Rising military budgets in the US, China and Japan

Several Western news resources like to announce in their titles that China or that Japan has raised their military budget again. They make it sound as if these countries would be getting ready for war (it is always left open with whom). But this is a mistaken impression they create. The news are not fake: usually the data is in the articles. However, the tone of titles and their wording is obviously misleading. And the data is usually not presented in comparison with relevant trends and info, so it looks scarier than it is.

So, some basic numbers. Most of the following come from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) which is nicely compiled on wikipedia, and also links to the original.

Biggest spenders
At the moment the biggest spender is the US, the second is China, third Saudi Arabia, followed by Russia in the fourth place. Then we have India, the UK, France, and Japan in the 8th place. Germany and South Korea make up the top ten.

GDP relative spending
In terms of GDP the US and China are the biggest economies in the world. Japan follows in the third place, Germany fourth. So Japan and Germany place much further back, they spend much less relative to what they have, than many other countries.

To look at some numbers

the US spends 3.1% of its GDP
China 1.9%
Saudi Arabia 10%
Russia 4.3%
India 2.5%
UK 1.8%
Japan 0.9%
Germany 1.2%

This indicates which countries place a huge emphasis on developing and maintaining their military strength.
It is of course influenced
1) by how risky the country's environment is (but then Japan's should be much higher of course),
2) by how big the country's GDP is (the UK's 1.8% is just a bit bigger than Japan's 0.9% for example), and
3) by local prices (China can pay much less for most military personnel and products because labour costs are lower and many corporations are fully or partially state owned).

Political factors

In some cases the spending is just defense oriented, in some cases it is upkeep and development oriented, and in some cases it is potentially (or very likely) aggression oriented.
For example much of Germany's spending simply goes to upkeep. Japan is developing a good deal this year, but this is mostly defense oriented: since China and Russia, its giant neighbours, are upgrading and developing their military very fast Japan needs to spend on defense. The USA, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are developing attacking capabilities, spending great amounts on research and new weapons (both development and purchasing).
Of course all countries look at their own safety, but with some we also know that they have territorial ambitions (China has asserted its claim to Taiwan and the South-China sea, so its preparing to fight if others don't simply allow it to capture those territories).

Real terms
It is also important to look at spending in real terms. That is, how much actual money has been spent. The top three are the US, China and Saudi Arabia.

The US has spent 610 billion US dollars (same for all others: billion USD)
China 228
Saudi Arabia 69.4
Russia 66.3
India 66.9
France 57.8
UK 47.2
Japan 45.4
Germany 44.3
South Korea 39.2

In this light we can see that the US surpasses by far all of the others. However its forces are spread out all over the world. China's and Russia forces, although seemingly cheaper, are much more concentrated which might mean that they are stronger in some locations.

It is also telling that the three biggest Europeans don't spend together as much as China.

Japan doesn't spend much more than South-Korea and already that is controversial with voters and opposition politicians. Both Japan and South-Korea have US forces stationed within their borders and could - hopefully, but who knows with Trump - count on the US's support in case of aggression. Still, one wonders whether they shouldn't build up their own, homegrown industry more in the current climate of an expansionist China, and an assertive Russia.

Rise in budgets year on year

This is important because it shows how much need the countries see there is for development. This can reflect worries about their neighbours or rivals, as well as intentions to turn to the offensive.

I didn't look that much into the data on this front but the numbers on the US, China and Japan have been much commented on, so it is easy to have. Again, it is characteristic of reporting that the enormous raise in the US budget is discussed, but usually in fairly realistic terms. I think this is fair, given that the US is in a competition for hegemony in many areas with Russia, China, in West-Asia, in the Arctic, and increasingly also in Africa. This might be morally wrong - as most military building is - but strategically necessary - because if the US would behave better that wouldn't mean the two other superpowers would stop misbehaving.

Anyway, the reported number is 10%, which is "huge" as one guy likes to say.

The reporting on China and Japan has, as usual, been much more alarmist. The funny thing is that both follow trends and both could be anticipated, so, shouldn't be very surprising. Also, from a strategic point of view maybe the Japanese budget doesn't make that much sense - why don't they increase a lot more!? - but the political situation and Japan's foreign policy makes sense of this too - Japan places emphasis on international law, economic relations and rejects employing offensive weapon system, despite all the panic and fear mongering to the contrary that we saw in the Chinese and US media. (The Guardian published a refreshingly well-contextualised short piece on this one.)


China's spending is now officially around 175 billion USD but expert estimate it to be around 225-230b USD actually. Sadly their budget is notoriously secretive. Not even citizens can access it.
This means a raise of 8.1% from last year's spending.

China likes to point out that in terms of GDP their spending has been decreasing. This is just smokescreening of course: its true, but the real numbers, the actual amount has still been rising fast, since the economy grew so much in the last 30 years.

This is in line with their enormous military capability build up. We see that China is getting bolder and bolder. Earlier its goal was just to have sufficient defense against its immediate neighbours (India, Russia). Recently it also tries to dominate its smaller neighbours (Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand) and threaten seriously Japan and South-Korea. It also asserted that it claims Taiwan and the South-China Sea, so, it needs to be able to deny access to these areas to the US military stationed in East- and South-East Asia, and it also needs to be able to counter a possible reclaiming attack. The numbers make sense in this light. Of course that they make sense doesn't mean that they are morally or politically encouraging. China is on the road to aggression under Xi's leadership, and this should worry all of us. Maybe a leadership change would help.

Japan's spending was raised by 2.5%. Yup, this is what the big excitement is about. (Up next! Another RECORD setting 2.1% raise is in line! Notice that almost all the titles use the word 'record. I know its a hard fight out there for readers but this is just ridiculous.) This is in line with their policy to pursue diplomacy and rely on the international legal tools and organizations rather than military pressure. Japan has been following this policy coherently since the end of WWII, so for more than 70 years. Abe is possibly the most hawkish and influential prime minister since the 1960s and still, Japan didn't turn into an aggressor, no matter how much the Chinese media would like to portray him like that. And of course the Japanese spending is still eminently transparent, as it should be in a democracy.

So, think a bit, look into the context and don't judge too quickly when you see a title and a few numbers. Yes, there are rising tensions, yes there is a buildup. But no, no one is going to jump against the others' throat in the next year or two, and no, Japan is not turning into an imperialist superpower again. China is still a long way from contesting US dominance on a global scale, but it can do this already in the local theatre of operations (or war, if there will be one). Russia maintains high spending, Saudi Arabia is building up like crazy, and Europe is maintaining a sensible apparatus.

Interesting developments in Turkey and Europe

The Turkey-Trump brawl might have a good outcome for the EU

Turkey got into a huge trade brawl with the US (or rather: with Trump). It is seeing some bad consequences of this at the moment. However it is a big and robust economy so this might not stick.

Behind Trump's warlike attitude to trade there is another reason for him to target Turkey. In the Middle-East/West-Asian region Saudi Arabia is the most powerful ally and proxy of the US (besides Israel), Iran is the key partner of Russia. Turkey is a regional competitor for the Saudis, Israel, and Iran. And it has several conflicts of interests with Russia. Trump coordinates several of his movements with Russia now. One of Trump's aims is to weaken the EU. He is afraid of a strong and well-coordinated EU policy that he can't push around easily so he is trying to weaken the bloc in every way he can (that's the same strategy that Putin and Xi Jinping are pursuing).

Attacking Turkey, which is usually aligning with the EU on global scale issues is one way of doing this. Turkey is now in a difficult position. The president, Erdogan has made several political, legal, economic, and military moves which make the EU distrustful of him. The population of the EU in general has a strongly negative opinion of him and his government. So, he is in a hard position when needs help and financial support. In the long run of course it is not in the EU's interest to lose one of their key allies in the region, or to see them destabilised.

However, Trump's push might also come in handy for the EU. Challenging Erdogan proved to be a hard task so far since Turkey is big enough and Erdogan popular enough not to have to rely on the EU too much in the short run. The joint US-Russian pressure on Turkey might weaken it enough to prompt Erdogan seek EU favour and support and to be willing to give up some of his prerogatives. The EU shouldn't give in at that point. If Erdogan becomes unpopular enough and he can be removed so much the better for Turkey and for the EU. In the long run this could get Erdogan out of the way and enable transition to a more democratic, transparent legal governance in Turkey. That would be a wonderful result. Trump inadvertently might enable this.

Saudi meddling and flexing against democratic countries

The EU has a tough time due to what is called the 'migration crisis'. In reality there isn't any crisis. Criminal statistics didn't become much worse. Most criminals are still homegrown, even in France or Germany. The US right wing propaganda machine tried to cook up some stories of doom but they have been debunked in every case easily.

The interesting aspect of migration is not that it caused any serious problem. It didn't.

The interesting aspect is that it gave ammunition to EU skeptics to create a hot-issue out of a non-issue. It also provides ammunition to enemies of Europe, like the US, Russia, China, and less often mentioned but just as important: the West-Asian and Middle-Eastern countries. The chief among these are of course Iran and the Saudis. They are enemies on several fronts, but weakening Europe is a goal for both of them.

There has been a steady influx of money and intellectual support for right wing radicals and euroskeptics like Nigel Farage, Marie LePen, and Viktor Orban. These people are criticising migration while benefiting from dirty oil money. A sad state of affairs.

Saudi Arabia is also trying to flex and meddle in the larger games. The last instance of this came previous week: they jailed another human rights activist. As usual, they did so on the grounds of some ridiculous charge. Canada raised its voice. The Saudi's are now threatening to push back with severe economic retaliation.

Canada and Australia as countries with relatively smaller population are sensing a danger that the US and the EU is mostly trying to neglect now: that a large Chinese investment and the need to cooperate with Middle-East/West-Asia brings with it a lot of political pressure. These countries try to gain political legitimacy for their flawed, dictatorial autocracies in exchange for investments. Of course compromising the workings and institutional system of one's democratic country in exchange of short term benefits is horribly short sighted. But we see this plenty of times in case of the US and EU countries. Canada and Australia are already under more pressure and have luckily chosen to push back. Sadly some money-eyed people are too happy to give up on any values quickly.

It is remarkable that the US didn't support Canada. It shows that Trump doesn't care about human rights, and the US in general wants to keep Saudi Arabia as a partner in the region to pin down its weight in the long run against the aggressive Russian proxies and the encroaching Chinese.

The Saudis are enjoying this change of approach from their US supporters - Obama was much stricter regarding such issues, at least in his rhetoric if not in deeds - and are now testing the waters further. They don't even shy away from spreading outright lies. Is anyone going to raise their voice in defense of the Canadian side? Or are democratic countries now too afraid that if they are critical cronies like the Saudis will turn to the Russian or the Chinese?

It seems that so far except of some international organisations everyone is keeping their mouth shut. The Saudis have oil, have money, and have a very large modern army too.

The sad thing is that being amicable with them and refraining from calling out their inhuman and backwards laws will not benefit anyone. If Russia or China pays more they will work with them. The EU and the US are fooled, as they have been several times in the last years. Instead of standing up for good things, they are too conciliatory for gains which will not materialise.

The Saudis are using the same kind of illegal play in stoking fears about migration to raise skepticism about the effectiveness of the EU, thereby damaging the unity of Europe, and making it easier for them to pressure countries in one-on-one deals and relations.

Its just gonna get worse. The US is getting panicky under Trump. There is no long term vision just imminent action. Who knows what the consequences will be. The EU is still not nearly as unified as it should be.

Our new feudal realms - part 1

Two years ago I wrote a post that showed how we are lapsing back into feudalism. Extremely wealthy elites of professional, life-long reigning politicians and born-rich business and land owners have an enormous influence. They decide what happens in politics. These people are not members of a single nation. There are rather interests groups of them who work together. There are a few such groups in the US, in China, in the EU, in Russia and in most countries.

These people have figured out how to exploit democratic institutions for their own purposes. They rely on expert PR teams, lobbyists, spin doctors, rich supporters who own media outlets and links with the military. Most of these folks are motivated by money, or by ambition, or by a belief that they are the best for the world. Or a mixture of these. None of these delusions are true.

 

Some evidence would be nice you say?

China made Xi Jinping lifelong head of the party and the country. This is tragic. China was in a chaotic and exploited situation at the end of the imperial system around 1910. The abolishing of the old system was followed by almost 40 years of bloody civil wars between local warlords, strongmen, the communists, and the republicans. The British, the French, the Americans, the Russians, German, Dutch, and the Japanese all used this upheaval to push their influence on the country.
Maybe China went then the right way, maybe it didn't. But at least it abolished the single-person rule system, it became a strong free state, and had decent, stable government. The lack of human rights, of free speech, of accountability and transparency is tragic and horrible, as is police and party brutality. Add to this military aggression. Still, for the average Chinese citizen things were better than before.
This period is over. The country is back to the old system. Communism effectively was turned into a one-person lad dictatorship again. A sad, tragic story for a great country and people.

Turkey's democracy got gutted by Erdogan and his cronies. This process took place in front of our eyes, it is well documented and understood. Again, a sad end to a promising path to a country that was a much freer state 20 years ago than it is today.

Putin holds Russia firmly in his hands and showed in several state orchestrated cases against influential business and media actors that he is not afraid to use the whole state machinery to take anyone down opposing his circles.

Trump said several times that he is looking up to Putin and Xi as successful, respectable leaders.

And Orban in Hungary is the prime example of someone deconstructing the democratic state at light speed in order to establish himself and his family at the centre of the state permanently. Other anti-democratic leaders or would be leaders in the EU are dreaming of the same - most notably in Poland - but have been kept in check so far by the other countries and their own population. It seems that only the Hungarians, who have suffered from a semi-feudal monarchic systems inequalities until WWII - are foolish enough to choose returning to the old system, instead of trying to make democracy work.

We will soon find ourselves again as peasants and servants. In a world run by aristocrats and kings.

 

Vincent Van Gogh, Femme semant/Peasant Woman Sowing with a Basket (1881)

Why Japan does not need to and should not apologize anymore for WWII deeds

1. No other states - except Germany - do this. The USA, Russia, China, France, the UK, Belgium and several other countries which are or have in the past committed aggression, genocide, civilian killings, colonization and other horrors have never and are never going to apologize

2. Japan has apologized already more than 10 times. See the list here.

3. No matter how many times Japan would apologize other states would find some fault with the apology. China and South-Korea usually claim that the apology isn't honest or bicker about some detail. They don't do this because the governments and foreign ministries of these countries honestly think that the apology is no good. They do this because being able to bash another country is a strong diplomatic tool. These countries - and many other economic rivals of Japan - try to make Japan look bad so that they can use this as a leverage in economic and trade talks, competition, and so on. No matter how many times and how precisely Japan would apologize, politicians who are leading countries that compete with Japan would always find fault with the apology.

4. Japan has more than atoned for its wartime aggression and crimes. It has been firebombed for years by the USA and all its major cities and a large part of its civilian population has been killed. Russia occupied some of its territory, and the US is effectively still in Japan with its military. Both Russia and the US often use this to pressure the Japanese government to this day. Japan has paid large amounts in compensation to most states it has formerly occupied and assisted them with technology and training (this is something that even the Chinese government has admitted).

5. China, the US, Russia, France, the UK, and several other states are or have waged many aggressive wars since the end of WWII. China has occupied other countries, Russia went to war with Georgia (Gruzia), Chechnya, Afghanistan, and has occupied - through the Soviet Union - the larger part of East- and Central-Europe for a good 45 years, the US is constantly waging war in West-Asia and the Middle-East, and has interfered countless times in Central- and South-America, not to mention Southeast-Asia. In contrast since WWII Japan doesn't have attacking forces, only self-defense forces with limited attacking capabilities. It hasn't engaged in aggression against any country.

6. There is no intention on Japan's part for any aggression. While it is obvious that several countries - China, the US, Russia, and others - are planning or preparing for further aggression, there is no evidence of any such intent on Japan's part. Some alarmists and propaganda journalists are yelling because Japan is developing its military capabilities now. The fact is that Japan's military spending is still far below that of its neighbours. Its military today is far smaller and weaker than that of China, Russia or the US. Japan is perfectly justified in developing its military for defense purposes because its sitting geographically between the three largest and most aggressive political and military powers of the world. In fact, in my opinion, they would be mad not to do so. Any military improvement today occurs in an entirely different political and military environment from the early 20th century.

7. The Japanese who were the leaders of the country before and during WWII are long dead. More than 900 of them were executed after WWII and tens of thousands imprisoned and banned from public life. The two generations of Japanese since then are very openly peaceful, have several times resisted even mild military improvements, and are committed to keeping Japan a peaceful country.

8. Contrary to popular international propaganda most people in Japan do know and study about war crimes committed by the Japanese army. Journalists and other Japan-bashers love to highlight that there are textbooks which downplay these events or only mention them in the passing. There are three major problems with this A) They never compare whether they own country's textbooks discuss any of the atrocities committed in their histories. B) They never mention that in Japan schools and teachers can decide which textbook they want to use and there is a market with at least 7-9 approved titles. The majority of students use books which discuss these events, include photographs and explanations. (See Akiko Hashimoto's The Long Defeat for a good overview. While her presentation of the material is excellent, she sadly draws mistaken conclusions from it, because she doesn't take the competitive political and military environment of the region into account.) C) These critics think that because the Japanese media and people in general don't discuss things in the manner in which Americans do - loud talking, lots of emotional debates on news programmes, etc. - people don't think or don't have an opinion about these things. In fact most Japanese do, and they reject very strongly what the Imperial Army did. That is one of the main reasons why for example the Japanese research community is not cooperating with the army, contrary to what we see at the moment in China or the US.

This is all perfectly compatible with keeping in mind and recognizing that the Japanese state and army, and many individuals, committed horrible things during and before WWII. This should be remembered, taught in schools and discussed. But, it should not define Japan's relation with its neighbours, its current reputation, its self-image or its future. At the moment the biggest problems plaguing Japan are the ongoing American meddling and quasi-military influence over it, China's growing aggression both in political, military and economic terms, and internal problems, like population decline and lagging international competitiveness of businesses, as well as inadequate social services support for young families.

Chinese citizens would do well to look at what their government is doing. Whenever any state pushes strong propaganda against another, the chances are good that it is actually only to hide something that they themselves have done. When the Chinese government bashes Japan, there is almost surely something going wrong at home. People need a distraction. China and Japan have a long political relationship which was mostly peaceful during the last 1500 years. Usually China was the stronger and more aggressive power, and Japan was during several periods a tributary of China's. There is no reason why a peaceful existence based on trade, law and cooperation - as Japan currently envisions it - could not work perfectly today. This is the real interest of China too.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Masuji Ibuse's 'Black Rain'

I've just finished Masuji Ibuse's 1969 novel Black Rain. It is an excellent novel. It presents the story of a small family from a village near to Hiroshima a few years after the atomic bomb was dropped on the city. The tone is - as in several the works of many Japanese writers - very matter of fact, and giving a good feel of the character of the storyteller, Shigematsu Shizuma. Despite the sometimes dry tone in which what was seen is recounted, Shigematsu's genuine concern for friends and family shines true at the important points. Ibuse's book offers some very dramatic turns which can be felt in full force. It is emotionally moving, and tragic.

It mainly deals with how radiation effect crept up years after the bombing on many of those who thought they would be fine, they would survive. It was interesting to read the book in the same year as Svetlana Alexievich's Chernobyl Prayer. Both books tell stories of loss, of patriotic or nationalistic feeling that motivated people to help and work among the debris of nuclear catastrophes, and the tragedy of not knowing what they were dealing with. At the time the nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese - including doctors - had no idea about the effects of radiation, and at the time of the Chernobyl catastrophe the masses of people living in the regions affected, as well as those who were sent there for relief work were kept in the dark about those effects. Both books tell about much suffering, but also about remarkable cases of community spirit and a feeling of belonging to the places, even after they have been affected by catastrophes. Of course the Japanese - with the help of the U.S. - dealt with Hiroshima and Nagasaki following the war was very different from the way in which Moscov - and Belarus and the Ukraine - handled the consequences of Chernobyl.

Ibuse's book mentions criticisms of the Japanese Imperial government, army, and navy only in a very subdued way. It is hard to guess today whether this is a literary tool employed by the writer to express that people were genuinely afraid to criticise the leadership and the army, even at the end of the war, or simply a reluctance to engage in such criticism when he wrote the book. What makes the former interpretation more likely is that in some places in the novel there is a marked contrast of descriptions of malpractice, mistreatment of civilians and soldiers by the military, still people who are obviously aware of the ridiculousness of what was going on are silent. The horrible plans of the army to arm all civilians to defend Japan against the invasion of the U.S. forces is mentioned in several places - in no way favourably -, also showing that there were people who genuinely believed - or at least talked as if they would believe - in such policies.

The book is another great argument for never again wanting a war and strictly keeping away from using nuclear weapons ever, in any situation. This makes it an especially relevant book to debates today, when the Russian military publicized in the last years that it carried out practices for scenarios of nuclear strikes against European targets, and where the false rumour was spread that the U.S. was threatening Russia with a nuclear war (this is supposed to have been averted by the election of Trump).

Russia is obviously at a point where it is under huge international pressure, and it Putin, his government, and his generals are willing to go to great lengths. Novels like Ibuse's and Alexievich's can help people understand in Russia, the U.S. and everywhere else, that threatening with nuclear strikes is a horrible thing to do, and any use of atomic bombs that affects civilians is a terrible crime. Tension and Russian propaganda need to be defused. Merkel and Obama have gone to great lengths to achieve this. However, Putin is willing to risk much, and Trump is fool enough - so it seems at the moment - to go along with his games.

You can read a review of Black Rain from The Japan Times here.

On the Trump presidency

Some articles (like this one in The Independent and this one in The Washington Post) mention two possibilities:

1. That Trump might not be as hot-headed and aggressive as he acted in his campaign, and that
2. a Trump presidency might be better for international military politics, because Trump said that he would be reluctant to wage wars if they are costly, or to defend allies if they don't pay towards their defense.

Both of these ideas are mistaken and there is no reason for hope and optimism.

With concern to 1.: The question is not whether Trump might be more sensible than the way he made himself look in his campaign. The question is if there is any good reason to think that is more sensible. There isn't. He was consistently haphazard, offensive, chaotic, unprepared, and unprofessional.

With concern to 2.: I've read in many places that Trump wants to talk to Putin and that is a good thing. Saying this makes it obvious that many - even intelligent - people believe that the U.S. administration and military is not maintaining constant close discussions on many topics with Russia. This is of course a false idea. Russia and the U.S. don't collide on many issues because they don't communicate.
Also, people who think that when Trump said he would talk with Russia that was a considered, serious thing haven't listened to his other ideas. He is just sputtering populist phrases. Whatever works at the moment. He knows as much about strategy, military issues, and economic competition with Russia as about other topics: next to nothing. As soon as he is seriously briefed and informed, if he even understands what he is being told, which is not sure, he might change his mind.

The same is the case concerning his ideas that the U.S. shouldn't offer defense arrangements for Japan, South-Korea and the Philippines. There are three enormous confusions here:
i) the U.S. does not offer defense. Japan had to accept that the U.S. military is stationed there at the end of the occupation following WWII. South-Korea had to accept the troops after the Korean war. The Philippines used to be a de facto U.S. colony. Also, Japan and South-Korea pay huge amounts towards the maintenance of the bases that the U.S. troops are using and towards the costs of the U.S. military.
Third, it is far from obvious that these countries really wanted the U.S. to station their troops there. That the U.S. is there ensures that these countries collide in their diplomacy with their other neighbours, Russia and China. If the U.S. troops would not be there these countries would have much more space for diplomatic manouvering and for looking out for their own interests. It is however part of the U.S. position that there can't be any powerful opponents on its borders. Canada and Mexico are no threats, across the Atlantic is a bloc of NATO countries, and Japan and South-Korea, as well as the Philippines form a big buffer zone between the U.S. and China. If the U.S. does not want to change its major defense policies it won't give up on these alliances.

Hence, there are no good reasons to be optimistic about Trump's presidency if he goes through with anything he has said.

The second Clinton-Trump debate...

...reminded me a lot of some of the biggest debates in our elementary schools.

The level at which foreign and military policy were discussed would make any 7 year old proud.

Putin's nuclear threat to the West

It is a well known fact, publicized by Russian newspapers and confirmed by the Russian military, that Russia is regularly exercising and planning for the offensive use of nuclear weapons in Western Europe, as well against the US.

But then of course there are people who publish this and similar stuff on 9GAG and other social sites:

 

I think what this meme is expresses is perfectly right in one sense: no sane, average civilian wants to nuke any other country. The average Joe, Sara, Teju, or Zoltan wakes up, goes to work, cares and worries for and about her or his family, friends, kids, health, house, hobbies, interests, and job. No normal person wakes up and thinks: 'Oh, gosh, I sure hope today my country's military kills, debilitates, and ruins the lives of tens of thousands of foreigners!'

On the other hand it is not true that no Russian - or for that matter that no Chinese or US - higher ups entertain such ideas. And it is partly our duty as citizens of a given country to oust politicians, administrators, and military leaders who are willing to go down such ways. No other country's civilians can do that instead of us, and if we don't do it we can't blame anyone else. The average, normal people in Russia, China, and the US, and in other countries, have to ensure that their countries work properly. One has to engage with politics, most importantly READ about it serious books and papers not just internet crap, write about it, think about it, talk about it, and if needed go out to the streets, go to the parliament, stage protests, throw eggs at politicians and so on.

Elected people can go berserk, and elections can go wrong. We need to make sure that loonies such as Trump, or tyrants such a Putin, or his pet-wanna-be-dictator Orban don't get into power, and even if they do they don't get the license to do anything their whims drive them to.

UPDATE: This piece on the issue just confirms and supports with more references what I have been saying.

Worrying amount of Russian political misinformation on the internet

Recently I have noticed that several posts in major newspapers (Chinese, German, Japanese, UK, US) have comments written by people with VERY-American or British or German etc. names. At least their accounts look as if they were natives of these countries. Usually these comment-writers pose as man around 40 or 50, who are confident, obviously well informed and in-the-know. They bash what reliable news agencies and independent writers say, and push very forcefully a narrative heavily leaning towards Russia and/or China. In these narratives the US and the EU are always the bad guys, who treat poor Russia and China badly, and are unfair, and start wars everywhere (or finance the wars and make a good buck on them). According to these narratives all these wars started were totally unnecessary and self-serving, and Russia and China are peaceful giants, who would never do the same.

Of course this is total rubbish. It is total rubbish not because the US and the EU are not involved in arms trading or they don't start/finance/participate in wars. But it is total rubbish because the motivations for going to wars are usually a lot more complicated than simply aiming at monetary and territorial gains. And it is also total rubbish because many of these wars are about countering aggressive push by Chinese and Russian armed forces, secret services, or military units.
It is enough to think of the Ukraine: the EU did offer the Ukraine the chance to start the process to become a member state. But it did not attack Russia nor did it threaten it with that. Nor did it occupy the Ukraine. The then-Prime Minister of Ukraine was not forced to agree to this; it was Russia who twisted his arm to back out of the deal. It is easy to see who was the aggressor here, and then Russia aggravated things by pushing into the Ukraine by military force.

Consider also North-Korea, who have pushed the speed of their military missiles development programmes up to maximum. This has taken both South-Korea and Japan by surprise, and both states need to quickly up their defenses. They are at the same time constrained from doing so by contracts enforced on them by the US, and by the aggressive diplomacy of China. China thinks all military development is justified for them, while their neighbours should just sit with their hands crossed in their laps. Whereas any sane country that is the neighbour of a superpower needs a normal, up-to date military. This need is now made even more stringent and urgent by North-Korea's recently upgraded striking capabilities. Now, North-Korea has surely not achieved these striking technological breakthroughs suddenly on its own merit. Either China and/or Russia had to finance and probably support their projects with money, technology and expertise.

Add to this Russia's role in Syria, where it first vetoed all attempts at intervention, letting several millions civilians become displaced, and tens of thousands get killed, only so that its strongman ally leader can stay in power. Then when interventions begone Russia entered into contracts with the US and allies, but refused to stick to those contracts and bombed civilians and those it was supposed to support.

At the same time China is trying to gobble down the whole South-China sea, unilaterally. This incorporates waters well in the economic interests zones and reasonably assigned self-defense zones of several other countries. China is also building up artificial military islands in the region. Surely not the most peaceful move.


In light of all this, it is easy to see that the narratives of the apologists don't add up. It is also well known that there are plenty of government sponsored trolls spreading such news. The funny bit is when one gets into a debate with them and assumes a reasonable, true-to-the-facts-but-open-to-new-evidence approach they take off. They don't stay and engage in substantial debates and conversations. They are only interested in swaying the opinions of people who are dumb enough to think of politics in terms of Good and Bad, and who are willing to force this two dimensional straight-jacket view on current affairs and cast the US or Europe in the role of evil perpetrator.

Praising Putin for the Syrian intervention is controversial

Even among enlightened, normal people who endorse democracy one may find advocates of Putin, or people saying things like 'Sure, he is an autocrat, but look at all that he has achieved' or 'You have to admit that he is very talented and he is doing something for stability/peace/etc.' Similar voices can be heard praising the Russian government and Putin for the role they took on in Syria recently, claiming he has been outstandingly successful, and there is a campaign that would like to make out Russia to be the country which finally does something where no one else wanted to intervene before.

That such an idea is even possible shows only two things: i) most people don't follow the news regularly, and ii) they have an awfully short memory. It is very easy to check that Russia - together with China - has vetoed four proposals at intervention and/or resolution of the conflict in Syria in the UN Security Council between 2011 and 2015. Anyone who still claims that the Russian Government or Putin is the good guy in this story or deserves the title of knight in shining armour has been seriously misled.

Russia's approach caused damage in several ways. It allowed the conflict in Syria to deepen, it hampered the effective operation of the UN Security Council, and even after their intervention it is not clear whether they really aim at resolving conflicts and fostering peace, or simply at supporting Assad, their last remaining major ally in the region. Simultaneously, it seems that the intervention is a good excuse to extend their local military capabilities which could be used to establish further strongholds in West-Asia. It is too early to say this, but Russia's basis-building in Syria might be a similar move to the Chinese military's aggressive expansion in the South-China Sea. What is clear is that Putin is using the intervention to gain political weight and restore relations broken over Ukraine. My suggestion is to keep the two issues firmly separated. Whatever Putin achieves in Syria, nobody should soften up on him concerning Ukraine. We should all welcome stability in the West-Asian region, but should be careful not to mistake occupation or the lack of overt fights due to the presence of the Russian military to be peace.