First,
This isn’t to illicit an argument of who did what and when. I am not here to blame-cast.
I will begin by saying a few things that might be said privately but not diplomatic public meeting.
-
Yes, we started it.
-
Yes, Arab Spring... Did you kmow the term Arab Spring was coined January 6th 2011.
Did you know that on January 6th 2021, 10 years later, the US Capitol was overrun by very misinformed and revolting American shirtless...
That strange similitude of those events is lost on most American politicians and most of our national advisors.
Occasionally subtle doesn’t work over here, but not everyone missed that striking similarity.
-
For example, subtle in diplomacy was when 80 of our M1 Abrams tanks were knocked out by Iraqi’s firing cheap rocket propelled grenades at a very small panel on the rear of the tank that shorted out the entire electrical system. No lives lost, but those tanks were out of commission (we have refurbished them and sold them all off to Iraq and Saudi Arabia)
-
That example highly the subtle diplomatic humor that one can encounter from time to time, as we quickly understood there was no was Iraqis figured out how to disable the M1 Abram, only a major nation who may have been war gaming a European comflict for decades could have that level of espionage into our tanks.
5.Putin does have a wicked sense of humor, after all. I could mention more occurrences of these incidents, but they are mostly harmless back and forth. (
6.p.s. Maybe. America might have let the media in Austria find the recently empty caverns in Kärten that held untold amounts of command small tactical weapons to halt any Soviet push into the underbelly of Southern Europe... just to maybe say you had our M1 Abrams if we launched a counter-offensive, but your southern push might have not gone so hot either.
Thank Our Father in Heaven these things are all conjecture and forever will be.
-
Back to the Spring, Russia may have been taken aback by this series of events. Russia not being looped in would not have been this users opinion, but I’m just a nobody.
-
Russia who had an open internet frontier just most of the rest of the world had a right to take umbrage at more American Unilateralism. Again, America would admit we started this.
- Americas ability to engage in hideously deceptive way to bring... change was operational art that was concerning to not just outsiders looking in, but also to many insiders looking at their feet.
-
This was not done to showcase our strength to the world. Please it could cause more havoc and pain to civilians if it became known.
-
We had lost. America did this because by 2010 we knew we had lost Iraq and Afghanistan
-
One final attempt to bring stability to Central Command. At least to inoculate them with questions of their own authoritarian rulers. Yes, it failed dismally in most regards, but international terrorism has fallen dramatically, and in Russia too.
-
As forecasted Afghanistan has Taliban back in control and America had to lower itself to negotiate with them last year spit
-
Iraq is not stable republic we hoped. A nation with pride for its ancient heritage, a nation similar to Japan or maybe Costa Rica, devoting its economy to innovation and lowering its military expenditures to nil.
-
Quickly the rising incomes in Iraq from their oil wealth coupled with investment from abroad would encourage the neighbors to follow similar paths and perhaps a South American-esque area of the world could spread outward. (South America doesn’t fight many wars)
-
We didn’t go into Afghanistan or Iraq to spread Christianity or steal oil. We had a plan, we wanted to bring the world closer to further peace and reduce a area that could conflagerate into global conflict.
-
America recognizes Russia as a silent partner in this goal, and recognizes that Russian soliders and diplomats die trying to bring about the end of ethnic cleansing, warfare, and suffering of civilians.
-
That was the mission objective beginning in 2001 and implemented in 2003.
-
America admit lost and lost its way.
-
America further admits we began the cyber-state of affairs.
-
In many ways, after 9-11-2001 Russia came to the aid of the United States, and those efforts were not appreciated for what they were.
-
America admits Russia has shown its strength in this new arena of conflict, and could exert more power projection there.
-
America reminds Russia your star is rising and ours is falling, and while weakened we need to find a way to stop the political demagoguery and one step in that regard is to find a way to armistice.
—— Those are just statements I theorize could be said privately —-
Now the question.
Would Russians consider a armistice on cyberwar. While the ability of us to trust and verify adherence, (yes I know trust and verify is a Russian proverb) but there are ideas rolling around the blogosphere on how we could show this.
Part of which would be new economic partnerships.
-
Space-joint mission to build platforms on Moon with Robotics as a launch for a collaboative Mars
-
Ramping up of joint scientific reseach and heavy investment in fusion power plants for output and scalability.
-
agreement to lower of competition between our nations sale of natural gas (cars and trucks can be powered by NG now)
-
student exchange and scientific collaboration on many topics critical to humanity ,
-
joint construction of a bridge, railway, and highspeed train, proposed by Putin, over Bering strait. Joining Eastern Siberia to Alaska.
-together we publicly sign an agreement for a new Manhattan Project-like
1):to first solve how to propel enough mass into orbit at affordable costs 2) propel the necessary materials to build multiple large-scale 3d printing stations, and augmented manufacturing facilities to build necessary equipment 3) mass production and fitting of a solar attenuation shield by 100,000 of ground crews operating the construction. This is the quickest temporary solution if global warming does spiral out of control.
4) the solar attenuation shield just needs nearly molecule thin silicone lenses that connect for partial coverage.
Or together we might also build the facilities in upper orbit that can safeguard humanity if a volcanic field erupted, as we would need the robotic facilities to create was to entrain, scrub, and remove debris from upper atmosphere, this could save humanity from extinct (Siberian Traps were no joke.)
While these don’t address the ins and outs of a armistice or treaty.
They are a way to bind our nations and use our best and brightest at something together that might help every and drastically stop our mutually growing cyberintelligence expenditures.
Other words, we don’t want to beat you, we want to join you? Would that be politically feasible if enough consistent and reliable promises were upheld?
Thoughts?
Or criticism or even “you’re a nut case” are welcome.
Some of us want to hear what the other side might have to say, and the public nature of this question keeps it from being well... secretive.
But please dont think join into the increasing rancor or blame.
World is in a difficult place and those cyber analysts could all be retrained to operate robotic miners and builders on the Moon.
If we are going to colonize Mars, we need to launch from Moon and the mass of water we need to begin is on the Moon.
Keep in mind signal delay is only 1.7 seconds from Earth to Moon.
We could have all those guys mining bitcoins or spying on what you watch in private building humanities legacy.
We have to get off this planet if humanity is going to evolve further, and I think we all agree when we look around and see the good and kindness that is in the world today that humanity is worth a armistice.
So this is a real question. This is something we are working on. This isn’t pure science fiction. Any scientist worth his PhD can tell you it isn’t.
I’ve been harassing the subreddit to get to this question.
Pardon the typos, I don’t want anyone to confuse this for an official diplomatic cable.
No comments:
Post a Comment