# The "new normal:" a return to the 19th century?



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2013)

American economist Adam Posen posits, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Times_, that we are heading for a repeat of the 75 year period from about 1840 through to 1914:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6e4d3ee2-fdd7-11e2-8785-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2bEJZv1Du


> The global economy is now distinctly Victorian
> *The Old Normal is looming large on our horizons, writes Adam Posen*
> 
> By Adam Posen
> ...




Although this is an economic argument by an economist it points ~ as economics often does ~ to _strategic_ issues, too. 

Let us consider 1840:

     Britain, which was the dominant global power, had already begun its long decline from global superpower to leading middle power;

     France, which was "great power" was in a decline which had started (much) (centuries) earlier and it was already a second rate power, even if that fact wasn't obvious;

     The USA was just beginning its long march to global superpower status, but it had little global influence;

     Japan was on the verge of looking, seriously, at entering the modern, Western, industrialized world;

     Russia was poor but, relatively, powerful in its own region; and

     Brazil, China and India were all irrelevant.

Seventy five years later Britain's (many) weaknesses were more evident, as were those of France. Germany was a "great power" which had, already defeated France more than once. Japan was a newly "modern" country and had won a war against feeble Russia. The USA was a global economic powerhouse and had just (Spanish-American War) proven that its military reach was also global. Brazil, China and India were all irrelevant.

The end result of Posen's "old normal" was the bloodbath we call the _Great War_. If his "old normal" is our "new normal" then I wonder what the end state will be.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and mail_ is another article suggesting we have returned to the 19th century:



> Syria has returned the world to nineteenth-century warfare
> 
> ANDRÉ GEROLYMATOS
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...




These 19th century analogs are interesting in that they provide a framework within which we can examine our own actions, but it would be a mistake to think that the comparisons are, in any meaningful way, exact.


----------



## cupper (3 Sep 2013)

This all seems apropos considering the move within the CF to return to the historical. Seems we are just keeping step with the rest of the world.  ;D


----------



## Underway (3 Sep 2013)

A multipolar world has been predicted for quite a while now.  There are numerous books on it.  How the countries react to a multipolar world will be interesting and looking backwards to how history repeats itself is in important.  So the strategic impact for the CF is what???  If we figure that out then we are on the right track with how we train, what we buy and how we prepare for the next inevitable emergency.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Sep 2013)

I'd also read somewhere that:

a) Persian/Arab lands in turmoil;
b) Rome in chaos;
c) Greece collapsing economically.


Yep, 430 BC


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'd also read somewhere that:
> 
> a) Persian/Arab lands in turmoil;
> b) Rome in chaos;
> ...



The cynic in me says that the days of peace, or even the days of effective empire, are the aberrations.  Chaos is the norm.  Entropy Rules.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Sep 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Chaos is the norm.  Entropy Rules.


Looks like a t-shirt logo to me.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Sep 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The cynic in me says that the days of peace, or even the days of effective empire, are the aberrations.  Chaos is the norm.  Entropy Rules.



Yep, you're Scottish!  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2013)

There's a reason we invented whiskey.   :cheers:


----------



## pbi (13 Sep 2013)

Underway said:
			
		

> A multipolar world has been predicted for quite a while now.



This prediction wasn't really rocket science. Multipolarity has been the normal state of world affairs through most of history: the recent unipolarity (with the US on top) was never going to last.

As far as a "return" to a world governed by a balance of power, I would argue that this world never actually went away. The idea that perhaps the UN replaced nasty realpolitik following WWII is IMHO an illusion. The UN (despite the fears of some nut cases in the US) was never really a form of "world government": the composition and powers of the UNSC made sure that decisive power remained in the hands of the victors of WWII. I don't think that any major power has ever allowed the UN  to seriously interfere with things it really wanted to do. 

I don't think things will really change all that much. To paraphrase someone: "The strong will do what they can, and the weak will do what they must."


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2014)

More on this in an interview with Margaret MacMillan (Oxford) which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/margaret-macmillan-how-today-is-like-the-period-before-the-first-world-war/article17626075/#dashboard/follows/


> Margaret MacMillan: How today is like the period before the First World War
> 
> PETER SCOWEN
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Two points:

     1. _The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914_ is a good read, I highly recommend it.

      2. Margaret MacMillan is not to be confused with Jennifer Welsh, she of the "global model citizen" (think Norway) theses, who, briefly, advised Prime Minister Martin. For women are Canadians and Oxford professors, but they are not, I think, of like minds.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Mar 2014)

Here we go...

Europe scrambles to break gas dependence on Russia, offers Ukraine military tie

South Stream pipeline intended to link the EU to Russia through the Black Sea by 2018 is now “dead” 

European leaders have rushed through plans aimed at breaking the Kremlin’s grip on gas and energy supplies, marking a fresh escalation in the emerging Cold War between Russia and the West. 


The move came as the EU slapped sanctions on 12 leading Russians in President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, and vowed “additional and far-reaching” action if he intervenes in eastern Ukraine or further destabilises the region. The European Commission has been told to cock the gun by preparing “targeted measures” immediately. 


The South Stream pipeline intended to link the EU to Russia through the Black Sea by 2018 is now “dead”, according to sources in Brussels, hitting contractors close to Mr Putin. EU staff are to come up with plans to shield Europe from energy blackmail by Russia within 90 days, finding ways to prevent frontline states being picked off one by one. Ukraine’s premier, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, said in Brussels that the West must stop Russia deploying energy as a “new nuclear weapon". 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10715577/Europe-scrambles-to-break-gas-dependence-on-Russia-offers-Ukraine-military-tie.html


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2014)

The only entity making noise right now is the morally and financially bankrupt "government" in Kyiv. They are the only instability in this "game".
My 2 cents.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The only entity making noise right now is the morally and financially bankrupt "government" in Kyiv. They are the only instability in this "game".
> My 2 cents.



Really ? Morally bankrupt vs Russia ? The proletariat ousted the morally and financially bankrupt  Viktor Yanukovich. Russia responds with a land grab.Unfortunately there is no Thatcher or Reagan on the world stage to keep Putin honest.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Mar 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Really ? Morally bankrupt vs Russia ? The proletariat ousted the morally and financially bankrupt  Viktor Yanukovich. Russia responds with a land grab.Unfortunately there is no Thatcher or Reagan on the world stage to keep Putin honest.



It's not 1917.  Ukrainian ultra nationalist thugs staged a coup.  It was popular in the west of Ukraine, and yes, it started out peacefully, but let's remember the reason for the original protests:
Yanukovich, running a cash-starved Ukraine (which it still is by the way) inked a better trade deal with Russia vice the EU.  Unpopular in the west (and twisted into a propaganda message of "DICTATORSHIP!"), but it was looked at differently throughout Ukraine.

There are reasons to suggest that the Ultra Nationalists, seeing a peaceful resolution in the works, decided to stir the pot, and then shot both police and protesters in order to get this result.

And let's not forget that Ms Tymoschenko, in jail for embezzlement, was released post-coup, because they simply changed the laws that put her there in the first place.

Yanukovich may be a crook, but so too is Tymoschenko, but at least Yanukovich was elected in what were deemed by many to be a fairly run election.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Mar 2014)

http://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/alternate-reality


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Mar 2014)

I keep hearing about this century of peace in Europe between Waterloo and Mons.....

Wikipedia

Euro Wars



> 1815–1817 Second Serbian Uprising
> 1817–1864 Russian conquest of the Caucasus
> 1821–1832 Greek War of Independence
> 1821 Wallachian uprising of 1821
> ...



And that doesn't take into account conflicts in far away places like Morocco, Algiers, Tunisia and Afghanistan....

In the same period France went through a monarchy, two republics and a dictatorship.... Got to love those lawyers and their constitutions. :


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I keep hearing about this century of peace in Europe between Waterloo and Mons.....
> 
> Wikipedia
> 
> ...




And they look an awful lot like the _Savage_ [Little] _Wars of Peace_ that characterized the post Second World War 20th century.


----------



## cupper (24 Mar 2014)

It will be interesting to see how the issues with Russia will effect the negotiations with Iran.

It would be in Russia's interests to keep the negotiations from coming to a successful conclusion, as opening up access to Iran's oil and gas supplies to Europe would weaken it's economic strong arm.


----------



## pbi (24 Mar 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Really ? Morally bankrupt vs Russia ? The proletariat ousted the morally and financially bankrupt  Viktor Yanukovich. Russia responds with a land grab.Unfortunately there is no Thatcher or Reagan on the world stage to keep Putin honest.



 It's worth remembering that Yanukovich, as corrupt as he may have been, was elected  in 2010 a process that the West observed as being a clean and legitimate one. The fact that he got mixed up with the Russians, or that he was busy lining his own pockets, should surprise absolutely nobody. He was the guy Ukrainians elected, but it was in far eastern Europe, remember? Just what "democratic process" means there is a good question.

It's also true that he was thrown out by some kind of popular uprising, but just who actually  was in this uprising remains unclear to me. I'm not sure at all that it was the "proletariat": I think it was some weird alliance of neofascist nationalists with liberal middle/upper middle class types. That said, the apparent "hands off" approach by the Ukrainian Army was interesting: the national police did all the dirty work.

The West doesn't usually do anything serious when Russia acts in its own backyard, which Crimea and Transdnistria unquestionably are. IMHO this has been true no matter what stripe of Western governments were in power, nor how heavily armed the NATO countries were. Where we tend to draw the line is when the Russians get too far outside their  backyard, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Russians probably don't like potentially hostile governments on their borders any more than the US does: they just have fewer scruples about using force, and their population is probably a lot easier to manipulate.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Mar 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> It's worth remembering that Yanukovich, as corrupt as he may have been, was elected  in 2010 a process that the West observed as being a clean and legitimate one. The fact that he got mixed up with the Russians, or that he was busy lining his own pockets, should surprise absolutely nobody. He was the guy Ukrainians elected, but it was in far eastern Europe, remember? Just what "democratic process" means there is a good question.
> 
> It's also true that he was thrown out by some kind of popular uprising, but just who actually  was in this uprising remains unclear to me. I'm not sure at all that it was the "proletariat": I think it was some weird alliance of neofascist nationalists with liberal middle/upper middle class types. That said, the apparent "hands off" approach by the Ukrainian Army was interesting: the national police did all the dirty work.
> 
> ...



I tend to agree.  Though re: populace,  I'm not sure if Putin is manipulating them, or if he is just doing what he knows would be popular.  And you're so right on how decisive they are.  They won't dither and dally, they'll send in their forces when needed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2014)

_Marches_, border states, buffers and so on have been a feature of national and imperial security _notions_ for 2,000+ years ~ longer, indeed, if we think about e.g. the ancient Egyptians (about whom I know precious little).

Putin/Russia is acting in a very familiar manner, including in thumbing his nose at the _polite_ world, which is something Britain did for much of the 18th and 19th centuries and which America did, especially in Latin America, in the 20th.


----------



## pbi (26 Mar 2014)

*"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must"
                             ​-Thucydides​
Every big, powerful, aggressive country invades whoever it needs to/is able to, for whatever "reasons of state" it presents, at one time or another. The reasons and justifications vary, but for the invaded it all looks pretty much the same.*


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Marches_, border states, buffers and so on have been a feature of national and imperial security _notions_ for 2,000+ years ~ longer, indeed, if we think about e.g. the ancient Egyptians (about whom I know precious little).
> 
> Putin/Russia is acting in a very familiar manner, including in thumbing his nose at the _polite_ world, which is something Britain did for much of the 18th and 19th centuries and which America did, especially in Latin America, in the 20th.



This is merely history repeating itself.  The Russians are a land power and view geography/space as protection.  This goes all the way back to Medieval Muscovy and since then different empires occupying that part of the world have expanded and then contracted repeatedly.  Medieval Muscovy, Kievan Rus, Czarist Russia, The Soviet Union and now modern day Russia.  It's just history repeating it self.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Mar 2014)

When you have that many repetitions you are not discussing a series of aberrations.  You are describing a natural process that is as regular and predictable as the tides or a beating heart.  Systolic and diastolic.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Mar 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> When you have that many repetitions you are not discussing a series of aberrations.  You are describing a natural process that is as regular and predictable as the tides or a beating heart.  Systolic and diastolic.



Absolutely, which is why I am so taken aback that people were surprised this happened.  If anything this whole situation may play out favourably for the Canadian Forces as the government is going to be forced to take a renewed interest in defence, whether they want to or not.  I suspect this will be spun into a campaign issue come election time and the Arctic will come into play.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Mar 2014)

Drew:

Everybody dies as well... anuvver natural process.  That often comes as a surprise as well  >

The fact that it happened isn't / shouldn't be a surprise.  Unless you are believer in the triumph of hope over experience.

The exact timing, location and scope..... now that was a surprise.

By the way - Jeffrey Simpson apparently thinks the view of Putin ought to be revised.


----------



## pbi (27 Mar 2014)

It's actually a good thing that people were reminded what Russia is really like, after that silly (but massively expensive) Potemkin village called Sochi.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Mar 2014)

I agree.

Russia is decisive, greatly interested in its vital, strategic interests, and gives about one tenth of one cent's worth of care what the West thinks of it.  


And we ought to care very little about Crimea, or Ukraine for that matter.  The EU can have another basket case to worry about.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And we ought to care very little about Crimea, or Ukraine for that matter.  The EU can have another basket case to worry about.



Except that Canada is home to the largest Ukrainian _diaspora_ mostly concentrated out west in the Tory heartland. Possible election issue -  you think??


----------



## dimsum (27 Mar 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Except that Canada is home to the largest Ukrainian _diaspora_ mostly concentrated out west in the Tory heartland. Possible election issue -  you think??



How recent are most of the diaspora though?  Are they 1st, 2nd (or more) generation?  How many of them self-identify as "Ukrainian" over "Canadian", at least enough to persuade Canada into doing something about it?


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Mar 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> How recent are most of the diaspora though?  Are they 1st, 2nd (or more) generation?  How many of them self-identify as "Ukrainian" over "Canadian", at least enough to persuade Canada into doing something about it?



I'm a fourth Generation Ukrainian Canadian, very few family connections back to Ukraine (there are some) and I believe we should do something about it


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Mar 2014)

Very troubling situation where one country can lay claim to territory it had given up.What would stop Russia from taking Alaska ? Or Mexico much of the southwestern US ?Extreme examples but still possible.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Mar 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> How recent are most of the diaspora though?  Are they 1st, 2nd (or more) generation?  How many of them self-identify as "Ukrainian" over "Canadian", at least enough to persuade Canada into doing something about it?



Probably no more or less than the 4th or 5th generation "Irish Americans" who couldn't find Galway or Derry on a map, that are still a pretty formidable voting block.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Mar 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What would stop Russia from taking Alaska ?


Sarah Palin.   ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Mar 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> _Naked pictures of _Sarah Palin.   ;D



FTFY  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Probably no more or less than the 4th or 5th generation "Irish Americans" who couldn't find Galway or Derry on a map, that are still a pretty formidable voting block.




An interesting thing about the _hold_ that the _old country_ mythology holds is that those 4th and 5th generation Irish Americans were the major source of the IRA's funding.  :dunno:


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Mar 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Very troubling situation where one country can lay claim to territory it had given up.
> 
> 
> Or Mexico much of the southwestern US ?Extreme examples but still possible.



Which is what Germany offered to Mexico in the Zimmerman telegram if it would join Germany in the event of war with the United States.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/zimmermann-telegram-published-in-united-states


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2014)

Demographic changes could determine "who" owns the territory in question.

Kosovo is the historic heartland of the Serbs, but Serbs have drifted into modern day Serbia over the centuries, while Albanians have drifted into Kosovo, which explains why the Serbs were keen to expel the Albanians in 1999, and also why most other people rejected the Serbian claim to Kosovo. Your ancestors may have been living there in 1366, but if you aren't there today, then tough luck.

Russia may lose Siberia to Chinese immigration, as well as the more southerly parts of the "Near Beyond" as it depopulates while the Muslim peoples of Chechnya and other places rise.

And the Southwestern US may informally be transformed into "Alta Mexico" as the Hispanic population grows to overshadow the other Americans living there. Spanish is already the "second language" in many places, to the point that there are Spanish only media outlets, stores without any English signs and entire neighbourhoods without any English presence. While I suspect many people in "Alta Mexico" would wish to remain Americans on economic grounds, culturally and linguistically Alta Mexico would be quite distinct from the rest of America.

I'm sure readers can bring up examples in many other places as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2014)

:goodpost: Milpoints inbound.


----------



## Lightguns (28 Mar 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Demographic changes could determine "who" owns the territory in question.
> 
> Kosovo is the historic heartland of the Serbs, but Serbs have drifted into modern day Serbia over the centuries, while Albanians have drifted into Kosovo, which explains why the Serbs were keen to expel the Albanians in 1999, and also why most other people rejected the Serbian claim to Kosovo. Your ancestors may have been living there in 1366, but if you aren't there today, then tough luck.



I do not disagree with your high quality assessment except to say that the Serbs drifted out of Kosovo at the end of a Turkish sword wielded by the ancestors of the Albanians in Kosovo.  But as you say who really has a true homeland, not even the Scots of today can lay 100% claim to Scotland.

Edited:  no talka the English too good!


----------



## dimsum (28 Mar 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Demographic changes could determine "who" owns the territory in question.
> 
> Kosovo is the historic heartland of the Serbs, but Serbs have drifted into modern day Serbia over the centuries, while Albanians have drifted into Kosovo, which explains why the Serbs were keen to expel the Albanians in 1999, and also why most other people rejected the Serbian claim to Kosovo. Your ancestors may have been living there in 1366, but if you aren't there today, then tough luck.
> 
> ...



As ERC says,  :goodpost:

The thing with nations is that it's always fluid.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Mar 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> FTFY  ;D


Hey!!!  You got any??  I'm game. ;D  Nekked pic's of SP?


----------



## cupper (28 Mar 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Hey!!!  You got any??  I'm game. ;D  Nekked pic's of SP?



As long as it is only pics. 

As soon as she opens her mouth, the magic disappears.

Wink Wink. You Betcha


----------



## pbi (30 Mar 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Very troubling situation where one country can lay claim to territory it had given up.What would stop Russia from taking Alaska ? Or Mexico much of the southwestern US ?Extreme examples but still possible.



The risk level. Those actions you propose would mean war, with no questions asked. They are staying inside an area that, while it might bother people in the West, isn't an "existential" question for most countries outside those immediately bordering the USSR...ooops, sorry, I mean "Russia".


----------



## pbi (30 Mar 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...And the Southwestern US may informally be transformed into "Alta Mexico" as the Hispanic population grows to overshadow the other Americans living there. Spanish is already the "second language" in many places, to the point that there are Spanish only media outlets, stores without any English signs and entire neighbourhoods without any English presence. While I suspect many people in "Alta Mexico" would wish to remain Americans on economic grounds, culturally and linguistically Alta Mexico would be quite distinct from the rest of America...



Interesting scenario. If I'm not mistaken, the Hispanic demographic is the fastest growing in the entire US (not just the SW). When I lived in Virginia in 97-98, bilingual signs were in the supermarket we shopped in: a suburban area about 30 min S of DC. What if that continues to the point of creating pluralities and then majorities in the voting population of the SW states? What would happen if the Hispanic votes in those states were to lean toward a union with Mexico? (don't ask me why anybody in their right mind would actually seek that, but just go with me on this...).

If it's the democratic wish of those Hispanic Americans to separate and join Mexico, what happens?

If history is any indicator, the act of states separating to pursue their political agenda would be met by force by the US government.  But this wouldn't really be the same as what Russia did to Crimea: it would be suppressing an insurrection or sedition, not invading a previously sovereign state.

I think demographic change in the US is a huge elephant in the room, that neither party really knows exactly how to come to grips with.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2014)

Since much of Alta Mexico was forcibly removed from Mexico in the 1840's, there is a real historic grievance that Hispanic rabble rousers and politicians could use to whip up fervour for their cause. A certain political party in Canada has raised this into an art form, so we have first hand knowledge of this (even if the circumstances are rather different). As a matter of fact, "La Raza" is a movement which is based exactly on that premise.

Since one of the fundamentals of the American/Anglosphere political culture is flexibility and allowing for a certain amount of accommodation, I suspect that Alta Mexico in the 2060's will still be politically "American", but linguistically and culturally distinct, and home of political parties which speak to different issues to their constituents than the current two parties. If there still is a Democrat and Republican party in 2060, one of the defining features of American politics in that era might well be courting the votes of the "swing" party in the House and Senate. If you thought the "log rolling" for Obamacare was disgusting, just think what our children and grandchildren will be reading about. 

I'll have to find "The Next 100 Years" in the library, but I know the author has devoted the concluding chapters of the book on exactly that issue. I will admit I didn't pay as much attention to that part, being focused more on the 2020 to 2040 timeline where I might still be around to see things develop, but readers of Army.ca should look it up.


----------



## pbi (31 Mar 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since much of Alta Mexico was forcibly removed from Mexico in the 1840's, there is a real historic grievance that Hispanic rabble rousers and politicians could use to whip up fervour for their cause. A certain political party in Canada has raised this into an art form, so we have first hand knowledge of this (even if the circumstances are rather different). As a matter of fact, "La Raza" is a movement which is based exactly on that premise.
> 
> Since one of the fundamentals of the American/Anglosphere political culture is flexibility and allowing for a certain amount of accommodation, I suspect that Alta Mexico in the 2060's will still be politically "American", but linguistically and culturally distinct, and home of political parties which speak to different issues to their constituents than the current two parties. If there still is a Democrat and Republican party in 2060, one of the defining features of American politics in that era might well be courting the votes of the "swing" party in the House and Senate. If you thought the "log rolling" for Obamacare was disgusting, just think what our children and grandchildren will be reading about.
> 
> I'll have to find "The Next 100 Years" in the library, but I know the author has devoted the concluding chapters of the book on exactly that issue. I will admit I didn't pay as much attention to that part, being focused more on the 2020 to 2040 timeline where I might still be around to see things develop, but readers of Army.ca should look it up.


I admit I didn't think about the historical facts you bring up: that makes it more plausible than I thought. I guess that by the idea of a "culturally and linguistically distinct" region you are thinking of something more "distinct" than what might currently exist in the US: more like a Quebec situation.
The idea of more than two political parties (of significance...) in the US is also an interesting one: while it would require a major change in US political culture, it might also represent a positive move away from confrontational "black or whitw", "Us or Them" politics that has been the norm in the US.

I read the "Next 100 Years" a while ago: the part you refer to was interesting, although I recall that overall I wasn't completely impressed with the book.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Mar 2014)

So when Davy and Daniel were rabble rousing at the Alamo was Santa Anna suppressing an insurrection or were the Yanks destabilizing a neighbouring country?  

 >

Jus' curious.


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Mar 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So when Davy and Daniel were rabble rousing at the Alamo was Santa Anna suppressing an insurrection or were the Yanks destabilizing a neighbouring country?
> 
> >
> 
> Jus' curious.



The 1836 Texas revolution was a breakaway movement by settlers from the United States who had moved into what then was part of Mexico to act as a (largely unsuccessful) bulwark against the Comanches. They were Mexican citizens who had sworn allegiance to the central government or had been born in Mexico. There also were a large number of Mexicans who joined the revolution and supported the Anglos. Crockett and the like were not a majority of the defenders of the Alamo. Also they did not have support of the US Federal government, but for that matter the hunters etc who tried to liberate Canada at about the same time did not either.

If Santa Anna had been willing to compromise, the settlers could well have remained Mexican, and who knows how the history of the Southwest would have developed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Mar 2014)

I demand that the US gives us back all of Washington State and part of Oregon down to the Columbia river, at the very least we want the San Juan Islands back, pig or no pig.


----------



## cupper (5 Apr 2014)

We could always throw our support for DC statehood, then push them to secede. We do have a claim on the territory, dating back to the War of 1812.

Only problem is the rest of the US would probably be all too willing to let them go as long as they had a guarantee that we took Congress with it.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Apr 2014)

Don't want DC.....

Unless...

Perhaps we can relocate Bytown to Foggy Bottom and give all the Pols and Bureaucrats their independence?


----------



## WPJ (6 Apr 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In the same period France went through a monarchy, two republics and a dictatorship.... Got to love those lawyers and their constitutions. :



You gotta love the lawyers, they always make there money, lol..


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2014)

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". 

Henry VI (Part 2)- (Act IV, Scene II)


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More on this in an interview with Margaret MacMillan (Oxford) which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/margaret-macmillan-how-today-is-like-the-period-before-the-first-world-war/article17626075/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...




And here is a rather reassuring piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Canadian International Council_, which suggests that this is not like 1914 nor, even, 1964:

http://opencanada.org/features/blogs/roundtable/wwi-the-cold-war-and-today/


> WWI, The Cold War, and Today
> 
> Steve Saideman
> 
> ...




New century: new problems.


----------



## McG (4 Aug 2014)

But, on the other side of the coin, we are in a particularly turbulent period.  A lot of comparison between the Ukrain crisis and Nazi Germany has been made, but I find as much (if not more) similarities with the world at the start of the 20th century than with the generation later.



> What makes us think today's world leaders are any better than the ones that started WW1?
> Rex Murphy
> National Post
> 26 Jul 2014
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (4 Aug 2014)

I'd suggest 1920's war-weariness coupled with 1930's increasing political/military turbulence.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Aug 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> How recent are most of the diaspora though?  Are they 1st, 2nd (or more) generation?  How many of them self-identify as "Ukrainian" over "Canadian", at least enough to persuade Canada into doing something about it?



Here in Manitoba, there are plenty of 2nd or 3rd generation people who self-identify as "Ukrainian" and speak longingly of _baba's _perogies...Ukrainian could probably qualify as an official language here.

On a serious note, they _are_ concerned of the events in the old country and feel the Canadian government is not being forceful enough.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I demand that the US gives us back all of Washington State and part of Oregon down to the Columbia river, at the very least we want the San Juan Islands back, pig or no pig.



 :goodpost:  MilPoints inbound!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Aug 2014)

and they vote here as well, so it's not surprising Harper's stance on the issue. I suspect Putin has more respect for Harper, than Obama, although he has no reason to fear Harper as there is little we can do.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> and they vote here as well, so it's not surprising Harper's stance on the issue. I suspect Putin has more respect for Harper, than Obama, although he has no reason to fear Harper as there is little we can do.



We could always send Eddie.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2014)

Long article from the American Interest which suggests that things are more like 1814 than 1914, and we are looking at a sort of "Congress of Vienna " on an almost global scale:

Part 1

http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/06/16/a-world-reimagined/



> *A World Reimagined*
> Parag Khanna
> Why 1814 should tell us more than 1914 about 2014.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2014)

Part 2:



> It is tempting to believe that the presence of China as an ascendant superpower automatically entails the resumption of a familiar balance-of-power pattern, whether creakily bipolar or perhaps something more broadly distributed. It probably does, but alongside that pattern is a potentially more fundamental trend toward systemic entropy. The units central to the system, the Westphalian territorial states, are increasingly out of sync with economic realities, demographic dynamics, and the normative vapor trails of the accelerated cultural pluralization that issues from both. This entropic trend is more by accident than design, but it is what it is.
> 
> One crucial reason to study both 1814 and 1919 together is that we are, in a way, still experiencing both 1814’s negotiation among empires and the continuation of 1919’s imperial collapse. Wilson’s ideal of popular self-determination, scraped and molded from the bloody dust of empires, continues to play out across the former eastern Ottoman territories: Witness the dissolution of Iraq and Syria, and the current birth pangs of Palestine and Kurdistan. Only in the past decade have the former western Ottoman (and, before that, mostly Hapsburg) nations of the Balkans been sorted out—first through the wars of Yugoslav succession in the 1990s and now through their membership applications to the European Union.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2014)

Part 3:



> This is the new shape of the world, and with it comes a novel diplomatic logic. It is a world of strong states but no clear global hierarchy. There is no single global order, but diverse regional orders. There is massive interdependence inter-regionally with global economy and supply chains, but only limited global integration in terms of military and political systems. During the 1990s, many thought that post-Soviet republics, Arab monarchs, and Asian authoritarian regimes would necessarily become Western-style democracies. By now we appreciate the permanent plurality of political regimes. The West barely preaches democracy anymore in the sour aftermath of the “forward strategy for freedom.” “Good governance” is the new mantra, exported as much by Singapore as by Sweden.
> 
> Diplomacy has become mercenary by inspiration, too. Emerging powers from Turkey to Saudi Arabia to Kazakhstan do not align with one superpower; they “multi-align” to get the best deal for themselves. NATO member Turkey has just arranged to buy missiles from a Western-sanctioned Chinese arms dealer. Saudi Arabia has signed up to $60 billion in arms from the United States, but contracts most of its oil to China and has ramped up its defense dealings and investments with China as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2014)

Part 4:



> The age of great men has passed. Thomas Carlysle’s once interesting quip about the history of the world being the biography of great men—the “Great Man Theory of History”—is interesting no longer. Great change is afoot, but no group of leaders seems to either understand or be in charge of it. In that sense our time is unlike either 1814 or 1914. In place of Metternich we have Russia’s Sergei Lavrov, a conservative reactionary from a weakened power, to be sure, but hardly a man to build global order. Meanwhile, America’s top diplomats have been little more than celebrity firemen and firewomen, leaving little dent on the international arena other than the weight of their self-congratulatory autobiographies. Our leaders scarcely seek to nudge history, let alone shape it.
> 
> Grand strategy is supposed to be an interconnected set of doctrines and policies that link means to ends. It should leverage, wherever possible, trends that are advantageous to its objectives. Since the end of the Cold War, American grand strategy—insofar as it was conscious of its calling—has traced an arc from hegemonic internationalism to deferential retrenchment. Diplomatic minimalism is the order of the day. One might think, judging from from Cold War history, that only immigrants to America are capable of global strategic thought. But President Obama’s international childhood and travels fed hopes that he would not only redress the Bush Administration’s foreign policy failures, but also deploy a fresh strategic vision. But hopes are not self-fulfilling anymore than hope is a policy. The Obama Administration has been mostly reactive to events. The platitudes in the President’s inaugural address are long forgotten amid the collapse of allies in Egypt and mass murder in Syria. The Fed’s monetary policy, once hailed as having saved the financial system, is now viewed as a driver of future economic instability, to say nothing of the government shutdown in October 2013. The NSA surveillance revelations have damaged relations with allies from Germany to Brazil. The “reset” with Russia was stillborn, and then buried once and for all when Russia harbored NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and recently invaded Ukraine. The much touted “pivot” to Asia caused more confusion than reassurance, and feels all but empty (except, perhaps, to the Philippines).
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Aug 2014)

An error in the first part, it was 1/2 a century of peace, not a century, although he makes a passing remark about Prussia but never mentions 1870, odd. The last part is Bush-failed again and again, but although he admits Obama has not lived up to his billing, he seems bent on excusing his actions. He also fails to mention Bush attempting to improve relations in Africa, something that administration gets zero credit for.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Aug 2014)

Prussians were stirring the pot in Denmark in 1848 and again in 1864.  It was the turn of the Austrians in 1866 before the French were hit in 1870.

48-14=34 years of "peace" - excluding war by other means - labour strife and rebellion.


----------



## McG (25 Aug 2014)

I stumbled across an article that seems to agree with the views in this thread on where the world's political situation has gone.  The following was also published in the Edmonton Journal under the title _Consider the merits of ‘inclusive nationalism’_.


> *Rise of the nationalist
> World leaders must do more to include irate exclusionists*
> Shannon Gormley
> The Ottawa Citizen
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Aug 2014)

Methinks they pine for the fjords of the International Socialist Movement, an overarching message of a utopia just over the hill. To me nationalism is basically large scale tribalism, not that it is a bad thing. Nationalism allows allows more than tribalism. The assumption is that more is better, so if nationalism can be broaden to globalism them all will be well. The problem I see is scaling up does not work, there is less and less buy in as the model gets bigger, less perceived benefits as well. Give people 2 generations of peace and they likely will not value it as much as those that just found it. So I suspect "regionlism" to give a name to something like the EU is about as big a model that is at all sustainable even then only in the short term.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Aug 2014)

Well said Colin.

I think this is the key take-away:



> In Europe, Roth, Nussbaum and Puddington all point out, *nations are anxious to preserve cultural uniqueness. "There's a refusal to recognize the cultural character of Europe*, and a desire to go back," Roth says.
> 
> Of course, that desire is absurd, leading to cases that Puddington calls "a little bit laughable."



I would suggest there is a refusal amongst these pundits to recognize that the individual does not wish to be subsumed into the collective 7 Billion.  And that much to the chagrin of the communards resistance is NOT futile.

There is no European collective culture - as MacKinder apparently recognized back in 1904.  There is a multitude of distinct local cultures with strong blood ties amongst each other and with equally strong geographic roots.  What is true for Europe is equally true for the mountains of the Middle East (Which encompass the Caucasus, Turkey, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Afghanistan and the Punjab), the jungled mountains of South East Asia and the islands of the Pacific.

The problem is that as people see layers of bureaucracy piled one on top of each other they perceive themselves as being more and more isolated from the controlling authorities.  Their interests are no longer addressed.

In a world where God/Allah/Yahweh is no longer the final arbiter people no longer are willing to accept random outcomes.  They expect rational outcomes.  If the outcomes are consistently counter to their expectations then they will look to the authors of those decisions and determine that:

A) the authors are acting against their interests
B) the authors are acting rationally
C) the authors are continually demonstrating a bias against them
D) the authors are just people like themselves, and no better than themselves, and are replaceable.

Protestantism succeeded in large part because the individual felt empowered to discuss their fate with the Ultimate Authority.  Even in the older religions, priests may intercede but the conversation was a personal one.

In the UK the ultimate statement of the individuals worth was the ability to petition the King.

In the modern world would your average Brit or Catalonian petition Barrossa and expect an effective redress of their grievance?  Would anybody expect anything from Ban-Ki-Moon?

Heh, would anybody expect an effective redress of grievance from petitioning any Western Parliament?

Of course people are turning away from the institutions when the institutions both lack "Majesty" and are ineffective.

"Majesty" - that characteristic of anything that sets it apart from the mundane, the work-a-day.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Aug 2014)

True, I felt the British Royalty missed an opportunity in the 90's to be the court of "faint Hope". When all else fails one can petition the Queen or a member of the royal family on duty to represent the Queen. They should have put themselves out there as the heart and conscious of the UK government, a place to go to make a last ditch plea against a heartless and soulless bureaucracy. That function is something they can do and would be seen by the general public as a "useful function" and endear them. In some sense I think the current Queen has instinctively been able to carry that role, but some of the family did not come even close to meeting the criteria.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Aug 2014)

I can't find anything to add here except to say that Landpower needs to be projected from secure bases and always needs a clear evacuation route.  We can't afford the Bighorn 1876 or Kabul 1842 or .... so many others.  The Navy can provide secure bases for many operations "in that period of neither war nor peace."




> Global Conflicts Make the Case for Strategic Landpower
> 
> 
> (Source: Lexington Institute; issued August 26, 2014)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/156486/crises-show-need-for-strategic-land-power.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2014)

Doug Saunders, a somewhat left of centre analyst, idemtifies five 'schools of thought' on the _strategic_ future, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/five-schools-of-thought-about-where-the-world-may-be-headed-next/article20812161/?page=all#dashboard/follows/


> Five schools of thought about where the world may be headed next
> 
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------

