i want to clarify what i mean when i talk about the ancient war between east and west. i get sloppy, but the context is here and clear.

 i consider the dividing line between east and west to be further than most colonial era historians would: the line is the indus river. certainly, persia is an integral aspect of western culture. you can't separate the iranians out into an east the way you can separate the hindu-descended thought systems. if the persians had kept to zoroastrianism, and europe had remained pagan, these lines would be blurrier. and, certainly, the arabs with their perverted judaism and fetish for greek math and babylonian astronomy are firmly in the realm of western civilization. you can't pull anything out of islam that originates in india or china. it's a fully western culture and always was.

but, when i talk of the ancient war, it's not a war between the greeks and the hindus. rather, it's a civil war within the broadest realm of hellenism that you can get your head around.

it is egypt v. mesopotamia, greece v. persia, rome v. persia, catholic v. orthodox, london v moscow, america v russia. centers of power shift and mutate. but, it is a war within the empire, rather than a war between them.

it is not the only war. when the arabs fought the byzantines, it was for control of the east of the empire. when the british fought the franks, usually backed by the pope, it was for control of the west of it. so, capitals shift. but the war carries on.

the ancient war transcends geography. it even transcends ideology, in the sense that it transmutes it. but it is present throughout history.

it would be a remarkable story, should anybody fully understand it enough to narrate it.

the coup in ukraine was a turning point in history. but, perhaps the true lesson is that the long war, the ancient war, never ends - that it is a characteristic of civilization, itself.

the russians were defeated. it was partly their own fault, granted: they had spent the better part of the last twenty years trying to appease a force that was clearly out to dismantle them. they offered co-operation on the most naive terms, and seemed genuinely hurt when it was refused. surely, a new leader would appear in washington that would be interested in collaboration?

they eventually woke up one day in early 2011 and realized that the americans had played them for fools at the security council to take out their oil interests in libya. there was an offensive missile shield being erected just outside their borders that would give the americans a clear first-strike advantage. and, now the americans are closing in on kiev?

it was all over.

russia was doomed.

the unfolding of history was obvious: a german-chinese alliance would pick the russians apart from either side. it might be in slow motion - one oblast at a time. but, it seemed irreversible.

two things happened as a consequence of the coup in kiev. the first is that the russians dropped the bullshit and finally resolved themselves to the need to treat america as an enemy. the second is that obama fucked it all up.

first, the sanctions. academic critics of the sanctions were clear: this will not harm russia, but merely create closer co-operation with their neighbours. russia reacted to the us sanctions by building a closer relationship with iran, including a closer defense relationship. this in turn led to russian involvement in syria, which is straining nato relations with turkey, and possibly even qatar. the russians were able to offset the effects of european agricultural imports by focusing on food sovereignty; the europeans, on the other hand, are now in a much worse state, as they remain reliant on russian energy.

we freely attack the bush administration for not listening to the academics on iraq, but we don't hold the obama administration to account for refusing to listen to the academics on sanctions against russia - despite the consequences being equally dire. it was just as stupid. did obama even understand his own trade rhetoric, or was he just reading it off a screen? he should have known better. he should have expected this. it wasn't just predictable, it was predicted!

the russians have increased their position dramatically, but don't misunderstand: the same basic power differential remains at play. russia remains in deep peril. what's changed is the politics around it. the russians may in the end be unable to defend their heartland, but they've shifted the hotspots and balances of power enough that the destruction of moscow will not end the ancient war, but merely shift the eastern focal point to a different capital.

china is everything, in this. and, i want you to realize that both approaches have the same outcome. if the chinese side with the russians, they take over russia from the inside. if they side with the americans, they take over russia from the outside.

moscow may still live to see another century, if the americans decide to pull back. but, if they move ahead, the outcome will not be the end of the ancient war, but the crowning of beijing as the new east.

let history record that obama was as close to victory as anybody has ever come in this, and let us take note of his error: it was the sanctions against russia, and the diplomatic actions around the invasion of libya, that cost him the win.

nah.

the i7s get very expensive, very fast. it's still only 60% difference.

i'd rather have hyperthreading than extra cores. i'll stick with the i3, afterall.