[late]

Zeihan is saying that if Ukraine gets Kherson back, Crimea becomes very vulnerable. Crimea depends on a single bridge for Russian supplies. If Ukraine can get close enough, they can take out that bridge.

[Fasces]

Zeihan's a hack, makes his money restating what people want to hear. Professional copium.

[late]

Zeihan's a hack, makes his money restating what people want to hear.

Nope, but feel free to try and make your case.

[Fasces]

Sure - the bulk of his predictions haven't panned out, and they always align more or less with what the American state department would like to be rather than what is. He's part of the Gordon Chang and Stratfor crowd that has been rationalizing American foreign policy for the last thirty years as some coherent master plan (rather than the disaster it has been). This group, Ziehan included, tends to:

1) Hyperfocus on specific issues, usually material, while ignoring ideological, social and psychological contexts of decision-making (this is most apparent in their annual "China will implode now" predictions made every year for the last forty years (His 2010 prediction for a pre 2019 collapse of China into many small states is looking great these days, isn't it?). His hyperfocus on material things such as resources also generally is overly simplistic, ignoring technological innovation or improvements to productive processes. It tends to be in the vein of "hey, this has been this way for the past forty years, so let's extrapolate forty years into the future assuming no change whatsoever." Take Global Warming - Ziehan dislikes Canada and Russia's future, seeing them inevitably as joining the US or collapsing. But if you read his analysis on the countries, he completely ignores climate change which both Russia and Canada are likely to hugely benefit from. No significant analysis of the next hundred years can ignore the projected explosion of agricultural productivity in these two countries, yet Zeihan does.

2) His general international policy is some attempt to revive a pre-1945 system of nations with a strong Western core and peripheral nations in orbit around it. The cat is out of the bag. The West is 11% of the world's population. It is not, should not be, and will not be, the center of human affairs - but one power among equals. Yet for Zeihan, the reason d'aitre of US policy should be to promote a Western-led world order. Bad objectives leads to bad reads on many situations. Which leads to...

3) He is an apologist for the US, to the fault - I remember one article about Angola where he got very fundamental and basic facts wrong in order to support a narrative of a Soviet coup against a popular pro-Western government (which never existed? Angola went from Portuguese colony to a Marxist dictatorship without any interim pro-Western government in Luanda). Regardless, his approach to US policy is very much biased in the "judge us by our intent, and others by their action" way, which is a kindergarten level of empathy. Henry Kissinger is an idiot, but he at least approaches some understanding of other cultures. Just look at the above link - a lot of doom and gloom about the rest of the world, but nothing about the growing sectarian splits in the US, insurrection at the capitol, and so forth. He's bullish on the US and bearish on the world to a fault.

[late]

Sure - the bulk of his predictions haven't panned out, and they always align more or less with what the American state department would like to be rather than what is. He's part of the Gordon Chang and Stratfor crowd that has been rationalizing American foreign policy for the last thirty years as some coherent master plan (rather than the disaster it has been). This group, Ziehan included, tends to:

1) Hyperfocus on specific issues, usually material, while ignoring ideological, social and psychological contexts of decision-making (this is most apparent in their annual "China will implode now" predictions made every year for the last forty years (His 2010 prediction for a pre 2019 collapse of China into many small states is looking great these days, isn't it?). His hyperfocus on material things such as resources also generally is overly simplistic, ignoring technological innovation or improvements to productive processes. It tends to be in the vein of "hey, this has been this way for the past forty years, so let's extrapolate forty years into the future assuming no change whatsoever." Take Global Warming - Ziehan dislikes Canada and Russia's future, seeing them inevitably as joining the US or collapsing. But if you read his analysis on the countries, he completely ignores climate change which both Russia and Canada are likely to hugely benefit from. No significant analysis of the next hundred years can ignore the projected explosion of agricultural productivity in these two countries, yet Zeihan does.

2) His general international policy is some attempt to revive a pre-1945 system of nations with a strong Western core and peripheral nations in orbit around it. The cat is out of the bag. The West is 11% of the world's population. It is not, should not be, and will not be, the center of human affairs - but one power among equals. Yet for Zeihan, the reason d'aitre of US policy should be to promote a Western-led world order. Bad objectives leads to bad reads on many situations. Which leads to...

3) He is an apologist for the US, to the fault - I remember one article about Angola where he got very fundamental and basic facts wrong in order to support a narrative of a Soviet coup against a popular pro-Western government (which never existed? Angola went from Portuguese colony to a Marxist dictatorship without any interim pro-Western government in Luanda). Regardless, his approach to US policy is very much biased in the "judge us by our intent, and others by their action" way, which is a kindergarten level of empathy. Henry Kissinger is an idiot, but he at least approaches some understanding of other cultures. Just look at the above link - a lot of doom and gloom about the rest of the world, but nothing about the growing sectarian splits in the US, insurrection at the capitol, and so forth. He's bullish on the US and bearish on the world to a fault.

Nope.

While he likes the Western system we've had, he is chronicling the decline of globalism. Unless Stratfor has changed it's tune, that's not what they want.

It would help if you were familiar with the topic. His latest book, The End of the World, is (again) about the international system we built after WW2 ending.

Just how old is the stuff you are talking about??

What he is doing now is focusing how changing demographics (the Boomers dying off) is going to change things dramatically.

[Fasces]

Nope.

While he likes the Western system we've had, he is chronicling the decline of globalism. Unless Stratfor has changed it's tune, that's not what they want.

It would help if you were familiar with the topic. His latest book, The End of the World, is (again) about the international system we built after WW2 ending.

Just how old is the stuff you are talking about??

What he is doing now is focusing how changing demographics (the Boomers dying off) is going to change things dramatically.

I know his current memes. Demographic bust will kill Russia and China, but the US is ok because immigration and capital influx - while completely sidelining the fact that the culture war surrounding immigration and globalism in the US is threatening a very real potential civil war between red and blue, US institutions are losing all legitimacy among their people, and political violence is becoming common place.

Zeihan is always Zeihan: Bearish by default on other countries - they'll never solve their problems, because their systems/culture are inherently inferior and will succumb to the worst; the US will always solve its current challenge - it is somehow exceptional and cannot fail.

He's been this way since the war in Iraq. He's comfort food that reassures the biases of American exceptionalism and continued Western dominance as inevitable facts of nature. No one ever lost money telling the US State Department what it wants to hear.

[late]

Demographic bust will kill Russia and China, but the US is ok because immigration and capital influx - while completely sidelining the fact that the culture war surrounding immigration and globalism in the US is threatening a very real potential civil war between red and blue, US institutions are losing all legitimacy among their people, and political violence is becoming common place.

Zeihan is always Zeihan: Bearish by default on other countries - they'll never solve their problems, because their systems/culture are inherently inferior and will succumb to the worst; the US will always solve its current challenge - it is somehow exceptional and cannot fail.

He's been this way since the war in Iraq. He's comfort food that reassures the biases of American exceptionalism and continued Western dominance as inevitable facts of nature. No one ever lost money telling the US State Department what it wants to hear.

"all legitimacy"? We've survived worse, a lot worse. You notice anything about the Death Cult? You know, incompetence? They want a civil war, something they can watch from their sofa while they order a double stuffed pizza..

That's not proving him wrong. China and Russia are both in serious economic trouble. Try arguing against that... He's also not arguing they are inferior, he's arguing we have advantages, which we do have.

Pluck the memes from thine eye...

[Fasces]

Talk about circular reasoning.

"I know what Zeihan says is true because I read it in Zeihan's book."

I get you really liked his book, but consider reading one or two other ones.

[late]

Talk about circular reasoning.

"I know what Zeihan says is true because I read it in Zeihan's book."

I get you really liked his book, but consider reading one or two other ones.

You said the opposite of what he is currently saying.

I asked you to respond to what he is currently saying, and you did not.

And now you're trying to run away.

Do you know how to do this??