Skip to main content

Huge Moment, Short Post: Congratulations To Russia On The First Successful Military Operation In the Modern Era

No doubt some sort of grand deal has been made
But that is for future news to reveal.

Let's get to the heart of the matter, after cumbersome US and Soviet military operations that characterized the last 65 years or so (almost all of which involved being bogged down, being defeated or using the op as cover to occupy the targeted nation for a protracted period of time) we have witnessed something remarkable. Russia actually did what they said they would.  They moved their military into Syria on invitation from the legitimate government (others just illegally bombed in a questionable fashion), decimated ISIS and other terrorist groups, destroyed the ISIS/Turkish black market oil trade, sent a loud message to anyone with future designs on Syria, and moved out with few casualties.  It's worth noting that they have not "abandoned" Assad (he was the first to know) and are in fact leaving enough clout in key areas to secure the situation.

Take the time to reflect on this achievement, unique in modern times. This is a truly landmark moment and it proves the military can be used effectively, in a remarkably short time period.

If the situation changes, they can move back in, but they have basically succeeded despite the overwhelming & unjustified Western media suspicion,  I think it's time the MSM acknowledge that Putin has cleaned up the mess left by Western/Gulf States/Israel/Turkeys intervention, and basic decency really calls for some sort of thanks. Unless of course, defeating terrorists was not their true goal.....

If it was, they should be embarrassed that after two years trying to achieve it, Russia did it in three short months.

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…