1. Russia makes more weaponry than its enemies. If nothing is done about its military production, Russia will win this war
2. Establishing the new political rule:
Always bet against the US allies
3. With the absolutely destructive effect on the US policy and standing in Asia
4. The Russian victory in Ukraine will radically devalue the worth of the US alliance in the eyes of the world
5. Yes, America lost asymmetric wars before. But this is the first time, it will be defeated in the symmetric warfare
6. Its standing will be adjusted accordingly
7. Yes, never bet against the US rule will stand for a while (don't declare the war, don't attack the US soil)
8. But now it will be supplemented with always bet against the US allies
9. Promises, guarantees and commitments are not worth much. America is weak -> backs off easily
10. The world is guided not so much by the "rational choice" (abstraction), as by impressions (real thing)
11. Defeats in the asymmetric warfare may have raised a suspicion of weakness
12. But the belief in the US ability to win a symmetric war was never undermined
Now it will be
13. In the post Ukraine war reality, the world will be governed by the new impression:
The US is withdrawing from the symmetric wars, because it cannot win them
13. And the US commitments are not worth much, because the US is simply incapable of fulfilling them
14. Asian countries have every reason to expect the Ukraine scenario in the Pacific:
US give promises they cannot fulfil -> You stand against the invader -> Get steamrolled -> Be left to your fate among ashes and ruins
Why not accept your fate now, skipping ashes & ruins part?
15. Should Ukraine lose, I expect "standing up against China" becoming a politically indefensible position in Taiwan
16. The preventive lowkey surrender will look as the only reasonable & responsible choice
17. With a good degree of certainty, you may consider Taiwan as gone
18. Yes, there are strong reasons for the US to avoid a potential escalation with Russia
19. But most of these reasons apply to the escalation with China, perhaps even to a greater degree
20. Therefore, we can expect the US to be *less* decisive about China than about Russia
21. A defeat in Ukraine will vastly undermine the US political standing in Asia
22. Its allies will be under impression that the US is either uncommitted or incapable to win. Probably, both
23. While China is certainly very committed to win
Only a fool will stand on its way
24. Now an interesting thing is that the US have every chance to win. That is because the supply chain for precision metalworking equipment is controlled by its allies
25. And metalworking is how you make weaponry. No, it's not all about microchips. Production of complex weaponry such as an intercontinental ballistic missile is primarily constrained by the metalworking capacity. And metalworking capacity is mostly precision machining capacity
26. In late 20th c. machining has very quickly went from the manual to computer control. As a result, it became very much more productive. At the same time, machining equipment, parts and consumables became increasingly more difficult to produce
That's how the air defence missiles has changed (Kalinin Plant, Almaz Antey)
Before: manually operated, steel instruments, often domestically produced
Now: computer controlled, carbide instruments, nearly 100% Western import
27. This had a double effect on catching development powers:
a) Allowed them to produce precise parts (-> weaponry) cheaper and more consistently than before
b) Made them almost totally reliant upon the Western import to produce weaponry
(NITI Snegireva)
28. And China is a catching development power itself. It cannot substitute for the Western import, and won't be able for a while. It may produce more lasers than anyone. But when you want a precision laser cutter, you are not gonna buy Chinese
You gonna buy Trumpf (Germany)
29. Western machine tool producers may not be technically breaking sanctions. That is because sanctions are designed not to work. Trumpf for example, continued supporting its laser cutting equipment in Russia well into this war and is almost certainly continuing it now
30. Once again, it's not about Western producers "breaking sanctions". It is about Russian capacity for metalworking (= weaponry production) being almost fully based upon the equipment imported from the US allies between 2003-2023
If you want to make an S300 erector...
... You will need a Tos Varnsdorf (Czechia) machine
Production of metalworking equipment has been outsourced to the West, long, long before this war started
31. How can Russia even continue producing complex weaponry if we don't see the Russian machinery around? Where is Russian machinery?
People with above room temperature IQ have been asking this question for long, long time
32. And if your ruling class has not been asking this question, that is not because it is "dumb", but because it consists of low curiosity people
They are not really low in intelligence. They are just low in curiosity
33. People on top spend half of their life forcing their way to the top and the second half guarding their position
You spend your youth climbing the ladder, and maturity kicking the ladders away
There is no time for curiosity or pursuing any sort of deep personal interest
34. Our social hierarchies select for high ambition low curiosity people. Productive, socially intelligent, people on the top tend to be shockingly narrow minded
They can't think out of the box, because they don't have out of the box knowledge. They never had time to acquire it
35. A life spent in acquiring unobvious knowledge is the life not spent in forcing your way to the top of the hierarchy. And vice versa, a life spent acquiring the knowledge that allows you to even ask the right questions will not lead you to the top of the hierarchy
The end
I will post revised and edited versions in my substack and patreon. Generally speaking, what I post here is more of notes than texts in their own rights
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.
Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation
And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.
In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings
Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women
What does Musk vs Trump affair teach us about the general patterns of human history? Well, first of all it shows that the ancient historians were right. They grasped something about nature of politics that our contemporaries simply can’t.
Let me give you an example. The Arab conquest of Spain
According to a popular medieval/early modern interpretation, its primary cause was the lust of Visigoth king Roderic. Aroused by the beautiful daughter of his vassal and ally, count Julian, he took advantage of her
Disgruntled, humiliated Julian allied himself with the Arabs and opens them the gates of Spain.
Entire kingdom lost, all because the head of state caused a personal injury to someone important.
One thing you need to understand about wars is that very few engage into the long, protracted warfare on purpose. Almost every war of attrition was planned and designed as a short victorious blitzkrieg
And then everything went wrong
Consider the Russian war in Ukraine. It was not planned as a war. It was not thought of as a war. It was planned as a (swift!) regime change allowing to score a few points in the Russian domestic politics. And then everything went wrong
It would not be an exaggeration to say that planning a short victorious war optimised for the purposes of domestic politics is how you *usually* end up in a deadlock. That is the most common scenario of how it happens, practically speaking