Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,420
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
Zeihan is not an "analyst". He's a salesman. And he sold the creator of this article, lock stock and barrel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Give Peace a Chance!'']]</sup> 12:48, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
Zeihan is not an "analyst". He's a salesman. And he sold the creator of this article, lock stock and barrel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Give Peace a Chance!'']]</sup> 12:48, August 10, 2023 (EDT)
RobS, you cited an article by Brian Wang entitled [https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/peter-zeihan-makes-bad-predictions-with-bad-premises.html Peter Zeihan Makes Bad Predictions With Bad Premises] which concedes: "I will agree that Zeihan has decent population pyramid analysis and some of his other analysis and problem identification is useful."
Furthermore, Peter Zeihan supporters say in the comments:
"And how is Mr. Zeihan looking now Brian? Did you read The Accidental Superpower which he wrote in 2014? Did you notice the section of the book where he said within 8 years Russia will (while it’s Army is still young enough) make run at Ukraine? Well guess what? It’s 2022 buddy. Turn on your TV. Zeihan has been incredibly accurate on many fronts. I think you need to find a new career path."
"Ha, ha, Bluebucket, you are doing exactly what you accuse Wang of – i.e. you offer no point by point refutation of his comments."
"I like that you’ve taken up the mantle against Zeihan. But I’m not reading arguments that take Zeihan seriously, here.
One example is the small segment “If US Withdraws its Military?”: You wrote, “Nextbigfuture does not believe that the US only gets involved in managing the world purely out of economic self-interest.” This is not a counterpoint to Zeihan, this is in accordance with Zeihan.
Zeihan doesn’t argue that the US secures trade routes out of economic self-interest. This is a mischaracterization of his arguments. Zeihan argues that the US started securing international trade as a bribe to gain allies against the Soviets back when that was relevant. That was the only reason. The US puts its navy out on the seas, without charging for its services, to gain enthusiastic allies who would gladly defend against the Soviets on the land border. There was no other major reason why the US proposed Bretton Woods.
Now, that reason no longer exists, so the US should, LOGICALLY, pull out its 70 year-old security agreement. The Soviet threat has passed. For twenty years we’ve been trying to keep alive a dead corpse of an agreement purely out of status quo. Now, gravity is kicking back in. THAT is Zeihan’s argument in short.
If you read his book carefully, he is not happy about these projections. His personal politics are almost the exact opposite of all his projections.
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt when I clicked on this article. You straw-man him about half."
"Zeihan is pretty specific about where he predicts conflict and disorder. And, it is a far cry from general global disorder. And, those countries running mercantilist trade policies with their economies highly dependent on exports are likely losers. Germany is high on the list. Whether he is correct; we will see. And, I have not seen in any of his videos a discussion of the US relinquishing control of the oceans. But, definitely a much more selective use of force depending on our interests and our “allies” holding up their end of the bargain. Along with more favorable trade relations if they want our support. And, a greater hands off posture letting the locals sort(fight) it out and weighing in as it serves our interests. Much as we did in the conflict between Iran and Iraq."
"He has been more right than you have Brian and unlike you he can follow transportation tonnages (do the math on what is shipped into and out of China by ship vs rail vs truck). He never said that China would break up, what he said was that Xi would chose Mao style isolationism that political and economic fracturing of China, since China is solely reliant upon an international order ran by the U.S. that the U.S. no longer needs or wants since they subsidize the world.
What happens to China if Iranian oil is removed from the global market and the U.S. embargoes Iran to insure they are not able to sell any of that oil to China or anyone else?
America’s go to option for punishing foreign countries are sanctions, followed by embargoes followed by blockades if the embargo does not crush the country."
'''RobS, you wrote:'''
"I predict Russia is aiming for complete military and political victory; I predict NATO & the US will decide in the next 3 4 months if it wants to continue the war or not. I predict there are two types of a political victory, partial and complete. A partial victory would be de-NATOization of all of Ukraine and installing a puppet regime; complete victory would be the same, as well as getting sanctions lifted and the UN to rubber stamp border changes.
I predict Russia is unlikely to win a complete victory in the next 5-10 years, but a partial victory anytime after the next 4 months up to another 2-5 years. Also, I predict it may be possible to get the UN to rubber stamp border changes in the next 2-5 years, without getting the EU & US sanctions lifted. So I predict there's even an intermediate step between a partial victory and a complete victory.
I predict the only thing dragging the war out is NATO and the EU's suicide mission, which is a wild card. I predict Russia can maintain the fight as it's going right now for another 15 months. And I predict NATO right now, nor in the next 2-5 years will be ready for war with Russia, And I also predict the only thing that could cause my predictions to go haywire are idiots like Jake Sullivan, who recklessly and needlessly can cause a nuclear war. RobSGive Peace a chance 17:19, July 8, 2023 (EDT)
And I predict Russia is unlikely to accept the US offer for a "frozen conflict" ala the Korean peninsula so the US can save face, call it a draw, and withdraw. The US is committed now, and it's gonna get its butt kicked short of nuclear war. Alternatively, the US can admit defeat, withdraw sanctions, apologize, and accept the treaties Putin & Lavrov offered in December 2021 before NATO decided to go on another murderous rampage. RobSGive Peace a chance 17:25, July 8, 2023 (EDT)
So there, I spelled out in a little more detail what the polite Prof. Mearsheimer means when he's speaking to students or in other public venues. RobSGive Peace a chance 17:28, July 8, 2023 (EDT)" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:25, August 10, 2023 (EDT)