5 ms·

This guy speaks with a great deal of confidence. I love listening to him talk, but the claims he make are breathtaking and he seems to make them without a seco

by toolz 4y ago

This guy speaks with a great deal of confidence. I love listening to him talk, but the claims he make are breathtaking and he seems to make them without a second thought. For that reason I was curious to see what sort of predictions he's made in the past and see how accurate he has been. Well, maybe not quite as powerful at predictions as he is at making geopolitical claims. (He made a bunch of claims in 2009, for the coming decade I'll paraphrase and link to his predictions) He claimed the middle eastern wars would be withdrawn from and the world would see it as American weakness. That appears to be incorrect from any metric I can find. He claimed chinas economy would collapse within the decade in 2009. Well, that's not anywhere approaching corret. He claimed Germany in the same timeframe would ascend to late 1930 levels of political power. I'm not sure how to quantify that, but I sincerely doubt anyone looks at Germany as strongly as they looked in late 1930s. He predicted Russia would push their western front, but I'm not so sure that was a bold prediction given the russia-georgia war, but he's definitely correct here. Made a soft prediction of an eastern asia conflict due to Japans collapsing demographics, not correct, but not a strong prediction either. Concluded by saying we're going to invert into a deflationary economy, which also appears to be very wrong. I don't know nearly enough to call the guy out by any means, but I do take his word with a lot of hesitancy. I can't think of anyone who speaks as boldly and confidently across such a large domain without feeling the need to evidence their claims. https://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-predictions-for-the-next-decade-2010-1#china-doomed-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-predictions-for-the...

wolverine876 4y ago
> He claimed Germany in the same timeframe would ascend to late 1930 levels of political power. I'm not sure how to quantify that, but I sincerely doubt anyone looks at Germany as strongly as they looked in late 1930s. Agreed literally, but post-Ukraine Germany has made an historical shift, for the first time since WWII, to invest seriously in their military and support foreign militaries, and before that, during the Trump administration, they gained much influence and stature as arguably the world leader on human rights. > He claimed the middle eastern wars would be withdrawn from and the world would see it as American weakness. That appears to be incorrect from any metric I can find. That actually has been US policy under Obama, Trump and Biden: Trump tried to withdraw from everywhere. Under the Democratic Presidents, the policy has been that the US is less dependent on Middle Eastern oil, the Middle East is consuming not-unlimited US geopolitical power (including military power), and we need to shift geopolitical resources to China while deepening our relationship with NATO. Obama withdrew from Iraq, made a deal with Iran, and instead of supporting the Saudis he tried to balance them and Iran; he also began the shift of geopolitical resources, including military, to China. Trump withdrew from Iraq and Syria, and undermined various other relationships. Biden pulled out of Afganistan (Middle East adjacent, bordering Iran), explicitly stating the the reasons above (China, etc.) and is shifting more resources to China, and has clearly defined them as 'the pacing threat'. And many have claimed, including after the two Iraq/Syria pullouts and the Afghan pullout, that America is weaker.
- toolz 4y ago
  We have not withdrawn from the middle-east - troops increased during trumps era substantially and obama era created new war fronts. We've redeployed troops to somolia this year (technically not middle east, but I think most people associate it with those wars), iraq combat didn't stop until last year, so while technically not within the decade of his predictions, close enough. We're still killing noteworthy figures in syria. I don't consider this an accurate prediction given it was made in 2009 and had a decade window. I think 99% of people would've made the same prediction and have been surprised by todays middle east involvement if they could've seen into the future. I don't have my thumb on the global pulse of American strength perception so I really can't comment there, but my perception is that people do not perceive America as anything approaching weak with their military.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    A lot of these are all or nothing arguments. Yes, the US didn't withdraw completely, fighting in Iraq didn't stop completely, but that isn't meaningful. There were substantial reductions, and policy dictates more. Also, statistics and drawing dividing lines on Oval Office changes isn't as meaningful as it appears. First, policy takes months or years to develop, and then it's implemented, and then we see the consequences for years or decades after; no president affects policy much on their first day. Second, it needs to be evaluated in context: Obama withdrew combat forces substantially from Iraq, which IIRC was a campaign promise, and then ISIL grew and became a threat and Obama had to deal with them, sending forces back but in a limited fashion - leaving almost all ground combat to the Iraqi and Kurdish militaries. Trump IIRC sent more forces to finish off ISIL and then pulled almost everyone out (causing the resignation in protest of the Secretary of Defense and of the top diplomat for the region). There's a clear message that the US wants to withdraw, which tells Middle East states that the US won't be as much of a force and tells Russia and China that there is room for them to move in. > people do not perceive America as anything approaching weak with their military We are talking about America's overall geopolitical power, which depends on far more than the military - 99% of the world isn't fighting a war. The point isn't that the military lacks firepower, but geopolical power is perceived to be lacking - especially the political will and unity to use that power. For example, Russia and China use the Afgan pullout extensively in propaganda, telling people in places like Taiwan that the US wouldn't defend them. The support for Ukraine has changed that substantially, however.

by toolz 4y ago

wolverine876 4y ago

> He claimed Germany in the same timeframe would ascend to late 1930 levels of political power. I'm not sure how to quantify that, but I sincerely doubt anyone looks at Germany as strongly as they looked in late 1930s. Agreed literally, but post-Ukraine Germany has made an historical shift, for the first time since WWII, to invest seriously in their military and support foreign militaries, and before that, during the Trump administration, they gained much influence and stature as arguably the world leader on human rights. > He claimed the middle eastern wars would be withdrawn from and the world would see it as American weakness. That appears to be incorrect from any metric I can find. That actually has been US policy under Obama, Trump and Biden: Trump tried to withdraw from everywhere. Under the Democratic Presidents, the policy has been that the US is less dependent on Middle Eastern oil, the Middle East is consuming not-unlimited US geopolitical power (including military power), and we need to shift geopolitical resources to China while deepening our relationship with NATO. Obama withdrew from Iraq, made a deal with Iran, and instead of supporting the Saudis he tried to balance them and Iran; he also began the shift of geopolitical resources, including military, to China. Trump withdrew from Iraq and Syria, and undermined various other relationships. Biden pulled out of Afganistan (Middle East adjacent, bordering Iran), explicitly stating the the reasons above (China, etc.) and is shifting more resources to China, and has clearly defined them as 'the pacing threat'. And many have claimed, including after the two Iraq/Syria pullouts and the Afghan pullout, that America is weaker.

toolz 4y ago
We have not withdrawn from the middle-east - troops increased during trumps era substantially and obama era created new war fronts. We've redeployed troops to somolia this year (technically not middle east, but I think most people associate it with those wars), iraq combat didn't stop until last year, so while technically not within the decade of his predictions, close enough. We're still killing noteworthy figures in syria. I don't consider this an accurate prediction given it was made in 2009 and had a decade window. I think 99% of people would've made the same prediction and have been surprised by todays middle east involvement if they could've seen into the future. I don't have my thumb on the global pulse of American strength perception so I really can't comment there, but my perception is that people do not perceive America as anything approaching weak with their military.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  A lot of these are all or nothing arguments. Yes, the US didn't withdraw completely, fighting in Iraq didn't stop completely, but that isn't meaningful. There were substantial reductions, and policy dictates more. Also, statistics and drawing dividing lines on Oval Office changes isn't as meaningful as it appears. First, policy takes months or years to develop, and then it's implemented, and then we see the consequences for years or decades after; no president affects policy much on their first day. Second, it needs to be evaluated in context: Obama withdrew combat forces substantially from Iraq, which IIRC was a campaign promise, and then ISIL grew and became a threat and Obama had to deal with them, sending forces back but in a limited fashion - leaving almost all ground combat to the Iraqi and Kurdish militaries. Trump IIRC sent more forces to finish off ISIL and then pulled almost everyone out (causing the resignation in protest of the Secretary of Defense and of the top diplomat for the region). There's a clear message that the US wants to withdraw, which tells Middle East states that the US won't be as much of a force and tells Russia and China that there is room for them to move in. > people do not perceive America as anything approaching weak with their military We are talking about America's overall geopolitical power, which depends on far more than the military - 99% of the world isn't fighting a war. The point isn't that the military lacks firepower, but geopolical power is perceived to be lacking - especially the political will and unity to use that power. For example, Russia and China use the Afgan pullout extensively in propaganda, telling people in places like Taiwan that the US wouldn't defend them. The support for Ukraine has changed that substantially, however.