to enemies pressing on the border). Thereafter, the marcher state grows so strong that it ultimately surpasses the heartlands (Rome and Greece, Qin and the other states, Carthage and Phoenicia, etc), if I recall correctly.

Taking that into account, we can somewhat apply it to even the Islamic world. Because whilst the initial Caliphates gained great glory they usually fell apart soon after. A true and long lasting Islamic Empire was ultimately forged in the frontier of the Islamic world, who won its long war against the last vestiges of Rome and would rise to utterly eclipse Old Arabia.

Am I calling the Turks the “Romans” of the Islamic World?

Yes, I think I am. Of course, with Islam being Islam, they got through their time in the sun a little quicker than other empires did, but I think my point still stands as the Ottoman Empire reigned for roughly five centuries.

Edit: To really add to this point…the Turks effectively won Muhammed’s eight hundred year long funeral games.

If i remember correctly,Ottomans considered themselves as rigtfull descendents of Roman Empire.

 

[Cherico]

If i remember correctly,Ottomans considered themselves as rigtfull descendents of Roman Empire.

The ottomans said a lot of shit it doesn't mean its true.

No they were not the rightful decendents of the roman empire, they were their own thing entirely their not roman. Like wise Russia is not the heirs of rome. Rome has fallen rome is dead it is a sad loss but its time to move on and create the next western empire hopefully learning from the last cycle to avoid its mistakes.

 

[ATP]

The ottomans said a lot of shit it doesn't mean its true.

No they were not the rightful decendents of the roman empire, they were their own thing entirely their not roman. Like wise Russia is not the heirs of rome. Rome has fallen rome is dead it is a sad loss but its time to move on and create the next western empire hopefully learning from the last cycle to avoid its mistakes.

You are right - but both Ottomans and Moscov still considered themselves as next Rome.Not mention HRE...

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

What do you guys think will happen if someone creates an ai system and tries to create a god out of it. Seems like somthing fudamental about humans is that they are always looking for a god to worship. So what happens if that machine god that has total power over all the military or infulstructure assests is created ala fallout or skynet and unlike previous gods can't be blown up or made to bleed?

Seems like society ends when you make its god (or symbol of authority) bleed (Or get destoryed in some way). It may not be a instant death but it seems to be inevitable.

 

[King Arts]

What do you guys think will happen if someone creates an ai system and tries to create a god out of it. Seems like somthing fudamental about humans is that they are always looking for a god to worship. So what happens if that machine god that has total power over all the military or infulstructure assests is created ala fallout or skynet and unlike previous gods can't be blown up or made to bleed?

Seems like society ends when you make its god bleed. It may not be an instant death but it seems to be inevitable.

I think it would depend on the capabilities of the AI.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I think it would depend on the capabilities of the AI.

To smite you if you step out of line, wipe cities off the map sodom and Gomorrah style if the common consensus of said population is "Too problematic" I say that because I think that really is the endgoal with so-called AI. The powers that be don't want C3PO or Detriot: Become Human. They want Skynet, and they are arrogant enough to think they could control such a system. Terminator does not apply to them in their minds.

 

[King Arts]

To smite you if you step out of line, wipe cities off the map sodom and Gomorrah style if the common consensus of said population is "Too problematic" I say that because I think that really is the endgoal with so-called AI. The powers that be don't want C3PO or Detriot: Become Human. They want Skynet, and they are arrogant enough to think they could control such a system. Terminator does not apply to them in their minds.

If it is a super powerful “god AI” that is smarter than humans and predict our actions and it decides to take over a nation. Then that nation will become the universal empire and it has a good chance of becoming the first true eternal empire a nation with an immortal ruler who will rule for all time. This can either be very very bad or ok and good.