PS: I agree about the feeling of infaillible institution and international order..
In more normal bi- or multi- polar periods (50s - 90s), international order often submitted to great power politics. What was right or legal was less important than who wanted what.
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times
https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...
Cycles in history is of course not "of course not true". in any complex system, there are oscillations. Most famous is economical boom and boost cycle.
Meme is not without merit. The reason we are able to discuss things like gender/race equity in marine corps promotions is precisely because these are good times. And this lack of focus may lead to bad times eventually.
> Ibn Khaldun, 14th century Muslim scholar from Tunisia
Ascribing any fixed time scale to the cycle is going to be fallacious as it depends on environmental factors.
which historians? And why should we pay any attention to their consensus?
My point is: the dog whistle/modern meme is basically a reference to Spengler and others, because their ideologies align relatively well with the patchwork of neo-fascist ideas. That's what they hint to and promote. That's why I explicitly mentioned Spengler and the 20th century. Lot of other people developed some form of a cyclical history but that's not really relevant here.
From my reading of history, the typical pattern is:
- Some set of tribes exist on the fringe of civilization (if one already existed). They have access to the bare minimum resources for survival. These are not strong men, yet, but relatively weak savages, probably not even worth conquering by the civilization closeby. What they do have, is an every-day reminder to stay efficient in what they do, so they don't starve to death. - After a while, one or a few of these tribes grow in competency and competitively useful cultural values. (Often, but not necessarily military.) They start trading with the nearby civilization, and learn from them, but maintain their focus on what is essential for survivial. Also, during this phase, this population is still facing survival pressures, often military ones. Gradually, these people become "strong", meaning they have competencies and a culture that makes it increasingly effortless to survive and prosper. Much of this comes from becoming cultured in ways that increase productivity or martial prowess. - Only at this stage, when survival is no longer a concern (and especially if all competetion has been eliminated), does the weakening stage start. Gradually cultural values seep in that reduce productivity/efficiency of the population. Meanwhile, essential survival skills fade to the background and are forgotten. Still, during most of this phase, this more civilized population has economic advantages and perhaps access to specialists that allow them to fend off nearby populations, often for centuries. - Eventually, though, some event (or series of events) occur that bring a shock to the sturcture of this civilization. Maybe a few bad harvests, maybe some barbarian invation, maybe a plague. At this point, the civilization has become brittle, and shatters easily.
I'm pretty sure I see this pattern repeat itself for the Greek, Roman, Muslim Caliphate, Ottoman and many Chinese civilizations. Then there are some cases that doesn't really go through all the stages. For instance, Mongols, Huns, Goths and some others spread themselves too thin to really build their own civilization, so they inherited whatever civilizations (including their corruption) they conquerd. Similarly, Europe form about 1000AD to the end of WW2 was always in a state of countries competing against each other, so they were constantly facing survival pressures that kept most of them from becoming _too_ corrupt.
Comparing Rome to its enemies in this way as if “the toughness of the people” is THE variable that determined success, compared to say, coordinated mobility-based warfare tactics, is a stretch at best.
The hard times in Ukraine now won't make anyone better. Men in west won't be inferior for not going through it.
We were in a comfy peaceful era and yet we saw rise of extremism, neo nazis in germany, in the US even. Good times allow for forgetting the extent of what reality can be and then people start to have weird ideas when small problems come, only to react in shallow reflexes like nationalism, and war.
I may be dumb but I assumed people who saw wars just didn't want any of that anymore and would actually know what 'right value' means, not just school books or worse .. network propaganda.
Now sure, it can all be twisted, people can be brainwashed during and after war, there can be bad wounds for long too.
Yes. I too recall the many decades of peace after WWI. And the great leaders that arose in Europe after that conflict.
If wars _prevented_ extremism you’d think we’d have evidence of it by now.
Also I wonder what happened after “The Great War”? Did extremism decline then?
People with grit who struggle through puberty often produce children who wouldn’t bother to lift a finger to improve their lot or get a job:)
And then you go on to express a not-so-objective viewpoint? OP is stating an idiom, a saying, a phrase. Let it be. There is nothing objective about it.
People regularly use this one as argument or to imply inferiority of those they look down at. Therefore, it is 100% alright to not that idiom stand.
Hmm, I disagree. I've seen it used as a statement of dysfunction in our society.
Ibn Khalodoun had described a cycle of four generations of rulers and his theory echoes in Fourth Turning theory nowadays.
So nihil novi sub sole...
We (the west) are not what we once were. I’m so sorry Ukraine.
Dismissing those efforts because of a vocal few or because it's people you don't like is a disservice to those actually struggling.
I have argued, tons, that America is making the world more peaceful. It was hard to sell especially to Arab/Muslim countries but without a unipolar power, it's lots of small powers fighting each other for territory.
> institutions and America seemed infallible
Couple that with recklessness. Fatca, CRS, Trade deals, etc... lots of countries got screwed bad and treatment from the masters was as bad and discriminatory as it can get. If people sympathies with Putin, you are doing something wrong.
- Pax Britannica
- Pax Americana
Of the three periods of peace, Americana is the most peaceful.
That's not to say there aren't faults, but there are far fewer faults than previous eras.
The reason developing nations want a multipolar world is to have room to manoeuvre and develop themselves, to be able to bargain with multiple powers, there is not much bargain in a unipolar world, when the USA does not want you to get too big, or your interest conflicts with theirs you're fucked.
USA (and the west) has learned that colonialism with a foreign army does not work efficiently, so they colonize countries by choosing who gets elected or performing coups and putting people that serve that interests even on the detriment of their nation.
African nations make a good example for countries that are officially independent but have no sovereignty whatsoever.
It's a monopoly of power, what's worse is it thinks it's interests are what defines good and bad.
Primary responsibility to defend Europe should lie with Europe. The ability to defend oneself is just as important as climate. One has wide public support, the other is taken for granted (thanks to Nato).
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm#:~:text=....
Several countries hadn't made real any moves towards reaching that goal, and even now are still falling far short (see page 3):
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/10/p...
Welcome to World War 3. watch the FOSSIL fuel prices, ouch!
The war is over Ukrainian NATO membership. If NATO membership was off the table, or if Biden was strong and had the conviction to defend Ukraine there would be no war.
Instead he entertained Ukrainian NATO membership and tried to fend Putin off with finger wagging.
That is to say they have every reason to believe that they could without invasion keep Ukraine out of NATO for the foreseeable future so the invasion isn't about that issue.
No, of course not. What NATO should have done was to accept Ukraine as a member. Anybody think Putin would invade a country that can refer to §5?
> Nevertheless, following its actions in Crimea, there is justified concern that Russia could now aim to annex eastern Ukraine. Unlike on the Crimean peninsula, there is not a large majority here who feel like they belong to Russia - and only about a quarter of the population of the east overall are ethnic Russians.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-significance-of-the-donbas/a-17567...
Trump did not want to stand up to Putin, so the early work to annex eastern Ukraine didn't make the news very often. Trump had no response to it.
In short, it is entirely possible that Trump is correct. The political discourse can't keep shutting down in emergencies, there are too many emergencies these days for that to be an option. People have to talk calmly about what they think is happening.
Exercises and bases in all Eastern Europe intensified under Trump.
He likes to talk nicely about people that he's going to strike. Like he always says he likes Xi, but then start a trade war anyway.
He blocked NS2, Biden opened it in his first week in office.
If Trump was so weak toward Putin, Putin would have invaded with Trump in the White House...but Putin invaded with Biden there(and previously woth Obama). Makes you think, doesn't it?
He has been closely in bed with the sections of media that have pushed the narrative, generally celebrated paranoia towards experts, and consistently pushed the idea that you can't trust the government. If you lose control of the bolder you helped push onto the slope, it doesn't mean that you don't have responsibility in pushing it to begin with.
He was also instrumental in pushing early treatments that didn't pan out as hoped. These often became the subject of conspiracy theories about a whole slew of medical professionals avoiding real treatment, and the pandemic being some authoritarian plot. Trump was there sowing doubt in medical professionals. He may have encouraged vaccination itself, but his actions on the whole produced distrust so that there is a pronounced deficit of vaccination in his electorate.
I never believed him growing up, institutions and America seemed infallible. It’s sad to say but I think with global warming, covid, and the general decline of American soft power we’ll see more and more global turmoil
My heart goes out to Ukraine and its people