David Ruben Masters’ Post

"Tucker Carlson, Putin, and the Apocalypse", by Alexander Dugin: ".... We are at war with the liberal West, so let there at least be friendship with the conservative West. Thus, Russian patriots and Russian Westernisers (increasingly more Russian and less Western) come to a consensus in the figure of Tucker Carlson. In the West, everything is even more fundamental. Tucker Carlson is a symbolic figure. He is now the main symbol of the America that hates Biden, liberals, and globalists and is preparing to vote for Trump. Trump, Carlson, and Musk, plus Texas Governor Abbott, are the faces of the looming American Revolution, this time a Conservative Revolution. To this already powerful resource, Russia connects. No, it is not about Putin supporting Trump, which could easily be dismissed in the context of war with the United States. Carlson’s visit is about something else. Biden and his maniacs have effectively attacked a great nuclear power through the hands of Kiev’s unleashed terrorists, and humanity is on the verge of destruction. Nothing more, nothing less. The globalist media continue to spin a Marvel series for infants, where Spider-Man Zelensky magically wins with superpowers and magical pigs against the Kremlin’s ‘Dr. Evil’. However, this is just a cheap, silly series. In reality, everything is heading towards the use of nuclear weapons and possibly the destruction of humanity. Tucker Carlson conducts a reality check: does the West understand what it is doing, pushing the world towards the apocalypse? There is a real Putin and a real Russia, not these staged characters and settings from Marvel. Look what the globalists have done and how close we are to it! It is not about the content of the interview with Putin. It is the fact that a person like Tucker Carlson is visiting a country like Russia to meet a political figure like Putin at such a critical time. Tucker Carlson’s trip to Moscow might be the last chance to stop the disappearance of humanity. The gigantic billion-strong attention to this pivotal interview from humanity itself, as well as the frenzied, inhuman rage of Biden, the globalists, and the world’s citizens intoxicated with decay, testify to humanity’s awareness of the seriousness of the situation. The world can only be saved by stopping now. For that, America must choose Trump. And Tucker Carlson. And Elon Musk. And Abbott. Then we get a chance to pause on the brink of the abyss. Compared to this, everything else is secondary. Liberalism and its agenda have led humanity to a dead end. Now the choice is this: either liberals or humanity. Tucker Carlson chooses humanity, which is why he came to Moscow to meet Putin. The whole world understood why he came and how important it is." Watch the full interview with Putin here: https://lnkd.in/emkdqrN6.

This is an insightful review of the interview that the polite company of neocon narrators dismiss. Point 7 (of 10), regarding Russian soft-spots: “he (Putin) pivoted to what he perceives as a Russian cultural advantage in realigning the global order: Russian religiosity versus Western heartless materialism and science.” This has been The Theme in Russian intellectual culture, dating to the Russian enlightenment under the “Greats”, first Peter, then Catherine, and the tension between the “Russian Soul”, and its adaptation to the “Western Modernizers”. Moscow vs. St. Petersberg. It is a backdrop in its literature, from Pushkin onwards. It will be a continuing theme dominent in the global realignment of world order already underway.

#politics #nobelprize There is a new paradigm in international warfare: cripple the adversary’s sources of military strength, which, in fact, is not a cause of concern if you look at the silver lining of the dark and destructive global conflict cloud, particularly along the geopolitical ring of fire: United States is trying to do detailed maps of sites of the Russian military industrial complex and obtain more information to prevent Russia from reconstituting its military. This may or may not have led to the capture and detention of Evan Gershkovich, a natural born American of Russian heritage and a fluent speaker of Russian on assignment in the Ural Mountains area by Russian intelligence as a bargaining chip by Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine war if we are to believe the U.S. Department of State and The Wall Street Journal. China brazenly used balloons to survey U.S. nuclear silos and is hacking into classified U.S. government networks of the American military industrial complex. Israel knows quite a bit about Iran’s military sites, and now Iran wants to know reciprocally.

Worth watching 👀 and available on Netflix: "Turning Point: The Cold War and the Bomb" provides essential insights into one of the most significant periods in modern history, helping viewers understand the complexities of global politics, the dynamics of power struggles, and the profound impact of nuclear weapons on international relations. By examining historical events and decisions made during the Cold War, the documentary offers valuable lessons that can inform our understanding of contemporary geopolitical challenges. Understanding this pivotal era enhances our awareness of how historical actions and decisions continue to shape the world today, empowering us to navigate current events with a broader perspective and insight into their historical roots. #documentary #geopolitics #coldwar #nuclearweapons #history #internationalaffairs #internationalrelations

Imagining Armageddon: the mad and dangerous ideas of #HermanKahn During the #Cold War, an #American #strategist theorised that #nuclearwar need not be catastrophic. Now back in vogue, could the ideas of the ‘real Dr Strangelove’ help avoid annihilation—or usher it in? 👁️Prospect Magazine prospectmagazine.co.uk https://lnkd.in/g-3BZNqb […] If the situation in #Ukraine is at rung 12 (“Large Conventional War”), does that tell us anything? …..Freedman tells me it is “too neat” and that, detached from Kahn’s nuanced explanations, it can be “dangerously misleading”…… #Kahn’s own caveats: that, like any model, it simplifies and distorts. It is intended, Kahn protested, as a #metaphor, a #teachingaid, a “#scenariogenerator”. Kahn also suggested an alternative image, one emphasising the seven thresholds between his rungs: an #elevator “in a department store with seven floors, each offering a number of options of varying intensity”……#Post, the veteran of #USStrategicCommand, points out that Kahn identified that there was a choice between fighting within the existing terms of battle and crossing a threshold…. From here, Kahn formulates the concept of “#escalationdominance”, which he defines as the “capacity, other things being equal, to enable the side possessing it to enjoy marked advantages in a given region of the #escalationladder”. Freedman notes this puts the onus on the disadvantaged opponent to decide whether to risk escalating. The danger to both sides is that they accept the challenge. […] Any #escalationstrategy, however, has to be translatable into messy reality………#Gorbachev’s great innovation, #Heuser suggests, was to believe his opponents’ claims of #peacefulintent; today, “#Putin seems to be caught in that #conspiracybubble—everything we do is just a cover for harming #Russia.” And then there is another potentially fatal #assumption:…..”the flaw in the concept” is that “you had to assume that the other person had, broadly speaking, shared the same #rationality you have…… So perhaps Kahn’s approach is both useful and delusional. Or rather, useful, then delusional. ……..There would be too many #variables; the stakes would be too high; there are no precedents. Drawing in part on his time at US Strategic Command, Post warns that “sometimes #decisionmakers think they may have more control” than they actually do—they think they can “predict the maximum level of violence that’s going to occur in a #conflict”. Likewise, Scoblic warns that “the decision is going to be very little like what we think it’s going to look like”. Regardless of all those decades of #strategising, a final #crisis may come down to a handful of #leaders making #decisions under intolerable pressure, within a few minutes.

I recently wrote the Whitehouse (max 2000 characters), as follows: "EU leaders (plus US, frankly) overwhelmingly cower behind mama's skirt standing in a puddle of urine shivering with fear every time Putin threatens nuclear first strikes against anyone with the temerity to do anything more self-indulgent than sit in the bleachers with beer & brats watching Russian troops razing peaceful cities to rubble (along with multi-billion dollar dams & nuclear power plants that make modern life possible), kidnapping Ukrainian children to populate their 21st century janissary program, gleefully(?) committing thousands of Kremlin-ordered war crimes. I suggest we publicly challenge EU & US congressional leaders & influencers to clearly elucidate each player's 'bridge too far'/ 'beyond the pale' threshold of willingness to watch leaders like Putin, Xi, Kim, ... obliterate civil society & demoralize neighbors aspiring to democracy without/before intervening with full force available, asymptotically close to 'no holds barred' rules of engagement clearly demonstrated by the aggressors' own actions. Let's get the largest possible cadre of vocal political actors, strategists, analysts, ethicists, philosophers, ... on the record, sparring to justify and defend their positions. Maybe we'd thereby sort the obstructionists, self-serving, altruists, pragmatists, ... with backbone and budget from bankrupt bluster into their respective pigeonholes. Just as the Supremes will soon clarify the limits of presidential immunity, we should similarly strive to distill humanity's moral & ethical pain threshold(s) as well as formulating a sense of the sacrifices we're willing to risk/endure to defend it. This is a grand historical inflection point with paths to Ghandi and Goebbels before us. Let's stimulate discussion. The stakes couldn't be higher." ‐----- Perhaps, we could start here?

I finished February’s book—“Why America Loses Wars: Limited War and US Strategy from the Korean War to the Present" by Dr. Donald Stoker. This choice found its way to my attention following a summer read of Stoker's previous work, "The Grand Design: Strategy and U.S. Civil War." A quick synopsis of the book. Dr. Stoker begins with a critique of Limited War, shedding light on its deficiencies. He points to no good definitions in literature, illogical framework to its theory, and tendency to intertwine ends and means. Central to Dr. Stoker's argument is that the United States, alongside its Western counterparts, fail to define clear political aims towards the objective—the ends. This deficiency extends to a poor application of force—the ways. And a recurrent reluctance to commit sufficient forces—the means. Combined this with the failure of defining what Victory is—the ingredients for perpetual and protracted wars exist. He believes liberal democracies must use its capabilities to win war since states go to war to get something or maintain the status quo. Limited war should not mean limited power used. Wars waged with restricted political aims often culminate in a compromised peace and fail to address the underlying issues. Where I thought the author could have pulled the thread slightly more is industrialism, technology, and nuclear weapons has increased the destructiveness of war. Constraints Great Powers put on themselves is to prevent a dangerous escalation in a dynamic environment, especially where nuclear conflict exists and intentions can be misconstrued. With conflict endemic to politics. War endemic to international politics. Fear of state survival is always on the table. The final section of the book is thought-provoking, articulating the significance of defining Victory and the importance of studying and contemplating war termination. The margins of the book are filled with notes and much reflection to be done.

Book Review: Destined for War by Graham Allison The central thesis of this book by Graham Allison revolves around the idea that when a rising power threatens to displace an established ruling power, the likelihood of war increases - a phenomenon referred to as the Thucydides' Trap. Thucydides was a Greek historian who wrote about the Peloponnesian War between the ruling Athens and the rising Sparta. The comparison between Athens and Sparta serves as a cautionary tale for the present-day US China relationship and how the two nations are destined for the same fate. In the modern sense, the US is the entrenched power (Spartans) and China is the rising power (Athenians). The author explains various factors that leads to the trap and one key element is the pervasive distrust between the rising and ruling powers. The author identifies 16 cases throughout history where such power shifts occurred, and he notes that only 4 of them did not result in war. He details the specific factors that led to war in 12 cases and how war was averted in 4. He looks back at those examples and suggests ways in which we can learn from history and hopefully avoid war. The book underscores the importance of leaders on both sides (US and China) understanding the historical patterns and actively working to break the cycle of rising power challenges leading to conflict. So can US and China escape Thucydides’ Trap? Only the time will tell. But what we know currently is that the situations are different - the 12 instances when war was indeed the outcome, were cases in which none of the warring nations possessed nuclear weapons. In today’s times, international communications are probably more effective, on multiple levels, for avoiding such wars. And hopefully, neither side would be eager to engage in any brutal war with each other, which would leave both economies (and many more) in shambles. #bookrecommendation #geopolitics

For history buffs like yours truly, the new Netflix docuseries ‘TurningPoint: the Bomb and the Cold War’ covers a lot of familiar ground. But there are a few unique and sobering lessons with a lot of resonance in today’s world that it drew out for me: 1) The narrative of the Cold War as a managed conflict with clear ground rules and redlines was never the reality, and the rules changed frequently. After 50s containment gave way to Nixon’s detente, President Reagan shook off the rules of detente and challenged the Soviets’ standing - as one of the historians featured in the series put it, in speeches like the ‘Evil Empire’ and in his policy shifts, he hit at the USSR where it hurt: their desire to be seen as the Americans’ equal in great power competition. 2) Accidents that nearly led to Armageddon weren’t rare exceptions - they were happening constantly. As the series sums it up, the ‘system’ and its prescribed rules of engagement gave us horrific tragedies like the downing of Korean Air Flight 007. Instead, it was often brave individuals on both sides who resisted the rules of the game who allowed countless hair trigger false alarms and sensor errors to pass by as just that without triggering nuclear exchange. 3) Though I feel the parallels the series tries to draw between the Cold War and the Ukraine conflict somewhat exceed their grasp, they nonetheless raise important questions about the intent and goals of the NATO allies in the current struggle. One of the lessons of the earlier period that the series hammers home for me is that the U.S. and allies fared best when they were communicating intent and sought after outcomes - Kennedy’s back channel talks during the Cuban Missle Crisis, Nixon’s thaw with Brezhnev and Mao, and Reagan’s summit diplomacy with Gorbachev were moments of hard-nosed but nonetheless direct and constructive dialogue. Let us hope this is happening in some form today, even if not on the front page news. Along the way, it was a treat to see some of my favorite academic mentors from undergrad and graduate days weighing in! Tim Naftali Andrew Weber https://lnkd.in/e5FrvsdY

Iran nuclear capabilities is not a surprise because Obama make a deal with Iran, The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal or Iran deal, was an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015, between Iran and the P5+to stop Iran Nuclear program for military purpose, but the Ex moron in chief the firth thing he did in 2016 when he became president was to terminate the deal. In 2022 experts said that Iran was capable to product nuclear weapons in few weeks, and if we can Analize that we are in 2024, that mean Iran for sure have many nuclear heads. If Biden fall on Netanyahu's trap the consequences will be catastrophic. In 2012there was an exercise in Washington that involved Iran, the U.S. and the impasse over the Iranian nuclear program. The Brookings Institution staged a war game. No real weapons were used, but teams playing the roles of U.S. and Iranian policymakers were presented with a hypothetical but not very far-fetched scenario, and the results were not encouraging. The end of the game - and, of course, the end of the game was a - it's always a bad place to stop, was pretty bad. The Americans were about to launch a massive military operation against Iran. The only question was whether it was obliterating all of Iran's coastal defenses, air defenses, surface-to-air missile batteries, navy, et cetera, or whether it was going to be all that and the Iranian nuclear program. And the Iran team had already thought this through and decided that if that was what the United States is going to do, they were going to fight on in their words forever. And so, the game ends with the first big American military moves. And it's unfortunate because, of course, the real problems with a war with Iran are not that first big American moves, they're what follows. They're how do you turn off a war with Iran? How do you bring it to a close? How do you stop them? That war game was in 2012 we are in 2024, and Iran have more and advance technology, possible nuclear weapons and better armament, we can see that a war with Iran will not that easy, Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan.