Topic: World War 2, part (b) - page 4. (Read 8277 times)

There is no innocence, only degrees of guilt.

Risto self-moderates, allowing for "thread clean-up," but some feel it silences minority opinions and tends to be abused.  In any case, I've enjoyed reading this thread so far.


I am personally more of the opinion that if Putin stops at Crimea, then, like MatTheCat said, the West will wag their finger and do nothing.  Where I strongly disagree with MatTheCat is his opinion that a collapsed USD would also lead to a collapse in bitcoin.  I would argue that it is the existence of bitcoin--the existence of a neutral, robust, and decentralized alternative--that will give the Powers That Be permission to facilitate the collapse when doing so suits their purposes.    




I became interested in economics about a decade ago, eventually coming to understand the house-of-cards that our debt-based fractional-reserve fiat money system represents.  Despite the cries from the gold-bug's, gold seemed inept as money for the information age to me.  How can you conduct trade across the globe with gold without the assistance of a third party or the permission of an authority?  It doesn't work in the collapse scenario that would unfold should a major currency crisis take place.  

If the world had lost its confidence in fraction-reserve banking during the Credit Crisis of 2008, I believe we would have seen dark times.  The big cities of the world are dependent on a constant inwards flow of food, goods, and energy.  If this flow become blocked--due to a sudden inability to conduct trade without sound money--a nightmarish scenario would unfold in population centers across the developed world.  Without a new monetary system "ready to go," there would not be enough time to build one up from scratch.  

Our collective consciousness realized this fragility in 2008.  This realization was both the justification for the bailouts, and the impetus for bitcoin.  Bitcoin was designed to provide an escape hatch from the fiat money system without a collapse of civilization in the cities.  

The people of the world are being educated on bitcoin and its resilience right now.  When it is needed, no one will care about money laundering or coin taint--they'll care that 5 years of constant attacks couldn't kill this thing.  We are the Guinea pigs.  We are working out the kinks with wallet security, malleabilty, etc., while educating those in our social circles.  

Meanwhile the infrastructure to support the transition to a bitcoin economy is rolling out across the globe.  Lamassu, Robocoin and a few others have taken orders for thousands of ATMs that are slowly being deployed in the wild, providing an escape route for the common man from his cash.  Second-Market and eventually the Winklevoss Trust will provide an escape route from legacy financial assets.  This infrastructure build-out will continue...  

When enough infrastructure is in place, and the public understands the need, we will see the great rotation out of fiat currencies.  What we are seeing play out on the world's stage with the Ukraine is the beginning of the story we will use to explain what precipitated the great rotation.  It will be a jubilee for the average debt-ladden citizen, a transfer of wealth from the financial dinosaurs who lack foresight to a younger generation of innovators, a relief from unpayable public entitlements, and a reshaping of the very concept of the nation state.

Despite all these changes, the existence of our highly-robust system for money known as bitcoin will be the glue that prevents society from falling apart.  Wealthy and powerful individuals will simply make their moves in peaceful ways largely unchallenged because the large institutional power structures would have largely collapsed.

It will mark the beginning of the age of the Sovereign Individual, and it will complete humanities transition to the information age.  

Looking back it will seem anti-climactic.  


 

No good guys really.  They don't get to be in power by self-sacrifice for the greater good.  But generally, in my culture, the aggressor is deemed to be in the wrong.  Unless they win, in which case we work out a plausible pretext for the aggression.  But that doesn't fly until after you win historical dominance.


Clearly Putin's propaganda push has been very powerful, and useful to him domestically -- not really helpful internationally.  The Ukrainian side, much less coordinated, which leaves the media story mostly in the hands of the media conglomerates.  It's not all bankers and zionists and globalists.  Well, EU is pretty solidly globalist, but doesn't matter in this conflict, which is all Ukraine, Russia, and NATO.  NATO is pretty strongly dominated by the US-UK axis, but not entirely.  If there's enough political interest to prosecute a war  (and I'm sure energy interests, neo-cons want the winnings -- just not sure they are interested in or able to pay the cost of waging such a war)  NATO will come along.  

Putin didn't take Crimea for JPMorgan, at least not intentionally, of that I'm sure.

I think it's a matter of, what is possible?

The US can't afford a major war. EU doesn't have enough military might for any one country or even a small group of them to throw their weight around. China is unlikely to strike out but too big to take over. Any one of the big players (US, China, Russia) makes a move and they become vulnerable to at least one of the others.

It's a stalemate with each region doing whatever it wants within its own borders and lots of huffing and puffing across phone lines and through emails.

Just remember, we were always at war with Eurasia.

That seems a sensible model constraint.  But you should not ignore the rest of Europe. It's not a 2-player game.

Well, he already has invaded it in fact.  He might take it to a new level after the referendum -- which it is impossible for him to lose, so the outcome doesn't matter much, just the timing.

If so, I think he already lost that one.  It just hasn't played out yet because nobody wants to call him on it as long as he still has room to stand down.

Definitely.   This point works for me.


I was hoping for some back-and-forth on these lines.  Thank you for rising to the challenge.

Usually we take the inflationary scenario as bullish for BTC.  You're suggesting that a USD value deflation is bullish, so I think that needs some explanatory reasoning.  Of course the value deflation is likely to be met with additional supply inflation, so from a classical economic view, that means eventual decline in USD value.  The value deflation is the part of the trajectory is what concerns me about the generally bullish estimation.  Would it not be something like:

Military stonewall.
Economic sanctions.
RU/CN sell USTs.
USTs plummet.
Rates go up, dollar goes up, bitcoin goes down.
FRB cranks up the presses.
Rates go down, dollar goes down, bitcoin goes up.
USD stabilizes, bitcoin trucks onward (exponential trend)
...wait so long you seriously consider becoming a crackhead to kill the boredom...
USD tidal wave comes rushing back
Hyperinflation
Rates skyrocket
Bitcoin to the moon.

I rather hope you're right.  Military stonewall, without an invasion of eastern Ukraine, just continued occupation of Crimea, no hot war, would save a lot of suffering.  But I'm not sure it is viable for Putin, because of the sanctions.  He has no patriotic card to play at that point, and his internal support is vanishing due to the cost of the escapade.  It gets worse and worse for him personally with each passing day.

Well, naturally we want to know the potential impact of the situation on bitcoin. There's a reason this thread is in the bitcoin speculation forums. If you think the impact will be negative or nil, you should write a brief outline for how you reached that conclusion.

My opinion was that economic sanctions are almost certainly going to come out of this, which are bad for everyone. Sanctions will lead to counter-sanctions and bond dumping, and currency manipulation. All of these things are bad, the people will suffer, and the governments will assign the blame to the bad guy who "caused this", which will justify an indefinite campaign against them.

I see that as an opportunity for bitcoin to gain more users, but perhaps you see another outcome?

So who are the good guys? Nato? And Putin is the evil baddie? Hmm

Honestly some people on here need to try and see bigger pictures. War is being brewed by bankers for bankers benefit. Like all wars. Politicians of either 'side' are pawns are quickly removed from the picture as soon as they don't follow the script. Its time people became more enlightened. Why are western forces destablising Ukraine? To absorb them into the technocratic borg of the EU. Blue print for the zionist global new world order. Dont trust media to tell you any truth.

Buy gold silver and bitcoins and Hodl!

It was flawed from the very start.

The OP (you) lacks a good nose for the principles of geopolitics and everyone else around here is hell bent on somehow managing to twist every event into some kind of 'Bitcoin 2 da Moon' situation.

Okay, so I've surmised from the series of posts in this thread that Putin wants Crimea for strategic military reasons and also gas pipeline reasons, which is a similar theme in all of these "conflicts" of late.

I also gather that the US wants to prevent this for those same reasons, but under the guise of "for the good of the Ukraine people" or "to honor our commitments to the protection of somesuch". The typical US hyperbole.

US won't use military force unless there is an invasion.

Putin won't invade Crimea until it's annexed, and then this will be "defensive measures". This idea is consistent with the delay tactics being used in negotiations.

Putin wagers that the world might not agree with the US calling this an invasion, but in that scenario, they will most certainly take economic sanction actions, as promised. Hence, moves are already being made on that front.

So, my prediction is that this will be the start of some kind of currency war. Russia and China seem like they might want to engage, in a big way. A grab for control of natural resources makes sense, if this is the ultimate plan. It's the only thing sure to hold value in the shit storm to come. Economies will need to be rebuilt, and it will be on the backs of commodities.


Soooo... Bitcoin up.

How did I do?

I still hold out some hope that this thread can lead to meaningful scenario analysis.  Well, it's dying fast.

my "numbers station" start a new loop cryptography sequence

...and we all become
~fabulously wealthy~

Europe can live without Russian trade.   Russia starves without European trade.  Europe has alternative sources of natural gas, and alternative sources of energy other than gas.  Russia can't export gas in quantity except through Europe.  Not yet.

Annexing Crimea guarantees nuclear Ukraine unless the government can be destabilized and subverted, or the nation invaded whole.  Putin will not accept nuclear Ukraine.  Europe will not accept Russian puppet or colony Ukraine.
When all political alternatives fail, war results.

Souvenir from Georgia:

This is well past the bounds of delusional.

corrected

EDIT: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486809/New-book-claims-President-Obama-bragged-aides-using-drone-strikes.html

Putin did not kill even 1 human since he is president and saved Syria from another bloody american invasion with an false flag action.

I have a less violent scenario imagine Level 3 communications turns off all thier operations for a month how would that impact NATO and BTC?

I am not James but I can try to explain Putin's motivation.

The Crimea was part of the Russian empire for hundreds of years and part of the Soviet Union after that. It wasn't until 1954 that Khruschev made it part of the Ukranian S.S.R.

After the break up of the Soviet Union, the now independent country of Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapon arsenal and the Russian navy was allowed to keep using its base in Sevastopol on the Black Sea (in Crimea).

Thereafter, NATO expanded to include certain Eastern European countries.

Ukraine has been split between the western Ukranian part of the country which is majority ethnic Ukranian and Ukranian nationalist and southern/eastern Ukraine which is majority Russian ethnicity in many areas and more pro Russia.

Putin's actions may be based on mistrust of the west/the new government that just took power in Kiev as well as a desire to protect Russia's interests in the Crimea. A desire to look strong also probably plays well on the home front. I don't think all out war is likely however.