Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

When was the last time a Prime Minister or President of a country committed suicide?

When Nixon said, "I am not a crook."

*** 10-Jul-15 World View -- Both Greece and European leaders seem poised to compromise

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Both Greece and European leaders seem poised to compromise
• UK advises all Britons to leave Tunisia

****
**** Both Greece and European leaders seem poised to compromise
****


Does Wolfgang Schäuble's broad grin mean that he's ready to compromise? (Kathimerini)

It's not certain yet, but the Game of Chicken that Greece and the
Europeans have been playing with each may finally be coming to an end,
with both sides screeching to a halt before the collision.

Greek officials, led by prime minister Alexis Tsipras, submitted
written reform proposals just minutes before the midnight (22:00 GMT)
Thursday deadline demanded by the European leaders.

The proposals include tax increases on shipping companies, increases
in VAT taxes, some privatizations, phasing out solidarity grant for
pensioners by 2019, and defense spending cuts. The proposals are
thought to contain around 12 billion euros worth of reform measures.

The package that Tsipras rejected before calling last week's
referendum, which is also the package that the referendum vote
rejected, called for a smaller amount, 8 billion euros, of
reform measures.

However, Tsipras isn't being as generous as might first appear, and he
is definitely not capitulating. As part of his proposal package, he's
seeking 53.5 billion euros in a new bailout package, and a
restructuring of Greece's large debt burden. The restructuring would
involve stretching out the payment timeline for decades, meaning that
the current repayment amounts will be smaller.

The proposal will be reviewed over the weekend first by the
Eurogroup of finance ministers, and then by an EU summit on
Sunday. If it's not considered adequate, it will be rejected.

Even if the EU summit accepts it, it's still not a done deal. The
package has to be approved by Greece's parliament, and by several
European parliaments.

It had previously been thought that Tsipras would never win approval
for any such package because the communists and far left segments of
his own Syriza party would block it. However, Tsipras is now allying
with opposition parties, and he evidently has enough votes to get it
passed.

As for the European parliaments, including Germany's Bundestag, a lot
will depend on what German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Germany's
Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. If they support the package, then
it's thought that the parliaments will fall in line.

Merkel has said in the past that the "red line" for her was that there
can be no "haircut," meaning that no portion of Greece's debt can be
entirely forgiven. That problem is evaded in Tsipras's proposal by
keeping the nominal debt the same, but stretching out the payments
so far that the debt, in actuality, will almost certainly never
be repaid.

So it's believed that if Merkel and Tsipras can both personally
endorse this proposal, then the national parliaments will fall
in line.

You may recall, Dear Reader, that I said a couple of times in the
past that my personal prediction (not a Generational Dynamics
prediction) was that, one way or another, Greece would remain
the in the eurozone. That prediction was really just based
on a personal feeling. Since that time, I've been thinking
about why I had that feeling.

I've been following news stories closely and writing about them for
years, and one thing that's characterized the last 10-15 years, as
opposed to the years following WW II, is that almost no one wants to
make a hard decision, because they don't want to bear the
responsibility of possible failure.

In this case, Tsipras and Merkel are being forced to choose. Neither
of them wants to go down in history as the person responsible for the
breakup of the euro currency union. Neither does anyone else. From
that, the conclusion must be that, one way or another, Greece will
remain in the eurozone.

Meanwhile, there'll a lot of hard bargaining over the weekend, and
it's still possible that the negotiations will collapse. Kathimerini and BBC and Kathimerini

****
**** UK advises all Britons to leave Tunisia
****

It looks like the terrorists have won, at least in Tunisia.

Just four days after Tunisia declared a 'state of war,'
following a terror attack in Sousse on June 26,
and an attack on the Bardo Museum in Tunis on March 18, Britain is
advising all of its citizens to leave Tunisia because "a further
terrorist attack is highly likely."

According to the statement by the UK Foreign Office:

<QUOTE>"Since the attack in Sousse, we have been working
closely with the Tunisian authorities to investigate the attack
and the wider threat from terrorist groups in Tunisia. Although we
have had good co-operation from the Tunisian government, including
putting in place additional security measures, the intelligence
and threat picture has developed considerably, reinforcing our
view that a further terrorist attack is highly likely. On balance,
we do not believe the mitigation measures in place provide
adequate protection for British tourists in Tunisia at the present
time and we have therefore changed our travel advice
accordingly."<END QUOTE>

According to Tunisia's Tourism Ministry, travel and tourism was 15% of
Tunisia's GDP in 2014. 473,000 jobs are supported by travel and
tourism, 13.8% of total employment. It's believed that the objective
of the terrorist attacks was to cripple Tunisia's tourist industry,
and the terrorists appear to have met their objective, at least for
the time being. UK Foreign Office
and BBC


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Britain, Tunisia,
Greece, Alexis Tsipras, Germany, Angela Merkel, Wolfgang Schäuble

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

When Nixon said, "I am not a crook."

I meant it literally. In terms of major countries I believe the last known one was Hitler in the bunker. But that was a pretty strange circumstance. I'm struggling to think of any major national leader who offed him or herself under circumstances short of the Red Army bearing down on one's bunker, any time during my life. Maybe some minor country leaders in the 3rd world have done so but if so they did not make the news. But with this Antigone reference ... things that make one go "hmmmmmm."

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

> I meant it literally. In terms of major countries I believe the
> last known one was Hitler in the bunker. But that was a pretty
> strange circumstance. I'm struggling to think of any major
> national leader who offed him or herself under circumstances short
> of the Red Army bearing down on one's bunker, any time during my
> life. Maybe some minor country leaders in the 3rd world have done
> so but if so they did not make the news. But with this Antigone
> reference ... things that make one go "hmmmmmm."

I know you meant it literally. I was just trying to be funny.

Still, an autopsy concluded that Chilean president Salvador Allende
had committed suicide during a coup in 1973.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...uicide-autopsy

Brazilian President Getulio Vargas committed suicide just after
resigning in 1954.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4544759.stm

South Korea's FORMER President Roh Moo-hyun killed himself in 2009,
during a corruption investigation, by jumping off a mountain near his
home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8065101.stm

Here's a list of dozens of American politicians who committed
suicide, none of them presidents.

http://politicalgraveyard.com/death/suicide.html

Politicians who disappeared or died mysteriously:

http://politicalgraveyard.com/death/disappeared.html

*** 11-Jul-15 World View -- China's stock market looks increasingly like America in 1929

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Concerns are growing about China's stock market crash
• China's stock market looks increasingly like America in 1929

****
**** Concerns are growing about China's stock market crash
****


China's small investors hold their heads as their life savings drain away (Corbis)

The world has been focused this week on the financial crisis in
Greece, but the financial crisis in China has the potential to be much
more significant for the world. The Greek crisis is arguably just
political, but a stock market crash is something that's almost
completely out of control of any government.

Chinese officials are breathing a sigh of relief today, because
China's stock markets rebounded 10% on Thursday and Friday, after
falling 30% since June 12. It's not an exaggeration to say that
government officials have been panicking as much as investors have.

Chinese officials have taken desperate measures to stop the stock
market crash. They've reduced interest rates, so that it's easier to
borrow money to invest in stocks. They've forbidden large investors
from selling any stocks for six months. Half the companies on the
stock market have suspended trading, for fear that if they're allowed
to trade, then their prices will fall. Margin rules have changed in
the last couple of days to let people borrow a lot more money, and use
it to buy stocks.

So now the Chinese are praying that the market won't start falling
again. China's stock market increased by 250% in the year preceding
June 12, and was in a huge bubble. So far, the bubble has only
partially popped, and bubbles never only pop partially. In fact, what
they always do is overshoot their old indexes on the way down
(applying the Law of Mean Reversion).

It's been a traumatic month for small investors, two-thirds of whom
have not even finished high school. Some are retired, some are
migrants. All of them have lost confidence.

As long-time readers know, Generational Dynamics predicts that China
is headed for two wars -- an internal civil war, the first major civil
war since the Communist revolution, and an external war, leading a
world war with the United States, their first world war since World
War II. These two wars are not inconsistent with each other, any more
than the Communist Revolution and World War II were not inconsistent
with each other.

A stock market crash triggering a Chinese economic depression would be
enough to trigger an internal rebellion. One way that Chinese
officials might try to externalize the internal rebellion would be to
attack Japan or Vietnam or India or the United States.

So a major stock market crash in China could have far-reaching effects
on the rest of the world. And China does appear to be in the middle
of a major stock market crash. Reuters and Guardian (London)

****
**** China's stock market looks increasingly like America in 1929
****

China's stock market looks more and more like America's in the 1920s,
leading up the crash in 1929, according to Andy Xie, former Morgan
Stanley Chief Asia-Pacific Economist, and former World Bank Economist,
when he was interviewed on Bloomberg TV.

According to Xie, the current stock market rebound might last for a
while, but then it could fall again sharply, so that it goes down "in
waves."

Xie compares what's happening in China today to "pump and dump
schemes" of the 1920s. The perpetrators would buy shares of a stock
at a low price, and then pump up the price of the stock by means of a
media hype campaign of some type, encouraging people to buy the stock.
The perpetrators would then dump their stock shares at the high price,
which would collapse the price for the people who had fallen for the
hype campaign. Pump and dump schemes were made illegal after the 1929
crash, but they're still practiced regularly on CNBC today.

According to Xie, China's stock market bubble was backed almost
exclusively in this way, with no real economic fundamentals in play
(my transcription):

<QUOTE>"In the 1920s the US market was manipulated by all
these pump and dump guys, before the government started to
regulate the market. And they organized trusts to pump certain
stocks.

In China it's become ubiquitous. The extent is far greater that
what had happened in the United States in the 1920s.

It's been going on for 20 years. More and more people keep
joining the dark side, and the people are losing money quicker --
every cycle you lose money quicker than the previous one.

So this time around, people with the real cash, didn't really join
in. You see [in the media] all the pictures of the people going
in there. These are really like a lot of young people, who just
got their first job, not much money, and so that's why this market
has been so dependent on margin loans. ... Even at the top of the
market, only about 20% of the market capitalization are liquid
shares.

So this market has not been pumped by real money. It's been pumped
up by the loans. And the loans are borrowed by those guys who
have been pumping. So at the end of the day, they look around,
all they see are people are like them. So what are you gonna do?
You keep doing that, and you borrow more, and hope one day the
real money will come in."<END QUOTE>

According to Xie, the real market crash is not in stocks, but in the
real estate market, which is 30-40 times as large as the stock market.

<QUOTE>"The property market really burst a couple of years
ago, but it's been covered up by the financial system -- not
foreclosing on developers who go into default.

The stock market ride has raised the hope of these developers that
they could somehow get money from the stock market.

So everything would be fine. But the stock market is small
compared to the property market. China's debt is like 200
trillion renminbi. The stock market at the peak was 6 trillion.
So the big game is not the stock market. The stock market offers
the hope that if it keeps going up, then it will bail out
everybody. ...

It's fair to say that most developers are technically bankrupt.
... Even when you look at Shanghai and Beijing, where markets are
supposed to be very good - that's what people really think - but
the sales are down 70-80%.

The property market has been the driving force in [the economy].

Electricity production is flat. ... You look at the consumption
of whatever commodity - it's down. China's imports are down at a
double digit rate, and exports are flat. You look at freight
traffic - real freight traffic is down. It's difficult to see
what's going on.

What the stock market did was to raise hope. Something was going
up. And if it kept going up, eventually it would pull everything
up.

That hope was dashed a few days ago."<END QUOTE>

Investopedia

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, China, Shanghai, Andy Xie, pump and dump

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

*** 12-Jul-15 World View -- Pope Francis in Paraguay alludes to 1860s War of the Triple Alliance

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Pope Francis in Paraguay alludes to 1860s War of the Triple Alliance
• Distrust of Greece dominates indecisive Eurogroup meeting on Saturday
• France and Italy welcome Greece's proposals

****
**** Pope Francis in Paraguay alludes to 1860s War of the Triple Alliance
****


Pope Francis and Paraguay's President Horacio Cartes meet inside the López Presidential Palace, in Asunción, Paraguay on Friday. The palace was named after president Carlos Antonio López, the father of president Francisco Solano López, who launched the War of the Triple Alliance (AP)

Pope Francis met with Paraguay's President Horacio Cartes as part of
his Latin American tour in the capital city of Asunción.

During his speech Pope Francis praised the women who rebuilt Paraguay
after the War of the Triple Alliance devastated the entire country,
killing almost all of the men. According to the Pope:

<QUOTE>"On their shoulders, mothers, wives, widows have been
able to pull forward their country. God bless the Paraguayan
woman."<END QUOTE>

The War of the Triple Alliance is an interesting war from the point of
view of generational theory. The war was launched against the triple
alliance of Uruguay, Brazil and Venezuela by Paraguay's president
Francisco Solano López, who is considered a hero by some, and an
insane dictator by others.

López felt insulted, in common with Uruguay, in September 1864 when
Brazil intervened in Uruguay without objection from Argentina.

López turned his hurt feelings into a decision to come to Uruguay's
aid militarily, but he vastly overrated Paraguay's potential as a
military power. He had expected Uruguay and Argentina to side with
him in fighting Paraguay, but they weren't interested, instead signing
the Treaty of the Triple Alliance, vowing to destroy López's
government.

This was a generational crisis war for Paraguay, but a non-crisis war
for the three allies, and all four countries fought the war in typical
fashion for their generational eras. The allies would have ended the
war quickly with little damage, but López didn't know when to quit.
Paraguay's soldiers exhibited suicidal bravery, especially considering
that Solano López shot or tortured so many of them for the most
trivial offenses. By 1867 Paraguay had lost 60,000 men to casualties,
disease, or capture, and another 60,000 soldiers were called to
duty. Solano López conscripted slaves, and infantry units formed
entirely of children appeared. The war was a complete disaster for
López. He apparently went completely insane and suffered
hallucinations of a vast conspiracy against him.

Allied troops entered Asunción in January 1869, but Solano López held
out in the northern jungles for another fourteen months until he
finally died in battle. The year 1870 marked the lowest point in
Paraguayan history. Hundreds of thousands of Paraguayans had
died. Destitute and practically destroyed, Paraguay had to endure a
lengthy occupation by foreign troops and cede large patches of
territory to Brazil and Argentina.

As regular readers know, Generational Dynamics predicts that China is
preparing to launch a preemptive attack on the United States, and is
manufacturing thousands of missiles and submarines with no other
purpose than to attack American cities, military bases, and aircraft
carriers.

The Chinese are very sure of themselves at this time in history. They
believe that the US is weak, and unwilling to fight. They see
America's weakness in the South China Sea and in the Mideast, and they
conclude that either we won't fight back or that they'll knock us out
quickly. Like Francisco Solano López and the 1864 Paraguayans, the
Chinese vastly underestimate their enemies and vastly overestimate
their own military capabilities.

Yes, they will launch hundreds or thousands of missiles, including
many nuclear weapons, but that won't be the end of the war. The
Chinese will be wracked by their own internal civil war. They will
have Pakistan and the Sunni Arabs as allies, but they'll have India,
Iran, Russia, Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines as enemies. China's
army has never fought an external war, and they will make many
mistakes that the United States will not. It's not possible to
predict whether the US will survive, but it's quite possible that a
devastated United States will end up winning the war, and China will
end up being as destitute and destroyed as Paraguay was in 1870. And
it will be what they deserve for launching the war in the first place,
just as it was for Paraguay. Telesur TV and Library of Congress Country Study: Paraguay

****
**** Distrust of Greece dominates indecisive Eurogroup meeting on Saturday
****

A meeting on Saturday of the Eurogroup of eurozone finance ministers
ended with no agreement on providing any further bailout money to
Greece. It's clear that in the last few months there has been a
complete loss of goodwill and trust between Greece and the eurozone.

According to Eurogroup chairman and Dutch finance minister Jeroen
Dijsselbloem, referring to the proposal submitted by Greece:

<QUOTE>"We are still far away. It looks quite complicated. On
both content and the more complicated question of trust, even if
it's all good on paper the question is whether it will get off the
ground and will it happen. So I think we are facing a difficult
negotiation. ...

There is still a lot of criticism on the proposal, reform side,
fiscal side, and there is of course a major issue of trust. Can
the Greek government be trusted to do what they are promising, to
actually implement in coming weeks, months and years. I think
those are the key issues that will be addressed
today."<END QUOTE>

It's widely believed that whatever reforms Greece agrees to will never
be implemented. There are reports that Finland's parliament has
already rejected Greece's proposal.

Germany is taking a very hard line, and could make it's proposal
by amending it as follows, with agreement from Greece's parliament:

• Greece has promised that its seaports and airports will be
  privatized, but it's not believed that the promise will be fulfilled.
  Greece should immediately place assets to be privatized into an
  independent trust committed to selling them and using the proceeds to
  pay off national debt.
  
• Allow the European Commission to supervise reforms to Greece's
  public administration.
  
• Legislate for automatic cuts in government spending if budget
  deficit targets are missed.

In my personal opinion, these three items, particularly the second
one, look more like a pathway to war than to a bailout. Can you
imagine the reaction to having a German official order Greece's
parliament around?

In the alternative, Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble has
been floating the idea of a five-year eurozone "time out" for Greece,
after which it could return to the eurozone.

Greece has requested enough bailout money to last three years. Others
are saying that Greece would only get enough money to get through the
summer months, and the whole thing would start again. But this would
"kick the can down the road," which has been what's happened every
time for years. Bloomberg and AFP and Reuters

****
**** France and Italy welcome Greece's proposals
****

Not everybody is against Greece. France and Italy have welcomed the
Greek proposals and suggest that they would be acceptable.

France's economy minister Emmanuel Macron and Italy's Prime Minister
Matteo Renzi both said that they are reasonably optimistic that an
"aid for reforms" deal can be worked out. However, France's finance
minister Michel Sapin was cautious on Saturday:

<QUOTE>"Confidence has been ruined by every Greek government
over many years which have sometimes made promises without making
good on them at all. Today we need to have confidence again, to
have certainty that decisions which are spoken of are decisions
which are actually taken by the Greek government."<END QUOTE>

The Eurogroup of finance ministers met long into Sunday morning
without reaching a conclusion. They'll try again to reach agreement
on Sunday afternoon. If they fail, then there will be a summit of
European Union leaders who will decide what to do next. Bloomberg and Reuters



KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Paraguay, Pope Francis, Horacio Cartes,
Carlos Antonio López, Francisco Solano López,
War of the Triple Alliance, Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela,
China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, Japan, Vietnam,
Greece, Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Finland,
Germany, Wolfgang Schäuble, France, Italy, Emmanuel Macron,
Matteo Renzi, Michel Sapin

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Well, that was a little strained. So, out of curiosity, within what time period do you envision this taking place? And why that particular configuration of alliances, beyond of course the fact that it would be incredibly convenient for the US? Is this Russia under Putin, or a different regime we're supposed to be allying with?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

> Well, that was a little strained. So, out of curiosity, within
> what time period do you envision this taking place? And why that
> particular configuration of alliances, beyond of course the fact
> that it would be incredibly convenient for the US? Is this Russia
> under Putin, or a different regime we're supposed to be allying
> with?

Choice of allies or enemies during a non-crisis war can be made for
political reasons. But a generational crisis war is different in that
the war comes from the people, not the politicians. Russia was our
enemy before and after WW II, but our ally during WW II. If the US
and China are at war, India will choose the US over China. Pakistan
will choose China over India. And Russia will choose India over
China.

When you ask the question about time period or regime, you're asking
the wrong questions. Those questions apply to a non-crisis war, but
not to a generational crisis war.

Xenakis bases his claim of a Russian alliance solely on the fact that an alliance was created during WW2. He assumes the crisis would be the same as the last one basically.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

> Xenakis bases his claim of a Russian alliance solely on the fact
> that an alliance was created during WW2. He assumes the crisis
> would be the same as the last one basically.

No, that's not true. I mention the WW II alliance as an example to
people who don't understand the difference between a crisis and
non-crisis war. On the other hand, Japan was our enemy in WW II, and
China was our ally. That's reversed this time. Evaluations have to
be made on a "war by war" basis. There are no simple rules.

Globalists insist that We fight the next war by basically being the role Britain/France played in WW1 and WW2. Britain won only by comparison to Germany, Italy and France, Russia on the other hand did suffer heavy damage but came out the true winner of WW2, even more so than the US did. Since they hate the very idea of government that is run by populist leaders, and support the idea that the ideal leader is some ossified bureaucrat, they will never support real leadership. These beliefs couple with the current baby boomers "leaders" ingrained hatred of the nation-state as the foremost political unit in the world. The boomers showed their idiotic dogmas when they refused to carry out the nuclear bombardment of the Mideast in the aftermath of 9/11. Domestically they are staunch supporters of the most idiotic of our governmental institutions: the supreme court and the electoral college. What is the point of having a supreme court, an institution that solely exists to suppress the general will of the people? Boomers, whether they are liberals neocon, neoliberals or libertarians will always hate strong government. They suppress Xer or millennial attempts to establish a strong government, only allowing manufactured candidates to get like Bush, Obama and Clinton get elected. Another purely military example of the ingrained moronic nature of the silent and boomer elite is when shortly after 9/11, Rumsfeld ordered that the Bradley fighting vehicle would be our main ground force vehicle in the future instead of building more tanks, around the same time they disbanded what was left of SAC (strategic air command) forces.

Is there any politician or institution that you like?

In the Current election I so far like Trump and Paul on the right, and maybe Sanders on the left. But to clarify my political views I will use popular culture references. I don't know if you watched the various Star trek series back in the 1990s. If so, I'm Specifically referring to the show Star trek DS9, of all the captains, Sisko was the most realistic and likely to have been an effective leader, Even so none of the federation characters would have been up to the task in terms of true leadership in my opinion. The most realistic character who was depicted as a strong leader was Gul Dukat and the various methods he used to gain power over the course of the show. Had such methods had been employed against say the middle east after 9/11 or against Pakistan in 2011, we would have never of had an economic crisis and our military footprint would have been much more prominent in the world today. If you want real life historical example see the previous post: Stalin was a far more effective leader than either FDR or Churchill. A generation earlier in WW1, the leaderships were generally incompetent all around, but even so I rate the German leadership as having the best leaders militarily and adminstratively of all the belligerents during 1914-1918. A honorable mention from the aftermath of the same war was Ataturk in turkey who forged a strong state in the interwar period.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

> In the Current election I so far like Trump and Paul on the right,
> and maybe Sanders on the left. But to clarify my political views I
> will use popular culture references. I don't know if you watched
> the various Star trek series back in the 1990s. If so, I'm
> Specifically referring to the show Star trek DS9, of all the
> captains, Sisko was the most realistic and likely to have been an
> effective leader, Even so none of the federation characters would
> have been up to the task in terms of true leadership in my
> opinion. The most realistic character who was depicted as a strong
> leader was Gul Dukat and the various methods he used to gain power
> over the course of the show. Had such methods had been employed
> against say the middle east after 9/11 or against Pakistan in
> 2011, we would have never of had an economic crisis and our
> military footprint would have been much more prominent in the
> world today. If you want real life historical example see the
> previous post: Stalin was a far more effective leader than either
> FDR or Churchill. A generation earlier in WW1, the leaderships
> were generally incompetent all around, but even so I rate the
> German leadership as having the best leaders militarily and
> adminstratively of all the belligerents during 1914-1918. A
> honorable mention from the aftermath of the same war was Ataturk
> in turkey who forged a strong state in the interwar
> period.

We've just had six years of a president who has no clue what's going
on in the world, and it's been a disaster. We do not need another 8
years of someone who has no clue what's going on in the world, and
I've seen no evidence that Trump, Rand or Sanders does. To the
contrary, they all talk utter nonsense from their book. It's
different nonsense from Obama's nonsense, but it's just as bad.

By the way, Stalin was a total disaster for Russia. He made a deal
with Hitler that they would split up some European countries between
them, and in return Hitler wouldn't invade Russia. So Stalin almost
went into a catatonic shock when Hitler did invade. Hitler made a
total fool out of Stalin. Stalin had no clue what was going on in the
world.

I'm well aware of Stalin's failure regarding Hitler and Barbarossa, even so by 1944 and 1945 Russia had overrun all of eastern Europe, later in 1949 he gained control of china as well (china did not emerge as an independent power with opposition to both Russia and the US until the early 60s). By the 1950s he Assembled an empire ruling almost half the world. The very reason we have a nuclear arsenal was first developed to combat his empire. The objective of true leadership in any country is ultimately the will to power, and synthesizing the general will of a people for and the military, economic and infrastructural resources of a given nation for basically one ultimate purpose: the will to conquer.

I have never been that great at long conversations: Therefore I'll finish this post with another popular culture reference that would clarify my position.

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

Regarding the elections, I don't know who you would support, but I'll make an educated guess: you probably prefer either Hillary or Jeb to have the presidency.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

> I'm well aware of Stalin's failure regarding Hitler and
> Barbarossa, even so by 1944 and 1945 Russia had overrun all of
> eastern Europe, later in 1949 he gained control of china as well
> (china did not emerge as an independent power with opposition to
> both Russia and the US until the early 60s). By the 1950s he
> Assembled an empire ruling almost half the world. The very reason
> we have a nuclear arsenal was first developed to combat his
> empire. The objective of true leadership in any country is
> ultimately the will to power, and synthesizing the general will of
> a people for and the military, economic and infrastructural
> resources of a given nation for basically one ultimate purpose:
> the will to conquer.

> I have never been that great at long conversations: Therefore I'll
> finish this post with another popular culture reference that would
> clarify my position.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_urWSSZgwU

> Regarding the elections, I don't know who you would support, but
> I'll make an educated guess: you probably prefer either Hillary or
> Jeb to have the presidency.

I've often said that Hillary would have been a much better president
than Obama because she knows what's going on in the world, having been
in the White House for 8 years, and he doesn't have a clue.

However, since you really love Stalin for massacring and starving
millions of people to create his empire, you really should love the
Clintons. After all, Bill was a violent serial rapist who went
through women like a hot knife through butter, and Hillary supported
him all the way. That's the "will to power" and the willingness to
use violence that you love. So if you love Stalin, then you should
love the Clintons.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Choice of allies or enemies during a non-crisis war can be made for
political reasons. But a generational crisis war is different in that
the war comes from the people, not the politicians. Russia was our
enemy before and after WW II, but our ally during WW II. If the US
and China are at war, India will choose the US over China. Pakistan
will choose China over India. And Russia will choose India over
China.

When you ask the question about time period or regime, you're asking
the wrong questions. Those questions apply to a non-crisis war, but
not to a generational crisis war.

So, you're just making things up.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

So, you're just making things up.

.......................

Cute. But seriously, you have a country ruled by a guy you refer to as "a genocidal dictator" where the favorability rate for Russian views of America has plunged over the last 10 years, the incoming head of the JCS described it as our number one threat, and it is actively coordinating policy with China and yet you think it's going to fight in a nuclear war with us and against China because... *magic*?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

> Cute. But seriously, you have a country ruled by a guy you refer
> to as "a genocidal dictator" where the favorability rate for
> Russian views of America has plunged over the last 10 years, the
> incoming head of the JCS described it as our number one threat,
> and it is actively coordinating policy with China and yet you
> think it's going to fight in a nuclear war with us and against
> China because... *magic*?

Seriously, Jordan, do you REALLY believe that when Putin or any
Russian leader is FORCED TO CHOOSE between all out war with China
versus all out war with countries like India, Vietnam, Iran and the
United States, then he's going to side with China? Russia and the
Mongols have centuries of hatred behind them, and China is already
invading Russia's Far East. You can say what you want about me, but I
think that the idea you're suggesting is utterly preposterous, despite
anything that General Dunford says.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Seriously, Jordan, do you REALLY believe that when Putin or any
Russian leader is FORCED TO CHOOSE between all out war with China
versus all out war with countries like India, Vietnam, Iran and the
United States, then he's going to side with China? Russia and the
Mongols have centuries of hatred behind them, and China is already
invading Russia's Far East. You can say what you want about me, but I
think that the idea you're suggesting is utterly preposterous, despite
anything that General Dunford says.

That's the thing, that's not how I see things shaking out. The Iran thing is far from in the bag, and while the children of the middle classes in places like Tehran are certainly reasonably pro-Western, it would a strange Awakening where they managed to accomplish all of their goals without effective opposition less than half-way through the 2T. The Vietnamese have been very wishy-washy in terms of who they are trying to side with, and the India/Pakistan thing would not necessarily drag in other participants, even if it happened contemporaneously with a hegemonic transition elsewhere. Nor do I see the Chinese leading with nukes straight off the bat, in fact if you look at their rhetoric and the pattern of their military spending they're more aimed at a "short, sharp war" to consolidate their position in the West Pacific using conventional A2/AD means. Likewise with Russia and their Near Abroad, and so their strategies and the people standing in their way (namely us) are the same in both cases. Of course, we all know the escalation risk in war supposed to be over by Christmas, but that's how I see things kicking off. Here are two posts outlining my thoughts on how this 4T goes down from a couple of years ago. So far the predictions are holding up pretty well.

As for the centuries of hatred bit, please. The Mongols and the Chinese are not the same, and the same argument was used by Germans prior to WWI to predict that the British would sit out or join in a war Germany waged on the French and Russians. I prefer this guy's analysis on how that post-60s split was squandered by our fearless Boomer Overlords.As for the canard about millions of Chinese streaming into Russia's Far East, see here. The only people "flooding" into SIberia are Central Asian, and to the extent that Chinese people are coming and settling it is with the connivance of Putin. As I mentioned to M & L in the other thread, I could absolutely see it as an issue for Russia in the 50s and 60s, when their next crisis rolls around and a half century of global warming and resource depletion have done their work, but now? Not seeing it.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

> That's the thing, that's not how I see things shaking out. The
> Iran thing is far from in the bag, and while the children of the
> middle classes in places like Tehran are certainly reasonably
> pro-Western, it would a strange Awakening where they managed to
> accomplish all of their goals without effective opposition less
> than half-way through the 2T. The Vietnamese have been very
> wishy-washy in terms of who they are trying to side with, and the
> India/Pakistan thing would not necessarily drag in other
> participants, even if it happened contemporaneously with a
> hegemonic transition elsewhere. Nor do I see the Chinese leading
> with nukes straight off the bat, in fact if you look at their
> rhetoric and the pattern of their military spending they're more
> aimed at a "short, sharp war" to consolidate their position in the
> West Pacific using conventional A2/AD means. Likewise with Russia
> and their Near Abroad, and so their strategies and the people
> standing in their way (namely us) are the same in both cases. Of
> course, we all know the escalation risk in war supposed to be over
> by Christmas, but that's how I see things kicking off. Here are
> two
> posts
> outlining my thoughts on how this 4T goes down from a couple of
> years ago. So far the predictions are holding up pretty well.

> As for the centuries of hatred bit, please. The Mongols and the
> Chinese are not the same, and the same argument was used by
> Germans prior to WWI to predict that the British would sit out or
> join in a war Germany waged on the French and Russians. I prefer
> this
> guy's analysis on how that post-60s split was squandered by
> our fearless Boomer Overlords.As for the canard about millions of
> Chinese streaming into Russia's Far East, see
> here.
> The only people "flooding" into SIberia are
> Central
> Asian, and to the extent that Chinese people are coming and
> settling it is with the
> connivance
> of Putin. As I mentioned to M & L in the other thread, I could
> absolutely see it as an issue for Russia in the 50s and 60s, when
> their next crisis rolls around and a half century of global
> warming and resource depletion have done their work, but now? Not
> seeing it.

I guess you're right that we do see things very differently, so let me
add a couple of things.

India is actively planning for a two-front war with Pakistan and China.
China's military has been building near one of the disputed borders with
India, and Pakistan is constantly sending terrorists across the
Line of Control in Kashmir/Jammu. So I see no chance whatsoever
that India/Pakistan thing would not drag in other participants.

Vietnam is not wishy-washy at all, as far as I can see.

Iran is very interesting because it appears to be close to an
Awakening era climax, when the pro-Western youth politically defeat
the hardline geezers. In addition to that, Hindus and Shia Muslims
have been allied against Sunni Muslims at least since the Battle of
Karbala. And then we have Saudi Arabia, closely allied with Pakistan,
considering Iran to be an existential enemy.

Next we have Russia. Forget the Mongols. The ethnic Russian people
are extremely xenophobic towards Sunni Muslims, and many of them would
like to see the Caucasus gone, one way or another. This would clearly
put Russia against the Saudis, on the side of Iran and India.

So, if both of us happen to survive for a few months after the war
starts, then once of us can tell the other "I told you so."

I guess you're right that we do see things very differently, so let me
add a couple of things.

Well, we're clearly looking at the same things, more or less, it's just the more speculative predictive aspects where we're going in slightly different directions.

India is actively planning for a two-front war with Pakistan and China.
China's military has been building near one of the disputed borders with
India, and Pakistan is constantly sending terrorists across the
Line of Control in Kashmir/Jammu. So I see no chance whatsoever
that India/Pakistan thing would not drag in other participants.

I am very much in agreement with the China/Pakistan alignment. That's why I don't put too much credence in the Pakistan and India joining the SCO together thing lasting that long. I suspect that India will join the US camp, such as it is, relatively late in the game. I mean, China is definitely courting India, but I think the combination of Pakistan and US courtship will push them apart. I am not sure that China would necessarily intervene if the shit hit the fan between them, unless as you say India got dramatic with it. I also question whether the kick off between China and the US would immediately kick off an Indo/Pakistani conflict (though, as you say, I can envision how such a thing could happen, too). Like I said, this climax could look quite a bit more fractured than the previous world wars.

Vietnam is not wishy-washy at all, as far as I can see.

The Diplomat is pretty good about keeping tabs on this. There is a lot of going back and forth now, though my assessment and yours (and the Diplomat's, for that matter) line up in that I think the pro-US camp will win out.

Iran is very interesting because it appears to be close to an
Awakening era climax, when the pro-Western youth politically defeat
the hardline geezers

It is certainly possible. We've already kinda flubbed the Russia thing, and we're making slow but steady progress on India, but Iran is really up in the air right now. Some form of breakthrough with the nuke thing could give added weight to the emerging liberal faction, while a breakdown in talks and especially some sort of Israeli or US strike could push the conservatives into power. All the same, with the 30 Year's War style conflict brewing in the Middle East, with the Sunni/Shia, Arab autocrat versus Jihadist, Turks/Persian/Arab/Jews split it's looking really murky, and when the history books get written I suspect this is the last place where contemporary American diplomats really have a chance to make power plays one way or the other before the emerging global conflict replaces the post WWII order with another.

In addition to that, Hindus and Shia Muslims
have been allied against Sunni Muslims at least since the Battle of
Karbala. And then we have Saudi Arabia, closely allied with Pakistan,
considering Iran to be an existential enemy.

I would be cautious with that conclusion. South Asian Muslims have been declining to get involved with conflicts between the Persians and their western neighbors since at least the time of the Mughals. It really depends on just how the Pakistan political situation evolves in the run-up to the crisis. If the state outright collapses and gets replaced by jihadi types, sure (though the Chinese will probably get uncomfortable at that stage), but I suspect the military will remain in power and focus those energies towards India while trying to maintain ties with China by doing things like building the Iran-Pakistan pipeline along the same corridor China is developing to connect Kashgar with Gwadar.

Next we have Russia. Forget the Mongols. The ethnic Russian people
are extremely xenophobic towards Sunni Muslims, and many of them would
like to see the Caucasus gone, one way or another. This would clearly
put Russia against the Saudis, on the side of Iran and India.

Agreed on the Russo-Iranian axis. The connection between Russia and India is fading (weapon sales are plunging, while Russian weapon sales to Pakistan are rising), and the Indian/Iranian connection really depends on the outcome of US/Iranian relations.

Also, once again, I don't think the alliance structures are going to be as clean, this time around.

So, if both of us happen to survive for a few months after the war
starts, then once of us can tell the other "I told you so."

Well, I'm in Manchester presently, and angling to get to Cambridge soon. Fortunately for you, and me if things pan out, northern New England is a hop, skip and a jump away, and mostly outside major fallout patterns. Something to consider.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I've often said that Hillary would have been a much better president
than Obama because she knows what's going on in the world, having been
in the White House for 8 years, and he doesn't have a clue.

However, since you really love Stalin for massacring and starving
millions of people to create his empire, you really should love the
Clintons. After all, Bill was a violent serial rapist who went
through women like a hot knife through butter, and Hillary supported
him all the way. That's the "will to power" and the willingness to
use violence that you love. So if you love Stalin, then you should
love the Clintons.

Clinton is a known boomer liberal ideologue whose political views derive from the wilsonian school of thought. We don't need a Churchill or a Woodrow Wilson. Churchill's handling of the second half of WW2 really lowers his rating as a leader, because all the major strategy decisions he made from mid-1942 onwards; played into Russia and America's hands. In reality there was no way either the US or the USSR would have allowed Britain and France to keep their empires post-WW2. Both Russia and America's geopolitical and ideological conceptions of the world left no place for colonial empires like Britain was. By the 1960s both the British and French empires were no more. By 1944 the only way Britain could have kept its empire would have been to arrange a negotiated peace now that the Axis was thoroughly on the run at that point. Such a peace would have preserved a European geopolitical order.

As for the candidates again, Trump is the best one so far. He is the only one saying the right things with regards to how to get us out of the hole.

*** 13-Jul-15 World View -- France-Germany split over 3-day ultimatum to Greece leads to flared tempers

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• France-Germany split over 3-day ultimatum to Greece leads to flared tempers
• Eurogroup imposes harsh demands on Greece to remain in eurozone
• China police crack down ahead of another volatile week in stocks

****
**** France-Germany split over 3-day ultimatum to Greece leads to flared tempers
****


(L-R) Greece's PM Alexis Tsipras, European Commission president Jean-Claude Jüncker, France's president François Hollande, Belgium's PM Charles Michel, at Eurogroup in Brussels on Sunday (Reuters)

With Greece almost out of cash, Eurogroup members are split into two
sharply divided factions, the hardline group led by Germany, and the
anti-German group led by France.

Saturday's Eurogroup meeting of eurozone finance ministers ended
abruptly late at night after Germany's finance minister Wolfgang
Schäuble got into a loud shouting match with Mario Draghi, the head of
the European Central Bank (ECB). The nature of the fight was not
reported, except that it ended with Schäuble shouting "I'm not
stupid!"

However, Greece's credibility is so low, after months of lying and
evasion, that even its supporters have to demand some kind of proof
that Greece will meet its commitments. Germany is demanding that
Greece meet certain conditions by Wednesday, or else the solution will
be a "temporary Grexit," meaning that Greece leaves the eurozone for a
period of time up to five years. However, France is opposed to
any "Grexit" plan.

A political commentator on the BBC said that France and Italy, along
with the European Commission, are against the hardline position that
the Germans are taking. However (my transcription):

<QUOTE>"But the number of people who fall into what you might
call the German camp is large and is growing. It includes in
particular all of the central and eastern European countries that
are in the euro, Finland, the Slovaks, the Slovenes, the Baltic
states. The Spanish and the Portuguese have been quite tough on
the Greeks. So my guess is that whatever emerges is probably
going to be a little bit closer to the German line than to the
French line, but I think we're probably NOT going to see this idea
of a temporary Grexit, because there are
alternatives."<END QUOTE>

The popularity of France's president François Hollande has been
plummeting in the last year. He hopes to improve his approval ratings
by taking the anti-German side in the Greece debate, but that's
causing political controversy within France itself. According to
former president Nicolas Sarkozy: "We need Hollande to get his act
together and restore unity with German Chancellor (Angela) Merkel."

There's one thing that seems increasingly clear: That the move two
weeks ago by Greece's prime minister Alexis Tsipras to call a
referendum has backfired in the sense that it made it much harder to
reach an agreement. In particular, Greece's economy has deteriorated
significantly in the last two weeks.

The Greek people are very resilient, and they will do well whatever
happens. But there's a great deal of sadness internationally over the
suffering that will occur in Greece no matter how the next few days
unfold,

The European Union leaders summit that had been originally scheduled
for Sunday was canceled because of the bitter Eurogroup split.
AFP and Reuters and Kathimerini

****
**** Eurogroup imposes harsh demands on Greece to remain in eurozone
****

A document containing the the Eurogroup conditions to keep Greece in
the eurozone has been leaked. The demands of Greece are harsh, but
there are many sections of the documents that are in square brackets,
indicate that the Eurogroup ministers could not agree on that section.

The document requires that the proposals be implemented by passing
legislation in Greece's parliament by Wednesday, a feat that Greece's
prime minister Alexis Tsipras may not be able to accomplish in a short
time frame.

Some of the demands are as follows:

• Streamline and broaden of the VAT tax to increase
  revenue.
• Legislate quasi-automatic spending cuts if fiscal targets are not
  met.
• Carry out ambitious pension reforms.
• Adopt ambitious product market reforms, including "Sunday trade,
  sales periods, pharmacy ownership, milk, bakeries, [over-the-counter
  pharmaceutical products in a next step], as well as for the opening of
  macro-critical closed professions (e.g. ferry transportation)."
• Privatize of electricity transmission network.
• Labor market policies should be aligned with international and
  European best practices, and should not involve a return to past
  policy settings which are not compatible with the goals of promoting
  sustainable and inclusive growth.
• Scale up privatization program. A section in square brackets says
  that 50 billion euros of Greek assets, meaning seaports and airports,
  will be transferred into an independent fund in Luxembourg, to be
  privatized over time.
• "The Eurogroup is aware that a rapid decision on a new program
  is a condition to allow banks to reopen."

The Eurogroup ministers are referring to these demands, including the
three-day ultimatum, as a "trust building exercise."

But the Greek people, already torn between fear and fatalism, are
furious at the new demands, calling them Germany's plan to humiliate
Greeks and Greece. Many Greeks are pointing out that Germany had half
of its debt forgiven after World War II, and one of the countries that
forgave Germany's debt was Greece.

The next three days will be very stormy. Kathimerini and AFP and Reuters

****
**** China police crack down ahead of another volatile week in stocks
****

China's regulators took extraordinary measures last week to slow the
fall of the plummeting stock market, and apparently succeeded on
Thursday and Friday, when stocks rebounded 10%, after falling 30%
since June 12.

As of Friday, trading in about 1,400 firms - nearly half of the total
traded on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges - was suspended in order
to prevent further bloodletting. By Sunday evening, about 260 had
announced they would resume trading on Monday, raising fears of a new
slide.

Meanwhile, in an effort to pin the blame on someone for the stock
market slide, China's Ministry of Public Security has launched a task
force to investigate "malicious short-selling." This refers to
illegal practices such as spreading rumors to induce panic selling,
taking advantage of inside information to dump shares before others,
colluding with other institutions in bulk share sell-offs to send down
prices, and churning - selling and buying the same shares at
affiliated accounts to rig prices. Market manipulators could face up
to 10 years in prison and heavy fines.

Beijing police said on Sunday that they had detained a 29-year-old man
for spreading rumors that a person had jumped off a highrise in
Beijing's Financial Street after incurring heavy losses in the stock
market. Police claimed that the picture and video posted online were
actually of a man falling off a building in east China's Jiangsu
Province, and the cause is still unknown. China News Service and South China Morning Post


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, France, Germany, eurozone, Eurogroup,
Alexis Tsipras, Jean-Claude Jüncker, François Hollande, Charles Michel,
Mario Draghi, European Central Bank, ECB, Nicolas Sarkozy,
Angela Merkel, China, Shanghai, Shenzhen,
Ministry of Public Security

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail