SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]

any guesses what the overlap is between people who complain that only men are forced to serve in the military and not women, and the people who complain that the military is getting too woke and effeminate to fight America’s enemies?

The vestiges of the imperialist system will probably continue for decades to come but it seems plausible that with mounting crises and contradictions, we’re looking at a meaningful collapse of hegemony within the next 15-20 years. I think it can be very easy to understate what’s been going on for the last couple years if you’re a liberal “It’s just a war in Ukraine, a trade war against China, and a fragmenting Israel versus half a dozen heavily armed militant groups - nothing that threatens the United States!” but one can also overstate what’s going on without an understanding of how deeply rooted most countries are in terms of debt and monetary flows to and from the United States, and just how many military bases there are, etc. These aren’t intractable problems but the easiest problems are being solved first (dedollarizing between two countries that are already being sanctioned) and the harder problems, like actually creating the alternative institutions that most of the world’s countries would be happy with ceding a portion of their sovereignty to, are indeed very hard.

It’s very encouraging that US military might already seems so undermined and ineffectual, though, as being militarily challenged is a really big first step towards the end of empires. The usual people will keep spending billions on American weapons, obviously, but the mere concept that there are indeed problems that America cannot simply bomb or overthrow out of existence (e.g. Ansarallah blocking the Red Sea) is a massive shift from the high-point of the 1990s, especially as America has no other tools in its toolbox except for sanctions, which are becoming less effective by the day. And the fact that America has to send Israel billions in weaponry every few months is encouraging in the sense that such massive volumes are clearly required for Israel to merely stay afloat, as they don’t seem to be, say, going to war against Hezbollah with them or anything. The monetary values are meaningless, the US would have no qualms with printing a quadrillion dollars for Israel if that was what was needed, it’s the resources being taken out that are the real prize here. You can’t bomb people with dollar bills, nor could Israels eat them under siege.

in totalitarian communist North Korea, the regime disseminates propaganda assuring their brainwashed citizens that being hungry is actually beneficial due to their failed communist agrarian policies

those four oblasts are looking awfully annexed for a “failed annexation”

It does honestly feel like people - on both sides of the war, I will freely admit - put way too much focus on individual events and are unable to see the bigger picture of logistics and equipment produced and so on.

So you end up with, just as a recent example, the Ukrainians going on and on about that Bradley vs tank incident and how “owned” Russia was or whatever (that is managed to keep going for like 5 minutes in constant Bradley fire? sounds like a pretty awesome example of how great Russian tanks are tbh), or that Russian plane full of Ukrainian POWs being shot down by a Patriot, or now this boat being sunk. But none of this actually matters. What’s really going on here is that the pro-Ukraine crowd is seeing these events and drawing absolutely massive conclusions from it. “Aha, see, we can now destroy all Russian tanks with just our infantry carriers! Aha, see, we can now shoot down every Russian plane with our air defense! Aha, see, we can now sink every boat in the Russian fleet!” Russia has thousands of tanks, its planes are routinely not shot down by Ukrainian air defense because of how depleted it is and the Russian countermeasures (flying low, etc), and honestly, sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet would be an L but it would be very far from war-ending, given that Ukraine has no navy for it to fight anyway and Russia obviously has inland missile launchers. But the pro-Russian side like Rybar tends to take these narratives and feels the need to address them because they’re just as caught up in these narratives as everybody else, when they could just ignore them and watch as they’re forgotten in a week.

Wars are determined by systemic issues and, most importantly, the capacity for the warring nations to overcome those issues. Neither side is permanently locked into its state of affairs (in most cases; e.g. WW2 Germany had problems the whole war with getting enough fuel due to simple geography). Not being able to see how a military could make up for its deficiencies is what lead to the Kharkov surprise for the pro-Russian side who didn’t understand that Russia went into the war with too few troops to man parts of the front and that Ukraine had been creating brigades in the rear while their frontline army was getting mauled over the spring and summer, and then the surprise of the failure of the counteroffensive for Ukraine, who didn’t understand that Russia had found a way to counter the Ukrainian offensive strategy and thought that the same trick was guaranteed to work twice.

In short, if you’re going to make an assumption that a military is unable to counter a new problem, you need a LOT of evidence for it - not just vibes about how you think the conflict is going to go. Never assume that a military is stagnant unless you have extremely good reasons to believe so. I personally don’t believe that the Ukrainian military is stagnant and totally doomed and they can still probably keep defending for at least the better part of a year and finding new strategies to counter Russia, but the ongoing lack of Western military reindustrialization is my ‘extremely good reason’ to believe that Ukraine will be unable to win unless there is a very sudden change in the economic strategy of the West away from neoliberalism and just-in-time manufacturing.

You can see all these points made in the opposite direction when they talk about US GDP increasing. Many liberal economists have been utterly bamboozled by the concept of “the economy” doing better while public sentiment is very unhappy, but it makes total sense if, completely unlike China, “the economy” improving is actually only synonymous with “capitalists getting richer”. It’s also why we need better measures than GDP if we’re going to do actual economic analysis. These neoclassical economist dipshits would have you believe that doubling your food prices is actually good and a sign of a successful economy because it means that the GDP number goes up.

At this point, I think of the US GDP going up (in lieu of deeper statistics) as a sign that the economy - as in, the actual one that 90% of the population live in - is getting worse, not better.

Yeah. The problem with predicting timeframes is that all these gradual, quantitative changes result in qualitative changes (that is, sudden fractures) which make it difficult to give estimates. The gradual march of NATO’s army eastward in their military offensive against Russia over the last three decades, conquering Eastern Europe as they went, led to the sudden faultline of Ukraine activating. That there might have been an event like this at some point, in some place, between Russia and NATO was perhaps predictable - but the time and place and result was not as predictable. Similarly, in Palestine, that there might have been some existential battle between the Zionists and the Palestinians might have been predicted, but the time and place was not so (regardless of how much Israel copes that they actually saw the attack coming), especially because Hamas didn’t even tell their closest allies they were going to attack in order to preserve the surprise element as much as possible.

In geology, there’s two dueling concepts of uniformitarianism and catastrophism. The first assumes that the natural world around us is formed by gradual, small-scale processes, like the erosion of a beach and the slow construction of a mountain range. The second assumes that instead, short, large and violent events are more important - a meteorite crashing into the Earth, or a supervolcano erupting, or a massive flood. While uniformitarianism pretty handily won the debate overall, it would be folly to say that occasional violent events haven’t been extremely important. The meteorite that ended the dinosaurs fundamentally changed the Earth’s biosphere, and was essentially totally disconnected from the Earth system. Even inside the Earth system, when Lake Agassiz in North America released its massive quantities of water into the ocean about 10,000 years ago, global sea levels rose relatively quickly by up to 10 feet and disrupted oceanic currents and possibly resulted in temporary cooling, with all the knock-on impacts that had on the Earth and humanity.

World events work similarly to geology, though obviously on a much smaller timeframe. The world, its nations and corporations chug on, day to day. Sudden events from both outside and within the system - sometimes predicted in advance - can have massive and fairly unpredictable impacts and lead to major changes. The United States may not have been able to take its position as the quasi-hegemon if not for the World Wars, and while a great European conflict was predictable beforehand, all the effects it would go on to have - the fall of the Russian Empire and the rise of the USSR; massive changes in the Middle East; the eventual end of colonialism; etc - were much, much less predictable. If you were in 1910 and decided to merely plot the gradual effects that you expected capitalism to have on the world and said “Well, according to my model, capitalism will end in 2142 due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and an inability for imperialists to continue governing the world. It seems that the British Empire’s apex will continue for another few decades and perhaps steadily decline all the way to the 2100s, based on comparisons with the Roman Empire…” then you would be mighty shocked when just 10 years later, Europe was on the brink of a communist revolution.

So, for that reason, I find time estimates rather unhelpful. Like many others, I have talked about how the US probably has a few decades left as an empire - and that might very well be true - but this is assuming a gradual decline without sudden events. If you’d have told me just in 2020 that the US of three years from then would be unable to protect shipping routes through the Red Sea from Yemen despite having two/three aircraft carriers and various other naval assets throughout the region, I would have said that you’re bonkers. If you’d have told me that Russia was almost singlehandedly taking on the combined might of NATO in a proxy war and not only winning, but winning very convincingly, I would have said “There’s no way that they’re actually fighting without nukes dropping, and how could Russia resist NATO anyway, given all their problems?” If you’d have told me pre-October 7th that Israel would very soon be in the worst crisis in its history due to mostly the efforts of Gaza, I would have been like “Well, that’s a nice thought, but we can’t really expect the population of a concentration camp to be able to resist their prison guards to that extent.” God knows what sudden events will happen this year.

Oh, okay, so you think that Israel is bombing Gazans. However, if they wanted to do this, first the bomb would have to fall half the distance to the ground. However, if we treat that as the new starting point, then the bomb then has to fall half the distance to the ground again. Repeat this until infinity and it’s pretty obvious that it would take infinite steps for the bomb to hit the ground, and thus it is impossible for Israel to be bombing Gazans.

it’s literally just protectionist policies by the US that have to be justified by something else for whatever reason

Very true, so long as it begins with the most carbon-emitting people (e.g. western billionaires who own large pollution-emitting corporations) and works its way down

The correctness of an idea is totally independent of how many people believe it, and to believe otherwise is to be some dipshit who says “Idiocracy is a documentary!!!” and invoke Hanlon’s Razor instead of having actual good, materialist analysis of the world

Russia, China, and Iran (the last of which isn’t even on that image) have hypersonic missiles, which effectively mean that aircraft carriers are now pre-sunk coral reefs. America does not.

Surprisingly, if healthcare is governed by the profit motive instead of an actual duty of care towards people, then the people in charge of healthcare will focus more on making profits than on providing care.

Never you fear, the disparity between America and Europe will go down. Not because America will improve - god no, it’ll get worse, even - but because the capitalists, backed by fascists, are here to loot European countries and rip the wiring out of the walls as the profitability crisis continues.

Because arriving at a party when there’s not many people around can be awkward especially if you aren’t already friends with the host. So you wait for more people to arrive first.

While many Palestinians do hate the Zionists and vice versa, framing the conflict as between two powers that hate each other for religious reasons or racist reasons or what have you is what leads to such terrible “Two religions fighting again for the billionth time!” analysis.

Israel is a modern colonial state. While most outright colonist countries are no longer around, Israel is the exception. One of the reasons why it’s allowed to be the exception is because it’s a stronghold for American interests in an incredibly important region - whoever controls the world’s oil supply, controls everything that depends on oil, which is a LOT of things. Lately, it’s also increasingly a weapons manufacturer and cybersecurity base - their technologies are tested out on Palestinians as if they are guinea pigs, and then these systems are sold to various countries for use in their own populations. In general, Palestinians today have low qualities of life and the amount of territory they control shrinks by the year as Israel shoves Palestinians out of their homes and puts Israeli settlers in those homes instead. Naturally, the Palestinians are not happy about this at all, but resistance is difficult even when you’re not surrounded on all sides (Gaza has the sea, Israel, and Egypt bordering it, and Egypt is currently sympathetic to the Israeli side due to a coup that put Sisi in power; while the West Bank has Israel and Jordan, and Jordan is also sympathetic to Israel currently).

Palestine wants a state for themselves, which is a fairly reasonable thing to want. Israel absolutely does not want a two-state solution let alone to give Palestine all its land back. The two are therefore at an impasse - there’s a fundamental contradiction here that cannot be solved by some middle of the ground solution. Palestine has attempted on numerous occasions to try and resist, both peacefully and violently - both methods get them killed in the thousands while the West says nothing, because again, it’s extremely important to have Israel in the region as a Western imperialist outpost. Have you ever noticed that the only time the phrase “… has a right to exist”, it’s always in reference to Israel? Few other nations seem to have this “right” in the West’s eyes. Yugoslavia sure didn’t. Neither did the USSR, or for that matter modern-day Russia given the rhetoric going around a year or so ago about how they wanted to subdivide Russia into a dozen oblasts.

There are other powers in the region that are against Israel, with the weaker ones being Syria and Lebanon, while the strongest is Iran. Up until fairly recently, while Hezbollah (a sort of state-within-a-state military force separate from the rest of Lebanon but also integrated into it) has scored a few points on Israel in the past, they were broadly speaking outgunned by Israel. Additionally, Israel has nukes, which made a war to actually overthrow Israel essentially impossible without the risk of nuclear bombs being dropped on Beirut, Damascus, Tehran, etc. This has changed in the last few years, due to a mixture of Israel (and the West broadly speaking) becoming relatively weaker because so much military aid has been sent and destroyed in Ukraine, and Iran and friends becoming stronger. The threat of nuclear annihilation still exists, and it’s one of the major problems still for the anti-Israel resistance, but given Hamas’ victory in Gaza a week ago, there is blood in the water and the sharks are coming.

I hope this all shows that thinking along the lines of “X hates Y and so they’re fighting” obfuscates a lot of what’s actually going on geopolitically. It’s extremely important to say that the fact that Israel is a Jewish state doesn’t mean that they have, according to various right-wing conspiracy theories, some kind of outsized influence over so-and-so countries. Israel does have an influence over various countries because their propaganda department is very active in the West to shut down anti-Zionist (which is unequivocally NOT the same as anti-semitism) viewpoints, and the aforementioned cybersecurity and weapons development programs, but this is a two-way street. The West needs Israel. Israel needs the West. The United States is essentially what has kept Israel alive for the better part of the last century.

This isn’t to say that Zionist and Islamic beliefs have no impact on the calculus here - they have a lot to do with it, in fact - but merely to say that this isn’t just some inherently religious war.

I generally like Simplicius but this article sucks. It shows the limits of capital-L Liberal conspiracybrain, suggesting that everything the world over is connected and there are no real surprise events.

The part about Pearl Harbour at the beginning is actually quite illustrative of one of the big flaws of conspiratorial thinking like this, which is the “Everything Is A Hidden Message And You’re A Smartypants If You Figure It Out” thing. For example, he says:

There are many circulating accounts of all the things that seem “off” about Hamas’ attack, so I won’t recount every single point here as most of you have likely read them in multiple places; things like the very implausible breach of Israel’s high tech gates and defenses, to the unprecedented failures of Mossad and Shin Bet, to Netanyahu’s eerily scripted invocation of ‘Pearl Harbor’, which is very telling considering that Pearl Harbor was also a falseflag attack with the purpose of bringing the U.S. into WW2.

(did I miss something about Pearl Harbour being a false flag? is that a thing? I admit my WW2 historical knowledge isn’t that great as I like other time periods better. regardless:)

The implication here is “Netanyahu used the words ‘Pearl Harbour’, which isn’t a coincidence! He was actually referring to how Pearl Harbor was a false flag, and therefore so is this attack! Aha! I am a 200 IQ very smart person for figuring out this hidden sign!” which is just bonkers; why would Netanyahu covertly spill his plan out to the world? What benefit would that give him? It’s much more likely that he just reached for the biggest, most shocking event he and his scriptwriters could think of.

To Simplicius’ credit, he does talk about how you could conceivably imagine either the US/Israel or Russia/Iran/China coming up with this masterplan, with it either benefiting US world hegemony or destroying it, depending on what facts you look at and consider compelling. I don’t think either narrative is convincing. If the West had planned it in advance, then they would have known that it would have ruined the Saudi normalization deal. Simplicius says that that could be the point because normalization < neverending chaos in the region, but frankly I think there’s much more in it for the West to have everybody on their side as much as possible. If Iran had planned it in advance, my understanding is that Iran’s government is fairly compromised - I don’t know to what degree, but stuff seems to spill out one way or another (and, to be fair, Israel’s government may also be fairly compromised if rumours are true). Such plans to do this uprising would have been leaked in advance.

Israel created Hamas!

It was already being razed in slow motion. It was an open air prison in desperate poverty. It was a concentration camp that the demons in charge of Nazi Germany would have given their fullest approval.

Dunking on them, or doing idiotic “play stupid games, win stupid prizes!!!” shit is like watching Jewish people trying to escape the Warsaw ghetto in an uprising and then watching the Nazis exterminate them and then saying “Well! If they didn’t want this to happen, the Jews shouldn’t have resisted! They should have calmly and peacefully allowed themselves to be taken to the concentration camps!”

Palestine had the choice of a guaranteed slow death by drowning, or a quick end to the conflict - one way or another. Decades have gone by and nobody outside of the Middle East (apart from the DPRK and a couple others) really give a shit about Palestine. All the back and forth of “ohh where should we put our embassies? ohoho, should we acknowledge that Palestine is a state? ohoho!” achieved nothing. Ten million people could have protested across Europe every single day for decades for the liberation of Palestine, and it would have accomplished less than a single Palestinian soldier making a single rocket to be shot down by the Iron Dome. All the diplomatic shit means nothing. It has meant nothing for decades. Even peaceful protest of Israel in the form of BDS is basically outlawed. Palestinians shouldn’t, and almost certainly don’t, give a shit about the condemnations of western countries. About what western politicians are saying about them. It means nothing.

I do have a question for you: let’s say Russia takes, say, Kramatorsk, surrounding it such that no civilians could escape. Imagine those civilians resisted, made Molotovs, fired improvised explosions at the Russians, and the Russians responded by carpetbombing Kramatorsk. Hundreds of civilians dead every single day. I then say “Well, looks like the civilians have guaranteed their own deaths, then. Well done, fucking idiots. Shouldn’t have fired those rockets at the Russian military if you wanted to live.” Would you be in my position, angry that you could possibly think that about a group of people valiantly resisting? How you could possibly look at the buildings being toppled by Russian bombs and think that was justified?

To demoralize Israel. Which it has been, severely.

Alright, cool! What is your strategy for the Palestinians to get their land back?

They peacefully protest - they get shot. They don’t even protest at all - they get shot. Do you want them to vote? Should the Palestinians call their representatives in Tel Aviv and say that they won’t be voting for them if they don’t end the occupation? Oh, I know - they should try to elect a third party to the government!