23/24-11-2015: 20th century cold war proxy conflicts & working difference files down to a null

tracks worked on in this vlog:
1) https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/aliens-are-more-likely-than-god

i miss the old isolationist conservatives.

c'mon, guys. this has nothing to do with us. and there's absolutely no reason driven by any sort of discernible national interest why you'd want to make it have something to do with us. shouldn't you be arguing that we should be minding our own business?

i think the best we can do is get some of the chretien old guard in touch with some of the clinton old guard to try and ensure nobody's thinking about over-reacting.

otherwise?

the reality on the ground is that the russians are blowing up turkish bases, and those turkish bases are trying to oust an internationally recognized government with serious russian backing. i don't know how long they thought they could do that without some sort of retaliation, but there's not any good way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. you're looking at dramatic shifts in foreign policy by all of the powers involved, or this will keep happening. i consequently can't think of a reason in the world why we ought to involve ourselves in this, other than to avoid something like an article 5 invocation that would drag us into it.

the best solution is for the turks to pull out, for the international coalition to align with russia to take out isis and to then let the russians transition assad out when the borders are secure and the state is put back together again. and, that's actually the popular consensus in turkey, if you're curious. but, it's not the washington consensus. it's impossible until at least jan 20, 2017 - and probably for at least four more years after that.

assuming washington continues it's existing policy, the only way this ends is if some combination of diplomacy and force pulls the russians out and assad falls to the turkish-backed militants. but, what the russians are really trying to do is move the war out of their homeland (ukraine) and into their periphery, where the threat of conflict is less existential. there's consequently almost nothing nato could do that would force the russians to pull out, outside of a serious attack in russia proper. that is, to end the war in syria, washington must launch a war in russia. while that may actually be consistent with long term american strategic geopolitical objectives, it's tactically impossible in the short term. i mean, if you want the russians out of syria? like, tomorrow? nuke smolensk. you don't like that answer, though. you shouldn't, either. fat chance with any other tactic...

so, if the american position is not up for discussion and the russian position is an existential necessity, the only way to break the deadlock is for one side to win the fight. well, the russians aren't winning this fight any time soon. sure: they could probably beat the rebels, as they exist. but, they can't beat the tactic of raising more rebellion. the americans could probably drive the russians out through sheer use of force, but if they start doing that the gloves are off.

so, then could we get a ceasefire? a demarcation zone? a line of control? a korean peninsula? see, it's not a peninsula. and, the situation is too complex to enforce.

i'm all for alleviating tensions and everything, but one needs to pick their battles. this isn't going to end any time soon, and there's not anything we can do about it. so, considering that we don't truly care about anything besides the humanitarian aspect of the conflict - and should not, as we have no national interest tied into one side or the other - our reaction should reflect that: we should not care about anything besides preventing an article 5. our position should be less neutral, and more non-interventionist.

and, of course, we should do what we can to help the victims of pointless imperialist conflicts.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/24/prime-minister-trudeau-says-canada-will-help-de-escalate-tensions-between-russia-turkey_n_8642134.html

you don't really think that turkey would shoot down a russian plane without asking the pentagon for permission first, do you?

i know it's hard to get your head around what just happened here.

but, you have to understand that the russians were bombing american assets. the border likely had almost nothing to do with this.

we're going to get a nice theatrical presentation, here. everybody will blame the other. we're terrorists. they're nazis. it's all really just absurd rhetoric.

the facts on the ground are that the russians are propping up a state that nato is trying to tear down. they're trying to control the border between syria and turkey because that's how everything gets into the country. in the process, they're bombing people and supply routes and other things that nato is spending a lot of money on and has a lot invested into. the russians could not have been so naive as to think that the border of a failed state was going to immunize them from retaliation.

we've been told the cold war is over and we're in an era of globalized capital and blah blah blah. the reality is that syria is now a classic cold war proxy conflict, and has been for...since the start. but, the other dynamics have largely faded.

i don't know how the russians will react. i've seen some suggestions about cutting off natural gas to turkey, which would probably hurt russia more than turkey. i think that's probably at the extreme end of the spectrum.

the russians are playing with fire. they got burned. they had to expect it.

in the long run, either the russians drive the americans out or the americans drive the russians out. or, if sanity prevails after the next election, some kind of deal is worked out. that's the truth in syria.

this will happen again. it may even become normal.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/turkey-military-plane-1.3332171

Justin Different
How can Russians on his site support Putin when he is sending Russians to die in a foreign land? You will see him soon on a tank bare chested with crossed arms.

jessica murray
i do not advise trying to get your head into the russian public opinion.

but, he's doing ok in the polls.

(deleted post)

jessica murray
well, that's what the aim of the sanctions was, but it doesn't seem to be working very well.

russians are an intensely nationalistic people. when you do things like place economic sanctions on them that threaten to harm them, they don't react by attacking their government. rather, they double down and rally around each other.

americans can't understand this concept of *solidarity* because we're raised to think it's evil. but, it's the culture in russia.

he'll say some contrived things about being strong, and they'll eat it up. if it hurts, they'll make sacrifices for the common good. if the war gets too close, they'll form militias and volunteer to fight.

as trump might say, that's what it's like to "have a country".

you also have to keep in mind that the sanctions are not global. russia is maintaining healthy bilateral trade with china and india and europe is being dragged along unwillingly - that can't last forever. there's certain sectors it's hurting, and it may eat into russia's rather large currency reserves, but the potential to cripple the country simply isn't there.

Sal_The_Instigator
a very interesting perspective! I think Turkey had enough and Russia thought that Turks have the same attitude as Ukraine or us of talking and waiting for Putin to behave while Russians forgot that Turkey actually is a remnant of one of the old Empire in Europe and has to take matters in its hand from time to time. It was a miscalculation from Putin and he simply paid for it. If anything History will tell you that it's better to have Turkey as an alley than not!

jessica murray
so, i'm just curious.

how long would you expect nato to allow russia to bomb their assets for, before retaliating?

it's already been a few months.

until they manage to secure the border?

Seer
many think the Athman empire is only evident Turks; there are other Turkic peoples you have missed identifying.

jessica murray
the ottoman empire never saw itself as a pan-turkic confederation. there have been such broad tribal alliances throughout history, but they existed during the period where turks were nomadic steppe peoples. they played important roles in the byzantine-persian wars, and were often useful tools for imperial "barbarian management". but, this doesn't translate into anything at all in the modern era.

rather, the ottoman empire saw itself mostly as the lineal descendant of the arabic caliphate and sometimes as the successor state to the eastern roman empire.

some kind of concept of turkish leadership across the steppes and into central asia may be useful propaganda. and, i won't be surprised if the pentagon tries it. but, there's literally zero historical basis for it.

turkey, as we know it, is a syncretic society that speaks turkish, follows a jewish-arab religion in theory (but is mostly secular in practice) and has mostly greek/byzantine ethnic ancestry and day-to-day customs. it's connection to central asia is entirely lost to history. archaeologists can't even establish an agreed upon migration path or even settle on the dates well.

---

ulkas
Why is Turkey even a member of NATO. No one likes them. No one is going to fight for them if they get attacked. Turkey supports terrorism. They buy ISIS oil and yet where are all the Turkish planes bombing ISIS. They are disgusting hypocrites in every account. The claim that the Su-24 invaded Turkish airspace is flimsy atat best. Russia is the good guy in all of this. The only one seeking to destroy ISIS and bring stability to Syria.

jessica murray
british control over the dardanelles was a very important strategic objective in the era of naval warfare. the russians have had designs on turkey since the day that constantinople fell to the turks. they consider themselves the rightful heirs of the byzantine empire. as such, turkey felt the need to put itself in an alliance against the soviets.

there's huge amounts of history, there. but the most immediate issue at the time was russian involvement in greece. the battle between the soviets and the british over the straits in the late 40s is as close as we've ever come to a direct war against russia.

there's difficulties here. but the truth is that turkey is a more reliable nato ally than most other countries in the alliance, including france.

the alliance has held for very good reasons. if there's been any concern recently, it's been in turkey feeling economically excluded and looking east for trade.

the turks did not shoot this plane down without consultation, and in fact probably direction, from the pentagon.

so, this is very bad.

turkey is a nato member state. that means that any russian retaliation is a formal declaration of war against the united states.

you'd have to think the russians will not be so stupid.

but, you'd have to think the turks would not be so stupid as to shoot down a russian jet, too.

i wouldn't freak out just quite yet. i doubt this amounts to anything. but it demonstrates the possible ramifications of what's happening in syria, right now.

one drunk russian general overreacting is all it would take to start world war three.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-shoots-down-russian-jet-near-syrian-border-and-video-shows-plane-coming-down-a6746206.html

the turks are claiming they broke airspace. that's unlikely, but who the fuck knows. the truth is it probably doesn't have anything to do with it.

to understand this, you have to understand what the russians are doing. stated simply, they're propping up the government in syria. they intend to win back all the area that has been lost to the various factions, reassert syrian sovereignty and then figure out what to do with assad afterwards.

there's a lot of different groups fighting on the ground. but, you can split the opposition into two major groups. the first is saudi-backed rebels (including isis and al-nusra). the second is turkish-backed rebels (including what's left of the free syrian army). the turkish and saudi groups are fighting with each other as much as they are fighting against the syrian government.

the russians seem to be disproportionately targeting the turkish-backed groups, probably simply because it's strategically easier to deal with. if they can control the northern border, it will be easier to control the southern and eastern borders.

so, when you see the turks shoot down a russian plane that was no doubt targeting groups that the turks are backing, it's hard to take their claims of breaking air space seriously, or even to think it has anything to do with it. chances are higher that they were trying to stop a particular air strike.

of course, the russians no doubt understand this and it's the reason why you shouldn't expect a stupid response from them. but, it's starkly reckless from the turks.

what the russians - and everybody else - needs to know is whether this was a snap turkish decision done without consultation or whether the take down came with american knowledge.

if anybody gets hurt here, i suspect it's erdogan. if this is rogue, that's grounds for something serious.

======

they've been setting this up for weeks...russians had to have seen it coming...

https://euobserver.com/foreign/130566

still bad news, though.

going after the mra vote is the next logical step for the ndp.

bravo.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-premiers-refugees-1.3331047

--

one voice
Mr. Mulcair is smart enough to know that if Trudeau added single Muslim men to the refugee mix those Canadians who are already very fearful people would go nuts.

I'm sure he would enjoy that.

There are millions of refugees globally and we can only do so much. Young single men have a much greater chance of looking after themselves and Trudeau is correct in focusing on women and children.

Stop to think
What gender have you seen ISIS executing on mass? Was it a bunch of women being decapitated, burnt alive or slowly drown in cages?

jessica murray
that's not how they deal with women.

if it's an older woman, she's dead on the spot. they'd consider older women to be useless eaters. older is about 35+.

younger women are separated into virgins and non-virgins. they can get a better price for virgins. so long as they're deemed sufficiently young and attractive, they're sold on the market (which is apparently saturated, so they can go for as low as $20) as sex slaves and locked away to be raped repeatedly. if they don't sell quickly, they're executed - they're bad merch.

the virgins can be used as baby factories to create more fighters. and, that's the right way to conceive of it, too. they're basically treated as livestock. and, when they're not useful anymore? executed. useless eaters...

if you're a single dude in the region, you could very well be executed for other reasons. and, there's certainly quite a few. but, homosexuality is a risk in the region at the best of times. it's also a lot easier to sneak around in the shadows in order to try and get out when you're by yourself. there's simply not the same kind of systemic oppression.

we're talking about mass airlifts, here. it makes sense to focus on the groups with the least amount of mobility.

if 2% of jobs require a phd, and 3% of people have a phd, basic market logic suggests this would lead to lower salaries.

this logic applies to all levels of higher education nowadays. i've seen jobs that require masters degrees in biology (plus experience) advertised at $13/hr.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/earning-a-phd-in-canada-probably-not-worth-the-time-or-money-study/article27445026/ 

mcscotty
Try applying your logic to the educators themselves, specifically Ontario teachers.

deathtokoalas
because high school teachers hand out phds.

the disdain for education is really just comical, guys. but, even the most liberal of classical economists will agree that the only way to get wages up in a situation where supply outstrips demand is by unionization.

--

j-j
Would like to see a breakdown by areas of specialty. I would think that the job opportunities for a doctorate in some technical or scientific fields would be better than for a fine arts or musicology graduate.

deathtokoalas
the stats actually suggest that stem majors have higher unemployment rates. but, i'm going to take the initiative in explaining why.

see, about 20 years ago we went through this grand social phase where everybody told all the young people to study stem courses. so, everybody got a stem degree.

but, while that was happening, automation began to encroach in traditional stem employment spaces. on top of that, we had the onset of globalization. the result was that the number of stem jobs actually decreased, while the number of stem majors drastically increased.

the result, today, is that the supply of stem majors drastically outpaces the demand for stem majors. this has the effect of depressing wages.

the experts will tell you that the way to get a high-paying job in today's economy is to study financial services. it's the only industry that has positive growth rates.