@tolstoybb “Different subjects and different affairs are arranged in my head as in a cupboard. When I wish to interrupt one train of thought, I shut that drawer and open another. Do I wish to sleep, I simply close all the drawers and then I am—asleep.”
@tolstoybb@tylercowen wikipedia on The Last Samurai: "DeWitt had found the publication process to be a struggle: (...) an "accounting error" that led to her owing a publisher $75,000 when she thought they owed her $80,000, and a struggle with obtaining the rights for the book's original title"
From Moscow’s implosion to the rise of Gulf garrison states to the reality check on AI wealth—this episode was a ride.
If you want frameworks instead of hot takes, give it a listen.
https://t.co/vwlgQzAyKx
@TheStalwart in europe every pet-bottle is basically a "blown up" blank (Rohling) with thick walls, that itself is is also used in laboratory settings. so smaller bottles have thicker walls. picture as an example
#1pageAssessUkrWar#CaseOftheDisappearingGerasimov#PutinAmericanCollaborators#UkraineRussiaWar#UkraineWar#Ukraine️️️️
It worked.
I've been keeping an eye General G (Gerasimov) for over a decade and his theory of war. Mainly, in the context of B.H.Liddel Hart's theory of indirect approach. Yes, there's the direct ram into a brick wall approach (see #BakhmutHaig) , but, is something more efficient - a conservation of effort made possible by deception? Hart wasn't the first to have this thought (ex: Sun Tzu) ...or execute it (ex: Hannibal), but Hart is the one that distilled a description of it best for me...a long, long time ago.
When the war began (v2022-?), I did an analysis of General G's analytical construct vs actual results in the initial invasion (chart right). The initial invasion in the north (Kyiv/Chernihiv/Sumy/Kharkiv) was a debacle with one exception - the incredible decision to turn on a dime and withdraw in good order. Doing that, "saved" the Russia war effort. None-the-less, it appeared General G's theory of war was miserably executed (again, with the exception of the QUICK decision to disengage in the North and the VERY effect effective southern campaign). Russia's strategic position took a MASSIVE hit (ex: loss of $300B+ FX reserves, end of European energy dependence on Russia, economic decline, etc). So, a tactical win, a strategic debacle.
Putin's invasion unified and expanded NATO (almost impossible after the previous Russia friendly U.S. president) - until NOV 5, 2024... and unified Ukraine (impossible...had been divided for hundreds of years).
Gerasimov (and his boss Shoigu) fell in stature - to the point of Shoigu becoming a missing person ( #CaseOfDisappearingShoigu )
However, Shoigu and Gerasimov survived - even won against Prig's coup in June 2023. Gerasimov limped along and became a missing person ( chart bottom left)... but, he has apparently survived the rumored hit on a command post he was visiting DEC 29, 2023.
Fast forward to yesterday when Useful Idiot surrendered to Putin and abandoned Ukraine and our European allies (his tweet - bottom right). A spectacular development that exceeded Soviet Union fever dream of driving a wedge within NATO.
8 years ago, Molly K.Mckew wrote an outstanding article titled "The Gerasimov Doctrine: It's Russia's new chaos theory of political warfare. And it's probably being used on you".
An excerpt:
In Ukraine, Russia has been deploying the Gerasimov Doctrine for the past several years. During the 2014 protests there, the Kremlin supported extremists on both sides of the fight—pro-Russian forces and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists—fueling conflict that the Kremlin used as a pretext to seize Crimea and launch the war in eastern Ukraine. Add a heavy dose of information warfare, and this confusing environment—in which no one is sure of anybody’s motives, and pretty much no one is a hero—is one in which the Kremlin can readily exert control. This is the Gerasimov Doctrine in the field.
The United States is the latest target. The Russian security state defines America as the primary adversary. The Russians know they can’t compete head-to-head with us—economically, militarily, technologically—so they create new battlefields. They are not aiming to become stronger than us, but to weaken us until we are equivalent.
Russia might not have hacked American voting machines, but by selectively amplifying targeted disinformation and misinformation on social media—sometimes using materials acquired by hacking—and forging de facto information alliances with certain groups in the United States, it arguably won a significant battle without most Americans realizing it ever took place. The U.S. electoral system is the heart of the world’s most powerful democracy, and now—thanks to Russian actions—we’re locked in a national argument over its legitimacy. We’re at war with ourselves, and the enemy never fired a physical shot. “The information space opens wide asymmetrical possibilities for reducing the fighting potential of the enemy,” Gerasimov writes. (He also writes of using “internal opposition to create a permanently operating front through the entire territory of the enemy state.”)
But it’s not an all-powerful approach; the shadowy puppeteering at the heart of the Gerasimov Doctrine also makes it inherently fragile. Its tactics begin to fail when light is thrown onto how they work and what they aim to achieve. This requires leadership and clarity about the threat—which we saw briefly in France, when the government rallied to warn voters about Russian info ops in advance of the presidential election. For now, though, America is still in the dark—not even on defense, let alone offense.
https://t.co/aOqhUgbd6q
The goal of traditional war (country vs country) is to crack the strategic will of your opponent and get them to accept your peace conditions. One traditional approach has been to occupy an enemy's capital / country /territory (WW2- Germany...in Japan 2 nukes were used to crack strategic will). At the other extreme is to co-opt a country - turn it without a shot fired...the good ole 5th column approach.
Today, MUCH war is in the info space (hence why wise Musk bought twitter - the data stream and the dialogue influencer). General G wrote:
“The very ‘rules of war’ have changed. The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness.
Yes, nonmilitary means (winning in the info space) do sometimes exceed the force of weapons.
It worked in the case of the Useful Idiot: he even tossed in a Tulsi (RT calls her "OUR GIRL") and assorted other UIs. It worked by helping facilitate an actual insurrection in the USA - JAN 6, 2021 (which likely convinced Putin & Co. that the time was right to begin conquest of a chunk of Europe - Ukraine the first stop). And it worked yesterday with Useful Idiots pronouncement of a Munich 1938 "Peace in Our Time v2". And it worked with an updated defect Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (this time the target is Ukraine).
Unclear yet if General G's construct of war will carry the day in Ukraine or USA/Russia longer term. Ukrainians still fiercely and smartly defending - and European allies (Tallinn 8) appear to be stepping up. Nordic block seems quite firm, along with the Baltics, Czech Republic and Poland - all backed by the UK (we'll see how Germany and France wobble over the next election).
I'm guessing that General G printed out Useful Idiot's tweet yesterday and presented to Putin. And said, "It works."
@MarketsWithMB haha, thanks for talking about "The MANIAC" book. I guess all that I learned from it was that von Neumann was great, life is short and the end is sad, and AI (AlphaGo) is really good at playing the game Go as long the cables are plugged in. Thanks for the great show!