9 ms·

Can anyone recommend some quality, somewhat neutral books that analyze the economical, political and military developments over the last and future decades? We

Can anyone recommend some quality, somewhat neutral books that analyze the economical, political and military developments over the last and future decades? We are obviously seeing shifts in the global economy and power balance, with the US losing it's complete dominance, China becoming more confident and aggressive, countries like Turkey showing increasing aggression against the EU, and a more multi-polar balance in general. I'd love to learn some more, but most of the books I find are too "pop-sci", have a strong "US good/China scary & evil" tint, or a too narrow focus.

dis-sys 6y ago
I am reading Brzeninski's The Grand Chessboard this week. It is a 24yo book with some very interesting stuff.
ArkanExplorer 6y ago
Its going to be the same as for the past hundreds of years. Peoples of the Northern Latitudes are sent to war against eachother at the behest of their masters - for no real gain apart from preventing one group from becoming 'too powerful'. The natural inclination of the European, American, Russian, Chinese people are to conduct trade, tourism, and breeding with eachother, and to spread civilization across the planet and solar system. But it seems that our warlord controllers will not allow this.
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  Somehow I'm sensing you're implying "our warlord controllers" aren't in the "European, American, Russian, Chinese people." Mind expanding on this before I jump to conclusions on your implication...
  - ArkanExplorer 6y ago
    You might have to excuse my tone. I am from Ukraine and its disheartening to see Western people jump excitedly at the concept of war.
    - reducesuffering 6y ago
      I don't see anyone here jumping excitedly. A prepared France is good for global stability. All countries have had their major shortcomings, but France has still been a paragon for enlightenment values. Without defense, authoritarians have the leeway to bully and kill whoever suits them, as Crimea is aware of.
    - zoomablemind 6y ago
      > ...You might have to excuse my tone. I am from Ukraine and its disheartening to see Western people jump excitedly at the concept of war. Very confusing indeed. I wonder where do you fit yourself among "European, American, Russian, Chinese," and the Western people that "jump excitedly"?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway894345 6y ago
> have a strong "US good/China scary & evil" tint The US is imperfect and perhaps worse than (post-colonial) Europe in many respects, but does anyone seriously think that a Chinese global hegemony would be better? I understand that this is controversial and I'm not trying to agitate, but I am curious about who holds this position and why?
- vmception 6y ago
  Well that's part of the point, China is obsessed with territorial unity, not expansionist policies, where the overlap is limited specifically to where we already know: other places that China already calls China. The American perspective is that everyone is secretly trying to expand - like America did. Chinese hegemony could happen in other areas, like how it already has resulted in movies being changed to accommodate Chinese audiences, or having leverage over many private sectors who want access to their market, and with a currency based hegemony that could increase. But the other person's point about books being too "US good/China scary & evil" is exactly about the very limiting false dichotomies that you latched directly on to.
  - adventured 6y ago
    > China is obsessed with territorial unity, not expansionist policies Obviously false. From Tibet to the recent massive South China Sea annexation and Taiwan, all of it is hyper expansionist. It doesn't matter if they lie and claim otherwise, it's plainly a lie. They're seeking territorial expansion. Nobody in their right mind believes the waters off the coast of south Vietnam belongs to China, except China. That's not about territorial unity, it's about hegemony in Asia and expanding their territory through military force. They're in conquering mode. The territy they took when they conquered Tibet is twice the size of France. The South China Sea territory they're attempting to take now - which does not belong to them - is at least the size of Tibet or larger. That's conquering on a scale not seen since immediately after WW2 with the Soviet Union's land grab in Eastern Europe.
  - makomk 6y ago
    The Chinese propaganda says they're just defending their territory, but as far as I can tell it's just expansionism in disguise. That is to say, they've been taking areas that even China considered to be part of (say) India, rewriting the past so that they're not only part of China but always have been, and sending in troops to claim them. In many ways their claim to the South China Sea is like this too.
thinkmassive 6y ago
Some books I recently enjoyed, mostly focused on the infosec aspect but still somewhat on topic: The Kill Chain, by Christian Brose Active Measures, by Thomas Rid Sandworm, by Andy Greenberg Fatal System Error, by Joseph Mann
wcarss 6y ago
I would also love to find a book like that. But, I doubt that it exists -- probably the world was always like this, but, it seems like there is just too much going on, and too much context to try to grasp and consider. One example of just one thing that's barely been reckoned with in mass public discourse, a tiny thing and an unfathomably huge thing, is the impact of national and corporate intelligence agencies on the world over the past 200 years, during the time when any nation could project force into pretty much any other via easy global travel. Every major country has not just spies, but significant resources they can bring to bear in terms of psychological operations and embedded operatives across the political spectrum. Just one small example of this kind of thing is Operation Gladio[1], which had massive ramifications for the political landscape in Europe in the last 50 years, and there are countless things like this that we do and don't know anything about. Just the USA has had a hand in so many bizarre and hugely important events, and then to think that Russia, China, Germany, Israel, France, the UK, and any number of other countries have operated in a similar fashion since WWI or earlier? Yikes! And that doesn't even touch on the corporate side of it, with its roots going back to the gilded age or earlier, where unions and putdowns and murders and all kinds of nutty (but secret) behaviour was just... normal. There's just so much we don't, and may never know, and even that stuff is just a tiny portion of the picture. The kind of open and secret economic games that get played, power and relationship dynamics between countries and their leaders, their wealthy families, the networks of people who meet through family and upbringing, grudges, debts, ideological choices and pragmatic ones -- it goes on and on and on. And then the technological changes! But, I would really love to read that book if you find it. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
hn8788 6y ago
The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World. It's written by a retired British general. It covers how war changed during the industrial revolution, then with the creation of nuclear weapons. The main point of the book is that conventional warfare is all but obsolete, but high level commanders don't know how to conduct anything but conventional warfare, and that the media can win or lose a conflict based on the narrative it pushes.
abeppu 6y ago
In addition to just the difficulty posed by the breadth of what you're asking for, if there are also institutional or structural pressures which preclude such a work from existing? On the academic side, I get the sense that there is so much pressure to specialize and deeply study narrow areas that a really broad work (global developments over decades) would not be well received. Within think tanks, a broad survey would likely still need to be concordant with an institutional agenda. And if really broad documents are being produced within state departments/foreign ministries or other parts of government, we would never see them?
legitster 6y ago
I've read a bit of Peter Zeihan. It's hard to be a good judge of his accuracy - he can come across as a bit of a pompous - but he seems knowing and somewhat neutral.
john_moscow 6y ago
When it comes to contemporary political events, there is too much incentive to push a specific agenda, and too little incentive to be neutral. So if you want a neutral opinion, you need to piece it together from multiple biased sources. My personal feeling, as a first-generation immigrant, is that the West has eliminated the local incentives for traits associated with personal strength. Partly by moving jobs requiring problem-solving to cheaper countries. Partly by the corporate culture trying to refocus people's passion into areas where they wouldn't accumulate economic leverage (passion about hobbies, social issues and identity is OK, passion about the product that would make you one day start your own business is a no-no). So we have a high concentration of strong ambitious people used to solving problems in countries like China (because the entire world literally pays them to do so). And we have a lot of softer people taking too many things for granted in the West, sitting on most of the world's wealth. This is a textbook recipe for a conflict.
Balgair 6y ago
I don't have any books to recommend, let alone 'neutral' sources, but two research 'areas' may help: 1) The USMC reading list. If you want an English language view of the current state of 'thought' from the leaders of any near-future conflicts, this list is it. It goes from poolee to the top brass. Maybe look for the more top level books and read from there. Though the underlying mindset is important and is from the lower rank books. https://mca-marines.org/commandants-professional-reading-list/ https://mca-marines.org/commandants-professional-reading-lis... 2) The wikipedia articles on the Nagorno-Karabakh war of October 2020 and their linked pages. Obviously there aren't any books out on this war yet, as it was so recent. But the underlying mechanics of the war are likely to be the ones we're seeing in the near future as both sides were somewhat evenly matched and had access to modern weaponry. "The war was marked by the deployment of drones, sensors, long-range heavy artillery[99] and missile strikes, as well as by state propaganda and the use of official social media accounts in online information warfare.[100]" I'd maybe put out a google alert for books about this conflict when they come out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict
chriselles 6y ago
Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap? China’s Three Warfares(non-kinetic/pre-kinetic warfare): https://cryptome.org/2014/06/prc-three-wars.pdf https://cryptome.org/2014/06/prc-three-wars.pdf Professor Anne Marie Brady: https://twitter.com/Anne_MarieBrady https://twitter.com/Anne_MarieBrady
sjg007 6y ago
Geopolitics is all about oil.
closeneough 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

dis-sys 6y ago

I am reading Brzeninski's The Grand Chessboard this week. It is a 24yo book with some very interesting stuff.

ArkanExplorer 6y ago

Its going to be the same as for the past hundreds of years. Peoples of the Northern Latitudes are sent to war against eachother at the behest of their masters - for no real gain apart from preventing one group from becoming 'too powerful'. The natural inclination of the European, American, Russian, Chinese people are to conduct trade, tourism, and breeding with eachother, and to spread civilization across the planet and solar system. But it seems that our warlord controllers will not allow this.

reducesuffering 6y ago
Somehow I'm sensing you're implying "our warlord controllers" aren't in the "European, American, Russian, Chinese people." Mind expanding on this before I jump to conclusions on your implication...
- ArkanExplorer 6y ago
  You might have to excuse my tone. I am from Ukraine and its disheartening to see Western people jump excitedly at the concept of war.
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    I don't see anyone here jumping excitedly. A prepared France is good for global stability. All countries have had their major shortcomings, but France has still been a paragon for enlightenment values. Without defense, authoritarians have the leeway to bully and kill whoever suits them, as Crimea is aware of.
  - zoomablemind 6y ago
    > ...You might have to excuse my tone. I am from Ukraine and its disheartening to see Western people jump excitedly at the concept of war. Very confusing indeed. I wonder where do you fit yourself among "European, American, Russian, Chinese," and the Western people that "jump excitedly"?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwaway894345 6y ago

> have a strong "US good/China scary & evil" tint The US is imperfect and perhaps worse than (post-colonial) Europe in many respects, but does anyone seriously think that a Chinese global hegemony would be better? I understand that this is controversial and I'm not trying to agitate, but I am curious about who holds this position and why?

vmception 6y ago
Well that's part of the point, China is obsessed with territorial unity, not expansionist policies, where the overlap is limited specifically to where we already know: other places that China already calls China. The American perspective is that everyone is secretly trying to expand - like America did. Chinese hegemony could happen in other areas, like how it already has resulted in movies being changed to accommodate Chinese audiences, or having leverage over many private sectors who want access to their market, and with a currency based hegemony that could increase. But the other person's point about books being too "US good/China scary & evil" is exactly about the very limiting false dichotomies that you latched directly on to.
- adventured 6y ago
  > China is obsessed with territorial unity, not expansionist policies Obviously false. From Tibet to the recent massive South China Sea annexation and Taiwan, all of it is hyper expansionist. It doesn't matter if they lie and claim otherwise, it's plainly a lie. They're seeking territorial expansion. Nobody in their right mind believes the waters off the coast of south Vietnam belongs to China, except China. That's not about territorial unity, it's about hegemony in Asia and expanding their territory through military force. They're in conquering mode. The territy they took when they conquered Tibet is twice the size of France. The South China Sea territory they're attempting to take now - which does not belong to them - is at least the size of Tibet or larger. That's conquering on a scale not seen since immediately after WW2 with the Soviet Union's land grab in Eastern Europe.
- makomk 6y ago
  The Chinese propaganda says they're just defending their territory, but as far as I can tell it's just expansionism in disguise. That is to say, they've been taking areas that even China considered to be part of (say) India, rewriting the past so that they're not only part of China but always have been, and sending in troops to claim them. In many ways their claim to the South China Sea is like this too.

thinkmassive 6y ago

Some books I recently enjoyed, mostly focused on the infosec aspect but still somewhat on topic: The Kill Chain, by Christian Brose Active Measures, by Thomas Rid Sandworm, by Andy Greenberg Fatal System Error, by Joseph Mann

wcarss 6y ago

I would also love to find a book like that. But, I doubt that it exists -- probably the world was always like this, but, it seems like there is just too much going on, and too much context to try to grasp and consider. One example of just one thing that's barely been reckoned with in mass public discourse, a tiny thing and an unfathomably huge thing, is the impact of national and corporate intelligence agencies on the world over the past 200 years, during the time when any nation could project force into pretty much any other via easy global travel. Every major country has not just spies, but significant resources they can bring to bear in terms of psychological operations and embedded operatives across the political spectrum. Just one small example of this kind of thing is Operation Gladio[1], which had massive ramifications for the political landscape in Europe in the last 50 years, and there are countless things like this that we do and don't know anything about. Just the USA has had a hand in so many bizarre and hugely important events, and then to think that Russia, China, Germany, Israel, France, the UK, and any number of other countries have operated in a similar fashion since WWI or earlier? Yikes! And that doesn't even touch on the corporate side of it, with its roots going back to the gilded age or earlier, where unions and putdowns and murders and all kinds of nutty (but secret) behaviour was just... normal. There's just so much we don't, and may never know, and even that stuff is just a tiny portion of the picture. The kind of open and secret economic games that get played, power and relationship dynamics between countries and their leaders, their wealthy families, the networks of people who meet through family and upbringing, grudges, debts, ideological choices and pragmatic ones -- it goes on and on and on. And then the technological changes! But, I would really love to read that book if you find it. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

hn8788 6y ago

The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World. It's written by a retired British general. It covers how war changed during the industrial revolution, then with the creation of nuclear weapons. The main point of the book is that conventional warfare is all but obsolete, but high level commanders don't know how to conduct anything but conventional warfare, and that the media can win or lose a conflict based on the narrative it pushes.

abeppu 6y ago

In addition to just the difficulty posed by the breadth of what you're asking for, if there are also institutional or structural pressures which preclude such a work from existing? On the academic side, I get the sense that there is so much pressure to specialize and deeply study narrow areas that a really broad work (global developments over decades) would not be well received. Within think tanks, a broad survey would likely still need to be concordant with an institutional agenda. And if really broad documents are being produced within state departments/foreign ministries or other parts of government, we would never see them?

legitster 6y ago

I've read a bit of Peter Zeihan. It's hard to be a good judge of his accuracy - he can come across as a bit of a pompous - but he seems knowing and somewhat neutral.

john_moscow 6y ago

When it comes to contemporary political events, there is too much incentive to push a specific agenda, and too little incentive to be neutral. So if you want a neutral opinion, you need to piece it together from multiple biased sources. My personal feeling, as a first-generation immigrant, is that the West has eliminated the local incentives for traits associated with personal strength. Partly by moving jobs requiring problem-solving to cheaper countries. Partly by the corporate culture trying to refocus people's passion into areas where they wouldn't accumulate economic leverage (passion about hobbies, social issues and identity is OK, passion about the product that would make you one day start your own business is a no-no). So we have a high concentration of strong ambitious people used to solving problems in countries like China (because the entire world literally pays them to do so). And we have a lot of softer people taking too many things for granted in the West, sitting on most of the world's wealth. This is a textbook recipe for a conflict.

Balgair 6y ago

I don't have any books to recommend, let alone 'neutral' sources, but two research 'areas' may help: 1) The USMC reading list. If you want an English language view of the current state of 'thought' from the leaders of any near-future conflicts, this list is it. It goes from poolee to the top brass. Maybe look for the more top level books and read from there. Though the underlying mindset is important and is from the lower rank books. https://mca-marines.org/commandants-professional-reading-list/ https://mca-marines.org/commandants-professional-reading-lis... 2) The wikipedia articles on the Nagorno-Karabakh war of October 2020 and their linked pages. Obviously there aren't any books out on this war yet, as it was so recent. But the underlying mechanics of the war are likely to be the ones we're seeing in the near future as both sides were somewhat evenly matched and had access to modern weaponry. "The war was marked by the deployment of drones, sensors, long-range heavy artillery[99] and missile strikes, as well as by state propaganda and the use of official social media accounts in online information warfare.[100]" I'd maybe put out a google alert for books about this conflict when they come out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict

chriselles 6y ago

Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap? China’s Three Warfares(non-kinetic/pre-kinetic warfare): https://cryptome.org/2014/06/prc-three-wars.pdf https://cryptome.org/2014/06/prc-three-wars.pdf Professor Anne Marie Brady: https://twitter.com/Anne_MarieBrady https://twitter.com/Anne_MarieBrady

sjg007 6y ago

Geopolitics is all about oil.

closeneough 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard