Skip to content

A Clash Of Empires, Russia & USA Part I — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

Nations are built upon citizens. Empires are built upon slaves. Furthermore, nations must grow internally to survive, whereas Empires must grow externally, else they die. Now if these propositions are true, then perhaps we have a means of assessing the relative state of the world, especially as it relates to this past year. More to the point: has America made any progress towards re-claiming her nationality? And conversely, has Russia made any further progress in her intention to replace The Empire? Because, I contend, those are the two overriding issues of the day. Everything else is small potatoes.

Really, the two are one. Why? Because if America were to actually walk away from her Empire in order to regain her national character, then that would open wide the door to Russian imperial expansion. It’s a zero sum game in politics. No vacuums allowed. Here’s the choice, America. Regain your past, or lose your future. Choose your purpose and you will define your choice. You can be one of many legitimate nations upon the earth. Or be master of the universe. Which will it be? It’s the same choice all nations face. Rule your own home, or else rule your neighbor’s home. You can’t do both. Maybe you can for a while. But not forever. Just look at the list of empires and their duration. The clock has pretty well run out.

Historically speaking, it seems pretty clear. If you chose to rule your neighbor, you will lose your own home. If you choose to rule your own home, you at least might survive. Is the grass really that much greener on the other side of that fence? It’s a funny thing. Slaves tend to outlast their masters. Just look at the Russians if you want proof. And funnier still is the fact that she now wants to risk her survival by becoming the ruler of her former masters. All of them. Khazars, Swedes, Pechenegs, Mongols, Poles, Frogs, Germans, and everyone else. Especially of course, the Anglish. Her tormentors for 300 years. The masters of the Great Game. The game we have inherited.

Conversely, if America does not attempt to rule her own national home (to the exclusion of others), then she must be prepared to defend her empire. She must prepare to confront her neighbors. All of them. And here’s the problem; her neighbors may have the same idea in mind. That’s the problem with the Imperial idea. There’s no copyright. It’s an infection, and anyone can catch it. So, it seems to me, the choice comes down to this, will we choose humility or hubris? Are we homebodies, or busybodies? Either choice is painful. But one will come at a much higher cost.

So here’s where we’re at. The fork in the road. Which way will we go? You might recall that in July of 2016, I had remarked that Donald would win and that he would deliver the keys of The Empire to Vlad. The question then is this: do we still want to be an Empire, where we have no recognizable and peaceable neighbors, or do we want to be a nation again, with our own individual personality, living amongst other legitimate sibling nations? Even if it means someone else will be the new master?

We have seen at least half of this prediction come true. Donald has won. Has the second half been accomplished? Has he delivered the keys? Let’s have a look. But to do this, we have to understand Donald, if that is possible. I’m not always sure he understands himself, but that isn’t important at the moment. The key is to understand the conflicting positions he has taken. When he says he wants to make America great (again), we have to ask, ‘Which America’? America the nation, or America the Empire? We can’t be both, because the definition of nation and empire are antithetical to each other. We have to choose who we want to be before we can affect the necessary change. You can’t be Romulus and Remus at the same time, Komrade.

You may ask why these two choices must be exclusive. And I will refer you to my opening sentences. I contend that nations grow internally, whereas empires grow by external expansion. If a nation is experiencing positive population growth (without immigration), it is relatively healthy. If it is not, it is dying, as Japan is. And most European nations are doing the same. And admittedly, a nation truly can admit immigrants without harming itself, but only if the immigrants are restricted to being a numerical minority and if they are congruent with the host country’s culture. That is to say, in harmony with the underlying foundation of the host country’s belief system. And no, I’m not talking about political systems here. I am referring to cultural beliefs. And as we all (should) know, a culture is the outgrowth of a cult. That is to say, a religious belief. A case in point was Europe during the existence of Christendom, or approximately 800 to 1500 AD.

In this epoch, an immigrant from France was able to peaceably live in Germany, Britain, Ireland, Italy, or nearly anywhere on the continent, assuming he was Catholic. His own national culture was subordinated to his spiritual culture, even in his home country. As long as that was the case, he could generally get along with his new neighbors in his new country. He could even intermarry without worry, as there would be a presumption of commonality in the most important questions of life. Because, you know, a man has only two important decisions to make in life. The first is, who will he marry, spiritually? And the second is, who will he marry temporally? Screw up one, and you’re in trouble. Screw up both, and you’re toast. But if you make the right choice, you can leave all the rest to her. Her, as in The Church. Her, as in your wife. Be faithful to the first, and the second will be faithful to you.

‘Do these drapes look good?’ Sure, dear, whatever you like. ‘Do you like the color of this paint?’ Of course, honey, I think it looks swell. “What would you like for dinner?’ Whatever you cook, baby. I love your cooking.

Yes, all the man has to do is make the basic choices. But then he has to stick with them. That’s the hard part. But if he does these two things correctly, everything else will take care of itself. So, let’s look at the first decision; that is, who we will marry spiritually, and see where we are, as a nation. Let’s start at the beginning and ask, has America ever had a homogeneous spirituality? The answer is no. Unless, of course, you accept the hodgepodge of Protestant belief systems as a unified whole. And yes, in a sense it was unified, in its beginnings. Unified against Holy Rome. But once the runner left the bag, who knew where he’d run? The truth is, America was born in reaction to the then-current iteration of Imperial Rome, which of course was Angland. The ‘British Empire’, where the actual British were enslaved. And the Anglo’s were on top. That’s Imperial living for you.

Over in the New World, things just repeated themselves as the Anglish Civil War played out. And the original fracture made permanent by Henry simply continued, as ‘the church’ splintered a thousand times. Today, there are over 30,000 separate denominations, many of which have beliefs that are directly contradicted by many other sects. Only Julian Felsenburgh and his Masonic brethren can make heads or tails out of all of that. And they have. How? They simply ignore everything beyond the initial question; do you believe in a Higher Power? Yes? Then we’re brothers! Allah Akbar! Welcome home. To America, where Felsenburgh hailed from. To America, the newest iteration of Imperial Rome. Where everyone is welcome, regardless of who that Higher Power is that you believe in. As long as you’ll burn a little incense for Julius (Felsenburgh) Caesar, everything is fine. Until the shooting starts, of course.

If there is no commonality of spiritual beliefs, between spouses or citizens, there will always be problems. Problems that may even threaten the life of the nation, if the level of immigration is high enough and sustained for a long period of time. In fact, if there is no commonality of belief, even your own children may be strangers to you. Just as your neighbors may be. Good luck. But let’s assume the home front is stable, and let’s look next door. Who is that guy? Do I recognize him? Is he like me? No, not racially. But that’s not the real problem. The real question is, do I see him each Sunday? If I don’t, there’s a hint of what’s to come. Because, if I don’t see him on Sunday, we must not be brothers. Something’s wrong here. Trouble is coming. And actually, it’s already here.

It doesn’t matter what my neighbor looks like, as long as I see him in the clarity of Sunday morning. If I do, we look exactly alike. As members of the same race. The human race. If I don’t see him on Sunday, I see him as an alien. And sooner or later, that means war. Sooner has passed. Later has come.

That’s the problem that confronts Donald. Does he want to befriend his neighbors, or does he want to dominate them? It’s the same question every Caesar is asked. And his answer is almost always the same: domination. Not that Caesar hates them. No, that’s not necessary. The real problem is this, how do you let go of the tiger and not get eaten? Who can square that circle? Who is wise enough to do it? Who is strong enough to fight the tiger, and not just ride it? I don’t think it is Donald. I don’t think it is Vlad. Or anybody, actually. Except Felsenburgh. And he’ll need a strong dose of Masonic magic to do it. But don’t worry, that’s his strong point. But he’s not here yet.

In the meantime, between now and when Felsenburgh arrives, what is the state of the world? Are we going up or are we going down? We, as in America, that is. The Empire. Because that is what we truly are. And no matter what the stated desire is on the part of any occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, there is only the reality that we are still astride the tiger. No amount of talk (alone) will change that. Only decisive action (or even inaction) can accomplish such a change. So let’s look at the scorecard of the past year and see if we have begun to dismount the tiger-skinned throne. And who might be trying to replace us. You know who I mean. So, let’s have a look. Let’s see if the Empire is getting a new boss.

Well, has Vlad left Crimea? Nope. Has Vlad withdrawn his ‘little green men’ from Ukraine? Nyet. Has Vlad left Syria? Nah. And according to Mary Anastasia O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal, has Vlad (and his puppet Maduro) stashed over 5,000 MANPADS in Venezuela? Yep. Has Cuba been freed? Hah! And let’s look at that same paper for another story about our military prowess (as seen through Russian eyes). Evidently, the Empire will still be hitching rides on Russian rockets through 2025, and perhaps 2028. Why? Well, I guess because we can’t get the job done anymore. John Kennedy sent us from scratch to the moon in less than a decade, but now we can’t even launch our own stuff to the Space Lab, let alone beyond earth orbit. We’re reduced to buying vintage 1989-design kerosene-powered rocket engines from the Russians. How humiliating.

Here’s another recent story about our military ‘readiness’ as it relates to European preparedness against a possible Russian incursion. Who wrote this story? The commander of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Read it. It’s ugly. His report tells the story of how his men are totally under-equipped, under-manned, but more importantly, under-trained in the ways of Russian warfare. The kind they practice in Ukraine. The equipment shortages can’t be fixed in the short term because the equipment they need isn’t available. Some of it is simple stuff (camouflage nets and HF Radios). Other equipment has yet to be designed, let alone produced. No wonder our European ‘allies’ feel a little less friendly towards us, and are acting a little (a lot) more friendly towards Moscow. Europeans are cowards, but they’re not idiots. We are the opposite.

Wait, there’s more. Let’s not forget North Korea. Have things been getting better there? I know, everybody says that nobody can control that twerp, but let me ask you this, do you really think that criminal regime could make those stunning technological advancements in such a short period of time? Not just the achievement of exploding a test nuke. That’s pretty easy. No, I’m talking about the dozen (or more) versions of launch vehicles, several of an intercontinental nature, complete with mobile launchers, miniaturized and possibly MIRV’ed warheads, all on its own? In that amount of time? And now they claim to have achieved an H-Bomb capability? Really? So let’s back up, and you explain to me why we have to buy launch vehicles for the next 10 years from the Russians. Go ahead, I’m waiting.

Remember, as you rely on those rosy CIA/DIA/OSS assessments, those guys have been late and/or wrong on every call since Saddam’s WMD’s. And the GDP of the Soviet Union before that. Hell, even Pearl Harbor. So then, seriously, do you think Vlad (and his Chinese compatriots) have had no hand whatsoever in this amazing technological Korean sprint? Well, sure, the Israeli’s were probably in the mix as well, considering their past duplicity with the Red Chinese and the Pakistanis and their Islamic Bomb. But that’s simply business, Komrade. No ideology there.

What do you think of all these provocative missile tests Kim has launched? Do you think he’s doing all of this on his own? Really? Well, here’s what I think. I think Vlad is telling Kim to do these things. Why? So that Vlad and his men can observe our reactions, or lack thereof. Either one will tell them a lot. If we attempt to shoot down the test missile, Vlad’s boys get to observe (at a technical level) our technological response. Nothing like getting to watch your opponents practice session, right? And if we don’t try and shoot down the missile, that speaks volumes too. About our abilities and more importantly, our willingness to use them. Both Vlad and our ‘allies’ are watching. Either way, Vlad gets free data. Very useful data.

What about Europe? How is Vlad faring there? Well, did Gerhard Schröder, the former Chancellor of Germany, just join the Board of Directors of Rosneft, the Russian natural gas and oil giant? And has Viktor Orban of Hungary turned on his former patron, George Soros (a notorious foe of Russian resistance to the N.W.O.)?

Forget about Ukraine for just a moment as you contemplate Vlad as the Tsar of All Russias. How many Russias are there? Three, of course. Great Russia, where Moscow rules, directly. Little Russia, of course, where Kiev thinks it is in control. And don’t forget White Russia. Byelorussia. Belarus, in today’s lingo. Right next to Poland. And Ukraine. And the Baltic idiots. Belarus, where the NATO Gang thought they were in control, until Vlad taught them otherwise. And where the Byelorussians are participating in the latest Russian military exercises, ‘Zapad‘, designed to rattle the cages of the Baltic midgets who were stupid enough to join the NATO mutual suicide pact. Zapad? Oh, that’s Russian, of course. It means ‘West‘. Gosh, what could that mean?

21 thoughts on “A Clash Of Empires, Russia & USA Part I — Guest Post by Ianto Watt Leave a comment

  1. The Russians may seem Western, but in truth they are Asian. Russian culture is antipodial to European.
    In the…9th century (?) they even had to ask the Vikings to come in and organize a government for them. THE VIKINGS! The same guys who gave us the term ‘berserk’, gave Russia it’s name ‘Rus’.
    Just ask the International Olympic Committee how far they should be trusted.

  2. Well, interesting take on Russia and how they’re apparently using N. Korea as a kind of test case to see how we will respond to situations – if that’s case.

    Don’t know about your statement that people need common “spiritual” beliefs in order to function well in society or culture since a lot of people can get along well while have very different ideas on the Divine. But I can tell you one thing, the country is quite a bit divided more politically than it ever has been for a long time. I think the Obama administration alone did a great job in dividing the country up and leaving it a mess.

  3. Once again with Mr Watt his “research” is a wee bit…idiosyncratic. His comments about the viable life of empire come with a link to what appears to be a private blog, by an anonymous writer. No bona fides at all so far as I can tell. However said writer, who appears to want to make the point that Empires have a short shelf life suggests the Roman Empire lasted from the acsension of Augustus in 27 bce to the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 ce. Which while convenient for Mr Watts arguement suffers from the detraction of being incorrect. Egypt isn’t mentioned at all by the way. Nor China.
    On the other hand Watts contention that the viability of a country or empire is largely built on successful assimilation is a defensible position. However it’s a two way street, citizens must be willing to allow said assimilation. The American position towards Mexican immigration has always puzzled me…they’re of European extraction…Catholic…conservative…and practically begging to be assimilated into the mainstream.

  4. Plantagenet, I would argue that with improving technology, civic changes, i.e. revolutions and the downfall of empires, happen more rapidly. Therefore when one mentions that the Egyptian dynasties lasted far longer than the Roman I would reference the telescoping trend of history that the rate of civic change is always increasing with time.

    I cannot justify, but can certainly be the devil’s advocate for using the earmark of 180 AD as a reference point for Rome. The empire’s peak would have been a few years prior to this, and the death of Marcus Aurelius, the last of the “five good emperors” would lead to the slow decay of the empire as a whole. Of course, this is the time period that Gibbon starts with in his work. So at least it is not an arbitrary date.

    What would be your evidence for the “conservatism” of Mexican immigration? Look at the voting record of California before initial amnesty provisions. Also I’m not convinced of their “begging to be assimilated”. On what grounds do you propose this idea?

  5. JW- Well now so have I and I thank you for the link. I took my undergrad at McGill in 20th Century British History and never had Glubb brought to my attention. While reading Law at Cambridge I attended any number of lectures in both 20th Century British History, and Foreign Policy and perhaps his influence was there though again I cannot recall his name being brought up. I have looked through a few old syllabi and he is on no reading list…perhaps you think he should be? The essay “The Fate of Empires” was out of print by the 90’s when I was in school and has only come back in vogue recently. It is still instructive. I am quite ready to agree ( in very broad terms) with his view that empires ( and I would add nations and civilizations) pass through stages on their way to failure. However I do not think that this is the most original thought ever put forward. I know of no major Historian who would agree with his contention that there is a 250 year…approx…sell by date of Empire. Having said that perhaps his influence will grow in academe, or is growing. It is instructive to note that Glubb himself cautions that we do not learn from history because we read it with prejudice. So here we have a colonial official presiding over the end of Empire which just coincidentally has lasted 250 years. Meanwhile Watt bases the first half of his post on a single source, drawn from an out of print essay, around which there is no consensus, nor much in the way of critical analysis.

  6. Kyle- with regards to Hispanic voting patterns in California this is exactly my point. From where I sit it seems that while progressives, whom I am in no league with whatsoever, go out of their way to ameliorate the immigrants from south of the border, conservatives in the States try to throw up walls. Stop laughing. If you were trying to get somewhere and one person seemed to be trying to help, while another did everything they could to stop you, and you eventually got there who would you vote for?

    JW- By the way I am going to use Glubb in a future class.

    Briggs- Glad to hear you will use Glubb…can he survive in the marketplace of ideas?

  7. The post mentions Felsenburgh. If it is the same person mentioned in the Pope’s favorite novel, my memory is that he won in the end. Is that right? I no longer have the book.

  8. Question 1: Russia has GDP of Italy. How do you expect it to actualise its supposed Soviet-like tentacles? It’s military budget is one fifth what it was during the USSR. How do you see them mobilising an invasion force?

    Question 2: Even if they did get their act together, what would it matter? Any serious conflict would degenerate into nuclear war anyway. Ground forces? Largely irrelevant except to collect the dead.

    Question 3: Given recent political-cum-cultural developments do America still have the moral upper-hand vis-a-vis the Rooskies? Observers who spent time in the USSR have commented that the West these days feels more Soviet than Putin’s playpen. Hard to disagree.

  9. “So, let’s have a look. Let’s see if the Empire is getting a new boss.

    “Well, has Vlad left Crimea? Nope Has Vlad withdrawn his ‘little green men’ from Ukraine? Nyet. Has Vlad left Syria? Nah. And according to Mary Anastasia O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal, has Vlad (and his puppet Maduro) stashed over 5,000 MANPADS in Venezuela? Yep. Has Cuba been freed? Hah! And let’s look at that same paper for another story about our military prowess (as seen through Russian eyes). ”

    Ianto all over the place, as usual.

    When you do a compare and contrast essay, you must compare apples to apples. If you’re bemoaning the death of the American Empire, and toting up Russian conquests as evidence of Russian strength vs. American decline, you must provide the other side of the “compare” equation–American conquests in the same time period.

    Since 9/11/2001, the USA has invaded, overthrown, destabilized, whacked foreigners and US citizen by drones, landed Marines, landed Special Ops forces, intervened with covert operators, and more, in effect, waged war on, more countries than at any time in our history.

    The USA has an extensive network of bases around the world. Funnily enough, our bases, official and undeclared, encircle Russia. See the graphic link below: Russia Wants War! Look how closely they put their country to our military bases.

    http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/russia_wants_war_look_how_closely_they_put_country_to_our_military_bases.jpg

  10. Plantagenet: ” The American position towards Mexican immigration has always puzzled me…they’re of European extraction…Catholic…conservative…and practically begging to be assimilated into the mainstream.”

    It would be difficult to cram that many mistaken assumptions into one sentence if you tried!

    “European extraction”
    Mexico: Proportion of ethnic groups as of 2012:
    10% of Mexican citizens are of European ethnicity. It’s unlikely that illegal immigrants from Mexico are from that 10%–the elites.

    “Catholic”
    Maybe, but they ain’t your Daddy’s Catholics.
    Catholicism and Indigenous Tradition:
    “Catholicism in Mexico has some unique elements. Most notable are the veneration of the Virgin of Guadalupe, the special importance of saints, and some elements from pre-Columbian indigenous tradition.”

    “conservative”
    Guess it depends on what you think that word means.
    Illegitimate Nation–Center for Immigration Studies:
    “The high rate of illegitimacy for Hispanic immigrants also seems unrelated to legal status, because only one-fifth of non-Mexican Hispanic immigrants are illegal aliens, yet their illegitimacy rate is 45
    percent. This compares to 41 percent for Mexican immigrants, fully half of whom are illegal.
    The high levels of out-of-wedlock births among native-born Hispanics also suggest that cultural factors play a significant role in explaining high illegitimacy in that group.
    Another reason to think illegitimacy is more related to culture than legal status is that college-educated Hispanic immigrants, only a small share of whom are illegal, still have triple the rate of illegitimacy as college educated natives.”

    “begging to be assimilated into the mainstream.”
    The Illegal Alien Crime Wave:
    “In many immigrant communities, assimilation into gangs seems to be outstripping assimilation into civic culture. Toddlers are learning to flash gang signals and hate the police, reports the Los Angeles Times. In New York City, “every high school has its Mexican gang,” and most 12- to 14-year-olds have already joined, claims Ernesto Vega, an illegal 18-year-old Mexican. Such pathologies only worsen when the first lesson that immigrants learn about U.S. law is that Americans don’t bother to enforce it.”

    They’re not what most would consider conservative; they’re not assimilating; their Christianity is far, far removed from America’s mainstream; and virtually none are of European extraction. Other than those issues, though, I think you have a point!

  11. P,

    Ianto sent these responses:

    1. I understand the general incredulity my comments on Russian military spending must elicit. However, in Part II this question is directly addressed. Part of it deals with the ‘black budget’ that can, in my mind, be the only rational way to explain the actual purchasing power of the Russian state. The procurement facts are undeniable, as are the hardware realities, attested to by our own military. But please bear with me for the moment, until Part II runs.

    Now to further discuss Question One, we must also look at Question Two. They actually converge. The main point is this; Russia has absolutely no intention of risking an all-out nuclear exchange. No one destroys what he hopes to inherit. No, the point of this military build-up is simply to counter the much larger military base we enjoy, although our base is rapidly aging, especially the nuclear forces. As long as Russia has a (very) credible nuclear armory, and the modernised means of delivering it, they have effectively countered our preponderant weight. For we too fear a nuclear exchange. Thank God for that, on both sides.

    Now then, we must also realize that Russia ‘enjoys’ a strategic advantage of location. As Kent C has so amusingly (and rightly) pointed out, ‘Russia has placed herself so close to our bases’. Now that is a two-edged sword. Russia has no need to project power. She is already at hand in the theatres that count. She is less than a gas-tankful away from our ‘allies’, who were once Russian ‘allies’ (Warsaw Pact countries, etc). So it takes very little in the way of effort or arms to exert what leverage they need in order to effect the changes they want in these countries. Their greatest challenge is not us- it is the clock. If they can only maintain their patience, then they will win.

    Additionally, Russian war-fighting doctrine has changed radically. The top officers have stated that their ‘asymmetric warfare’ doctrine (as opposed to our ‘hybrid war’ stance) results in a 4:1 ratio of the use of indirect force, versus actual physical force. This is where another element of budget questions fail to understand that actual Russian ‘force’ activities are not primarily ‘on the books’. Cyberwar is a prime example. Destabilization forces much the same. Disinformation activities likewise.

    (I fear I am running on!)

    We must understand that they have a completely different understanding of the concept of ‘any serious conflict…’ that you mentioned. There is already a very serious conflict raging. But not with bullets and bombs. No, they are avoiding that (with us), as they slowly (that is the key here) complete the degeneration of all the other elements that comprise our society and civilization. Their tanks aren’t meant for us. They are for European ‘peace-keeping’ activities that will commence once we have departed. The military is only one part of a society. They have no intention of confronting ours. They are confronting our civil institutions instead. Which we have left totally undefended. More in Part II

    Question Three; Absolutely no question here. The tables have turned. And again, through asymmetric approaches, Russia has now laid claim to the moral high ground. I have asked numerous ‘traddies’ and ‘conservatives’ that I know this question; if your draft-age son was at risk, would you rather have him in our new PC-friendly army – or Vlad’s? Many of them can’t answer. And that would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago.

    I hope this has addressed at least some of your good questions. Questions, I might add, that I myself have pondered upon for quite some time. And the answers have led me to where I am today. Thank you for reading Dr. Briggs!

    Ianto Watt

  12. The article starts with a false dichotomy (empire or nation) and an unprovable assertion (a nation that grows its empire loses its nation).

    No point in going on past that.

  13. John Moore, absolutely and I did not read past the first silly notion about Empire.
    Russia nor the US have Empires. Unless, of course, you alter the definition of Empire. Apparently something which is allowed in politics and opinion pieces and disallowed on Sundays.

  14. Kent- Actually the percent of the pop which is of European extraction variously reported to be between 10-47%, however if you add in those of mixed European extraction it rises to 70-86%. This together with the native pop is as close to the whole as makes no difference.
    Catholicism represents 81-86%. Add in other Christian denominations you again are talking of the whole nation for all practical purposes.
    I am not suggesting they are somehow affiliated with a Conservative political party (though they could) I am simply observing that as a group they seem to favour small c traits like continuity over radical change, religion over secularity etc…Heck the USSR was one of the most politically left regimes,but filled with one of the most conservative populations on earth.
    As for the behavioural norms of immigrants both legal and otherwise has a concerted effort been put forward by the country to assimilate these people?

  15. Well, Mr. Watt, I don’t know that much about Russian military any more and I do have a son that volunteered and entered the Officer Candidate School. Do I worry about the social engineering? Yes, to a degree. I suspect that should things get hot, the worst of the social engineering would go very quickly and our military revert to what we and they *know* works.

    That said, I agree with the point about the clock. The longer the experiment in social engineering goes on, the more I worry. Still, remind yourself that the bulk of the military these days volunteers and comes from the Old South. While I bemoan what has happened to the border parts (along the mid-Atlantic states), away from the big cities and the silly colleges/universities, the old ways are more honored and respected.

  16. Ianto/Matt,

    I’ll wait for part II.

    But I have a hard time thinking that Putin would conceal his military budget. He loves to brag and obviously doing so strengthens his hand.

    To be frank though, in foreign policy space I trust the Russians more than the Yanks. I have no doubt that their “we defend sovereignty” is partly self-interested. All such stances are. But it is morally right – as manifested in their defence of the Assad regime against the true enemies of civilisation.

    Culturally, the US military has become a joke. I’m not an American citizen. But my daughters will be. The fact that they’re in the draft lottery is sickening and we will be tearing up their passports the moment a serious conflict starts. I’d imagine most decent people will try to protect their mothers, sisters and daughters from the grizzly thing that the once great US military has become.

    I suppose if I were a US general I’d be far more concerned about what is happening in my own house than I would be that Bad Vlad is engaged in, so far, largely sensible interventions.

  17. “What do you think of all these provocative missile tests Kim has launched? Do you think he’s doing all of this on his own? Really? Well, here’s what I think. I think Vlad is telling Kim to do these things. Why? So that Vlad and his men can observe our reactions, or lack thereof. Either one will tell them a lot. If we attempt to shoot down the test missile, Vlad’s boys get to observe (at a technical level) our technological response. Nothing like getting to watch your opponents practice session, right? And if we don’t try and shoot down the missile, that speaks volumes too. About our abilities and more importantly, our willingness to use them. Both Vlad and our ‘allies’ are watching. Either way, Vlad gets free data. Very useful data.”

    Very interesting theory, one unaffected by Russia going along with the U.S. on sanctions against North Korea.

  18. Plantagenet:

    Speaking of Mexicans being of European extraction, Mr. Watt also failed to mention the Aztec Empire, which lasted from 1428-1521.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *