The limit of prediction

The problem with trying to predict future events is that all interested parties also make their own predictions, they assess outcomes of possible moves and use all of their power to avoid the most undesirable outcomes.

Basically, this means that I can, for instance, see the predicament of the American economy, but so do the American analysts, and their willingness to make even the most drastic moves in order to prolong the status quo should never be underestimated. If they know that something will doom them, they will do literally anything to prevent it. “Anything” can range from printing trillions of dollars, spoofing the entire economy, creating a civil war, to cooking up a nuclear war. One can think that nothing can be as bad as nuclear war, but if you’re in a position of someone who knows they will be doomed without it, and with a nuclear war they can arrange everybody else to be doomed worse, the picture changes.

Also, it’s easy to speculate what the Russians could do, if they so wanted, but it’s almost impossible to know the exact thinking of the people who are actually in charge. They might have an internal red line they will never make known, and if that red line is crossed, they might activate a pre-arranged plan that is also not known outside their inner circle; for instance, if the Americans escalate past a certain point, for instance by starting to hit deep targets within the Russian Federation with carriers that can be modified to carry nuclear warheads, and it can’t be known in advance whether the warheads are conventional or nuclear, they might activate something ranging from a deep tactical response to a full nuclear first strike. You see, they really want to avoid a nuclear confrontation, but they are aware that they are in fact encouraging escalation by being too restrained, and this will inevitably encourage the West to perform a sneak nuclear attack. They are torn between really not wanting things to escalate, and realisation that their restraint might cause exactly that. So, it’s reasonably easy to understand what they might do by analysing the options that are available to them and making a cross-section between that and the analysis of their behaviour and thinking. Basically, you see what they can do and then eliminate the options that cause outcomes that are highly unfavourable to them, and then plot a tree of possible desirable courses. For instance, it is quite obvious to me that the Russians can take the entire Ukraine within a month. They could also cut off their gas, oil, food, water and electricity during winter and kill off the entire population. They could cut off all supply and communication between NATO and Ukraine. However, when you make a cross-section between that and the desire to de-escalate and decrease the probability of making the conflict threatening enough for NATO that really bad options start looking probable, you are left with options that look like “winning by not losing while the enemy is drained of resources and demotivated”.

In essence, I can plot out a tree of options, but you need to be aware that all the parties involved are doing the same thing, and what makes sense to me doesn’t necessarily have to make sense to them; for instance, if I calculate that the best outcome would be a nuclear first strike, and Russian leadership already decided that they would never use that option, it would be very hard for me to assess what the second most favourable option would be, because they might be betting on something I see as exceedingly unlikely.

Geopolitical strategic layout

The big picture is that America has been aware of its impending economic demise since before the 2008 crisis, which is obvious from looking at their policies, which are prolonging the present at the cost of a future, which means the ones making the moves didn’t see a way to save the future, not by any kind of normal policies. Also, about that time they tested the maximum oil output, found the peak that cannot be exceeded, and intentionally collapsed the world economy in order to lessen the demand in order to give themselves time. America’s problem is that the greatest oil and gas reserves belong to Russia, while those in the Middle East and elsewhere are basically exhausted. This means that, in a linear projection, Russia becomes the dominant economic power, and the standard wisdom of shoring up the Dollar by selling “protection” to the Arabs will fail in the near future, and not only will the Dollar cease to be the world reserve currency, but the Ruble will take its place, as the Russians will inevitably leverage their position of a dominant hydrocarbon supplier to shore up their own currency. This means that, by the estimate of the American analysts from the 2005-2009 or so, the greatest dangers to American world domination are the hydrocarbons and Russia. The propaganda about world climate being threatened by combustion of hydrocarbons and Russia being simultaneously an evil and backward empire that needs to be contained, controlled and “democratised” can be easily explained by this. Russia played with black figures here and only reacted to American moves, and I’m not sure if they could have done any better considering how the West has been subjugating and exploiting their country since the fall of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the Russian political class was extremely unwilling to understand what they are dealing with, which caused a significant delay in response to the situation, to their detriment. For instance, it gave the West time to completely nazify Ukraine and turn it into an anti-Russian fortress, when Russia could have simply solved the problem in 2014. However, had they gone in then, their economy would have likely had no time to adapt to the sanctions and this could have a disastrous effect. Also, had they done that, it would have been much more difficult to explain the situation to the rest of the world; now, it’s quite obvious what’s going on, which is why the Western propaganda has no effect outside the Western countries. This can be interpreted as Russia taking a short-term strategic hit in order to improve its strategic position in mid- and long-term.

Currently, the Western propaganda outlets are starting to prepare their respective populations for a strategic loss in Ukraine, but it might in fact serve the purpose of creating resolve for the use of nuclear weapons in order to prevent a resounding Russian victory once it becomes apparent that the collective West is losing. The Russian forces have started advancing despite the muddy season, and heavy cold is forecasted so I would expect Russia to go in fast and hard in attempt to wrap up the situation. This, however, requires an analysis of Russian strategy.

The Russians see a victory in the following scenario: they avoid a nuclear war with America, preserve their own economy and international relations, have no heavily militarised neighbours that threaten them with war, and have a future where they are able to freely trade and otherwise interact with most of the world unimpeded by America and its colonies. They don’t really care that much about Ukraine outside of those major strategic goals. As far as they are concerned, a neutral Ukraine that is not a heavily armed Nazi bunker is fine. Unfortunately, the Americans made sure such a Ukraine cannot exist, which will likely mean that the Russians will be forced to dismantle it as a country and turn it into something that is not a threat. This, however, is not easy to do, because winning a war in Ukraine at the cost of causing a nuclear war is no victory, which is why the Russians didn’t do the most obvious thing and just move south from Belarus and cut off the Ukrainian border with the West, which would have ended the war immediately, but at the cost of almost certain escalation. Also, they are not really in a hurry to win, because of several reasons. First, winning the war has to be weighed against potentially losing the economy, which would have terrible consequences they already had the misfortune to experience and are unlikely to be willing to repeat. Second, this is not a war with Ukraine. It’s a war with America, and the worst way to approach it would be, basically, by demonstrating a serious threat by being too effective. This would allow the Americans to mobilise against them more easily and the situation would escalate. However, if they make it a boring quagmire, the Americans would see that as something they want to avoid at all cost, because every single war they lost was a boring quagmire. Americans want something where they can go in fast and hard, demonstrate “superiority”, raise the flag and so on. The best way to win against Americans is to make it impossible for them to have a quick and decisive victory, and instead make the war boring, long and expensive. This description seems to fit nicely with what the Russians have been doing, and it doesn’t look like an accident either. The current situation, however, is quite precarious, since the boring phase seems to be unsustainable, mostly because the Americans are using medium-range rocketry to attack Russian civilian targets in Belgorod and Crimea. The purpose of this provocation is to force the Russians to respond in non-boring ways, thus giving the Americans an opening for a nuclear escalation. What the Russians seem to be doing is to simply move the front line to the West, until the Russian civilian targets are out of range, prolonging the boring phase hopefully enough for the Americans to go bankrupt, proclaim victory and leave.

This, however, is in my opinion a central error in Russian thinking, because the entire geostrategic layout is about America degrading and destroying its possible strategic opponents for the duration of their own predicted economic collapse; essentially, they want to avoid a situation where they emerge from their own problems to find the world dominated by Russia, China and the EU, with them relegated to the position of a second-rate power. No, they want to return as the dominant power, even if it means they dominate over a scorched Earth, because rebuilding would likely be profitable. This means that the Russian strategy of buying time and making things as boring as possible would normally work, but their opponent doesn’t see this as a normal situation. It’s the end of America as we know it, and the only way America, as the narcissistic bully queen that she is, will accept its fall, is if others fall worse. However, I don’t really know what one can do about it if a nuclear first strike is not an option they are willing to consider. The only other option is what the Russians have been doing – make it boring, make it long, gamble on American bankruptcy and degradation while you grow stronger, and hope that they either die with a whimper, or militarily degrade enough by the time it comes to an exchange, that you can win decisively and with minimal losses compared to what you’d experience if an exchange came at a less opportune moment.

As for the situation in the Middle East, I already predicted some time ago that Israel will see that America is losing its geostrategic position of its major protector, and will use it to try and destroy/degrade all its regional enemies and improve its presently terrible strategic position, because if America falls, and their regional enemies continue to exist as such, Israel is lost. This understanding makes Israel’s actions panicked and desperate, and they will not rest until they either succeed at degrading Iran, Syria and other lesser threats, or they themselves are destroyed. In the near-term, this means Israel will try to use its lobbying power in America to cause a confrontation with Iran. However, I’m not sure China and Russia will allow Iran to be degraded like Iraq, Libya and Syria, and we can expect serious red lines to be both drawn and crossed there.

Fault finding

There’s something that crossed my mind last night that I want to put into words.

It’s about fault-finding.

The immediate context was spirituality; people seem to pre-condition being able to learn from someone by absolute perfection and absence of all kinds of flaws and errors, supposedly because they want to guard themselves against failure or wrong paths or whatever, and the logic is that if you find one flaw or error, you proved that this person is not perfect and you don’t have to learn from them.

What that actually means is that a person that really doesn’t want to learn can make sure they stay exactly where they are by trying very hard to find fault with every person that could possibly help them, and this interpretation is actually a very good approximation of my experience with such people, especially since their thinking vastly differs from what I, myself, was doing when I wanted to learn.

You see, I approached things not with a loupe trying to see specks of dirt, but with a magnet. I went through lots of stuff and just picked up things that are useful from all kinds of sources, in order to clarify my own thinking and get better ideas. I even read many books by authors I vehemently disagree with, because by thinking about all the ways in which they are wrong I clarified my arguments as to why I actually think or feel what I do, and I would usually end up with a very concise argument that disproves the author’s position. Also, when I found an idea that clicked with me, I didn’t require the author to have literally everything about his other ideas or life in general perfect as a prerequisite for my acceptance of his idea. The idea sounded great, it clicked because it concisely expressed something I couldn’t properly verbalise before; now I replaced a vague concept with a clear one, thank you very much. I am also known for taking a vague and diluted concept from somewhere and condensing and purifying the line of thought into something much more coherent and concise, but you won’t see me going on about how the original author is an idiot. No, he’s good, maybe even great, and he came up with something great; I just focused it and enhanced the mantra.

This approach of using a magnet in order to collect needles from all sorts of haystacks is not really that different from the approach from the Upanishads, where one is advised to emulate a swan that can use his beak to separate milk from water, or the concept of a pure lotus flower that grows in a swamp. Basically, you are expected to do granular filtration and identify even a single good thought in a book that is otherwise rubbish, not throw out an otherwise great book because it contains one typo which proves that the author is not God.

Hello, fuckers: even the greatest of angels is “not God”, but you will not see God discarding him for that reason. No, you will see God loving and admiring him greatly because he is almost God. I see all kinds of idiots finding faults with obvious saints, ignoring the fact that God didn’t mind. Yes, Theresa of Avila was all kinds of flawed. Pray that you are that kind of flawed; that way, maybe God will show Himself in visions to you as well, so that you might see and achieve true perfection. Finding fault means one thing, really: it means that you are trying really hard to find an excuse for rejecting God and for keeping your sinful life intact. That’s what it really is. If you’re so perfect in your intellectual ivory tower that you can see all kinds of faults with saints and gurus, and God is absent from your vision, maybe your fault is much worse than those you are noticing with others. Maybe they have a problem here and there, but you are a problem, in the sense that your fundamental life choices are all sinful and wrong, and your intellect is merely a tool that rationalizes your sin.

It’s quite easy to make sarcastic quips about all the flaws and mistakes made by someone who was desperately trying to find their way around a difficult problem, and reach a solution they couldn’t properly grasp yet. Trying to solve a problem is hard. Being firmly entrenched in the problem and throwing rocks at others is much easier. It almost makes you forget how worthless you really are.

Love your enemies

Unlike what you might imagine without diving deeply into the subject matter, the litRPG series I’ve been reading, “Salvos”, is in fact one of the most profound works I’ve read. Sure, some of it is just funny and silly, but there is really deep philosophy and emotion there, too. For instance, probably the best elaboration upon the concept of “love your enemies” is the chapter 81: “Lord of lies” of the book 9, where Salvos the protagonist talks about her personal philosophy and motives with a terrible bug-demon, a lord of illusions and curses, who is smart, calculating and cruel, responsible for the deaths of millions; essentially, someone that makes Hitler look like a little bitch. She talks to him while they fight, and it’s not the kind of talk you would expect, where someone tries to make the enemy doubt himself in order to weaken him, trying to instil fear and doubt. No; she talks to him with her heart open, explaining why she does everything for selfish reasons, but her selfishness encompasses other beings, those she loves and cares for, within her own identity, while in his selfishness there is place for none but himself.

She strikes him down with a mortal wound to his chest, and kneels by his side, gently talking to him about all the things she loves, that make her act to protect them, and in his final moments he has a change of heart, remembers one truly precious and unselfish moment from his childhood, and dies.

There is no obvious afterlife for the characters, yet the impression you get is that she saved him, in his last moments, and she just keeps kneeling beside his corpse later, and you try to guess her thoughts – probably something along the lines of “we could have been friends or even companions, had you only figured this out in time”.

She is portrayed as a character that is primarily driven by pride and selfishness, and yet she expands her sense of self to embrace so many different beings of different races, that her selfishness feels like divine protective love and inexplicable kindness, that heals even the soul of a mortal enemy, in death. Her enemy tried to argue that they are both the same: they act for selfish reasons, to which she answers, as a rebuttal: “And yet, I am Salvos, while you are Belzu.”, meaning that their selfishness is not the same because their sense of self is not the same.

This sentiment, where she is forced to kill her enemy in order to protect the world and the people she loves, but she doesn’t do it out of hatred or anger, and doesn’t even separate herself spiritually from her enemy even when she is forced to kill him, somehow does a better job at explaining the concept of loving your enemies than most Christian theologians. “Salvos” does an excellent job of portraying love as something with real dimension to it; something alive and powerful and fierce and fun; kindness and compassion that wields the power of a thermonuclear warhead.

Fantasy

I was thinking about a manga comic book I’ve been reading. What makes it incredibly unrealistic isn’t the fact that it takes place in a fantasy world with demons, half-humans, monsters and magic. No, that’s just something you accept and go on.

The part that makes it unrealistic is the fact that the multiple main characters are reasonable, kind, respectful, compassionate people with pure emotions and thoughts, who are genuinely trying to do good things for everybody.

You’d sooner see unicorns and giant spiders here on Earth than such people. 🙂