by Rostislav Ichshenko
translated by Evgenia
Source: http://cont.ws/post/77563
Chess is an ancient game that reproduces military actions with enviable accuracy. The development of the computer technology allowed for the creation of colorful strategic computer games, in the best of which the victory is arrived at by balancing multiple parameters (including the economy, natural resources, etc). Nevertheless, none came close to replicating the real strategic situation at the level achievable in an ordinary chess game.
Even the development of the theory of the chess game is identical to the development of the military thought. The games of the grate chess players and famous champions played two-three hundred years ago often impress by their simplicity, and their discoveries are well known to any beginner chess player. Similarly, strategic and tactical finds of Miltiades and Epaminondas, Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great, Hannibal and Cesar are known today to every graduate not only of a military academy but, likely, even of the Suvorov Military School.
However, this does not result in larger number of great military leaders or great chess players. It has been noted a long time ago, and not by us, that strict adherence to the rules of the game both in chess and military activity always results in the victory over a weaker opponent, but leads to a stalemate (famous positional impasse of the First World war or endless nonsensical maneuvers of the European armies in 18th century) in a conflict with an opponent with comparable resources and similar theoretical training.
Really great victories, victories when weaker or equal forces crushed the enemy, are only achieved by breaking the rules. In this sense, both chess and military theory could be described in one sentence: “One who does not take risks does not drink Champaign”. The higher the risk, the more complete the victory, but if the enemy turns out to be more talented (or simply more lucky), then your defeat will be devastating.
In order to win, it is necessary to open the position at the right time and then constantly outpace the opponent by making faster and more consistent decisions. A great chess player, as a great military commander, can find the right moment when the planned ahead positional standoff needs to be transitioned into the unknown that cannot be precisely calculated. Confidence in the first three steps, fast tempo and intuition bring victory. However, a person playing such a game needs to be completely sure of himself and his resources.
Let us recall now that a war is an extension of the politics by different means. Actually, it is politics in its pure, concentrated undisguised by diplomatic conventions and media disinformation form. States are not people. People could be sincere friends. States, even when friendly, still are destined to fight for dominance (or for better conditions for their citizens). Today’s ally is tomorrow’s competitor (or vise versa).
That is, the basics of the military (or chess) strategy are applicable to the description of routine every day global practice. It is important to keep in mind, though, that a chess player has only a limited number of pieces that can make a limited number of possible combinations. A military commander at a battlefront deals with many more factors he has to take into account and calculate, in addition to unknown and unpredictable factors. There are also tens and hundreds of thousands, perhaps, millions of subjective opinions and individual wills of his subordinates as well as unexpected occurrences such as rapid weather changes or landscape features not marked on maps, etc. Nevertheless, in general the military commander also deals with finite number of combinations, which could be calculated more or less accurately (although chance in this case plays a significant role).
In politics, only tendencies could be calculated. The results of actions planned and executed by you or the opponent could only be appreciated in terms of probabilities, since billions of free wills of the humankind, as well as unpredictable individual qualities and possible reactions to this or that stimulus of tens of thousands of politicians and public servants, who determine the implementation of each action, move the results of your decisions onto the realm of something desired rather than guaranteed. This requires continuous correction of plans and actions in accordance with constantly changing circumstances.
That is why in politics, in contrast with the game of chess or military action, stretching the opponent’s resources and distracting his attentions from the strategically important, critical goal plays a much more important role. Furthermore, in politics even the most insignificant point can become critical and strategic.
What do you do in chess game if you find yourself in a difficult situation when the position of your opponent is clearly stronger? You attempt to find a move that would result in a threat to him in a different place on the board that is growing faster than he is able to capitalize on his advantageous position. However, your positions could be calculated, and in most cases it is possible to say who is winning and who is losing assuming basically correct moves.
A military commander, who finds himself with a crisis on his hands and no resources to respond to it, behaves similarly. He tries to create for his opponent a difficulty in a different area, thereby ether achieving victory, if he manages to outpace the enemy, or forcing the opponent to halt his successful operation in order to use the resources to cope with the newly created problem. In most cases of this kind, it is impossible to predict a winner. When the resources are more or less comparable, too many unknown factors contribute to the final outcome. That is why in a war risks are not taken unless absolutely necessary, and first order of business is usually to stabilize the situation before thinking about continuing the operation or preparing for a new one.
In politics, similar actions are taken. However, there are hardly any known factors here. As has been already said above, all that is known are tendencies and dynamic of the processes. It is clear who is going down, who is climbing up, and where the intersection point will be if the vectors and dynamics remain stable. The rest is unknown. That is why wise state politicians try not to provoke other states, since at some point the events could spin out of control engulfing the politicians that initiated them. Besides, not just the possibility of uncontrollable development of the situation is alarming but also the unpredictability of the exact moment of the loss of control. Furthermore, at any time during a political crisis it is impossible to say whether the political leaders still retain control over the events or it is just a delusion (their own as much as anybody else’s).
Therefore, the more critical points exist for the interests of the key players to collide, the more active their attempts to stretch each other’s resources become, the more dangerous the whole situation gets, and the fewer chances remain to retain adequate control over the events. Also, the right to make strategic decision progressively shifts to lower hierarchical levels (often without informing the nominal leaders).
This is the condition we find the world in today. Consistently losing in each crisis, the US created crisis after crisis in order to distract attention and stretch resources of its opponents.
I understand that many would say that the US has won in most crises. And they would give examples: Hussein in Iraq was deposed; so was Kaddafi in Libya; in Ukraine the Nazi regime that came to power with the help of the US controls most of the country’s territory. More examples could be given, and everything seems good. There is, however, a problem. Any action usually has a goal, which does not necessarily the same as apparent results.
The US most certainly did not depose Hussein and Kaddafi to give the power in these countries rich in oil deposits to islamists. They also did not bring Nazis to power in Ukraine because they were concerned about their (Nazis’) wellbeing. All these actions were undertaken with one and only purpose in mind – to alter the world’s geopolitical trends of the US and EU weakening, but Russia, China, and BRICS countries (and others less visible but similarly developing economies) getting stronger.
The end of economic dominance of the West was visible and could easily be calculated within the framework of the contemporary global model. However, the US possessed the overwhelming political and military advantage. Using this trump card, the US attempted to create the situation when the resources of its actual and potential geopolitical opponents would be spent faster than its own. Ideally, the US resources should even increase at the expense of its opponents. In such scenario, all US problems would be solved. However, in almost all crisis areas America failed to induce its opponents to overextend their resources, whereas the US itself incurred expenses supporting regimes it brought to power. Therefore, coups are all nice and good – on the surface everything is fine, but the strategic objective has not been reached. Furthermore, the more spectacular the success appears, the worse the actual situation (higher expenses) is and the closer comes the final defeat.
This is similar to what happened to Napoleon in 1918. He is advancing, Russians are in retreat, but not only there is no victory, but the further the Great Army moves in the depth of Russia, the worse its strategic position becomes. Finally, Napoleon enters Moscow. In all appearances, victory is achieved. He immediately sends Lauriston to negotiate with Kutuzov and Alexander I with the instructions to conclude peace at any cost (the key words “at any cost”). And he was right. In October, he was forced to start retreating from Moscow, and by December the Great Army seized to exist.
Ukraine is the only region where the US enjoyed a relative success. As a result of the civil war, Russia is forced to spend certain resources to provide humanitarian, political, and diplomatic support for Donbass, as well as prepare for further aggravation of the political and military situation on its south-western border. Such preparedness also consumes resources. Nevertheless, even in Ukraine the US spends more to prop the Kiev regime than Russia expends to support the republics of Donbass. Additionally, the US failed to completely draw the EU into the conflict. Furthermore, since in the last couple of months Europe is trying to gradually distance itself from the US, then, considering the number of expensive conflicts, the Washington’s position is not exactly enviable.
Nevertheless, it can hardly be said that the general geopolitical situation gives reason to feel optimistic.
First, the fact that the US promoted the civil wars in Libya, Syria, and Iraq shows that it has chosen to burn the area it unable to keep. Washington concluded that the fire costs nothing and could even be profitable if handled correctly. So far, though, the burning regions still require expenditures on the part of the US, but these expenses are lower than would be required to maintain conditionally stable (the key word “conditionally”) pro-American regimes.
Second, by promoting the creation of the Nazi state in Ukraine, the US entered into a direct confrontation with Russia. Regardless of what the officials in Moscow are saying, this is war. A very real war of destruction, so far without the direct contact of the armies of the superpowers (the key word “so far”). This as if in Mexico Russia brought to power (via an armed coup) and actively supported forces that declared as their main goal the return of all territories Mexico lost as a result of the America-Mexico war of 1846-1848, as well as acquisition for Mexico all Spanish possessions in Florida. We can hope that this war will stay as a new type war, but the US actions are pushing the situation out of control (out of their control, when whoever sits in the White House and whatever he thinks about it, the war will have to be fought, and the US will have to initiate the Armageddon).
The third point proves this. Losing the situation in Ukraine (remember, the expend more resources on Kiev than Russian expends on Donetsk, although the plan was to achieve the opposite), the US started to prepare for a new move in the game aimed at shifting Russia’s attention from the points where the US is vulnerable towards new dangers in other directions.
Since it is already obvious that the expenditure of resources in the conflict zones created by the US will not allow the US to win the resource competition, the only winning move (since a draw is impossible in this situation) would be to destroy Russia. That is, for the US to retain the global dominance for some time, Russia has to disappear (at the very least, in the form it currently exists). The only way to bring about such result (except the mutually assured destruction) is to blow up the country from the inside. Lately, a number of steps are obviously being taken to achieve that objective. Specifically:
-
The attempts to discredit the Russian leadership continue.
-
The street activity of any kind (non necessarily “white ribbon”) that could bring about complete or partial loss of control by the country leadership over the events in one or several regions (for starters, one large city would be enough but the events should develop exponentially) is promoted.
-
The feasibility of destabilizing Russia’s allies in EAEU is being probed (the first targets – Armenia, Belorussia, Kazakhstan).
-
Attempts are made to create conflict zone at the Russian borders (Baltic states) or in the regions with Russian presence (Transnistria).
-
Direct military provocations (including terrorist acts) against Russian territories (Crimea, Krasnodar region, regions bordering Ukraine, Kaliningrad region) conducted from the territories of neighboring countries, with direct or indirect (instructors) participation of the military personnel of the US and some other NATO countries, cannot be excluded.
Russia is in the position to parry such threats. But the US knows that. Therefore, for the game to be successful it should be played in foul territory. That is, Moscow will be put in the situations when it will be unable to calculate whether the measures to defend its sovereignty would lead to a military response by the US or this is all just bluff. But what is the most dangerous it that Washington itself will not know that.
First, because in politics bluff succeeds only if you yourself is not quite sure whether you are indeed bluffing and are ready at any moment to step outside of the narrow confines of bluff.
Second, in political struggle bluffing politicians are always under pressure from the opponents attempting to make them admit the bluff and lose votes in the next elections.
All this means only one thing: The US is bound to keep raising the stakes in the game. This is due not only to economic or foreign policy interests but also because of the nature of the internal power struggle in the US.
That is, the political situation has reached the point when each individual politician, no matter how powerful and influential, cannot claim that he controls the events. The processes are developing according to their own logic. It is still possible to bring them under control via coordinated effort of most interested parties. However, for this to happen, it is necessary that China and Russia are joined in their effort by Europe, at the very least (even if without Britain).
It is important to understand that the notion of time trouble (Zeitnot) is applicable not only to the game of chess. It interferes much more dramatically with the military activity or politics. Now then, we are on the verge of Zeitnot. Let us hope it will not align with Zugzwang (compulsion to move).
This is a reasonable explanation of Russia’s response at the UNSC regarding Yemen.
Wow, one of the best pieces of analysis of the global situation I have ever read.
Bravo!
Yeah, a nice one indeed.
Somehow I expected from TheSaker to publish more of this alike, even written by himself.
Not perform on this blog as an editor of a kind of digest,
with letting translate some highlights of the non-conform news/articles.
But the overall hope for a grandmaster´s (Putin) next (not final) move is lasting for more than a year. People dying in Donbass, no sanctions on Usraine neither from BRICS nor from Russia even, more discounts on gas for Kiev, DNR and LNR are still not even in borders of official Doneck and Lugansk “oblasti” (regions).
To sum up: after 14 years of Putin at power is Russia hatred almost more than Germany after WW2 and punished by the USA driven world community. And the modest territorial gains: Crimea, Ossetia, Pridnestrovia – this is surely not a revival of the USSR.
OK, let´s wait for May 9th parade, Armata will be there, and that would be the “highlight” of the year. Having Sochi olympic games in mind I would say that World Football championship 2018 (?) hosted in Russia means détente shift in Putin´s chess game with “partniory”.
Or having in mind that the rearmament of the Russian Army was planned to happen done in 2020 we (and the Doneck babushkas) have to wait 5 more years for USA to be shown their place in the corner?!
re: “The US most certainly did not depose Hussein and Kaddafi to give the power in these countries rich in oil deposits to islamists.”
Really? The US didn’t even try to pretend to put in a government in Libya. And getting the oil is only part of the goal, and some of the oil does go into Western control.
And a big goal is keeping the world using the dollar. Both Hussein and Khadaffi had other ideas. Big mistake. There is even a video of a recent talk of the spokesman for the Libyan government that the French representative told him that no peace could be reached (no matter what Khadaffi did) because they had crossed the currency red line by promoting a new system for Africa.
This doesn’t mean Russia is losing, but the game isn’t about the costs of feeding the Donbass versus the rest of the Ukraine.
@“The US most certainly did not depose Hussein and Kaddafi to give the power in these countries rich in oil deposits to islamists.”
It is not that certain as it may look at first glance. What US needs is to have islamists under their strict control. Creation of the Caliphate was a long term objective of the MI6/CI/Mossad as a counterweight to “Communism”, and now to Russia and China. Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in 1953 as a Sunni Muslim organization in Jerusalem by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, an Islamic scholar and appeals court judge (Qadi) from the Palestinian village of Ijzim, as opposed to the Arab Nationalism Movement (predominantly Christian and Alawi) and as mercenary manpower for domination of ME, but harmless to Israel.
All apparent setbacks were due to the difficulty to keep under control a mercenary force which might be tempted to use their weapons to satisfy their personal whims. It is, of course doubtful that the USUKKSArael would ever succeed, but they would not abandon their final objective, to unleash a Muslim revolution in Russia and China.
I think the US is not only in time trouble but also zugzwang. It must move quickly and any move it can make results in a worse strategic position.
Given the number of times its chess moves have resulted in Islamists attaining power, I disagree with the assertion that such results are not intended by the US and its allies, at least for the near term (perhaps a decade or so). The result is that former oil producing states are now off-line, or production greatly reduced, to the benefit of the allied Wahabis and Qataris who direct those Islamist forces. Formerly secular Arab nationalists are in full retreat with their nation states torn asunder to the benefit of Israel. Further, the chaos feeds the production line for the next batch of jihadi’s to fight in current (Syria, Iraq) and future proxy wars against the Resistance (Chechnya III, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Xinjiang province, Balkan Wars III, etc.), while simultaneously providing gist for the western islamophobic propaganda mill at home.
No, Islamists in power is most decidedly not contrary to AZ goals and objectives – it serves them.
Thanks Rostislav!!!
Salient analysis and well composed. Now can you delve into a blurb on the stupidity of such an accomplished chess master as Kasparov?
Cheers
Valid points, but it easily follows that Russia is playing the same game. Strife for domination is both constant, universal, and never-ending.
This is a good article, but in my opinion it underestimates some important factors. Primary among them, although mentioned a bit at the end, is that in most countries but the US especially, foreign politics is really domestic politics. A lot of the most important motivations for US foreign wars and attacks have less to do with whatever is happening in the world than with the situation in the United States. And the US internal situation pushes strongly for military action over other approaches.
So for instance, politicians will push some kind of foreign violence in order to look more decisive and strong than their competitors. They will push foreign violence in order to make the US electorate fearful, so that they can advance domestic police-state measures without much complaint; they need police-state measures because as the neoliberal project progresses, even if the US does not lose ground economically the ordinary people will be getting poorer, and they want repression in place to deal with the resulting unrest. They will push foreign violence because the arms businesses and various privatized-military enterprises are bribing them. They will push foreign violence because the US military is very politically powerful, and even if they’re actually more wary of warfare than many of the chickenhawk politicians, still, if you ask the military “What should we do about X situation?” the solutions they have on hand are military ones. The military isn’t going to say “Oh, we’re useless in that situation, you should stick to diplomacy or economic incentives there”. And it’s just gotten worse since they gave the CIA military toys; now they want to play with their missiles too.
As a result, the US will tend to be the proverbial man with a hammer. They look at an international situation, like trying to maintain superpower status vis-a-vis Russia and China, or trying to maintain control over Middle East oil, or trying to stop people from defecting from the US dollar system, and their go-to solution is military action even when it’s not a great idea and they don’t know just what they’re going to do with it.
It’s a vulnerability in a way–they become predictable, and they lose their edge when it comes to the use of other international policy tools. But if opponents don’t understand it, they will fail to predict US actions. They will see a situation that in their mind calls for the Americans to use diplomacy or a trade pact or buying up copper to boost prices or something, and be surprised when the US bombs somebody instead.
The development of the computer technology allowed for the creation of colorful strategic computer games, in the best of which the victory is arrived at by balancing multiple parameters (including the economy, natural resources, etc). Nevertheless, none came close to replicating the real strategic situation at the level achievable in an ordinary chess game.
Chess has been long been a favourite of computer programmers to create programs for. Computer chess “playing” surpassed human abilities some time ago. Chess is a simple game. Go is even simpler, but is even more complicated in its play. Computer games are designed to be relatively simple. This is due to costs, capitalist game makers don’t want to spend more than the bare minimum, and the desire to have a popular game. The more complicated a game is, the fewer the numbers of people it will interest. When modeling “life”, as in a scientific study, for example, computer programming vastly surpasses the variables necessary for computer chess. So if there are not any successful computer games out more complicated (realistic at life modelling) than chess, something which I don’t claim, nor know enough about, it is due to business interests, not lack of ability among computer specialists.
Both chess and go mostly involve an ability to think mathematically, or left brain function. People with right brain predominance, usually thought of as artists of various sorts, usually are not very good at chess. The real world involves both left and right brain thinking. So does geopolitics. The analytical and mathematical, as well as the creative and unpredictable.
Ichshenko recognises much of the ZPC/NWO strategy, such as the necessity to keep upping the costs to their foes and create multiple conflicts going to split their foes resources, but because he reduces the “big picture” to a simple Russia vs America, he misses the big picture, and ends up distorting some the purposes behind some of the conflicts he described.
For example, in the Middle East (or northern Africa and western Asia). The planning for this destabilisation strategy was done long before Russia recovered to become thought of as a genuine threat to the ZPC/NWO (1990s), and has little to do with Russia. It mostly is an Israeli/zionazi expansion to benefit the ZPC half of the ZPC/NWO world strangling monster, and increase their power.
Another example. The war on Ukraine is not one of who spends more, USA or Russia, keeping their end up, but part of a multi faceted strategy of the ZPC/NWO to prevent the rise of a rival Eurasian economic block and allow the ZPC/NWO to eventually control the planet without competition or rebellion. As such, the ZPC/NWO can afford to spend 10 times what they are in the Ukraine to continue the bleeding. And probably will. The Eurasians know this, and that the point of the ZPC/NWO strategy is to bleed them dry, so they are tackling the problem by responding asymmetrically and unpredictably, and using time, rather than meeting the attack head on.
Getting back to the chess analogy, the ZPC/NWO are using a geopolitical strategy based upon incremental planning. The have a basic plan, which they modify and add to, with each implementation of it. Very mathematical, and actually a conservative chess strategy of sorts. For example: their attack on the Ukraine is very similar in purpose to their attack on Afghanistan at the end of the 1970s. The differences involve changes in local and the advance of time. So new tactics, specific to the conflict are used, but old tactics are also modified as necessary and reused.
From the POV of the Eurasian side, this is a very predictable assault. Their response is therefore unpredictable – IE: Crimea, for example. Very un-chess like. This brings me back to the left and right brain thinking differences I mentioned at the start. The ZPC/NWO is primarily using left brain thinking in their strategy – mathematical, structured and analytical. The Eurasians, rather than confront them on those terms, are putting some right brain thinking into the mix, and are being somewhat unpredictable. And are having some success with this approach.
Meanwhile, the Chinese strategy is, while the US blows up one country as a lesson to the rest, push trade with twenty, fifty, a hundred other countries in a relatively win-win fashion (relatively, not completely). If I gain a little bit from trade with you, and a little bit from trade with him, and a little bit more from trade with all these other blokes, who gained the most? Me, the one who gained a hundred little bits. And if you all gained from it too, who are you going to like? The country you gained a bit from trading with, or the country that bombed your neighbour?
The question is whether China can gain more influence from multilateral trade or whether the US can gain more influence from people’s fear of being next combined with propaganda from control of international media. I suspect we’ll find out around the time China has so much money it starts buying up the international media and the US lose the propaganda base.
Rostislav: Timing is important and sometimes while the one side plays diversionary action, the other side plays for time so there is a lot of shuffling around and positioning which is what it appears Russia is doing. in the Ukraine, it appears that pawns ( Right Sector units) are being used to soften up NAF positions with the Kiev regular army equipped and trained to be thrown in as follow up later on probably around May 9th or so. Meanwhile the Caucasus is being prepped for a 2nd front in the soft underbelly so to speak.
What is not calculated is the law of unintended consequences which arises out of the fact that there is no computer that can calculate all of the variables and nor can it know when one variable changes its quality of impact in the situation as a whole. It is clear that the forces of undercover fascism in the US are planning to seal the slow coup which they initiated in 2000 by taking complete power in a farcical 2016 “election”. And, yes, international moves will coincide with steps needed to be taken internally to achieve this goal much like how Hitler ran his foreign policy as he gradually consolidated internal power. It is a familiar template for those who study history; however, history repeats itself not in closed circles but in open spirals.
And then there is Murphy’s Law. God help us All.
One of the best text i have read. Specially he could have digged into the opposite of chess how realy the wourld are ruled. That there are actually now rulles. I see the chess description just to get you in right mode before a comparission to the situation. It makes a good contrast. Russia is doomed as EU as soon Putin is totally disrespected they will thorn him apart as Khadaffi. I know were hell is and it’s here on earth. Just remember how it went last time with Lenin. But it’s good Putin put some spirit in people.
Show rationality and irrationality responds with chaos.
Only one point . Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812.
I recommend strongly “Der russische Feldzug von 1812”
Author :Carl von Clausewitz
Here you have the english translation:
http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Campaign-1812-Carl-Clausewitz/dp/1412805996
He was one of the advisors at the headquarter with Kutusow.
The best book y ever read over 1812 written by a pure professional.
Very thought-provoking analysis by Ichshenko, but equally excellent and thoughtful commentary from Purple Library Guy, Bot Tak, and teranam13. Thank you all for the excellent quality of your contributions.
“States, even when friendly, still are destined to fight for dominance (or for better conditions for their citizens). ”
I think that usually states do not fight for better conditions for their citizens. They fight for power and loot for their oligarchs. Return the power to declare war to the people and there will be far fewer wars. It’s precisely the “division of labor” which permits warfare, usually: Oli Garch decides and benefits, Cannon Fodder fights.
Have you been listening to Chomsky again? Don’t you know the truth can lead to melancholy?
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+security+state&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=the+security+state+chomsky&tbm=vid
fer instance…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEP-LE0fk7M
Noam Chomsky – State Power Trumps Actual Security Again and Again
The analogy with chess to geopolitics is limited but useful in that some basic tactical and strategic concepts apply to both.
In chess 4 important concepts are space, time, material, and tempo (being a form of time in the sense of who has the move now), but chess is sequential, move by move, where world affairs are often simultaneous. Space, and centralization, means access to more parts of the board, similar to how large one’s sphere of influence is. Space and time are traded one for the other, taking time to move a piece which will control more space, or trading a piece with the opponent, or sacrificing it, to gain time for moving other pieces or sometimes just to get it out of the way so a long range piece can operate through the square it was sitting on — which is something like attacking and destroying a country so you can operate militarily across it (take out Ukraine so it can’t act as a buffer).
Pawns, by the way, are not the simple expendable elements people generally take them to be, but act to structure the board and control access to space, blocking either the opponents from moving to an area, or blocking (as well as protecting) one’s own pieces. Badly placing ones pawns can hamper action from your major pieces.
A major strategy in chess is overprotection — protecting a piece or square with multiple pieces so that any of them are still free to move (related to tactics such pins and x-ray attacks). It gives you flexibility — this is the idea behind Russia being able to trade with many different countries, keeping its options open. It gives freedom to pursue several different tactical combinations — if one has sufficient space to move pieces where you want, and it’s also the advantage of controlling the board from the periphery while keeping the center open to give a place to move through, while not presenting an easy target for the opponent (a hypermodern principle).
A great weakness with the empire’s position is that it is committed to many areas which, if abandoned, will damage it. Russia could pull in all it’s resources from most of the rest of the world and still be in good shape, but the if the US tries that it has little left: it’s economic and industrial systems are so degraded it would have a difficult time relying only on itself, in isolation. The US is far more globalized, and that’s a bad strategic flaw, where losing one area adversely affects others, especially if the ‘center’ is blocked, such as the petrodollar or it’s ability to bully politicians in other countries. (What would the US do if it lost Merkel, or Saudis?)
Every time the US extends it’s reach it creates another vulnerability it has to defend, like a martial artist grabbing the opponent lapel and opening himself to a counter move where his arm gets locked in a hold, while at the same limiting the number of other attacks he might make. (First kick with the right foot, and if your opponent grabs it then kick with the left??)
Russia does not have to respond to Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria, Yemen, South America, Africa, and all the other countries the US has become involved in — the people in those places will respond while Russia can build up it’s own strength and strategies while the US expends it’s resources trying not to lose those places leaving yet another enemy in place. How many fronts can the US fight on? The US doctrine now is to be able to fight and win multiple simultaneous opponents (2 major wars is suggested in http://index.heritage.org/militarystrength/about/executive-summary/), but there is a limit to the number of conflicts and projects and the US’s plate is already too full. So how many simultaneous blindfold (so much for US ‘intelligence’) games can the US play?
Rostislav Ichshenko,
Arguably, the purpose of WWII was to bring the world to such a state of collapse & disorder that nations would give up their sovereign power over their own central banks, relegating it to the IMF and BIS– and through them, to the Federal Reserve. Without WWII this wholesale delegation of the power of individual nations could never have been accomplished. The Cold War against Russia was precisely because Stalin would not delegate Russia’s central bank power to the IMF. http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf
Since the collapse of the USSR the Russian central bank is an IMF member, as is China. The desired next step is a complete global monetary union with a common currency. Without the ability to create money and credit, the ability to make a budget, precious little political freedom remains. If citizens find it difficult to control a natioanl govts, they will find it impossible to control a global one. Sanctions will become an omnipotent tool against any country due to its inability to have an independent monetary policy..
The endless wars are to produce chaos and desperation, and eliminate resistance to the coming loss of national sovereignty. The US economy is being purposely destroyed; when the dollar-collapse occurs there will be worldwide economic depression. Perhaps also a small, very scarey nuclear war– all to produce our acquiescence to the New World Order, a worldwide oligarchy.
A few random thoughts which I know are connected but I can’t right now trace them out.
a: chess is used as an analogy for thinking ahead and being smart, but…
* is easily programmed into computers only because there are a limited number of moves possible…
* because there are strict rules about what piece can do what.
* There are no unknowable future moves,
* and one side’s moves control the other side’s possibilities.
b: if you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail
* but this does not make things act like nails, eg things when struck may squash, smear, splash or explode
* you can’t predict which of these they will do, while you keep thinking they’re nails
c: actions are multi-faceted, so being equivalent on one facet does not mean equivalence on another, eg
* running up stairs and swimming may have equal benefits for aerobic endurance… but no amount of stair-running will help you when thrown into a lake
* 10*10 cent coins = $1 but just try carrying $1000 in coins or using a $1 bill in a slot machine
“and one side’s moves control the other side’s possibilities. ”
Perhaps a useful addition would be:
* players make moves alternatively/sequentiually, and are only allowed one move at a time.
As to your statement above, I would suggest a more perceptive appreciation might be that the linear board aka environment, and perceived “categorical imperatives” aka rules, control both sides’ possibilities.
Anonymous you seem to have a liking for “linear”.
The world is not linear.
Time may be linear, but everything else is round and chaotic. A chessboard is flat, true, but it has width and depth, and movement is possible in every direction (depending on the piece)., In the real world this is even more so, and the possible moves are much more numerous. And by the rules, can be simultaneous.
Unlike chess, where the player has to only look ahead to see possible combinations, in real world situations, especially politics or warfare, the player has to see a million things at once, including some behind his back.
“The world is not linear.”
That is very well understood and acted upon.
“but everything else is round and chaotic”
Everything including time is laterally interactive and the notion of chaos is a bridge over doubt and hence an obstacle to perception and lateral challenge.
“in real world situations, especially politics or warfare.”
As part of collectives I have consistently contributed to real world situations and sometimes the collective has managed to encourage activities which have contributed to change the world.
“Anonymous you seem to have a liking for “linear”.”
I have a liking for the linear when practiced by opponents as such renders them vulnerable.
The purpose of broadcasting such notions includes but is not limited to sharing hypotheses with others to afford them the opportunity to test if they are so minded, to facilitate the transcendence from “exceptionalism” to equal and different.
Not just “round and chaotic”, but rather self-referent and non-linear. Time included.
The great men knew this. Napoleon reputedly said: “I have plenty of smart generals, but I prefer one that’s lucky”.
“Napoleon reputedly said”
Napoleon lost, as did his generals lucky or not.
The problem with the chess analogy is, that ever since political planers have come to think that they have massive nuclear arsenals at their disposal, they are playing a chess game with both players sitting under a fifty ton lead weight which both players can drop at will.
It will kill both of them when dropped, but it is the last failsafe to keep your opponent from winning while you lose. You can never be sure of what a sore loser might do.
Especially if the game is for life or death.
As long as dooms-day-machines are out there the race is on between:
– stupidity
– probability
I would bet on stupidity. (It would be super stupid to let probability get the better of us.)
But if I could destroy mankind, stupidity and probability. If I ever saw mankind threatened by either stupidity or probability, I would certainly be willing to take these suckers down with us…
As a mere beginner in both western and eastern chess, eastern chess is much more realistic than western:
no queen;
the king cannot leave his castle;
there can be no blocking piece at the corner when a knight moves;
the bishop cannot cross the middle of the board ( the river );
the castle can only take a piece if there is an intervening piece.
Defeat: when the only move that can be made exposes your king to the opposing king.
All in all a much more fluid and dynamic game, just like life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangqi
Thanks to Saker and to Rotislav Ischenko for this article …and also to the excellent comments as well as the Links provided. I am saving them all to reread.
From my rather uneducated point of view….I consider that Putin has masterfully played the game, both in Georgia in 2008 as well as Crimea 2014. I would have liked Mr Ischenko to tell us what he thinks about how Georgia will play into this “game” in the future. Aren’t there 6 or 7 Georgians in the Ukros administration now? Including the infamous “tie eater” Saakasvilli?
I am beginning to feel like we are living in Brzezinski’s wet dream. Please excuse my profanity…
Christine