That's literally what's been happening, and the insistence on the delusion of the opposite is mostly what has prevented a diplomatic solution to the war (both before and after it started). — boethius

Oh @boethius, just like you two years ago wrote:

Russia is currently winning this war and no amount of social media is going to change that. — boethius

Well, two years have gone from that remark from you and uh..., oh well.

I think we know you and for whom you rally after all these years.

Not only can Russia now start a phase of maneuver warfare in what we refer to as "the front" in South-Easter Ukraine (to conquer the entirety of the annexed territories), but Russia can also "big arrow maneuver" at any point on the actual front that includes the entire Ukrainian-Russian border and entire Ukrainian-Belarusian border. — boethius

What we can now clearly see is that Russia could shock-and-awe but chose not to ... maybe precisely because the result of the US using shock-and-awe strategy, at the end of the day, is massive diplomatic costs in the long run. — boethius

:snicker:

The victorious Russian Army simply goes onward from triumph to triumph!

But seriously, Russia does have this year a window of opportunity, but the present aid package will likely get Ukraine well into next year. There's still a lot of unknowns after that. But we can be assured that @boethius will give the most positive view of the Russian situation as he has done for two years plus now...

(Flowery future for these two wonderful persons?)

Yet, his argument for determinism used a god-substitute to make his point that natural laws leave no gaps for divine intervention. Ironically, the demonic entity would need to know all natural laws and all physical properties in order to predetermine the future development of the whole universe. — Gnomon

This is what Laplace thought is "all" that needed. But Laplace really missed the point that a forecast of the future can have an effect on the future, the subjectivity of this entity. It's simply negative self reference, just as the trick is in all incompleteness results. You simply cannot "just assume" something to get rid of this problem in science. In religion, you simply can start with the axiom of God being omniscient and omnipotent.

It's quite similar if I ask you @Gnomon to give an response that you don't ever give. Are there those kind of responses? Sure, a lot. Can you give them? No, not you specifically.

Why is this important? My view is that people think this is some kind of "problem" that needs to be fixed, averted or bypassed by some method. In fact it's a very important limitation itself, especially when you think just what something "random" should be.

So what is something random? It is something that doesn't repeat itself, doesn't have some algorithm that can define it less than itself. Wouldn't here what you need be exactly that negative self reference?

That shows me that Finns read books on average 12 or so minutes a day, but it doesn't tell me what it used to be, so how can I look at this and know it's been declining over time? — Hanover

There's ample stats from the Finnish Statistical bureau (Statistic Finland). By their stats ALL kind of reading (not only books) has decreased from over 50 minutes in the late 1980's to 37 minutes (in the 2020's). Book reading hasn't been so dramatic, but still it too has gone down. In all age groups, among both men and women.

I think this is an issue were many different stats and surveys show this.

One way this change can be seen is in the libraries. Earlier libraries were indeed places where you had a lot of books and then small cabinets for reading newpapers and other to read books. Now the library system has seen the change and changed to more of a meeting place institution with large libraries having events, art performances and to be places to meet, work, study. The actual books seem like a blast from the past in many places. And smaller libraries are basically places you can go in with your library card, and there's no personnel there, so you can use the automatic machines to borrow books. This even when Finns appreciate a lot the library system.

Just for example from my cities own website about the city libraries:

Libraries are meeting places and cultural centres, open to everyone. They offer newspapers, magazines, books, music, films and other materials that you can enjoy at the library or borrow and take home with you. Libraries have spaces where you can study, take part in recreational activities or just spend some time. Libraries also provide information and guidance services and arrange events and exhibitions.

I think this change has something to do with the change in reading books.

The demon must be an outside observer of the deterministic universe. — Gnomon

Well, that's basically my point. And do note that Laplace really didn't make this point at all. Yet notice, that isn't actually something that has been told earlier when discussing Laplace's demon. The link you gave gives it in one way. But notice that this is actually a very important thing.

Outside observer without any interaction means that objectivity can exist. But then if you define that everything existing is part of the universe, the simple conclusion is that this kind of omniscient entity doesn't exist. Or otherwise you would have a peculiar World view reality + the external entity. The external viewer is simply meaningless. It's as meaningless as a logical system where everything is provable and correct, starting from 0=1. Yes, you can create such axiomatic system, but it's simply useless.

Hence I would conclude: A subjective entity simply cannot be omniscient objective knowledge about everything. It's the subjectivity that limits this "perfect objectivity".

Would you agree that an omniscient entity is preternatural? — Gnomon

Omniscient?

You can turn that other way: anything part of the university cannot be omniscient.

By definition a metaphorical demon is not part of the real world, hence super-natural. It "interacts" only in hypothetical worlds. — Gnomon

I'm not sure that Laplace himself thought so. His idea was this kind of idea of extrapolation to the extreme, if an entity would have all the information at hand and all the laws of nature. That idea is false, because it doesn't take into account that any entity is part of the world. This is usually referred to being part of the problem that Quantum physics brings to us, but surely the problem is far more general.

Don't even get me started on "literacy." Ironically, I don't think we any longer know what the word even means. — Leontiskos

This might surely be the problem. I would also take with the grain of salt the above graphs that I represented of what the actually tell us.

Have they banned electronic books too? Is it a matter of just changing from paper to computer, or are you saying no one reads anymore? — Hanover

Oh no, basically they are all electronic books. But then again, a lot of the courses are simply a mish-mash of books and a web course. It's actually hard to find the actual "book" of the course, because there isn't one. There's just chapters you do, some exercises. Some when I've looked at them are quite difficult to read as there aren't in a form of a book and opening chapters you have to stroll from start to end to find a specific issue. But I think that's my generation X stupidity with these issues, I guess.

Have they shown that current paper book readers do better than current electronic book readers? — Hanover

What has been clearly shown is the fact that in Finland the overall reading ability and reading has declined. And the differences have become larger, especially with children. At first grade you have children that are just trying to learn to read and then some that are avidly reading Harry Potter books. In youth those who have reading problems has basically doubled. Here class differences are quite obvious to see.

Also what hasn't happened is that books have been replaced by e-books, because overall buying of books has gone down and increased e-book sales don't replace the aggregate fall.

Especially with children and the basic reason is the smartphone has truly taken over reading books, and basically surfing in the social net is very different from reading a book. They simply read less than in the 1980's or 1990's.

Of course, this is (still) the country where people are one of Europe's most avid bookworms with Poland and Estonia and Norway with other countries coming well after the three. 16,8% of Finns say that reading books is one of their main activities. So when you have one of the most book reading countries in the World reading less, that may be an indicator of something.

I think China and Russia would heavily back Iran if things were to come to blows. — Tzeentch

Just how much they back will be interesting.

Because do note that this isn't an alliance: attack on Iran doesn't trigger anything, as an attack on let's say Italy would.

It's Israel that stands to lose in the long run and has been looking to drag the US into a war with Iran to avoid Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Given Biden's weak position there is still a fair chance that it might happen in a desperate attempt at salvaging his re-election chances. — Tzeentch

Despite the tough rhetoric, actions now show how the US simply doesn't want end up with a quagmire of war with Iran. Because there's obviously the question "then what?" after a strike on Iran. And this has been a reality for decades.

Bibi showing the UN his bombscare's about Iran ...12 years ago:


Yet Iran did see quite well that nobody would come to it's help. And likely France and UK would side with Israel too ...as happened. And somehow the Saudi's remember Iranian attacks on their oil installations still, so no aid from there either.

Note --- From the perspective of the all-knowing demon, the physical world is precisely determinate and predictable, but in the view of a mortal scientist, using imperfect machinery, the quantum realm is indeterminate & unpredictable, and perplexing. Which may be "troubling" for those who can't deal with ambiguity. — Gnomon

It's not even predictable to the demon, if the demon is part of the world itself and has to interact with it.

You don't need to assume the quantum realm, this is totally true even in an purely classical Newtonian universe also.

As now the dust has settled, seems that Iran-Israel have played well the de-escalatory responses. Neither lost face in the domestic scene. After the initial Embassy attack and Iran's response to it, the Israel counter was so limited that Iran officially simply denied it to be an Israeli attack, but refer simply to the attackers being "unknown".

Iran has now played this de-escalatory (or measured) response with both the US and with Israel. Hence we can see that there isn't this willingness to widen the war. That may be good, but on the other hand now there is a precedent and hence it's quite possible that the two countries lash directly at each other.

But I'll leave the people to continue with the ad hominems...

Enver Hoxha simply knew how to use fear as a weapon. — Scarecow

Yet the system collapsed. After Hoxha died, his successors accepted the reality around them, had even multiparty systems. And then communism simply gave way.

In North Korea it didn't. There the permanent war against the outside world goes on. And the family continues on and on.

Why?

Because the fear of the US Superpower, with which there is only an armstice, can be quite easily portrayed as an existential threat. And if things get too cozy, some clash with South Korea, and the threat is real. It's not just fiction. It is so real, that you can easily make the hermit kingdom to exist well into this Century.

So, wouldn't it be better then to talk about the genius of Kim Il Sung?

Kim with Enver in 1956:

If there's still some amateur philosopher like me that hasn't either read a lot or all of Dennet (but just something) or doesn't have the he time to read Dennet and doesn't know much him, spend about 12 minutes of your time on him viewing a short video. Worth listening, especially about "truthiness" of the AI and "truth" what Dennet explains:

Trust the science — Lionino

Folx

A way of writing "folks" (= people) that emphasizes the fact that you intend the word to include all groups of people: There are a lot of folx who would disagree with me. Folx is meant to be a gender-neutral word that includes members of the LGBTQ community.

Is it really science, or just the 21st Century?

Some years ago it seemed like Ukraine could not withstand a sustained Russian attack. It's not clear whether--over the long run--they can, without a significant and reliable increase in military assistance. How likely that is... The EU and NATO are not unitary bodies, but are made up of individual countries with varying perspectives on all sorts of topics. How long the EU, NATO, and the US can maintain unity isn't entirely clear. — BC

When it comes to the EU, one simply has to understand that the bickering is simply structural when you have so many sovereign states trying to form a consensus. In short, the EU always looks as if it would collapse. It still doesn't.

Well, then I guess how about "Heated Political Discussions" category? With enough bitter disargeement and near flaming, a thread would get there.

Actually a philosophical debate would be interesting to get into that category (of Heated Discussions). :wink:

it's another non paradox. Some people seem really eager to call any thought experiment a "paradox". — flannel jesus

Indeed. As interesting to consider this thought experiment is, this simply isn't a paradox.

Or perhaps I am committing another strawfolx — Lionino

Perhaps we all are, who don't see a paradox. :smile:

And what's with the folx, folks? :chin:

I'd be in favor of it, but only if the threads are properly moderated for low-quality content. — Tzeentch

In politics, really, how are you going to moderate that? If someone doesn't follow the site guidelines, that's it, those are the guidelines. Otherwise someone might looking at the level of political discourse make the argument that everything in some heated political debate is low-quality.

Don't assume current political rhetoric has already hit the lowest point. Never underestimate the stupidity it can reach.

It is a good idea but I think threads on that section still show up on the main page. — Lionino

How about if they would show up on the main page after or separately fro the Philosophy related articles? We have the Shoutbox there in the up? Why not a link to "non-philosophical" stuff?

Because now you do have a peculiar aspect: if some thread is very active, let's say like "Climate Change", then it's put to lounge. Otherwise those threads in the "Interesting stuff / Politics and Current Affairs" is months old threads.

I fully understand that this should be a philosophy forum. The basic fact should be that at the main site you don't even now have all discussions even if it says all "All discussions". Just a link to "other interesting stuff" would be in my view OK, and then these non-philosophical threads would appear. They really don't have to be at the first site when somebody wanders into the forum. Or then the threads that aren't philosophical would appear lower on the screen, for example the last four active ones, but clearly separate from the philosophical threads.

Now you simply have to look at the "all discussions" page and then check the Lounge for other active threads that aren't philosophy, but quite active. And that's basically inside information.

There are other consequences besides level of knowledge. There are cognitive changes: short memory retention, because new information is coming in too fast to process; shortening attention span, diminution of awareness of one's surroundings.
I think the most damaging aspect is loss of quiet contemplative solitude. Their world is far too busy, too noisy for long term health. — Vera Mont

Luckily there are long format podcasts etc, but then you have to have the time and the interest. But what is marketed to us is to watch shorts, and short replies. Length of a comment on the social network. Everything else than what you need to read a book.

It would be nice if books could be printed on flax or hemp or some other fibre. We're losing trees fast enough to fire every summer; we shouldn't be pulping them for books. — Vera Mont

Printing books on paper isn't actually a problem. Deforestation happens because forests are turned to farmland. Some of the biggest global paper companies come from Finland and the country isn't deforested. Actually the first laws on preventing deforestation were given in the 17th Century. There's ample amount of forest in the Tundra, you don't use rain forest trees to make pulp.

But for reference, poetry and literature, I like having real books. I also see an important place for children's picture and story books - something they can own, return to and cherish. — Vera Mont

I think the real problem is if people simply don't learn to read a lot of books. They surely can read, but to read long books is the challenge. You can read far quicker that you can listen to someone reading. Once when a person can read quickly, he can go through a book in a few days. If the reading is slow, the effort itself distracts from people reading books. They might have to read in school some books, but basically it's an ordeal. Then when you don't have any necessity to read books, you simply won't read them. You will just read articles, newspapers, magazines.

Israel has a very humane combatant to civilian ratio. I don't see what there is to complain about. — BitconnectCarlos

Lol.

I would beg to disagree. It's not the worst, of course, but is quite indifferent at civilian casualties. At least when they are Arab / Palestinian. What many Finnish UN blue berets have seen in Lebanon tells this. There really is no true commitment to go to lengths in avoiding civilian casualties. Shooting unarmed Israeli hostages that wave white flags tells this so clearly. To give another example from Lebanon, if there's an orchard next to the road and you might be ambushed from the position, then just fire machine guns at the orchard when you drive passed it. If a small girl is killed (who is in her family's orchard), then make a statement that a terrorist was killed in the fighting. But of course, when you political leadership talks about human animals, then it's quite logical to act this way.

But you can believe Netanyahu's words that the IDF is the "most moral" army ever.

My second completely unreasonable hunch is that the decline of book reading is a symptom rather than cause of declining levels of education. — fdrake

Declining levels of education is something very alarming. Irrelevant of what is the symptom or the cause. But here the point is that really, reading everything from a phone, tablet or computer is at least for me very uncomfortable. I think the issue is worth a thread. And you simply learn to disregard books.

We also have recent laws which forbid people to buy or share textbooks and overall all kinds of papers, with the aim of facing climate change. — javi2541997

Spain too? This is simply crazy.

To make matters worse, naturally a student studying his course book from the computer at least here is as costly for the schools as one textbook would be. But the problem is that you then cannot reuse the computer service and you have to pay a new one for a new student. Reshuffling old textbooks isn't allowed!

The long term effects of replacing physical books with 'devices' or audiobooks are devastating. I believe that by doing this, we private thinking and dreaming for ourselves. It is not the same to read a text (each phrase after phrase, carefully attending to each paragraph), than to 'listen' to how this text is read by another person. We limit the art of speaking and dialoguing in our consciousness with ourselves. — javi2541997

I agree. The worst thing is the loss of imagination. If you read a book, you have to imagine the story, the people and the events yourself. Listening is different, you have to concentrate on the listening. And watching a movie and you don't have to use your imagination at all.

We can all oppose Bibi's policies, but opposing an Israeli response to 10/7 is ridiculous. — BitconnectCarlos

What is wrong with my argument that Israel should fight as Americans fought when fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS and avoid civilian casualties? What is wrong with refraining from rhetoric and actions that easily make the ICJ rule against Israel? What's wrong with refraining from calling Gaza the evil city and the population "Human animals"?

What is so ridiculous about that?

And do notice that actually opposing Bibi's policies is what Israel wants to called to be anti-semitism.

The war criminal doesn’t like the protests. What a shocker. — Mikie

Netanyahu knows what he is doing. He's talking to his base in the US, those evangelicals who have a special place for Israel in their hearts and at Jewish-Americans. And from @BitconnectCarlos response, you can see that it's going in. After all, the objective here is to make opposing the policies of the state of Israel to be anti-semitism. Straight out of the populist playbook, Bibi isn't interested to approach the larger public that isn't so keen on Israeli actions. Hence what has to be stopped or simply be not covered is especially the protests of any Jewish groups. Kind of takes out essence of the argument, just like Zelenskyi being Jewish yet a Nazi.

And does opposing Netanyahu's government's policies instill anti-semitism? Well, does Putin's actions instill Russofobia? Did the actions of Al Qaeda and ISIS instill Islamofobia? Unfortunately, but not so much as you would anticipate. The majority of people can still perfectly understand the difference between a regime or fringe terrorist groups and entire populations of people. But naturally there are racists who do want to justify their bigotry.

Funny to watch it happening again. And once again the students are correct and the dullards will be looked on very poorly in the future. — Mikie

Vietnam (and Afghanistan) are actually special cases of the US fighting hopeless wars because it's normalcy to use military force. It would be a good thread to talk just why the US loses wars in a peculiar fashion. (Kind of relevant when the US might do it again in Ukraine, even if Europe in aggregate is supporting Ukraine more)

I wouldn't also underestimate the long term consequences of this. Students now opposing Israel's actions can have long term consequences as that is the future elite of America. Especially the Israeli Lobby can turn into being loved as much as the gun lobby: powerful, but not perhaps well liked by everyone. But notice that the political system in the US did respond with Nixon finally ending the commitment to the Vietnam war. And that was the end of the Vietnam war protests also.

Thus the obvious thing is to think about really what happens after when Netanyahu declares the operations having been over. Will then the protests just fade away like Occupy-Wall Street or BLM? (At least until the next Israeli-Palestinian war after this one)

There will always be those who pay attention and are ready to step in to seize power if unopposed. — Fooloso4

If they get elected, then it really comes down to thing of the parliamentary support they have and finally the next elections. If the people elected don't abide with these rules, what they do is basically make an autocoup of self-coup.

How the people and the institutions react to this is really then critical issue. Do the military go along with it? Can the other parties be simply removed from the political system? And finally, do the people themselves go with it.

I think if an autocoup would have been done, it's window of opportunity was passed the last time when the Congress building was breached. That would have been the perfect setting to do an autocoup. The masses breaching the halls of Congress would have been the perfect setting, but then those that did the autocoup would have had planned an extensive chirade of theatre-trials were the "culprits" of the fraud would have been convicted.

(Perfect setting for an autocoup: Angry people, US flags, all but the actual coup-plot missing. Otherwise totally writable to the narrative of American exceptionalism.)


Trump had no idea of doing this ...or utterly has no capability to do this. He really thought that a few phone calls or Pence could hand him actual victory. Perhaps he thought it would be as easy as with Bush and Gore where Al Gore in the end accepted the outcome. And Trump was just mesmerized that he got his base to storm the Capital building and finally his Secret Service, simply drove him to the White House where he watched in awe what his supporters were doing. Extremely pathetic, if I may say so.

Now, someone incapable of commanding his own personal security detachment is totally unable to do a self coup. What the frightening thing is that there would have been capable people to do this coup. I'm sure someone like general Mike Flynn could have through with an autocoup as he tried to advise Trump of using the military to seize the ballot machines. And understanding that an autocoup means either succeeding or life imprisonment (or even theoretically the death penalty), that would be enough incentive to go through with the mock trials and martial law. A lot of generals and politicians would have had to be detained, fired and so on. But once you are at that road, you cannot never turn back.

Now it's different. There isn't that "Deer in the headlights moment" where the Democrats (or the Republicans, actually) wouldn't simply fathom that a self-coup is happening.



What you have in store in the future is likely something just like in the 60's and 70's. Some political violence, a deeply divided populace, some fringe terrorists. But that's it.

Obviously the difference ought to be clear, but it's our natural desire to be rational and logical that we have the tendency of using facts rather than opinions. And also that we denounce someones facts as mere opinions, correctly or incorrectly. And when you have misinformation and disinformation widely used as effective tools for propaganda or marketing, it really may look like the difference between facts, opinions and outright lies is confused.

Yet even our Science is based on theories, so basically a lot more would be strictly defined to be opinions. Of course even if we don't exaclty understand everything about gravity, we can assume that jumping off from a ten-floor building isn't good for our health. Hence those theories aren't so wildly off from reality.

It's a limited number of topics where we admit that we only have opinions. Like for example art or beauty are subjects where we understand that there aren't concrete facts on just what is art or what is beautiful. In everything else we just crave for facts to base our rational thinking and decision making.

Unexpected? (Maybe it can help with the Falkland debacle?) — jorndoe

:grin:

Yeah, the UK might remember the Argies from that one.

Of course he isn't talking about NATO membership, so the proposal isn't ludicrouse. There is already Columbia as one. Just for those who don't know what a "global partner" of NATO is, here's from NATO's own website:

NATO has a number of “partners across the globe” or “global partners”, which the Alliance cooperates with on an individual basis. NATO’s global partners include Afghanistan¹, Australia, Colombia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan. NATO’s engagement with global partners is taking on increasing importance in a complex security environment, where many of the challenges the Alliance faces are global and no longer bound by geography.

Which actually is hilarious that they still have a reference to Afghanistan (in 2024!) there with an asterisk 1, that then says the following:

The partnership with Afghanistan is currently suspended following North Atlantic Council decisions related to the security environment.

The "security environment" perhaps referring to the fact that Afghanistan is now an Emirate that made the US to withdraw and hence fought off also NATO. :snicker:

It's very rare that a foreign head of state attacks student protests, or more properly the university institutions where the students come from, that are in another country. Naturally the formal way would be one state talking to the other states officials. But this is America and Bibi knows how very well how American politics is played. After all, he has spent a long time in the US and understands that he has to talk directly to his base.



In fact, prior to the Revolution of Dignity and the break up of Russian-Ukrainian relations, Putin would often directly address Ukrainians and talk to his "base" just like Bibi is doing now above. Also then talking in a language that Ukrainians understand well.

Well, I guess meddling in American politics and discourse is quite proper when the US is also doing that in Israel.

The system is set up so that there are checks and balances, including checks against the tyranny of the majority and of a president without legal bounds. — Fooloso4

If it gets to that point then we are in deeper trouble than we are now. We must be on guard against the contagion of nihilism. — Fooloso4

The whole system is based upon the rational judgement of the electorate. If the electorate votes "wrong", there's nothing much to do then. It's not the job of any supreme court to decide on what the people of a republic voting a candidate into power. Trump's cases are still in the lower courts, hence there is no reason for the SCOTUS to make any decisions.

Is there good reason why the Supreme Court should not have already quickly and unequivocally ruled that Trump is not above the law? — Fooloso4

Who would be above the law? Almighty God? What do have atheists to say about that?

Without opening any American legal prints I'm sure that there isn't a case that someone is above the law. Hence it would be crazy to state this literally.

If Trump really would be a God-Emperor, then perhaps he should reject his deity or divinity as Emperor Hirohito did when he gave the Humanity Declaration. :snicker:

When it came to New Atheism, he was by far the best one. Not that the others were too good, but, he was much more kind which counts. — Manuel

I think it's the sheer hostility that some of these media atheists have gotten have made them very aggressive. It's not only 9/11 and what basically could be called Islamophobia.

Yet in my view New Atheism and it's Four Horsemen is much of a part media discourse drawn by well known figures that are popular in the media. Yet I think "New Atheism" is only a minor thing compared to Dennet's work.

The man himself talking about death with Richard Dawkins. Dennett gets to make some remarks too.

Today it would be unthinkable for the US to let itself get bogged down in a (ground) war in the Middle-East. — Tzeentch

At least if it would be Saudi-Arabia, then yes. Even Trump would defend the Saudi oil fields. And btw this was the major threat that the annexation of Kuwait posed.

Assuming that the belligerent would be Iran. But of course it could be that the Gulf States themselves would have a war. It came really close with Qatar. Then naturally the US would be just looking at a very awkward situation where it's so-called allies fight each other. Not a very good place to be. Already it's "allies" can be found on different sides for example in Libya or Sudan.

Clearly there are some smallish nations that exist throughout the centuries, but I see no reason why that would be the case for the Gulf States when they are surrounded by two vastly larger states, and sitting on immensely valuable strategic resources. — Tzeentch

The likely reason is just why Kuwait wasn't going to be let to be annexed by Iraq. This would change dramatically the power balance even globally. Do note just how big the opposing alliance was against Iraq, it had even Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Pakistan taking part in the alliance. Hence it's likely that if a small nation with geostrategic importance, it won't be overlooked. (However if some Senegal wants to take Gambia, likely an international alliance to defend Gambia won't emerge. If done eloquently and peacefully, a Senegambia could easily happen.)

Naturally this is just theoretical speculation, but so is your assumption that the Gulf States could be easily gobbled up without US presence. What I hope we can agree on is that if the US truly withdraws from the region, there will be a reshuffling of the cards certainly. That vacuum creates by itself a little whirlpools automatically. In fact, some could argue that whirlpool has already started as the US allies don't toe the line in similar fashion with the US as earlier.

History has followed that pattern multiple times over, so there is a clear historical trend that points in this direction - that doesn't make it a certainty, sure. — Tzeentch

And I would be extremely sceptical about historical trends. Especially in the near term (the next 50 to 100 years). As the saying goes, history never repeats, it just rhymes.

The British haven't played a role of any significance for decades. — Tzeentch

But they had a significant role in making the region as it is now.

Artificial in the geopolitical sense, of course. These little states would, under non-unipolar circumstances, simply be gobbled up by the real contenders for regional hegemony (Saudi-Arabia and Iran). — Tzeentch

Isn't that a bit too much assume that kind of Mearsheimerian realpolitik?

Asia has it's share of small nations, and they haven't been gobbled up by regional contenders.

There's no unavoidability or destiny of there forming some Pan-Arabist / Islamic Caliphate / other regional hegemon in the Middle East. With your thinking then in the Far East places like Nepal, Bhutan, Brunei, Singapore, East Timor simply couldn't exist. Why aren't they "gobbled up" by regional powers?

Small countries do exist everywhere.

Let's take for example the UAE. It has a military of 150 000 active members and 180 000 reservists, 137 combat aircraft, 356 Leclerc tanks (which is more than France has in active service),HIMARS and Smerch MLRS, Patriots and THAAD SAM systems. That's actually a rather big armed forces.

It's strange to assume that some regional player would just "gobble up" that kind of a force. If you think that's same as Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq, well, the Kuwaitis had on paper only 20 000 armed forces, they were basically taken totally unaware, no forces were mobilized and still actually Iraq lost about 100 tanks or so in the initial invasion.

But I guess for you many countries are simply "irrelevant" and somehow just barely existing.

t's the largest player in its neck of the woods, sits on a geographically and geopolitically vital area with lots of natural resources, controls half of the Persian Gulf, it has powerful allies (it's actually of gigantic economic importance to China), etc. - I could go on but I'm not going to write an essay explaining this. — Tzeentch

Yet for example the tiny UAE has a larger GDP than Iran. It's population isn't growing, it's economy isn't booming and it's hard to believe a theocracy would see an economic miracle somehow. Although the government tries to promote science and technology. It has aspirations to be a Great Power, that is for sure. Especially in the 1970's many predicted Iran to become this kind of great power, but it wasn't to be so.

And btw, technically doesn't have allies, meaning that there exists a defense treaty, except perhaps with it's own "Axis of resistance". It just has cooperation with the CSTO. It was invited to the CSTO, but isn't a member. The agreement with China isn't also a defense treaty. Hence Iran doesn't have a military alliance that would automatically then put an US or Israeli attack on a totally different level.

It's far more about the US wanting to build this picture of an anti-US axis. For example, there's no alliance between China and Russia.

A whole new vocabulary has been conjured to disguise what is in essence propaganda and censorship. — Tzeentch

Indeed.

After a brief interlude, state actors and lobby groups have adapted perfectly to mold propaganda and censorship to the new media of the net and the new environment. The biggest advance is AI, even if just search engines have dramatically changed the game.

Typically police states simply have become overwhelmed by their own apparatus: in order to have total surveillance of the population, you simply needed far too many employees to listen to the conversations, to read all the letters. Then to process all the data has been the major problem. Now with computers and AI that's something totally possible.

The other Gulf States are clearly artifical states that are a result of US divide & conquer strategy in the Middle-East. — Tzeentch

Well...it would go back to the British Empire, actually.

And anyway, I'm not exited about calling various states as "artificial". Putin uses rhetoric like that.
For example Oman has a very long history and has been around for a while, even if it has a small population.

The wealth, power and independence the other Gulf States currently enjoy is indeed artificial and would not have arisen under normal circumstances — Tzeentch

But it did. And these tiny nations, like Qatar and UAE, have been quite active on the international stage. I think the reason is simply that the US has lost it's leadership role with the Arab states that are close to it. If it's not the US, then somebody will be on their side to keep the status quo.

they would have simply been incorporated in a greater Arabian or Persian state.

As US power wanes, these states will disappear. — Tzeentch

I don't think so. We have small countries all over the world: in the Caribbean, in Asia, in Europe. Someone just coming them an absorbing them isn't so likely. The countries are heavily armed and they have huge importance.

Furthermore, please explain just why Iran would become such a hegemon. It's population isn't rapidly growing, nor is it's economy. The clerical state is very unlikely to be a craddle for technological innovation.

It's typically American thinking that if one Great Power leaves the scene, then some other Great Power fills in the void. Great Powers, or Superpowers, are only thing important, right? Yet the likely outcome is just like after decolonization, no other Great Power will come and colonize the countries ...and the countries can have their fights with themselves.

What is likely that Middle East will be still quite volatile and prone to wars even if the US withdraws from the place.

Now btw. after France, the US is starting to leave the Sahel. Last remnants of the "War against Terror".

(20th April 2024, Al Jazeera) The United States will withdraw its soldiers from Niger as the West African nation is increasingly turning to Russia and away from Western powers.

The US Department of State agreed to pull out about 1,000 troops from the country that has been under military rule since July 2023, US media reported late on Friday.

US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Nigerien Prime Minister Ali Mahaman Lamine Zeine met on Friday, the reports said, with Washington committing to begin planning an “orderly and responsible” withdrawal of its troops from the country.

The US built a military base in Niger to combat armed groups that pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS) in the Sahel region, which also includes Burkina Faso and Mali.

The major airbase in Agadez, some 920km (572 miles) from the capital Niamey was used for manned and unmanned surveillance flights and other operations.

Known as Air Base 201, it was built at a cost of more than $100m. Since 2018, it has been used to target ISIL fighters and Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM), an al-Qaeda affiliate.

The smaller Gulf States aren't really worth mentioning. — Tzeentch

Now this is something worth debating.

Even if they are tiny, they aren't "really worth mentioning". On the contrary.

Only Kuwait and the "Switzerland of Middle East", Oman, are quite neutral and haven't started to play "The Great Game" in the Middle East of backing various actors.

Just look how Qatar and the UAE throw their weight around ...as they have so much wealth.
UAE is active in Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia and Yemen. Qatar has Al Jazeera, and went on to support the Muslim Brotherhood when it was in power in Egypt. This is why the Saudi's and UAE nearly went to war with Qatar. UAE has intervened directly in Libya and Yemen. Qatar has also supported Hamas.

Qatar is a key financial backer and ally of the Palestinian militant organization Hamas. Qatar has transferred more than $1.8 billion to Hamas.

For example UAE and it's support of Haftar in Libya:



These tiny nations have understood that money talks, money buys weapons, mercenaries etc. This is the one surprising thing that has suddenly happened in this Century. Hence it's not only the Saudi Arabia that can use proxies and intervene in other poorer countries of the region, it's also the smaller Gulf countries too.

US foreign policy isn't guided by domestic opinion. — Tzeentch

Especially with the case of Israel, I would beg to differ.

The Israeli lobby is very powerful, you could read Mearsheimer's book about it, but this should be general knowledge. Why the Israeli lobby is so powerful is because of a certain part of the US electorate Israel is important and both parties want the support of these voters. This is simply how US domestic politics works.

The only thing 'the Blob' is interested in domestically, is keeping the American populace docile and ignorant - something they've been quite successful at. — Tzeentch

You might argue that for any policy the US has, yet Israel is a very special case for example to let's say the UK, Canada or Australia. None of those countries has such a lobby like Israel that is committed to give US aid to those countries and is vigilant for anybody questioning the American commitment to these countries.

There's nothing bipartisan about the US' forever wars in the Middle-East — Tzeentch

Really? Make your case then. Is it only the democrat administrations or only the Republican administrations that are fault here? Especially in the case of supporting Israel. I think the support for Israel is a genuinely bipartisan policy.

That's obviously a big topic, but geographically, geopolitically, economically and demographically it is simply the only country that can make a reasonable bid for becoming regional hegemon on the Persian Gulf. It is also in prime position to profit off Iraq's power vacuum. — Tzeentch

Yet to be a hegemon, it ought to have then a lot of influence over the Gulf States. It hasn't.

Basically it has good relations only with Qatar... which has had huge problems itself with Saudi-Arabia and UAE. Yet at least technically Qatar is a part of the GCC, which considers Iran as a threat.

The only way you would be right would be if basically Iran and Iraq got so close as Russia and Belarus are. That's isn't very likely. Perhaps after (or if) the US withdraws from Iraq.