Happy 250th Birthday America!

 

Today marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the United States’s Declaration of Independence and the beginning of becoming a new nation.  On this day, we celebrate when representatives of 13 colonies sign their own death warrant, announcing that they wanted to be a nation free from the rule of the mother country, England.  At the time, it seemed like an improbable dream, but today we celebrate its reality as a major turning point in human history.

There are many who want to talk about problems the country faces today, but this blog will be talking about everything that we have accomplished as a people, gotten through, and the values that define us, regardless of who runs the White House.  After all, love the U.S. or hate it, if you live here then it’s the only country we got and it’s all we know.  So for that reason, this post will take a look at its history up to today.

From its inception, the U.S. became the first country to be fully based on the ideas and principles of John Locke, a man who believed that there are three rights that can be guaranteed protection by the government.  Those rights were life, liberty, and property (though changed to the “Pursuit of Happiness” in the Declaration of Independence).  Those ideas struggled to take hold in Europe, but we were the first to develop a government fully based on his principles.

From there, we survived a war against what was at the time the greatest empire on the planet.  Fresh off of a major defeat of the French, Britain went on to find that our war made maintaining its colonies here too costly.  From there, we had won our freedom for self-governance and for the protection of the rights of the American people.

The next century was not an easy one.  Almost immediately, we saw debating over our government structure that gave birth to the document that serves as the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, where our federal government was divided into three parts, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.  From there, we saw fighting over what monetary structure we should have, whether power is vested in the states or the federal government, and how much influence politicians should have over political appointments or how much influence the federal government should have over business.  At the same time, we expanded to the Pacific Ocean, ended slavery, and became the dominant force in the Americas.  

That would set us up for greatness in the 20th Century.  In that century, we oversaw the end of all the historic European Empires, defeated fascism and Soviet communism, and became the dominant world power.  We also brought about new technologies that redefined the world from the first electric television to mass producing the car to the vaccine for polio to masterminding the first flight at Kittyhawk.  We even put a man on the moon and remain the only country to do so.  In short, we’ve redefined the world and accomplished so much that our nation truly is exceptional.

The reason for writing all that today is to remind the average American of our shared heritage and culture.  We’ve accomplished so much, continue to stay the dominant country across the globe, and continue to maintain the government our founding fathers left us.  Remembering how some countries haven’t made it this far, our 250 years is quite the accomplishment.

For that reason, let’s take today to celebrate our shared home.  Let’s get involved in our local community and be grateful for where we live.  So, this 4th of July, Happy Birthday America and here’s to another 250 years.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: An Overview

With the President’s decision to start a war with Iran, I thought it would be a good idea to get a book on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the military that seems to be running the Iranian Government.  Fortunately, Amazon didn’t disappoint as they had a book readily available.  That 2023 book was “The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: Defining Iran’s Military Doctrine.”  The book gave me an overview on the Corps’ history, military tactics, purpose, and overall impact on the region.

Now, the book itself isn’t a thorough history book or overview of the IRGC itself.  Rather, it serves mostly as a literature review of other writings on the military force and a general background on them.  It wasn’t super in-depth, but I enjoyed it as someone unfamiliar with the IRGC because it served as a primer for understanding them and their relation to US policy.  So, I’ll be giving an overview of its contents as I’m hoping that may help others understand it and the current war as well.

To start off on its history, the IRGC was created by Iran’s former Supreme Leader, Ruhollah Khomeini, as a paramilitary organization to defend the revolution that brought him to power and ousted the Shah.  Its primary focus was purging institutions, especially the military, of elements disloyal to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and enforcing edicts passed by the country's leaders.  Over time though, its role greatly expanded as it ended up supplanting the country’s military, the Artesh, and controlling the country itself.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the IRGC saw its role greatly expand in defending the country against the invading forces of Saddam Hussein.  Shortly after that, the death of Supreme Leader Khomeini resulted in his replacement by Ali Khamenei.  According to the book, the IRGC helped with his rise to power and he, in turn, greatly expanded their power in the country.

With the IRGC serving as the institution defending Khamenei’s reign, it played a key role in keeping the government in check.  Almost every President elected in the 90s up until the mid 2000s was a reformer, and the IRGC opposed every attempt at reform.  It sent orders to the President, put down protests, and worked to make sure its own people were constantly in control or running the government.

Then, in 2005, it helped get hardliner and Mayor of Tehran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected President.  Despite not being seen as an intellectual heavyweight, Ahmadinejad did continue on his predecessor’s push to privatize the country’s economy.  Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad had a bunch of the government’s companies sold to people with ties to the IRGC, which was not the point of privatization.  So after that, the IRGC started to control the economy and thus the country at large.  The only thing worth consideration is that Ahmadinejad’s successor also attempted reform, and failed, so the history of Iran’s civilian government is to try and fail to reform what is now a military dictatorship.

Now, going back to the Iranian Revolution, the book also chronicles failures in the US to actually address Iran throughout its history.  Specifically, back during the Shah’s reign, Jimmy Carter wavered in his support for the Shah which Khomeini used as justification to return to Iran and that lack of confidence led to the Shah’s overthrow.  The Reagan Administration was equally inconsistent as it on one hand supported Saddam’s war with Iran, and then sold weapons to Iran to fund a war in Nicaragua.

After that, the next three US Presidents, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush didn’t really have much of an Iran policy as they all became focused on Iraq.  In the vacuum that was created by Saddam’s removal though, Iran started greatly expanding its military network into Iraq and improving economic ties with them.  So the US didn’t have a consistent policy on Iran until the 2010s, and its actions greatly helped Iran expand its influence in the region.

The book then discussed Obama’s policy of negotiation with the Iranian government and the 2015 deal that was struck and Trump’s decision to withdraw.  The book tended to lean more in favor of Obama’s approach, which is why it notes more flaws in Trump’s proposal like how they started building more centrifuges after the US withdrew from the deal.  The withdrawal was also used by the IRGC to portray weakness by President Rouhani and justify curtailing his attempts at reform.  In short, the US hasn’t had a serious approach towards Iran until 2015 and now we are in the midst of a war with them.

Of note, the book also discussed the IRGC’s approach towards war.  Specifically, they support an emerging tactic known as “Hybrid War” which is still being defined.  The idea is that the IRGC uses a combination of military tactics including conventional war, guerilla war, terrorism, and cyberwarfare to complete its military objectives.  It also supports militias and paramilitary organizations in other countries such as Iraq and the Houthis accomplish its goals internationally.  So it’s not fighting a traditional enemy as they’ll support whoever or whatever to accomplish their military objectives.  As a result, a conventional war is not what’s going to take them down.

Finally, the book discusses what that means for future negotiations and handling Iran BEFORE the US’s invasion which took out Khamenei.  It did have some key points such as that Iran would never abandon its missile program so the focus should instead be on addressing its nuclear program.  It also notes that Islam is, ironically, becoming less of a focus for the IRGC as they become increasingly focused on controlling and maintaining the government.  Similarly, they would prevent the government from doing anything without their approval which meant any actual negotiations would not be possible without their approval so they would be a key roadblock to any meaningful negotiations.  A lot of this is irrelevant now that we are at war and Khamenei is dead, but there is one point that remains clear: the IRGC is the main power in the country, they have no intention of doing anything the reduces their power, and a lot of what they want is at odds with the US’s objectives in the region and the country.

I’m not posting this not to say I agree with every tenant of the book, but more to give a brief overview of it.  A lot of this does explain how we got to where we are, what’s going on now, and what we can expect after the war.  For that reason, I recommend giving the book a read.

Putin Meets with China's Enemies

This blogpost is going to be very late, but it’s worth making sure the general public is aware of what’s going on on the Asian continent.  Over a month ago, Vladimir Putin went on a trip to Vietnam and North Korea, officially to discuss new military ties.  However, one thing worth considering about both nations is that they both have at best mixed histories with Russia’s “ally,” China.  While Russia has become increasingly dependent on China as its relationship with the West has deteriorated, its outreach may be aimed at creating a counterbalance to China’s power and may cause further divisions between the two nations.

For context, with Russia’s continued war in Ukraine, relations have continued to deteriorate between the country and most of Western Europe.  One example of this would be alleged Russian involvement in overthrowing the governments of multiple former French colonies.  However, the most pressing reason for deteriorating relations is the war in Ukraine itself which resulted in reduction in trade between the West and Russia.  To compensate, Russia has become increasingly dependent on trade, especially military trade, with alternative countries such as China.

The relationship between Russia and China has always been contentious though because (my friend Sean says) no country wants to be the junior partner.  Both nations have always had territorial, military, and political disputes.  Current problems with their relationship include China claiming parts of Russia are historic Chinese territory (which there is a case for) and Russia preparing plans for a preemptive nuke strike on China in the event of needing to win a war fast.  In short, it seems that as Russia becomes more dependent on China, China wants to take advantage of Russia while Russia wants to maintain its independence.

So Putin’s decision to visit North Korea and Vietnam this year likely isn’t something that made Beijing particularly happy.  North Korea also has a contentious history with China while Vietnam has an outright hostile relationship with them (not helped by the fact that China invaded them after the US did).  With all that historic background, it does seem possible the Russian President wanted to discuss potential alliances against China.

Though Russia has its own territorial disputes with Ukraine, China has other issues with its neighbors as well.  Americans may be familiar with China’s desire to take Taiwan, but they are in a border dispute with India (a Russian ally), they are in a territorial dispute with the Philippines, and there are deteriorating relations between Malaysia and China.  All this though also ignores historic clashes between China and countries like Japan or South Korea.  Bottom line, most Asian countries that aren’t China, hate China.

So Putin’s decision to meet with Vietnam and North Korea suggests Putin may be preparing for the worst with China.  Of course, both have a mutual enemy with the US, but like with the US and USSR after WWII, the lack of an enemy often leads to division.  Regardless, Putin’s actions with China’s neighbors may suggest Russia considers their “ally” China a potential problem in the future.

A Primer on the Situation in Ukraine

By now, everyone knows there is a war going on between Ukraine and Russia.  Some people know more than others, but it is also hard to know for certain what is going on right due to limited communications and propaganda on both sides.  With this blogpost, I hope to maintain an objective portrayal of current events and hopefully give people information to understand the current situation.

Background

Russia and Ukraine are the two largest countries in all of Europe and located in the regions of Eastern Europe close to Asia.  Ukraine sits atop the Black Sea and north of Turkey and Russia is to its East.  Collectively, the two have clashed for millenia over resources and land while developing different languages and cultures.  Allegedly, Kiev, Ukraine’s capital city, was the furthest distance St. Andrew, apostle of Jesus Christ and brother of the first Pope St. Peter, reached and would serve as an important city in the Christianisation of Eastern Europe.

During the early days of the Soviet Union, the newly established USSR took over the country as one of its Republics.  Many atrocities were committed against the Ukranians, especially the Holdomor where Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin caused a genocidal famine that wiped out millions of people.  Unsurprisingly, there has been bitter tensions between the two countries.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine once again regained its independence from Russia.  However, Russia still maintained massive influence over the region with the Russian government even receiving support from some leadership.  To this day, the country is largely divided among mostly Ukrainian speaking peoples in the western half of the country and a mix of Ukranian and Russian speaking peoples in the eastern half.

Unsurprisingly, this has led to a divided country which is why the country welcomed a relatively pro-Putin President in 2010 and then overthrew him in 2014.  Ukraine’s Euromaiden protests against and eventual ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 played a huge part in souring ties with Russia and being the first domino that led to the current day war.  Since then, Ukraine has been pursuing closer ties with the West that may result in EU and NATO membership.  This primarily is what the current war is about and unpacking this will help explain the international implications.

The Russian Perspective

Historically, NATO was created as an alliance against the Soviet Union and Russia still treats it as a military threat.  Members of NATO include historical enemies (and sometimes allies) such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland, whom Russia has fought multiple wars with and against (the Crimean, Napoleanic, the Cold, and World Wars being the most obvious) so there is historic resentment towards those respective nations.  A NATO membership for Ukraine would guarantee Western and US troops on Ukrainian soil which pose a national security risk for the Russian Federation.

There is also the desire for Ukraine to join the EU which would put on an economic trajectory closer to the West.  Increased cultural and economic separation from Russia would weaken Russia’s control in the region and since the two share a border, that would be a staging area for a potential invasion.  So to simplify: Russia is fighting to keep NATO troops out of its backyard and to maintain dominance in a region it has historically considered its sphere of influence.

The Problem with the Russian Perspective

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been trying to portray this as a humanitarian excursion to protect the region from nonexistent genocide.  He even went to go as far as claiming that he was denazifying the region, which is weird considering the fact that the President of the country is Jewish and lost family in the holocaust.  They also declared independence for the Donbas region and others which was used as pretext for an invasion far outside of that region.  Overall, Putin is trying to portray this as a humanitarian peacekeeping mission and really what is in his interest.

The Ukranian Perspective

For Ukraine, the biggest issue is sovereignty.  It has long been under direct control of Russia and independence has been an opportunity to pursue self-determination.  As a result, the Ukranians are currently fighting for the right to pursue their own treaties, trade, and military affairs free from control of Russia.

There are multiple reasons for Ukraine to join the EU and NATO.  For the former, such trade and economic reform could greatly increase their economy and help them export vast natural resources that could improve their standard of living.  NATO also does offer protection from its neighbor and could help strengthen its military, though it does also invite increased scrutiny from Russia.  Regardless, such concerns are the business of Ukraine and they are fighting for the right to make those decisions, right or wrong.

The Problem with the Ukranian Perspective

There have been allegations of vast influence from the West to get them to this position.  Some believe the West played a part in the overthrow of Yanukovych.  It does not help as well that Biden offered a $1 billion loan guarantee around the time current Ukrainian President Zelensky changed his mind on whether or not Putin was going to invade.

The West stands to gain a lot financially from trade with Ukraine which is why there has been a lot of push to get the country to join the EU.  Similarly, increased connections have been growing between Ukraine and the West, with the son of current President Joe Biden working for a questionable Ukrainian gas company (of which an investigation was stopped by Joe Biden when he was Vice President under a threat to withhold aid).  Some critics claim that the future of Ukraine is to replace one master with another, which is why some contend that the push for sovereignty is disingenuous.

The Western Perspective

Ignoring financial concerns, leadership in the United States has made the Russian Federation its main antagonist over concerns about the latter's involvement in the US’s 2016 Presidential elections and growing conflicts with Russian allies like Syria, Turkey, and China.  Dragging Russia into a failed war in another country has the potential to put extreme pressure on its economy and military, with the US hoping for a resulting in a collapse the same way the Soviet War in Afghanistan did (which lasted for 10 years so it’s best that doesn’t happen for Ukraine’s sake).  Considering the fact that a member of the Brookings Institution called for regime change in Russia, this only builds on the idea that the US wants Putin gone.

What Seems to be Happening Now

All reporting seems to confirm that Russia is being held back by Ukrainian partisans and military.  They are holding back better than expected while Russia seems to be underperforming with lackluster military planning and equipment.  The Russians have made significant military mistakes to the point that some military analysts are becoming baffled with their decisions.  Meanwhile, an outpouring of military and economic support is crossing the border in hopes to help hold off the Russians.

However, they are still continuing through with taking over the regions they were expected to and still hold the military advantage.  Reports try to portray Ukraine as winning victories, but things are still going in Russia’s favor, even if slowly.  Much of this was predicted by a YouTuber whose analysis has been rather accurate thus far and he said Russia would own half the country so the idea that Russia is losing should be disregarded.  As a result, it would not be too surprising if the narrative suddenly changes soon.

In response, the west is trying to impose economic sanctions to stop Russian advancement and further isolate it from the world in an attempt to slow the invasion.  Already, they have been removed from the SWIFT payment system which allows for financial transactions like credit cards and are looking for alternatives to goods traded with the country.  The Russian stock market has already taken a hit and the Ruble is being devalued so this will greatly hurt its economy.

The Propaganda War

Currently, the narratives being pursued by both countries are actually benefiting both sides.  Right now, there are stories of Ukrainian military men making a bold stance against their invaders and this is being used to rally support and sympathy from the rest of the world.  Unfortunately, many of them (Serpent Island, the Ghost of Kiev, the image of President Zelensky in a military vest) keep turning out to not be true so it is hard to gauge how effective the Ukrainian military is actually fighting back.  Still, this is being used to bolster the message of a heroic Ukraine standing up against the world.

Similarly, Russia needs its actual operations downplayed and low-key.  The invading force is claiming to be working to restore peace to the region, protect minority populations, and stop war crimes (again, this is all a cover).  This is why Russian media is portraying the Ukrainians attacking civilian structures or their populations (whether these are true or not) to demonize their opponents.  They are also posting about foreign weapons being used in the country to further make the Ukrainian government look primarily western backed.

This section is not dedicated to attack either party but to instead highlight the symbiotic relationship between the two narratives.  A strong, heroic Ukrainian military gives the impression of strength and power that limits the idea they are victims, while downplaying Russian success allows their actions to be disregarded and better hidden.  As a result, each is benefiting from the other’s narrative, and those may fall apart soon.

Similarly, it shows no story can be trusted.  Nobody knows what’s actually going on in the region right now, and it’s impossible to tell where lies end and truths begin.  We only know what is being reported from biased media and journalists so that limits the scope.  Everything must be treated skeptically and unproven until it can be independently verified.

International Implications

Outside of Europe, China has been plotting to take Taiwan for years.  The island nation is considered Chinese territory by the PRC government, but the Taiwanese government views itself as independent.  The government of China is watching this to gauge US weakness to see if it could invade the country with limited issues so what happens in Ukraine will impact that.

Likewise, isolating Russia from the SWIFT system will have major implications on the global economy.  Doing so will definitely hurt the Russian economy, but it could also weaken the global financial structure as it will hurt companies that house Russian assets.  Likewise, Russia has been working out a deal with the Chinese government to create an alternative reserve currency so this has the potential to weaken the US as the global world standard and create parallel economies.  Either way, if Russia does go through with this, the world would enter into a new Cold War with both the west and east trying to suck up as many countries as possible to divide the world along economic lines.

Chances of Causing WWIII - Moderate

WWIII is always overstated, but this is probably the best chance something could snowball into a greater war.  This is the first major war on European soil since WWII and there is intense pressure for it to escalate.  There are multiple avenues for that to happen and it seems like there isn’t one where things start to deescalate. 

The best option would be for the situation in Ukraine to end with peaceful negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, but there are major obstacles to pursuing that.  Ukrainian diplomats have said the Russians seem disinterested in actually negotiating and aren’t budging from their positions so it’s unlikely they’ll capitulate.  If they cannot be pursued diplomatically, then a decisive military victory will be necessary to end the war.

Already, Zelensky is pushing for escalation as he asked for a no-fly zone above Ukraine.  For the US to institute that, they would have to likely shoot down Russian plans which would spark a war between the US and Russia.  With some members of the US government like Senator Roger Wicker calling for that and increased discussion growing, that is still possible.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would guarantee a war in Asia as well.  Already, China is feuding with its neighbors and losing Taiwan as a source of microchips at a time of microchip shortages would further hurt the global economy.  With China feuding with its neighbors (a territorial dispute with India, historic disputes with Japan and Vietnam, fishing disputes with the Philippines, resource disputes with Australia, etc.), there is plenty of reason to believe a growing coalition could exist to fight China in the future.

In addition, Russia and China do not have the population needed to maintain economic and military growth in the long term.  Despite landmass, Russia has an economy by GDP about the size of Italy and has faces massive population decline.  China is facing similar problems with the country still facing an aging population because of the one child policy.  As a result, they won’t have enough troops to face the rest of the world in the future.

This would suggest the two couldn’t maintain a war, but this is only going to get worse with time as both lose citizens.  They may not have time to wait this out and a war in the current era may reduce the chance they’ll lose one in the future.  That kind of pressure may make them more likely to lash out and drag the world into another war.

Not helped is the fact that Russia seems to be preparing for larger conflict.  They are already preparing their nuclear arsenal and have drafted every medical professional in the country in the need of larger conflict.  They have also made threats to Sweden and Findland.  Whatever is happening right now, Russia is further gearing up for war.

Finally, the decision to cut them off from SWIFT and isolate their economy could only further increase tensions.  Russia and China have been planning a world currency for a decade, and in a way, this gives them the excuse to finally pursue that.  Doing guarantees that there will be parallel economies to the west and the east, and India has already announced it will find ways around the SWIFT system to work with Russia to continue trade.  Also, there has been a push to reduce trade with China so that means China is next on the isolation list. 

Removing Russia and China from the world economy guarantees parallel economies.  Parallel economies reduce dependency and that means that people will be less likely to rely on each other so bad impacts on one will not reverberate on the other.  My paternal grandfather once said “If goods don’t cross countries, then bullets will” so isolation only increases the likelihood for war.

Still, none of this is a guarantee war will break out.  In order for war to happen, the first shot needs to be fired.  So it is possible they choose not to go through with it.

What Needs to Happen

It’s far too late to discuss that now.  To counter Russia, the US needed to increase gas production and guarantee troops would not be stationed near the country, thus never serving as a threat.  Instead, the Biden administration has gone in the opposite direction on both so we are past the point of making up for it.

What Will Happen

I’m not making predictions.  I predicted Putin would not invade Ukraine and that Trump would get reelected.  I got both wrong.  My words are meaningless.

In Conclusion

The purpose of this blogpost has been to contextualize the war, establish the stakes, and discuss possibilities.  Escalation is only likely as a path towards not escalating gets increasingly less likely.  Still, only the leader can determine what of this post matters and what they believe the impact will be.  If this helps in any way, then it has accomplished its purpose.