We would need a proper NGO that would support a reliable and secure website with a small, properly paid team. Anyone could here submit sites, news, youtube channels, etc. that are fake (alternative facts, conspiracy theories, simple falsehoods, misunderstandings, and so on) and harmful (anti-vaccination, healing cancer with flowers, etc.).
The team would check the sources and list them as unreliable if the claim had been substantiated. These would be added to a proper searchable list of sites. Anyone could do a quick search and know that bullshit is in the air.
On topics which require expert judgment professional institutions would be consulted, and expert opinions sought.
This could help a good deal in beating back the bullshit factory that had been unleashed in the recent decade.
Setting up and maintaing such a site wouldn't cost much, wouldn't be very hard to run, and could do a very valuable public service.
If there would be extra energy the site could give some digestable info on how pubication works these days in science, and some of the main methods of substantiating results and interpretations. The same could be done for solid, high quality journalism, providing some examples.
Monday 1 May 2017
Against fake news
A very intelligent and well read friend of mine argued over dinner that it is a good thing that anyone can publish now anything online. He thought this is great because public opinion can be shaped freely, and the big tv channels and newspapers don't have too much influence on the view of people.
I heartily disagree with this. I have seen so far very few good and interesting free sources online which really pointed out anything substantial and interesting that one could not find in professional publications.
At the same time there are tens of thousands of blogs, pages, youtube channels, etc. which push conteo, horrible fake news, racism, white supremacy, scapegoating of different public figures, and so on, and so on. A lot of these people take the very simplicistic view that the government always lies and is against them, and that scientist are hacks. This is disastrous.
Most fake news propagators tread on the lack of knowledge of the average person about credible sources. Most people don't read a wide range of newspapers. They just parrot a few idiots who talk about 'the media'. As if all opinions would be the same. Anyone who reads the financial times, the nyt, the washington post, the japan times, al jazira, the russian times, RT, the times, the guardian, the süddeutche, xinghua agency releases, etc. will see very quickly that there are many-many different views and positions on almost any issue. Professional newspapers even publish confronting opinions of experts, exactly for the purposes to be fair. There is no media conspiracy, and there is no single message 'the media' is trying to get across.
Furthermore, average people imagine that what a scientist or a journalist does is just to think about something for a few minutes and then write it down. This is not how things work. Scientists do experiments, measurements, make observations, consult the work of others, double check everything. They don't question 'everything'. That's something that silly people do. Philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, political analysts, physicists, biologists, etc. don't question everything: they have cooperative, big projects to which many-many well trained and honest people who make a genuine effort contribute to. Anything that gets pubished is scrutinized by a lot of other people.
There are also many confusions about professional newspapers. Proper journalists don't just write down their opinions, and they don't simply consult other newspapers. They go and talk with experts, listen to politians, read documents published by the government, institutions, judges, the army, independent researchers, universities, and so on. They interview several people who know what they are talking about. Non of the internet pundits do anything like this. Most of them don't even have an idea about what they are writing on. This is causing horrible damage. People who are spreading fake news about rising radiation levels in Fukushima, the peacefulness of Russia, the brilliance of Erdogan, the harm of vaccines, the evil nature of feminism, and so on are doing great harm to our communities. They are not spreading opinions, they are spreading base and vile falsehoods.
I heartily disagree with this. I have seen so far very few good and interesting free sources online which really pointed out anything substantial and interesting that one could not find in professional publications.
At the same time there are tens of thousands of blogs, pages, youtube channels, etc. which push conteo, horrible fake news, racism, white supremacy, scapegoating of different public figures, and so on, and so on. A lot of these people take the very simplicistic view that the government always lies and is against them, and that scientist are hacks. This is disastrous.
Most fake news propagators tread on the lack of knowledge of the average person about credible sources. Most people don't read a wide range of newspapers. They just parrot a few idiots who talk about 'the media'. As if all opinions would be the same. Anyone who reads the financial times, the nyt, the washington post, the japan times, al jazira, the russian times, RT, the times, the guardian, the süddeutche, xinghua agency releases, etc. will see very quickly that there are many-many different views and positions on almost any issue. Professional newspapers even publish confronting opinions of experts, exactly for the purposes to be fair. There is no media conspiracy, and there is no single message 'the media' is trying to get across.
Furthermore, average people imagine that what a scientist or a journalist does is just to think about something for a few minutes and then write it down. This is not how things work. Scientists do experiments, measurements, make observations, consult the work of others, double check everything. They don't question 'everything'. That's something that silly people do. Philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, political analysts, physicists, biologists, etc. don't question everything: they have cooperative, big projects to which many-many well trained and honest people who make a genuine effort contribute to. Anything that gets pubished is scrutinized by a lot of other people.
There are also many confusions about professional newspapers. Proper journalists don't just write down their opinions, and they don't simply consult other newspapers. They go and talk with experts, listen to politians, read documents published by the government, institutions, judges, the army, independent researchers, universities, and so on. They interview several people who know what they are talking about. Non of the internet pundits do anything like this. Most of them don't even have an idea about what they are writing on. This is causing horrible damage. People who are spreading fake news about rising radiation levels in Fukushima, the peacefulness of Russia, the brilliance of Erdogan, the harm of vaccines, the evil nature of feminism, and so on are doing great harm to our communities. They are not spreading opinions, they are spreading base and vile falsehoods.
Friday 21 April 2017
Excusing tyrants
There are always well educated and well-off people who are willing to justify what authoritarian strongman do. Putin has such supporters, Xi has them, Erdogan does, Trump too, and so does Orban in Hungary.
As disgusting as Orban is, there are people who are credible enough - as literary critics, not that that's an amazing proof of sound political judgment - who are sympathetic to him. The one I'm talking about is Tibor Fischer, long-time Fidesz sympathizer.
The Guardian has the fairness to introduce right-wing opinions, and the desire to earn clicks by outraging people, and decided to publish an apology piece for Orban, penned by Fischer.
Fischer is alright on literature. Not very knowledgeable and certainly not a friend of anything in literature that came after the 1920s, but hey, at least he sort of knows there what is he is talking about.
When it comes to politics he is just one of those intellectuals who think that politics is a battle of values and ideals, and that when a politicians work is discussed it is not important to look at
- legal changes
- changes to the welfare system
- corruption connected to that politician
- geopolitical implications.
On the first front Orban's performance is appalling. Fidesz modified the electoral laws in a way that it is very hard to beat it, they modified in several places the laws protecting workers' right to the benefit of company owners, they modified the laws about detention and these play now much more into the hands of the police, and so on.
On the second front Orban's government is doing even worse. Since Fidesz had been elected - 7 years ago - they have scrapped several benefits to people with amputated limbs, people with disabilities, people with chronic illnesses. The minimum amount of pensions is around £80 per month, and the minimum wages (currently at £277/month) are taxed for 16% income tax just as the largest salaries of millions of Forints (thousands of pounds).
On the third front, Fidesz's corruption is unprecedented. Medgyessy, Gyurcsany, and Bajnai were deeply corrupt and their cabinets and parties stole us much as was possible. However Fidesz perfected the art of channeling government money into their own pockets. They set up hundreds of companies, use government schemes (construction orders, local government schemes, land law, etc.) to this purpose. The leaders of the party set up through their friends their own companies which sell Hungarian citizenship and they made around 4 billion Euros so far.
On the fourth front, Fidesz is working hard to undermine the EU and slow down NATO, and is drawing ever closer to Putin's Russia. This is not only disastrous for Hungary and Europe, it is also deeply insulting for all those Hungarians who suffered the Soviet forced 'friendship', which was in fact an occupation.
Fidesz is now shutting down a University because Putin does not like Soros. Soros uses his private funds to support NGOs to foster balanced journalism, transparency, and to educate people up to US and European standards. CEU is just a much better run University with higher standards than most East-European institutions. Putin hates Soros because many opposition leaders made use of the support of organizations founded by Soros's charities. So, Putin instructed Orban to make the operations of CEU impossible. And Orban, like an overly eager puppy, jumped.
This is the Prime Minister and party which Fischer is excusing.
As disgusting as Orban is, there are people who are credible enough - as literary critics, not that that's an amazing proof of sound political judgment - who are sympathetic to him. The one I'm talking about is Tibor Fischer, long-time Fidesz sympathizer.
The Guardian has the fairness to introduce right-wing opinions, and the desire to earn clicks by outraging people, and decided to publish an apology piece for Orban, penned by Fischer.
Fischer is alright on literature. Not very knowledgeable and certainly not a friend of anything in literature that came after the 1920s, but hey, at least he sort of knows there what is he is talking about.
When it comes to politics he is just one of those intellectuals who think that politics is a battle of values and ideals, and that when a politicians work is discussed it is not important to look at
- legal changes
- changes to the welfare system
- corruption connected to that politician
- geopolitical implications.
On the first front Orban's performance is appalling. Fidesz modified the electoral laws in a way that it is very hard to beat it, they modified in several places the laws protecting workers' right to the benefit of company owners, they modified the laws about detention and these play now much more into the hands of the police, and so on.
On the second front Orban's government is doing even worse. Since Fidesz had been elected - 7 years ago - they have scrapped several benefits to people with amputated limbs, people with disabilities, people with chronic illnesses. The minimum amount of pensions is around £80 per month, and the minimum wages (currently at £277/month) are taxed for 16% income tax just as the largest salaries of millions of Forints (thousands of pounds).
On the third front, Fidesz's corruption is unprecedented. Medgyessy, Gyurcsany, and Bajnai were deeply corrupt and their cabinets and parties stole us much as was possible. However Fidesz perfected the art of channeling government money into their own pockets. They set up hundreds of companies, use government schemes (construction orders, local government schemes, land law, etc.) to this purpose. The leaders of the party set up through their friends their own companies which sell Hungarian citizenship and they made around 4 billion Euros so far.
On the fourth front, Fidesz is working hard to undermine the EU and slow down NATO, and is drawing ever closer to Putin's Russia. This is not only disastrous for Hungary and Europe, it is also deeply insulting for all those Hungarians who suffered the Soviet forced 'friendship', which was in fact an occupation.
Fidesz is now shutting down a University because Putin does not like Soros. Soros uses his private funds to support NGOs to foster balanced journalism, transparency, and to educate people up to US and European standards. CEU is just a much better run University with higher standards than most East-European institutions. Putin hates Soros because many opposition leaders made use of the support of organizations founded by Soros's charities. So, Putin instructed Orban to make the operations of CEU impossible. And Orban, like an overly eager puppy, jumped.
This is the Prime Minister and party which Fischer is excusing.
Wednesday 19 April 2017
Why people leave Hungary
Janos Lazar, one of the leading FIDESZ politicians, offered an explanation of why so many Hungarians left the country in the last 13 years (about 800,000 out of 10.2 millions). According to Lazar people are deceived: they earn more on paper, but actually their quality of life is lower than it would be in Hungary. They can't afford anything and live as wage slaves.
Well, let's have a look at the numbers. I think it would be reasonable to say that Hungarians would be wiser to stay home given three things: the value of their earning would be high in international comparison, they could make savings that would amount to something at national level, and the ratio of their income to the price of consumer goods would be at least as good as in other countries. To find out how Hungary performs in these three respects we will have a look at the average earnings and consumer price indices, looking at data both from the EU, the Hungarian state, and individual business analysts.
Most Hungarians leave for other EU countries like Germany, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK. These are some of the most robust economies of the EU (and the world) and they have managed to regain growth and expand since the crisis. Most of the Hungarians who've left the country are young, speak at least one foreign language well, and a large proportion has University education (a big number are trained nurses, doctors, and engineers with significant work experience too).
What do the numbers tell us then about staying in Hungary?
First earnings: one of the lowest in the EU. The average someone makes in a month after taxes is around 600-650 Euros (£550 or $700). Not a lot. In international comparison it is very little. This means that Hungarian will have difficulties in travelling, doing business internationally, investing, and of course accumulating significant savings.
Here is the official data from the Hungarian Central Statistics Department. Take into account that they actually show higher levels than real earning averages because they don't include people who are on the public-work programme (kozmunka program). They earn only 76% of the minimum wage. Also, pay attention to the huge gap between Budapest and the other regions. Add to this that the top 10% of earners earns about 10x as much as the bottom 30% and you get a very scary picture of what it is like to be poor, working class, or lower working class in Hungary.
What do the consumer price indexes tell? We see that the salaries are about one-third of the EU average, or a little below, and are about 20-25% of that of the more developed EU countries.
Accordingly, prices should also be one fourth, one fifth, to get the same quality of life.
Sadly, that is not the case. The prices in some respects (accommodation) are around half of what they are in West Europe, but everything else is around 60-80% of the prices one pays for goods in Germany, Austria, or the UK. Which means that the average Hungarian can buy one fourth or one fifth of what the average German, Austrian, or Brit can. If the average Hungarian wants to spend more, or has to spend more, than they can't make any savings or get into debt.
This is not very interesting when it comes to clothing or computer games, but when we think of what one's insurance or what treatments one can pay for one's children it becomes very dire and gloomy.
What's the conclusion? Nobody should stay home to make FIDESZ richer. As much as I love and respect Hungary - the universities, the land, the Balaton, the food, my parents, my family, my friends, the amazing literature and art scene, the remarkable health system, the solid school system - at the moment decent lives can be better built abroad. Until the government channels most of the EU development funds into its own pockets, condones corruption, flirts with Russia and curtails rights, demolishes the free media, closes down universities, and goes against civil right groups and punishes refugees instead of helping them, it is not a good place to live.
Well, let's have a look at the numbers. I think it would be reasonable to say that Hungarians would be wiser to stay home given three things: the value of their earning would be high in international comparison, they could make savings that would amount to something at national level, and the ratio of their income to the price of consumer goods would be at least as good as in other countries. To find out how Hungary performs in these three respects we will have a look at the average earnings and consumer price indices, looking at data both from the EU, the Hungarian state, and individual business analysts.
Most Hungarians leave for other EU countries like Germany, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK. These are some of the most robust economies of the EU (and the world) and they have managed to regain growth and expand since the crisis. Most of the Hungarians who've left the country are young, speak at least one foreign language well, and a large proportion has University education (a big number are trained nurses, doctors, and engineers with significant work experience too).
What do the numbers tell us then about staying in Hungary?
First earnings: one of the lowest in the EU. The average someone makes in a month after taxes is around 600-650 Euros (£550 or $700). Not a lot. In international comparison it is very little. This means that Hungarian will have difficulties in travelling, doing business internationally, investing, and of course accumulating significant savings.
Here is the official data from the Hungarian Central Statistics Department. Take into account that they actually show higher levels than real earning averages because they don't include people who are on the public-work programme (kozmunka program). They earn only 76% of the minimum wage. Also, pay attention to the huge gap between Budapest and the other regions. Add to this that the top 10% of earners earns about 10x as much as the bottom 30% and you get a very scary picture of what it is like to be poor, working class, or lower working class in Hungary.
What do the consumer price indexes tell? We see that the salaries are about one-third of the EU average, or a little below, and are about 20-25% of that of the more developed EU countries.
Accordingly, prices should also be one fourth, one fifth, to get the same quality of life.
Sadly, that is not the case. The prices in some respects (accommodation) are around half of what they are in West Europe, but everything else is around 60-80% of the prices one pays for goods in Germany, Austria, or the UK. Which means that the average Hungarian can buy one fourth or one fifth of what the average German, Austrian, or Brit can. If the average Hungarian wants to spend more, or has to spend more, than they can't make any savings or get into debt.
This is not very interesting when it comes to clothing or computer games, but when we think of what one's insurance or what treatments one can pay for one's children it becomes very dire and gloomy.
What's the conclusion? Nobody should stay home to make FIDESZ richer. As much as I love and respect Hungary - the universities, the land, the Balaton, the food, my parents, my family, my friends, the amazing literature and art scene, the remarkable health system, the solid school system - at the moment decent lives can be better built abroad. Until the government channels most of the EU development funds into its own pockets, condones corruption, flirts with Russia and curtails rights, demolishes the free media, closes down universities, and goes against civil right groups and punishes refugees instead of helping them, it is not a good place to live.
Migrant and refugee children forced into prostitution
It had been known now for some time, but this article today in the Guardian calls attention to it again:
Many migrant and refugee children are travelling alone, they are extremely vulnerable, and there are plenty of smugglers as well as locals - in Greece, in Italy, in Hungary, in Serbia, and so on - who take advantage of them. Some of them are forced to have sex, some cajoled into it, some raped, some told to do it to earn money if they want a transport organized to their parents.
The UNHCR (the UN Refugee Agency) also has a longer, detailed report on the issue with all the data. Read it here.
See more in the article here.
To see more info on the issue read a report on the high numbers of disappearing children, even in countries like Germany.
I find it quite disgusting and horrific that while all this happens people like Mr Orban continue to present migrants as some kind of grave danger to us. It is vulnerable people who are at risk and should be helped. Hungary had been urged many times of course to do something about the people stranded on its borders but it blatantly refuses to offer any assistance to anyone.
At the same time Orban's circles are making billions (in Euros) on selling Hungarian citizenship to foreigners from outside the EU. It doesn't matter who you are, for 250,000 you can become a Hungarian (and thus an EU) citizen. The scheme is operated by friends and business partners of Orban and other high ranking FIDESZ politicians (most prominently the very much mafia-boss like Antal Rogan). After much criticism they have halted the programme, but only temporarily. It is of course all legal: FIDESZ uses its two-thirds parliamentary majority to pass laws like this.
Many migrant and refugee children are travelling alone, they are extremely vulnerable, and there are plenty of smugglers as well as locals - in Greece, in Italy, in Hungary, in Serbia, and so on - who take advantage of them. Some of them are forced to have sex, some cajoled into it, some raped, some told to do it to earn money if they want a transport organized to their parents.
The UNHCR (the UN Refugee Agency) also has a longer, detailed report on the issue with all the data. Read it here.
See more in the article here.
To see more info on the issue read a report on the high numbers of disappearing children, even in countries like Germany.
I find it quite disgusting and horrific that while all this happens people like Mr Orban continue to present migrants as some kind of grave danger to us. It is vulnerable people who are at risk and should be helped. Hungary had been urged many times of course to do something about the people stranded on its borders but it blatantly refuses to offer any assistance to anyone.
At the same time Orban's circles are making billions (in Euros) on selling Hungarian citizenship to foreigners from outside the EU. It doesn't matter who you are, for 250,000 you can become a Hungarian (and thus an EU) citizen. The scheme is operated by friends and business partners of Orban and other high ranking FIDESZ politicians (most prominently the very much mafia-boss like Antal Rogan). After much criticism they have halted the programme, but only temporarily. It is of course all legal: FIDESZ uses its two-thirds parliamentary majority to pass laws like this.
Monday 17 April 2017
Hi-Phi nation
Barry Lam has an outstanding podcast on moral aspects of war. Listen here on Hi-Phi nation's website or here.
Interesting, thought provoking, and original!
Interesting, thought provoking, and original!
Saturday 8 April 2017
Why Putin and Xi didn't want Hilary Clinton to get elected
During the US presidential campaign Putin praised Trump, favoured Trump, and supported Trump through the use of the Russian intelligence services. They spread false propaganda. Putin also emphasized - and so did Trump - that they can have a good, peaceful relationship.
At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.
Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?
There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.
This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.
As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.
UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.
At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.
Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?
There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.
This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.
As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.
UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.
The US strikes in Syria
I never thought I would say anything good about Trump but I have to now.
There is conflict in Syria because Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran would all like to be the dominating state in the region and try to carve it up between them. Russia support Iran and Assad, the US backs Saudi Arabia and to some extent Irak, the EU backs to some extent Turkey, and China is stirring the shit in the background. As long as the regional big three - Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran - don't settle things there won't be peace.
However the chemical weapon strike by Assad's troops a few days ago was not a random thing or part of Assad regular plans. Here is why it happened.
The US is trying to maintain the current power balance both in the Middle-East and in the Pacific.
Russia and China don't like this. They would like more power and everything that comes with that: easier and cheaper access to resources, more military influence in the regions, more political influence, less scrutiny into their corruption and despotic acts. And so on.
Russia and China are at the moment working together and concerting their efforts therefore to erode US dominance everywhere. They do this mostly through proxy-states, since at the moment neither Xi, nor Putin want a conflict on their home territory. That would make them unpopular and lead to their losing their might potentially. So they both finance North-Korea who constantly pressures South-Korea and Japan, both US allies. Russia and China must have lent money and technology recently to North-Korea since it suddenly became able to launch very destructive long range rockets. That's a big danger for Japan and the US too.
Xi and Trump will soon meet. They will have a lot to discuss. Trump has a naive vision that he should lead the US into an economic war with China. This would be horrible for both countries, so Xi wants to avoid this. China wants to occupy and claim the whole of the South-China Sea. This is an extremely rich territory in natural resources. Also, a huge part of the world-trade goes through this sea in form of enormous ships. If it is controlled by a single country that country has a lot of power over everyone else in the world, because everyone is trading. At the moment the South China Sea is international waters. No single country controls it, and there are international contracts that enable everyone to use it. China wants to occupy it, the US wants to push back. China would also like to occupy Taiwan. Taiwan is an independent country, but it is in a strategically very important location in the sea, not too far from China. If it is not a part of China, it can be an enemy of China and China doesn't like this at the moment. The US is happy to have a neutral country near the Chinese border because it keeps China on its toes. It doesn't want China to occupy the island. And there are plenty more issues.
Trump has a very big mouth. He has been very verbal about doing big things. None of it has happened. Xi and Putin wanted to test whether Trump has any balls when it comes to military threats. They wanted to see whether they can put pressure on him if they take some actual military action. Will Trump again just talk but not do anything and shrink from retaliation, as he did on a host of other issues?
That is why North-Korea suddenly acquired the capabiltiy to fire long range rockets. And that is why there was suddenly a horrible chemical attack on civilians and on opposers of Assad in Syria. These were ways for Russia and China to test Trump without getting into a new conflict. They could also mask these questions easily as movements in already ongoing conflicts.
Why I was surprised was this: Trump was earlier very verbal about cutting back on military spending and being friendly with Russia. Standing up to Russia was a smart move in this case. No doubt, it wasn't Trump's idea. Why I'm still glad is because he listened to his more talented military and foreign policy advisors.
Why was it a good idea to demolish some Syrian military capability? Because it shows that the US is willing to engage in a counterstrike if Russia or China (or their proxies, North-Korea or Syria) make nasty moves.
Trump also has his own agenda: his dangerous and corrupt Russian ties have been exposed. He hopes that this strike will make people think that he can't be a friend of Russia, if he was willing to order a strike on Syria. Of course the strike means nothing like this in real life. Before the rockets hit the airbase the Syrians and Russians were informed of the attack and they could move out. It was also only one of several well equipped military air bases. Russia is still operating in the region without any issues. Still, some not well informed people will believe that Trump is some kind of hero, that he has integrity and he isn't compromised by Russian ties. He is. But at least he listened to his advisors and stood up to the pressure of Russia and China in this case.
This means that in the Xi-Trump talks Xi will have to be less brazen and more careful.
There is conflict in Syria because Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran would all like to be the dominating state in the region and try to carve it up between them. Russia support Iran and Assad, the US backs Saudi Arabia and to some extent Irak, the EU backs to some extent Turkey, and China is stirring the shit in the background. As long as the regional big three - Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran - don't settle things there won't be peace.
However the chemical weapon strike by Assad's troops a few days ago was not a random thing or part of Assad regular plans. Here is why it happened.
The US is trying to maintain the current power balance both in the Middle-East and in the Pacific.
Russia and China don't like this. They would like more power and everything that comes with that: easier and cheaper access to resources, more military influence in the regions, more political influence, less scrutiny into their corruption and despotic acts. And so on.
Russia and China are at the moment working together and concerting their efforts therefore to erode US dominance everywhere. They do this mostly through proxy-states, since at the moment neither Xi, nor Putin want a conflict on their home territory. That would make them unpopular and lead to their losing their might potentially. So they both finance North-Korea who constantly pressures South-Korea and Japan, both US allies. Russia and China must have lent money and technology recently to North-Korea since it suddenly became able to launch very destructive long range rockets. That's a big danger for Japan and the US too.
Xi and Trump will soon meet. They will have a lot to discuss. Trump has a naive vision that he should lead the US into an economic war with China. This would be horrible for both countries, so Xi wants to avoid this. China wants to occupy and claim the whole of the South-China Sea. This is an extremely rich territory in natural resources. Also, a huge part of the world-trade goes through this sea in form of enormous ships. If it is controlled by a single country that country has a lot of power over everyone else in the world, because everyone is trading. At the moment the South China Sea is international waters. No single country controls it, and there are international contracts that enable everyone to use it. China wants to occupy it, the US wants to push back. China would also like to occupy Taiwan. Taiwan is an independent country, but it is in a strategically very important location in the sea, not too far from China. If it is not a part of China, it can be an enemy of China and China doesn't like this at the moment. The US is happy to have a neutral country near the Chinese border because it keeps China on its toes. It doesn't want China to occupy the island. And there are plenty more issues.
Trump has a very big mouth. He has been very verbal about doing big things. None of it has happened. Xi and Putin wanted to test whether Trump has any balls when it comes to military threats. They wanted to see whether they can put pressure on him if they take some actual military action. Will Trump again just talk but not do anything and shrink from retaliation, as he did on a host of other issues?
That is why North-Korea suddenly acquired the capabiltiy to fire long range rockets. And that is why there was suddenly a horrible chemical attack on civilians and on opposers of Assad in Syria. These were ways for Russia and China to test Trump without getting into a new conflict. They could also mask these questions easily as movements in already ongoing conflicts.
Why I was surprised was this: Trump was earlier very verbal about cutting back on military spending and being friendly with Russia. Standing up to Russia was a smart move in this case. No doubt, it wasn't Trump's idea. Why I'm still glad is because he listened to his more talented military and foreign policy advisors.
Why was it a good idea to demolish some Syrian military capability? Because it shows that the US is willing to engage in a counterstrike if Russia or China (or their proxies, North-Korea or Syria) make nasty moves.
Trump also has his own agenda: his dangerous and corrupt Russian ties have been exposed. He hopes that this strike will make people think that he can't be a friend of Russia, if he was willing to order a strike on Syria. Of course the strike means nothing like this in real life. Before the rockets hit the airbase the Syrians and Russians were informed of the attack and they could move out. It was also only one of several well equipped military air bases. Russia is still operating in the region without any issues. Still, some not well informed people will believe that Trump is some kind of hero, that he has integrity and he isn't compromised by Russian ties. He is. But at least he listened to his advisors and stood up to the pressure of Russia and China in this case.
This means that in the Xi-Trump talks Xi will have to be less brazen and more careful.
The larger game
At any given time several large political, economic, and military contests are going on. These are driven by powerful people and the employees who serve them without questioning their goals. Some people say that America or Israel is driving conflicts.
The truth is this: America and Israel are driving conflicts. And so is Russia, so is China, so is Iran, so is Turkey, so is the UK, so is Saudi Arabia, and so is a host of other countries. If the US and Israel would not do anything, others would. We would see an even more aggressive Russia, and an even more aggressive and assertive China.
This does not morally or politically excuse any of the horrible things the US military and secret services, or the Israeli military services did in the last decades. It just serves to clarify, that there is a legitimate and necessary push-back against other countries that are just as aggressive.
Also, it is not news that there are conflicts. Conflicts are also there. It is just that the average person only learns about them when the tension becomes so high as in the case of North-Korea at the moment.
The truth is this: America and Israel are driving conflicts. And so is Russia, so is China, so is Iran, so is Turkey, so is the UK, so is Saudi Arabia, and so is a host of other countries. If the US and Israel would not do anything, others would. We would see an even more aggressive Russia, and an even more aggressive and assertive China.
This does not morally or politically excuse any of the horrible things the US military and secret services, or the Israeli military services did in the last decades. It just serves to clarify, that there is a legitimate and necessary push-back against other countries that are just as aggressive.
Also, it is not news that there are conflicts. Conflicts are also there. It is just that the average person only learns about them when the tension becomes so high as in the case of North-Korea at the moment.
Break
I took a longer break from blogging. I did this mainly for two reasons.
One was that I simply did not want to write about Trump. Everyone writing about Trump during the election was basically advertising him. As we now see, all that advertisement was advertisement for a lot of hot air. A big nothing. No policy, no knowledge, no directions, no performance. It doesn't matter anymore. The idiot is in the house, in the chair. Let's hope he gets impeached soon, or otherwise becomes incapable of going on.
The other was that Brexit was still hanging in the air, there was still hope that some preliminary positive agreements would be put in place between May's 'dazed and confused' government and the very calm and calculative EU leadership. Sadly, this did not happen. May drove the car full speed against the wall. We will see how things go from now. Not much can be known at the moment, so I do not see any good reason either to panic or to confuse people.
The following is imperative:
Stay calm. Things are NEVER as bad as politicians would like you to believe. Like any manager, politicians are trying to sell ideas and push them through. Then they claim credit for the changes they made. Most things are going OK in the world, and smart people are working on the ones which aren't (disease, illness, inequality, education, etc.). Politicians stir up shit to create an opportunity to rise and shine. They create most of the problems and issues that they claim only they can solve. So they can claim credit and cement their rule. This happens in the US, in Russia, in China, in Africa, and elsewhere. For example see the UK, where this artificial-shit-storm-mongering created a change in the political leadership, or Hungary, where Orban's authoritarian government is still using the migrant issue to create panic and rally its supporters.
We need to stay calm. We need to send the politicians who try to drive us into wars to prison. We need to kick those out who make us believe that it's rational that the rich shouldn't pay more taxes, but the poor should, and social services should be cut too. These people are doing a bad job.
We need to keep our calm and our cool heads to organize kicking them out and keeping them under check. Everywhere. Whether you read this in Zimbabwe, in Peru, in Afghanistan, in Chile, in Austria, Saudi Arabia, in Finland, in China, in Myanmar, in the US: it doesn't matter. Organize, and keep your politicians, your military leaders, and your top managers under check. Create unions, reading groups, parties. Invite researchers - not hacks, not journalists, not 'public speakers', not think tank people. Invite the researchers who are publicly funded and publish everything in journals that can be publicly accesses. They are the people doing an honest job, giving their years and name to what they do.
Keep calm. Don't fall for the propaganda. It is not the US that is evil. Not Russia. Not China. Not Syria. The average person doesn't want to do any harm, nor does he or she care about others in other countries. The average person wants to go on in a decent life. It is the power-crazy brutal loonies who are the real danger. Not that minority your local MP accuses. Not that other religion your imam is warning you about. Not people who like something else in sex or in love. It is the corrupt and greedy leaders and their henchman, those serving them.
One was that I simply did not want to write about Trump. Everyone writing about Trump during the election was basically advertising him. As we now see, all that advertisement was advertisement for a lot of hot air. A big nothing. No policy, no knowledge, no directions, no performance. It doesn't matter anymore. The idiot is in the house, in the chair. Let's hope he gets impeached soon, or otherwise becomes incapable of going on.
The other was that Brexit was still hanging in the air, there was still hope that some preliminary positive agreements would be put in place between May's 'dazed and confused' government and the very calm and calculative EU leadership. Sadly, this did not happen. May drove the car full speed against the wall. We will see how things go from now. Not much can be known at the moment, so I do not see any good reason either to panic or to confuse people.
The following is imperative:
Stay calm. Things are NEVER as bad as politicians would like you to believe. Like any manager, politicians are trying to sell ideas and push them through. Then they claim credit for the changes they made. Most things are going OK in the world, and smart people are working on the ones which aren't (disease, illness, inequality, education, etc.). Politicians stir up shit to create an opportunity to rise and shine. They create most of the problems and issues that they claim only they can solve. So they can claim credit and cement their rule. This happens in the US, in Russia, in China, in Africa, and elsewhere. For example see the UK, where this artificial-shit-storm-mongering created a change in the political leadership, or Hungary, where Orban's authoritarian government is still using the migrant issue to create panic and rally its supporters.
We need to stay calm. We need to send the politicians who try to drive us into wars to prison. We need to kick those out who make us believe that it's rational that the rich shouldn't pay more taxes, but the poor should, and social services should be cut too. These people are doing a bad job.
We need to keep our calm and our cool heads to organize kicking them out and keeping them under check. Everywhere. Whether you read this in Zimbabwe, in Peru, in Afghanistan, in Chile, in Austria, Saudi Arabia, in Finland, in China, in Myanmar, in the US: it doesn't matter. Organize, and keep your politicians, your military leaders, and your top managers under check. Create unions, reading groups, parties. Invite researchers - not hacks, not journalists, not 'public speakers', not think tank people. Invite the researchers who are publicly funded and publish everything in journals that can be publicly accesses. They are the people doing an honest job, giving their years and name to what they do.
Keep calm. Don't fall for the propaganda. It is not the US that is evil. Not Russia. Not China. Not Syria. The average person doesn't want to do any harm, nor does he or she care about others in other countries. The average person wants to go on in a decent life. It is the power-crazy brutal loonies who are the real danger. Not that minority your local MP accuses. Not that other religion your imam is warning you about. Not people who like something else in sex or in love. It is the corrupt and greedy leaders and their henchman, those serving them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)