Yes, certainly. Our decisions are primarily guided by impressions
1. Russian defeat makes an *impression* that one can hardly win a war of conquest anymore
2. Russian victory makes an *impression* that one absolutely can
The cost of (2) will be enormous
The first order effect is that it will encourage the wars of conquest, and encourage globally. There are perhaps few nations in this world that do not believe that a piece of their neighbor’s land belongs to them by right
There will be way more attempts for territorial conquest
The second order effect is that states will have to adapt to the now unsafe world. Even if their neighbors do not seem to plan a war of conquest right now, they may be considering it in the future. One must prepare for this scenario
You can say goodbye to the non-proliferation
Finally, it is very likely change the balance of power in Asia in favor of China both emboldening China to take a more aggressive strategy and encouraging some of the U.S. allies in the region to pursue a strategy of the (lowkey) surrender even before the shooting starts
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This applies to the seemingly mundane stuff. For example, even though Russian tanks are based on the Soviet blueprints, Russian tank barrels are of lower quality & durability than Soviet ones. Design may be the same, but details of the original production processes are lost
The nearly absolute reliance of the Russian war machine on the imported metal-cutting machines should be considered in the light of the qualified manual labour pool having shrunk and degraded
Therefore, supply chain for the quality CNC equipment (including both mechanical and electronic components) being controlled by the US allies is of major and under appreciated strategic significance
* Exceptions exist of course, but they are less common and significant than one could presume. As a general rule, every or almost every economy has to deal with the constantly shrinking pool of the qualified manual labour -> alternatives gradually become impossible to execute
I think that a military conflict between China and the US is highly probable. I also think that China will lose it. While the US hard power (& the quality of strategic thinking) may have substantially deteriorated since 1991, China:
China is overall much more backward in terms of technology & manufacturing than almost anyone in the US foreign policy establishment is ready to admit. Beijing knows it, DC doesn't
Which, again, shows how much did the American strategic thinking deteriorate since 1991
PS I believe that the end of the Cold War had a corrupting effect on the US strategists. With the real and credible threat gone, too many started exaggerating (or making up?) BS threats. Consequently, the skills and competences for dealing with a real threat have atrophied
François Guizot defined feudalism as perhaps the only form of tyranny that will be never accepted by the ruled. The theocratic despotism, the monarchic despotism can be genuinely loved and voluntarily accepted by their subjects. In contrast, the feudal despotism is always hated
What makes the difference is that a monarch/theocrat does NOT act on his own behalf. To the contrary, he represents something larger, superior to himself. It may be God. It may be an idea. Anyway, he is only a representative of something bigger, making his rule more acceptable
Consider Stalin. He does NOT act on his own behalf. He is merely a representative of something bigger. It's not all about Stalin. It's not all focused on Stalin. There is a divine, super-human institution of which Stalin is only a temporary executive