Will Russia invade Ukraine?
What will it do in Kazakhstan?
The answer also explains why Putin is the leader Russia thinks it needs, why the USSR collapsed, why it couldn't compete with the US, why it’s the biggest country in the world, & more.
It's due to Russia's dilemma:
Moscow is in the middle of the biggest plain in the world, the Eurasian Plain, that goes all the way to the Atlantic via France. It's been a highway for conquests since forever.
Very famously, from the east, for horse-mounted people like the Mongols
But the threat hasn't just come from the east. Also from the west. Most recently, Napoleon (who conquered Moscow all the way from France), and Hitler (who made it to 30km from Moscow).
There are no mountains to use as a defense in millions of km2.
So after Muscovy became a *vassal state of the Mongols*, it started doing the only thing it could do: grab as much land as it could around Moscow. The only land that was easy to grab was in the north & east, so that's where Muscovy went
It expanded 1st north and then east, all the way to the Pacific, way before it focused on Central Asia or Europe.
They did that because Siberia is basically empty.
And it is empty, you guessed it, because of climate.
Owning Siberia created a massive buffer that anybody would need to cross to attack, stretching supply lines and exposing them to insurrection and counter-offenses.
Muscovy was safe in the east.
But not the west or the south.
Problem: that's where powerful neighbors were
From the northwest, counter-clockwise:
Kingdom of Sweden
Poland-Lithuania
Austro-Hungarian Empire
Ottoman Empire
The Khanates (remnants of the Mongols)
Over 2 centuries, they conquered from them a massive buffer for Moscow
As Hitler showed, that was still not enough. The North European Plain is still a highway.
WW2 gave Russia (USSR) to go as far as it would ever go.
Moscow was finally safe.
This expansion comes at a cost: how do you control millions of km2 with so many ethnicities?
Siberia is easy.
Central Asia is harder.
Easter Europe is much harder.
So the more Russia expands, the more it needs to spend on controlling conquered peoples. On an authoritarian state
Here's the kicker: Russian land might promote expansion, but it's not rich.
The south & southwest are fertile (hence the population), but the north & east are too cold.
Not only that, but all the main rivers are south-north, which make it impossible to trade anything perishable w/ the west. No trade, no wealth.
Summarizing:
• Moscow is in the middle of a massive plain with no defense. It needs to expand: buffer space is the only defense
• The + it expands, the + Russians conquer other ppl, the more they need $ for police & military control
• That's expensive & Russian land is poor
So here's Russia's Dilemma:
The tension between expansion for buffer land and contraction from a poor core that can’t finance an authoritarian state to control different ethnicities that don’t tolerate the expansion.
That's why Russia invaded Georgia when it talked about joining NATO: enemy at the southern border? No thx.
That's why Russia invaded Afghanistan 40y ago: it's at the border of the Eurasian plain, and was at risk of flipping to an enemy (Muslims or NATO)
That's why Ukraine, with 8 million ethnic Russians and in the middle of the Eurasian plain, is a core target for Russia, and why it freaks out when it talks about joining the EU or NATO.
That's why Russia can't tolerate an enemy in the south w/ Kazakhstan, home of 3m ethnic Russians, so it sends the military when there's trouble there.
2. Los Angeles:
• Trading hub between the world (Pacific) and the US (railways)
• Weather + biggest coastal valley on the Pacific➡️agriculture & cheap building
• Oil
• Landscapes + far from the East Coast centers of power➡️Attracted the film industry
People think we must shrink the world's population to be happy, but they're wrong
A world with shrinking population would be decaying, poor, brutal, violent, hopeless
A world with 100 billion people would be dynamic, rich, innovative, peaceful, hopeful
🧵
1. In the last 2 centuries, the world got better as the population exploded:
• Richer
• Live older
• Lower child mortality
• Fewer homicides
• Fewer war deaths
• Fewer hours worked
• Lower share of poor people
And much more: fewer infections, diseases, accidents. More racial equality, sexual equality. Instant access to all the knowledge in the world. We can go anywhere, whenever we want...
We can raise our population on Earth from 8 billion to 100B humans if we want to
Would we starve?
Be too crowded?
Would pollution explode?
Ecosystems collapse?
No! Don't believe alarmist degrowthers. This is why they're wrong: 🧵
Degrowthers put a label to "how many humans can the Earth sustain": carrying capacity
Their estimates vary wildly
Wait, what? What a surprise, the mode of their estimates is 8B—exactly the current number of ppl on Earth
WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
Or they lack imagination: OMG the Earth is already on the brink. Surely not one more soul fits here!
And then they try to find out what limits we might be hitting. Their most common fears are: 1. Room 2. Food 3. Water 4. Energy 5. Pollution 6. Resources
Let's look at each:
Can desalinated water deliver a future of infinite water?
Yes!
• It's cheap
• It will get even cheaper
• Limited pollution
• Some countries already live off of it
We can transform deserts into paradise. And some countries are already on that path:🧵
Crazy fact:
Over half of Israel's freshwater is desalinated from the Mediterranean!
And the vast majority of its tap water is desalinated too!
And it costs less than municipal water in a city like LA!
It's not the only country. Saudi Arabia is the biggest desalinator in the world. 50% of its drinking water is desalinated. It's 30% in Singapore, a majority of water in the UAE...
What if we applied this, but at scale across the world?
President-elect @realDonaldTrump could own the environmentalists by solving global warming on his first day in office, and do it for 0.1% of current climate investments
Here's how: sulfate injection 🧵
1. GLOBAL WARMING
2024 is the 1st year we pass 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels
This is caused by CO2
Some side-effects of this CO2 are good, but it's undeniable that the planet is warming fast, and it could create some nasty pbms
1. GLOBAL WARMING
2024 is the 1st year we pass 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels
This is caused by CO2
Some side-effects of this CO2 are good, but it's undeniable that the planet is warming fast, and it could create some nasty pbms
Beata Halassy got cancer in 2016, then again in 2018, and again in 2020. That looked awfully bad. She knew if she continued in the traditional route, her cancer might eventually prevail. So she decided to try what she knew about: viruses
Here's the theory: 1. Select a virus that is likely to attack your target cancer cells 2. Because cancer cells neutralize the immune system, they're more likely to be killed by viruses than healthy cells