# US sanctions weapon under threat, but not from Bitcoin



## TheBigShort (25 Jan 2018)

This article could be taken out of the _Shortie Syndrome book of The Apocalypse _



It even includes comments from 'experts' for those of you inclined to indulge them.

An underlying point in the article is, to me, following on from globalisation the rapidly emerging, through AI and other technologies, world of decentralisation.

Early days yet, but nation states as we know them are becoming a thing of the past.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jan 2018)

Maybe, but only if everybody keeps acting as if the old rules applied, in a decentralised world who has the power to deter someone like Russia who continues to act as a nation state and rolls its tanks wherever it wants to go???
The US put the sanctions in place on Russia precisely because it was acting like a 19th century nation state, if it can't make the sanctions stick, what's to stop Russia continuing with that strategy?


----------



## TheBigShort (26 Jan 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Maybe, but only if everybody keeps acting as if the old rules applied, in a decentralised world who has the power to deter someone like Russia who continues to act as a nation state and rolls its tanks wherever it wants to go???



I dont think Russia will escape it either. Im thinking more in terms of individual autonomy rather than an actual end to flag waving, anthems and military parades. 



odyssey06 said:


> The US put the sanctions in place on Russia precisely because it was acting like a 19th century nation state, if it can't make the sanctions stick, what's to stop Russia continuing with that strategy?



Without wanting to go into a long debate on this, I think Russias actions are a consequence of agreements breached by US not to advance NATO bases to the Russian border.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I dont think Russia will escape it either. Im thinking more in terms of individual autonomy rather than an actual end to flag waving, anthems and military parades.



I dunno... Russia seems to have a fairly large black market aspect to its economy. This probably represents a slight increase in autonomy for some; and a large decrease in autonomy for others. It seems to be able to co-exist side by side with a modern nation state that thinks it is ok to redraw borders with tanks.



> Without wanting to go into a long debate on this, I think Russias actions are a consequence of agreements breached by US not to advance NATO bases to the Russian border.



I don't think Russia needed the excuse, but regardless of the original trigger to the actions... my wider point is that these kind of agreements exist between nation states, backed up by something like a balance of power. If there is no counter-balancing power on one side, it will give more incentive to another nation state (not necessarily Russia, though they would be likely candidates for that role) to play by the old rules of realpolitik.
And if nation states cannot use 'war by other means' i.e. economic sanctions, to me it makes it more likely military options will be resorted to - especially if drone advancements reduce the spectre of body bags.


----------



## Purple (26 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Without wanting to go into a long debate on this, I think Russias actions are a consequence of agreements breached by US not to advance NATO bases to the Russian border.


Agreed; George Bush (senior) gave undertakings that NATO would not expand into former Warsaw Pact countries after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Those undertakings have not been honoured. That in turn led to the environment where a strongman type leader such as Putin could take power. 



odyssey06 said:


> I don't think Russia needed the excuse, but regardless of the original trigger to the actions... my wider point is that these kind of agreements exist between nation states, backed up by something like a balance of power. If there is no counter-balancing power on one side, it will give more incentive to another nation state (not necessarily Russia, though they would be likely candidates for that role) to play by the old rules of realpolitik.
> And if nation states cannot use 'war by other means' i.e. economic sanctions, to me it makes it more likely military options will be resorted to - especially if drone advancements reduce the spectre of body bags.


 Good points.


----------



## TheBigShort (26 Jan 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> If there is no counter-balancing power on one side, it will give more incentive to another nation state (not necessarily Russia, though they would be likely candidates for that role) to play by the old rules of realpolitik.
> And if nation states cannot use 'war by other means' i.e. economic sanctions, to me it makes it more likely military options will be resorted to - especially if drone advancements reduce the spectre of body bags.



This is a very good point. And I should add, that any concept of decentralization, or more individual autonomy does not necessarily mean more stability, in the short to medium term at least. 
In fact most change causes instability to lessor or greater degrees. 
Currently, the military spending of most major militaries is on the up, along with military drills, and news headlines of military provocations. 

Some recent examples, with lots in between.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...eep-russian-military-advances-head-army-warn/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...uclear-strike-against-Sweden-Nato-admits.html


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> Agreed; George Bush (senior) gave undertakings that NATO would not expand into former Warsaw Pact countries after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Those undertakings have not been honoured. That in turn led to the environment where a strongman type leader such as Putin could take power.



I don't know if expanding NATO into the Baltic States was a wise move (for many reasons).
Including Poland makes a certain amount more sense militarily and historically.

Putin took power on the back of the brutal campaign in Chechnya.
Russia has enough internal drivers for a strongman that I don't think NATO is needed to explain it.
NATO in the Baltic states is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain Putin 

If NATO hadn't expanded into Baltic States we could be in the exact same situation we are in with Ukraine *and *the exact same thing could be going on in the Baltic States also.

Russia seems to be unable to appreciate the difference between sovereign states choosing their own path e.g. Poland joining NATO; and domination of a unallied neighbouring country. Until it does, we are going to have Ukraine type situations.


----------



## Purple (26 Jan 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> If NATO hadn't expanded into Baltic States we could be in the exact same situation we are in with Ukraine and the exact same thing could be going on in the Baltic States also.


Yea, but Crimea is part of Russia and they were entitled to take it back.


----------



## Itchy (26 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> An underlying point in the article is, to me, following on from globalisation the rapidly emerging, through AI and other technologies, world of decentralisation.
> 
> Early days yet, but nation states as we know them are becoming a thing of the past.



Interesting perspective on almost exclusively economic innovations having geopolitical implications and potentially forcing a change to how diplomacy is conducted. I don't think the relevance of the nation state will be insignificant in our lifetimes, however.



odyssey06 said:


> I dunno... Russia seems to have a fairly large black market aspect to its economy. This probably represents a slight increase in autonomy for some; and a large decrease in autonomy for others. It seems to be able to co-exist side by side with a modern nation state that thinks it is ok to redraw borders with tanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again great points, a lot to disect. I mean in terms of Russian society, it is quite fraternalistic and the 'strong man' autocratic leader has always prevailed, at all levels of society. For such a vast land with a disparate population of many ethnicities, you could understand how that would evolve. I would see their military disposition as an extension of that.

In terms of economic sanctions, it's kind of a 'modern' development in that the balance of power has historically manifested with hard power. It's the soft power that has evolved to become the primary response to nationstate belligerence. For a host of reasons, but mainly because it's easy to commit to rather than the alternative.

I don't see the drone wars as the logical evolution but be in no doubt, we are living in age of information warfare and it is happening world wide by all the superpowers, right now.



Purple said:


> Yea, but Crimea is part of Russia and they were entitled to take it back.



Just wow! That is certainly a contrarian view. I am genuinely interested in your justification for this?

I hope the Brits can't use your logic!



odyssey06 said:


> I don't know if expanding NATO into the Baltic States was a wise move (for many reasons).
> Including Poland makes a certain amount more sense militarily and historically.
> 
> Putin took power on the back of the brutal campaign in Chechnya.
> ...



In terms of the OPs original point about decentralisation; before the digital age, isn't the emergence of NATO a logical evolution of the decentralisation of power and military resources between smaller nation states trying to prosper in the shadow of a belligerent. I mean, what is decentralisation but an attempt to make more efficient use of resources, economic or otherwise. But magnitude trumps efficiency, most of the time, particularly in terms of hard power. Whatever about the merits of the actions of NATO, it is not equivalent to Russian empire building. I don't think tolerating 'Ukraine type situations' is acceptable. Ukraine today Estonia tomorrow.


----------



## TheBigShort (27 Jan 2018)

Itchy said:


> Interesting perspective on almost exclusively economic innovations having geopolitical implications and potentially forcing a change to how diplomacy is conducted. I don't think the relevance of the nation state will be insignificant in our lifetimes, however.



I agree. I may have given the impression of the end of nation states in my OP which was not intended. Instead I was alluding to greater individual autonomy, or more, the age of consent.
The principle of consent is prevalent already in many respects, but it is underpinned by State parameters - I think that those State parameters are under threat.
Going back to the article which focuses on the financial sector, whats interesting is that with all the noise about bitcoin (its value, its worthlessness etc) the author points to other alternative technological innovations and models in the way business transactions may be conducted. This may impact adversely on the parameters in the US Dollar positions itself as the worlds reserve currency.

Closer to home, the repeal the eight campaign, and subsequent recommendation to allow unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks is also in many respects a consequence of technological innovation.
Listening to one of the committee members explain the decision (im not taking a position here either way btw), she said, abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX were available on the internet - we may as well face the reality of what is occuring here, and occurring when pregnant women take a flight to England.
It crossed my mind, what else is occuring here that perhaps we should face the reality of? Cocaine, heroin?

To finish, as mentioned above, the information age, nano technology, digitalistion, etc...etc...would appear to be upon us. So much can be calculated, determined, resolved, applied, distributed etc that it makes you wonder what need will there be for over-arching assemblies of politicians to determine, at an individual level, what any of us can and cannot do?


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2018)

Itchy said:


> Just wow! That is certainly a contrarian view. I am genuinely interested in your justification for this?


Crimea was annexed from the Ottoman Empire by Prince Potemkin for Catherine the great in 1783 and remained part of Russia until 1954 when it became part of Ukraine. This was done as an internal transfer within the USSR with no notion that Ukraine and Russia would ever become independent countries again. The motivation for the change is unclear but Nikita Khrushchev was in charge and he was very fond of Ukraine. It may have been as simple as the desire to administer the whole area under one administration as there was a new hydro-electric dam on the Dnieper River which powered the whole place. The fact is that Russia has her Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, their only cold weather access to the Atlantic, and has had for over 200 years. There's no way they ever intended Crimea to be part of another country. The fact that the majority of the people there are ethnically Russian and want to be part of Russia should also be taken into account.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Jan 2018)

Purple said:


> The fact is that Russia has her Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, their only cold weather access to the Atlantic, and has had for over 200 years. There's no way they ever intended Crimea to be part of another country. The fact that the majority of the people there are ethnically Russian and want to be part of Russia should also be taken into account.



I agree with this, and NATO's progression toward Russian borders prompted them to act in a manner that is wholly in their self-interest, and to be expected. For instance, how would the US react if Russia were put military bases or weapons within close range of the US? Think Cuba.
If Russia were to set up base in Ireland, how would the UK, EU and US re-act?


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I agree with this, and NATO's progression toward Russian borders prompted them to act in a manner that is wholly in their self-interest, and to be expected. For instance, how would the US react if Russia were put military bases or weapons within close range of the US? Think Cuba.
> If Russia were to set up base in Ireland, how would the UK, EU and US re-act?


Agreed, just as the plan to run a gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe may have caused the Syrian war; Russia supplies 80% of Europe's natural Gas, providing a large chunk of her exports and cash, so a pipeline from the Middle East is an existential threat to Russia's economic survival. Therefore she will go to war (or cause one) to prevent it.


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I agree. I may have given the impression of the end of nation states in my OP which was not intended. Instead I was alluding to greater individual autonomy, or more, the age of consent.
> The principle of consent is prevalent already in many respects, but it is underpinned by State parameters - I think that those State parameters are under threat.
> Going back to the article which focuses on the financial sector, whats interesting is that with all the noise about bitcoin (its value, its worthlessness etc) the author points to other alternative technological innovations and models in the way business transactions may be conducted. This may impact adversely on the parameters in the US Dollar positions itself as the worlds reserve currency.
> 
> ...


It sounds like a good idea, all this devolution of power to the individual, but I've never been able to see where the line is between absolute democracy and mob rule.


----------

