You're assuming the ongoing presence of Trump and Putin. I don't know about Putin, but Trump is a cult leader. If something happens to him, Vance etc al. can't carry the water. T
======================= Tom Johnson Inst. for Analytic Journalism Santa Fe, New Mexico 505-577-6482 ======================= On Mon, Mar 3, 2025, 9:44 PM steve smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > Friday afternoon the simple term "WWIII" took on a whole new > understanding/context for me. > > Before that it was some variation on a nuclear exchange between any 2-3 of > the major nuclear powers (US/USSR/China) which was held at bay mostly by > variations on MAD. Not only did the possibility of retaliation (before > first-strike lands, or soon after) make it unthinkable, but so did the > challenges of regional and global nuclear contamination and a likely > nuclear winter (minimum of northern hemisphere, but global consequences). > > Now I see it being something more like a new European War similar to WWI & > WWII, not involving North America directly (we don't pitch nor catch any) > > 1. Europe sends in air and ground troops (and more equipment) to > Ukraine to squash Putin's vestigal army. Marcus' no-fly-zone. > 1. Ukraine continues to punish Russia (e.g. destroying military > assets inside Russia) > 2. The European coalition masses conventional forces on Russian > borders with a "ready posture" > 3. Russia is humiliated. > 4. Putin (not Russia) in his humiliation decides to use his > nukes... craters half the major cities or capitols in UK/EU. > 5. France and UK have a *handful* of nukes. I'm out of date, most > or all are on nuclear subs which Russia may or may not know the > location of. > 6. Moscow and a few 'grads become craters. > 7. Nuclear Winter > 8. Misery across Eurasia, the likes of which Russians are more > accustomed > 2. Europe can't agree enough to give Ukraine decisive support (as in 1 > above). > 1. Russia grinds Ukraine down, while using up yet more of it's own > dwindling military and human capital. > 2. Europe and Russia rattle sabers for months or years but Russia > is too depleted to continue a conventional war. > 3. Russia (Putin) gets impatient or arrogant and decides to nuke > European powers. > 4. Again, the handful of non-US nukes targeted on Russia are enough > to make a bad mess and maybe even win but only if used pre-emptively. > 5. (Western) Eurasia is a mess for a century. > 3. In either case MAGA (with/without Trump alive/vital/engaged) > sits back and eats popcorn. > 1. If MAGA holds US power, they grind away at European and possibly > Russian resources, stealing and war profiteering boldly. > 2. Maybe anti-MAGA backlashes MAGA out of power (probably has to be > a strong political win followed by some minor but decisive bloodshed). > Maybe we help them rebuild (similar to post-WWII) or maybe we just sit > back > on our side of the Ocean. > 4. China waits patiently for the right moment to grab Mongolia for > it's "raw earth" (trump SIC) and/or Taiwan.... possibly are both worth > their effort... possibly the US uses the European distraction as an > opportunity to treat China as our only overt competitor. > > I don't see the world "a better place" for any of this except in the > extreme case of significant depopulation of both (sadly) third-world > innocents and first-world belligerents (military, political, economic), and > even then it isn't clear to me just *when* or *how* the "meek inherit the > earth" but I'll be damned if it isn't an outcome I find myself rooting > for! Feels like if COVID had just been slightly more virulent, we might > have gotten there by a vaguely more graceful route? > > GAH! > > > On 3/3/25 9:10 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > > > 1. NATO creates a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and destroys any Russian > asset in Ukraine > 2. The Ukranians continue to develop their drone programs for targeted > attacks in Russia > 3. Europe gives them long-range weapons, Storm Shadow and Taurus for > larger targets > > > > Biden should have just done this, knowing that Trump would throw the world > into chaos. > > > > *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On > Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Monday, March 3, 2025 7:50 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam@redfish.com> <friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Back at the ranch, I'm enjoying the popcorn. > > > > > A Case For and Against Trump in the Context of Ukraine > > The Case Against Trump > Russia invaded Ukraine, and Ukraine has been fighting back heroically for > three years. It is crucial to take decisive action against countries that > invade others unprovoked. A good example is the First Gulf War, when Iraq > invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. led a coalition to push Iraq out. That kind of > response helps maintain international order. > > However, Trump now portrays Ukraine as the aggressor and openly aligns > himself with Putin. His stance undermines the principle of standing against > aggression and emboldens authoritarian regimes. His willingness to cozy up > to Putin is simply wrong. Period. > > The Case For Trump > Maintaining international order is important, but only if you have the > power to enforce it effectively. If you can't win a war, engaging in it is > a mistake. Consider how the U.S. aligned with Stalin in the later stages of > World War II—not because Stalin was good, but because confronting him > directly wasn’t a realistic option at the time. Putin may be an amateur > compared to Stalin, but the logic remains: if you can’t stop him, you may > have to find a way to work with him. > > Looking at today's reality, there is no viable path to pushing Russia out > of Ukraine unless the U.S. commits fully—boots on the ground. But no one in > America supports that. Given this, there’s a case for engaging with Russia > pragmatically, much like how the U.S. dealt with Stalin, to bring the war > to an end. > > Continuing to support Ukraine half-heartedly, without full military > commitment, has serious downsides. The war could drag on indefinitely, and > if Ukraine eventually wins, Russia would be humiliated. A humiliated > nuclear-armed Russia is a dangerous prospect. History offers a > warning—Germany’s humiliation after World War I directly contributed to the > rise of Hitler. The consequences of a humiliated Russia could be similarly > unpredictable and catastrophic. > > My Take > In my lifetime, we had an almost perfect leader in South Africa—Nelson > Mandela. Unfortunately, he is no longer with us. But surely, with today's > AI, we could create a virtual Madiba, and he would know exactly what to do. > > > > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 at 22:28, Tom Johnson <jtjohnson...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So as usual: Follow the Money. > If Trump gets a deal with Ukraine on those rare earth minerals, upon > leaving Ukraine, where does that ore go and to whom? My bet is to some > company(ies) that Trump et al. have interests in. > > TJ > > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 12:33 PM Santafe <desm...@santafe.edu> wrote: > > It’s such an encapsulation of that part of the society (including t and v) > to think that they could “humiliate” Zelenskyy. By insisting, in a > conversation with toxic scum, on the relevance of reality, he was about the > only clean thing in the room that could be heard. > > There are people like Fareed Zakaria who think that trump can be somehow > managed by a canny player. That doesn’t ring correct to me, unless the > player has a lot of power and money, and it is the power and money that are > managing trump. No agreement with trump is worth the paper it is written > on. We all understand that he will do anything he is not stopped from > doing. The problem with the american presidency is that there become fewer > and fewer actors who can stop its occupant from doing things, in the era of > political parties as universalizing corrupting bodies. If this whole train > continues, they will eventually degrade the u.s. in wealth and power enough > that its ability to do damage declines. But there is so much accumulated > right now, that they can do enormous harm before they undercut themselves. > > I am persuaded by those who opine that trump has no intention of doing > anything to aid Ukraine, and that the point of the performance was to put > up a front for not doing anything, for the same audience who interprets any > of that as a humiliation of Zelenskyy. If trump could extort money or > resource access, and then backstab in return for it, I expect he would be > interested in that opportunity. But not more than that. > > I also think that people are living a little bit in the past when they > comment that, with trump, it’s always about money. That was before the > first presidency, when his possibilities to exercise abusive power over > other people in a country with some degree of rule of law was limited, > relative to the amount of spending he could do (whether solvent or > insolvent). But the access to abusive power in the presidency, for a > sociopath, is on a scale not available to anybody else. If money was > heroin for that addiction, the power of the presidency is fentanyl, and I > don’t think trump is going back now. Money: fine; but that’s now the > second motive. > > (I think there are elements of this for Musk as well, but there is enough > about him that is different that I wouldn’t put him in the same category, > or in the same post here.) > > I, of course, don’t _know_ anything, and I don’t even have any > sophistication thinking in this sphere. But from my long distance from it, > I can imagine that the calculus is roughly this at the moment: It is still > possible that trump won’t direct the u.s. military to attack Ukraine > directly. The question whether it is possible comes back, entirely, to > what force is available to stop him from ordering it. I don’t doubt for a > minute that, if the EU starts to get scared, and if they have time to act > constructively, enough to start to give Ukraine meaningful ability to hold > land or push back a bit, the u.s. under trump would act as a saboteur of > that effort. > > If that is the correct vantage point, I would imagine that Zelenskyy’s > challenge is to try to orient the rest of the world into some structure > that will hem trump and the trumpers in as much as possible from direct > attack, and where possible against sabotage. (Sabotage is harder, because > to even find out that it is going on, you need somebody on the inside to > report.) If they can get some weapons out of the weapons contractors and > the congressmen, sure; try to do what you can. But any of that has meaning > only when it is in your hands and being used. Don’t put weight on anything > short of that. > > (I don’t mean, in this, btw, to downplay the true problem that the current > condition is a WWI-type trench warfare with drones, and the prospect of > extending that to a point of collapse is already so bad, that it takes > something truly awful for that not to be the worst. I don’t see indication > that any good-faith actor anywhere is denying that, though I don’t think > saying it, alone, makes one a good-faith actor.) > > > I had a conversation with a friend over the weekend who is a NASA program > manager, and who interpreted a recent directive they had received, to > discontinue the use of paper straws, and replace them with plastic straws, > as a kickback to some petroleum company that had bribed trump. Given that > this is a smart person I am talking to, the quaintness of that > interpretation took my breath away. It seems clear beyond daylight, to me, > that the images of turtles with straws in their noses, and seabirds dead of > them, were the breakthrough that the environmental groups finally got with > the public, to get some action to ban that specific plastic item as one of > the most insidiously dangerous and cruel. The point of the paper-straw ban > was the point of everything with these people. Most directly, it was an > intent to deliver a “defeat” to the environmental groups, focusing on the > image that had succeeded for them precisely because it is so awful to have > to see more of. But more generally, this is the core of meanness. It is a > rage, by those who are defiled in their nature, against the existence of > anything that isn’t defiled. > > This is again Hannah Arendt’s summary of the last-century European > political actors: that they didn’t understand the distinction between the > parties and the movements. The parties wanted to control the government, > whereas the movements wanted to destroy the government. Public commentary > on this drives me nuts, because it seems to exactly repeat this error. > People talk about the appointments of degraded morons to agency heads as > being about loyalty: take somebody who couldn’t earn anything in a world of > merit, and put him on a plush perch that he knows he will only retain as > long as he can continue to curry favor. But I believe that only to about a > 30% level as the motive. And it is an inward-facing motive; how to keep > various functionaries on a leash. There is an outward-directed motive, and > I think that is about 70% of the drive. These people are put there, > because he couldn’t find anybody worse. It is again the effort to eliminate > the notion of legitimacy from the concept of society people will adopt and > live within. > > The word I wanted to use for the latter, thinking over the weekend, was > “vesting”. It’s a bit of a bland word, but it wraps up several things that > otherwise I can’t encompass in one word. The cognitive concept of truth; > abstract notions such as justice; the society as an agreement underpinned > by legitimized institutions. What all these have in common is that people > accept restraint to uphold a prior commitment to these other things as > “higher” over the long run. And when the mob wants to destroy the state — > meaning, really to destroy that concept of society — it is this “higher” > that they can keep their attention fixed on, as all the other particular > targets (immigrants, academics, civil servants, black people, gay people, > etc.) get rotated in and out as opportunities arise. > > So anyway: if every dealing with trump turns out to be, over time, a loss > for Zelenskyy — the reality behind the literary Faustian Bargain — he may > not be worse off having the break occur earlier. I don’t know what it may > buy him to have humiliated t and v, by having the dignity to not accept > those terms of conversation, in terms of coalition-building with other > heads of state. > > > I do continue to wonder what China’s play in this will be. I imagine they > think they will have no trouble “managing” Russia into some kind of > continuing subordinate status, when it is alone with a gigantic land area > but a limited economy and population. If it were even just Russia > swallowing Ukraine, China might still think of that as an okay outcome. I > feel pretty sure they want the rare earths, in view of their relations with > Mongolia up to now, and the fact that the only thing protecting Taiwan is > that it holds the entire world’s highest technology as a trust, and > collapsing it would cause such a large global implosion that it would > destabilize China as well, for now. But they probably figure they can get > those from Russian control, where Russia couldn’t develop them internally > anyway. An actual coalition of Russia with the U.S., however, could become > more worrisome for China, even if the U.S. is undergoing a process of > self-degradation. So it is not inconceivable to me that China could want > some stalemate to go on a while longer, which limits the coordination of > the trumpers with other large actors as much as feasible. Another Faustian > bargain for Zelenskyy if it is offered. But maybe more predictable in the > short term. > > But there, too, I don’t know anything. > > Eric > > > > > On Mar 3, 2025, at 11:34, steve smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > > > > > >> It's way too generous to say "Trump has a case". Trump and Vance's > "case" consists of "You should be grateful to us because we give you > money". I.e. suck up to me and I'll deign to give you more money. > > I don't think Trump or Vance have backed any significant support for > Ukraine. The US people through our elected representatives and tax > dollars *HAVE* supported Ukraine (albeit a little slowly an a little > anemically and a little timidly sometimes?). Zelensky has been > extravagantly and eloquently thankful to all of the above. Trump and Vance > were spoiling for an opportunity to try to humiliate Zelensky in front of > the cameras, so they contrived it. > >> Maybe someone makes the case you say is Trump's. But it's not Trump > making that case. If he sporadically vomits words that sound like that, > it's because they were put into his mouth by someone else. The question is > Who put them there? Putin? Elno? Thiel? > > > > The "raw earth" (sic Trump) deal was extortion. Whether Ukraine's > mineral resources could or should be mortgaged to secure the financial > support is one thing, but the idea that the point of the West supporting > Ukraine against the hyper-aggressive Putin-led Russia is about economics > completely misses the point. Zelensky is right to avoid "doing business > with" anyone who is not a clear staunch ally when in this situation. > > > > Trump & Allies are clearly "War Profiteers", a fine old tradition among > the industrialists and financiers of the "free world". > > > > > >> > >> On 3/2/25 7:42 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > >>> Just watched a new episode where two toddlers threw their toys out of > the cot. > >>> > >>> Zelensky makes a strong case — Putin is unreliable, having broken > numerous agreements in the past, so any peace deal would need ironclad > security guarantees. But lecturing Trump is hardly the way to secure a > favorable minerals trade agreement. > >>> > >>> Trump also has a valid case — the war is stagnating, there’s no > realistic military path to driving Russia out of Ukraine, and pursuing > peace makes sense. But losing your temper at an international press > conference is not the way to get there. > >>> > >>> At the end of the day, they’re all human, and it makes for great > real-life drama. I can't wait for the next episode! > >>> > >> > >> > > <OpenPGP_0xD5BAF94F88AFFA63.asc>.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... > / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. > ..- .-.. > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,jwBcVvWV2qFLmVY1BdPfbz9PHIyvhQ6WdSquGywiuT73UA4-FdxZ7Sbanwepc4RplYGZFiTzOj_S9EI5fIKTnyoCd2GaAay6kKV3PUMCTufcYYotcj_Z&typo=1 > > to (un)subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,2Nvp1o0BuonumzjRaAgB261x0CCbqCVu7O1v9MDVMFkEhnsyKHTSWdiz5RVuI-yKopgU8alLIHC9v1wLDPYH94HZjOYxTl2FUmzsdkTEadnS&typo=1 > > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,YLbOcA9Ds-tnle2QH8a32PjQ7NAIR-vsh3V7-HXqTzKV4PukKncRYMuEpmRjp67iN-X_yErpzaipLwaWISoACSSYk8Mt-rsnjOXWyeRFV2gvxJ0q&typo=1 > > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,NXJ4PVoN2eyJn6xZtIL1pM97mWi-ZIVUv0tLzz2UWJg50A0Vnm3Z8sMdhc8kirWmB4vdqOGvSO3k4NbKXdGMZYEP_cTp8bRN3Us38T4dDYc,&typo=1 > > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > > -- > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Tom Johnson - t...@jtjohnson.com > +1 505 577 6482 > Santa Fe, New Mexico USA > > *New Mexico Writers <https://nmwriters.org/> *++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... > --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
