Calf:
Veal:
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Back to cold war style imperialism
It appears there is a resurgence in cold war strategy that is apparent in Georgia. Russia had always preferred bullying in the old "East Bloc" and "Soviet Union". These were not necessarily voluntary unions but ones that were enforced from time to time. The US tended to use money handles to get "client states" on side, and eventually, this proved to be the key to the breakdown of the soviet empire. Communism was an inferior economic model, and its lack of democracy meant it could not adjust appropriately through succession of leaders and failing economies. Thus it appears that although the borders have changed dramatically, the upgraded economics and transformed country altogether have allowed Russia to actively assert its geopolicy of old, which seems to only require a strong military, and complete control over its media. The only tactic that is plausibly optimal for the US is also the Cold war tactics of old - ie. money and military support for client states. There was a nash equilibrium for a long time throughout the cold war with the stalemate perpetuated by Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The stalemate only ended when the USSR no longer had enough money to continue its strategies. Russia may yet again be vulnerable from say, a commodities bust economically, or a leadership succession issue politically, but these really cannot be counted on in the short term. Thus I foresee a solidification of the front line of the cold war in the Caucauses, and veiled threats of Great escalation as a way to manipulate policy in the future - virtually a return to MAD, in fact. China may well join the fray in imperialism of its own with its front lines of Taiwan etc.
What does Marconomics say about who is to blame for the war in Georgia?
Marconomics states that that is the wrong way to think (see principle 6). Blame in this case implies that there exists an impartial international court that can *both* judge and enforce its findings. Attempting to come to conclusions based on evidence as to who is to blame is putting the cart before the horse. The rules of the game in this case have as the highest court the UN security council. Thus if any of the veto-wielding members are part of the conflict, they cannot be effectively policed, except via threats by one of the other veto-wielding countries.
How did Russia "Win"
There are several strategic masterstrokes that Russia has made in the leadup to this conflict. Of course, in the long run, by the mere dint of the fact that they were "surprise" tactics which humiliated "the west" this will hurt Russia dearly (eventually).
One masterstroke was to give Russian citizenship to South Ossettians who wanted it. I have often thought that giving US citizenship easily to Iraqis (or Bosnians, Kosovars...)under occupation etc. could be easily turned to the US's strategic advantage.
Another smart move was to use the media cleverly to demonise Georgias leadership. As a "nominal" democracy, it is clear that the Russian population is right behind Putin, and think that the Georgian leader (Saakashvili) should be crushed like a bug because they believe him to be a tyrant. It wouldn't surprise me if in ten years, Russians rue the fact that they didn't go all the way and finish the job, much as the US rue the fact that Saddam Hussein wasn't brought down back in Gulf War I.
The tactical masterstroke was to predict Saakashvili's moves, and swiftly orchestrate counter-moves which included extensive propaganda. Staged and prepared propaganda from media fully under your control will always play better than even "nominally" fair and free western style press. Nobody believes the media to be impartial anyway, so it is better to go the whole hog and be as brazenly biased as people can believe.
Given that "true" democracies with "free" press have such a strategic liability over a system like Russia's, does this mean that the political/media systems in Russia (and China) are better than the west's?
No. The long term adaptability of true democracies and the truth-seeking nature of private, free media are decisive in the long run, even given their short term strategic liabilities.
What does Marconomics say about who is to blame for the war in Georgia?
Marconomics states that that is the wrong way to think (see principle 6). Blame in this case implies that there exists an impartial international court that can *both* judge and enforce its findings. Attempting to come to conclusions based on evidence as to who is to blame is putting the cart before the horse. The rules of the game in this case have as the highest court the UN security council. Thus if any of the veto-wielding members are part of the conflict, they cannot be effectively policed, except via threats by one of the other veto-wielding countries.
How did Russia "Win"
There are several strategic masterstrokes that Russia has made in the leadup to this conflict. Of course, in the long run, by the mere dint of the fact that they were "surprise" tactics which humiliated "the west" this will hurt Russia dearly (eventually).
One masterstroke was to give Russian citizenship to South Ossettians who wanted it. I have often thought that giving US citizenship easily to Iraqis (or Bosnians, Kosovars...)under occupation etc. could be easily turned to the US's strategic advantage.
Another smart move was to use the media cleverly to demonise Georgias leadership. As a "nominal" democracy, it is clear that the Russian population is right behind Putin, and think that the Georgian leader (Saakashvili) should be crushed like a bug because they believe him to be a tyrant. It wouldn't surprise me if in ten years, Russians rue the fact that they didn't go all the way and finish the job, much as the US rue the fact that Saddam Hussein wasn't brought down back in Gulf War I.
The tactical masterstroke was to predict Saakashvili's moves, and swiftly orchestrate counter-moves which included extensive propaganda. Staged and prepared propaganda from media fully under your control will always play better than even "nominally" fair and free western style press. Nobody believes the media to be impartial anyway, so it is better to go the whole hog and be as brazenly biased as people can believe.
Given that "true" democracies with "free" press have such a strategic liability over a system like Russia's, does this mean that the political/media systems in Russia (and China) are better than the west's?
No. The long term adaptability of true democracies and the truth-seeking nature of private, free media are decisive in the long run, even given their short term strategic liabilities.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Forget the Olympics. Who's winning the Geopolympics?
Unfortunately, it seems to be the "bad" guys :(.
Georgia (after being provoked by Russian interests within its borders) launched its military into an offensive and has provoked an even more disproportionate military attack from Russia. This has the unfortunate consequence of making Western-backed Georgia still look bad for "starting" it, while Russia gets a free hand due to tacit Chinese approval in the UN. A sheer reluctance from the "west" (US or anyone else) to fight a war on the Georgians behalf against Russia means that Georgians are pretty much dangerously exposed and isolated.
In China, its huge economic success of late, and the legitimacy it has gained just by staging the olympics, has resulted in fairly rampant nationalism, in which the population has started to believe that its political system is "better" than democracy. This may embolden it for otherwise unwise military adventures of its own.
Georgia (after being provoked by Russian interests within its borders) launched its military into an offensive and has provoked an even more disproportionate military attack from Russia. This has the unfortunate consequence of making Western-backed Georgia still look bad for "starting" it, while Russia gets a free hand due to tacit Chinese approval in the UN. A sheer reluctance from the "west" (US or anyone else) to fight a war on the Georgians behalf against Russia means that Georgians are pretty much dangerously exposed and isolated.
In China, its huge economic success of late, and the legitimacy it has gained just by staging the olympics, has resulted in fairly rampant nationalism, in which the population has started to believe that its political system is "better" than democracy. This may embolden it for otherwise unwise military adventures of its own.
Monday, August 04, 2008
The real ten-year plan
I must admit I was being a little tricksy with my previous ten-year plan entry. I had a ten year plan already and I was waiting for the right opportunity to mention it. I decided to have a "surprise" birthday party for myself. I planned the party - the guests (all close family) got the surprise. During grace I thanked God for birthdays and then told everyone I had talked K into having another baby. Being one that "Likes the rollercoaster" (Parenthood movie quote) I am delighted at this new adventure we are embarking on.
No cliches please - and if anyone mentions Doris Lessing Horror Fiction to K they're a dead man!
No cliches please - and if anyone mentions Doris Lessing Horror Fiction to K they're a dead man!
Hunting adventures in the 70's
I've started yet another miniblog for links to my fathers current project of pictures, film and book of his hunting adventures. Hunting in Zambia early 1970's is my link for it. If you are at all interested, place comments, ratings, etc. especially with the clips.
Brief background: Zambia in the early 1970's was a typically African country in which independence was quite recent, and the result was fairly chaotic. Trophy hunting and the ivory trade were already globally frowned upon, even while at the same time, some elephant reserves had over-populations which had denuded them of virtually all trees. The attitude, therefore of the casual well off resident (predominantly white) "adventure" hunter, was as follows:
1) Follow the letter of the law and hunt only under the "license" system.
2) Report poachers to relevant authorities.
3) Most game reserves were very near villages - Therefore enlist local villages to use every scrap of hide, bone, meat (dried as biltong) etc. as they were generally subsistence with little regular protein in their diet and few sources of income.
The illegal (or even legal) hunting for just the trophy with the abandonment of the carcass was anathema. Also, the "canned" hunt popular with mega-rich visitors who just wanted to tick another box in the "things to do before I die list".
Like whales, elephants live wild and free until the moment they are killed - chickens tend to live a short and miserable existence - and provide one thousandth of the meat that each elephant does.
This following clip has me in it! I'm the little kid that looks like a girl holding hands with my mum with the black long hair. I was probably one.
Brief background: Zambia in the early 1970's was a typically African country in which independence was quite recent, and the result was fairly chaotic. Trophy hunting and the ivory trade were already globally frowned upon, even while at the same time, some elephant reserves had over-populations which had denuded them of virtually all trees. The attitude, therefore of the casual well off resident (predominantly white) "adventure" hunter, was as follows:
1) Follow the letter of the law and hunt only under the "license" system.
2) Report poachers to relevant authorities.
3) Most game reserves were very near villages - Therefore enlist local villages to use every scrap of hide, bone, meat (dried as biltong) etc. as they were generally subsistence with little regular protein in their diet and few sources of income.
The illegal (or even legal) hunting for just the trophy with the abandonment of the carcass was anathema. Also, the "canned" hunt popular with mega-rich visitors who just wanted to tick another box in the "things to do before I die list".
Like whales, elephants live wild and free until the moment they are killed - chickens tend to live a short and miserable existence - and provide one thousandth of the meat that each elephant does.
This following clip has me in it! I'm the little kid that looks like a girl holding hands with my mum with the black long hair. I was probably one.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Like duh!
ANU Professor Dayal Wickramasinghe tells 666 presenter Ross Solly life could be everywhere in space.
Wish I could find the transcript
Wish I could find the transcript
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)