Braudel Marx retweeted
Tercer salida del especial #Territorios en @RevSupernova_
La ciénaga: IA y soberanía en el territorio del lenguaje, por Kevin Batcho y Pio Torroja (@BraudelMarx y @piotorroja)
revistasupernova.com/nota/la…
Una geopolítica de lo planetario, por Emmanuel Biset (@ebiset1)
revistasupernova.com/nota/un…
Poder, vida y territorio: la coca en Colombia, por Isabel Naranjo
revistasupernova.com/nota/po…
El corazón de las tinieblas, por Esmeralda Avellaneda
revistasupernova.com/nota/el…
My latest article in collaboration with @piotorroja "The Morass: AI and Sovereignty in the Territory of Language" is online via the Argentina journal Supernova and is available in English, French and of course Spanish:
LA CIÉNAGA: IA Y SOBERANÍA EN EL TERRITORIO DEL LENGUAJE
Los mapas ya no solo representan el mundo: también intervienen en su transformación. Una nueva disputa por el poder, el lenguaje y la soberanía.
Por Kevin Batcho y Pio Torroja
revistasupernova.com/nota/la…
To fight Russia, European elites would have to overturn forty years of neoliberal atomisation. They have intentionally alienated the indigenous working class and rural men - the demographic that has always supplied foot soldiers - and systemically emasculated them. They have rooted out every trace of blood-and-soil nationalism. The result is that Europeans have been socially engineered toward pacifism, far from any formation into warriors.
It is no coincidence that the nations that can fight - Ukraine, Israel, Yemen - are patriarchal and ruthlessly ethnocentric. Instead, our girlboss leaders (male and female) perform their war dances on stage while declaring that drones and AI will stop the Russians.
Since no one will ever fight and die for a faceless EU bureaucracy, EU elites would be forced to allow toxic masculinity and nationalist fury to flourish if they ever wanted to field a large army against Putin.
Joining the Euro performed a double movement for Germany. Externally, it set the exchange rate weaker than the D-Mark had been trading, effectively devaluing German exports against the dollar and the yen without the political cost of a unilateral devaluation. Internally, the same act locked the peripheral currencies at par, eliminating the peripheral countries' ability to devalue and forcing their adjustment through internal wage suppression instead. The result was a simultaneous competitive advantage: German goods became cheaper for non-EU buyers and relatively more expensive for EU buyers, both at once, by a single policy decision.
That logic is now eroding. Germany's manufacturing base - the primary beneficiary of that Euro export subsidy - is in structural decline, falling from roughly a quarter of GDP in 1991 to under one-fifth today. The economy that remains is increasingly services and financial activity, and that economy draws its advantage from currency strength and capital inflows. The export subsidy that made Euro membership advantageous for the industrial Germany of the 1990s is a diminishing asset for the Germany of the 2020s.
Every day that Germany stays in the Euro, it writes a blank cheque to the high-debt South. The high-debt South - no surprise - cashes that cheque with great enthusiasm. Germany's political center is too "posh" to acknowledge this. But the AfD isn't...
robinjbrooks.substack.com/p/…
The incomprehensibility that Iran's and China's approach produces in Western observers is real, and I think François Jullien's "A Treatise on Efficacy" gives a structural explanation for it without requiring one to take sides.
Jullien's core contrast is between two different metaphysical commitments about what reality is, and how each generates a different logic of action. The Western model, inherited from the Aristotelian tradition, is teleological: define a predetermined goal, construct a plan that projects that goal onto the current situation, act assertively to close the gap, and measure efficacy as the degree to which the outcome matches the goal.
The Chinese model, drawn from the strategic tradition (Sun Tzu, the Zhouyi, the Daoist concept of shi), is process-oriented: evaluate the situation as it stands at this moment, identify what can be exploited in the relation of forces, and then nudge or break off - not attack or oppose - so that the result comes about as a consequence rather than being aimed at directly. The ideal is not a discrete act of destruction but a transformation that erodes the opponent's position so gradually that "no one longer seems to make any intervention."
Jullien is careful not to make this a cultural binary. He's identifying two different logics of efficacy, each optimized for a different kind of situation. The teleological model works well for discrete, bounded problems with a clear end-state. The process model works better for open-ended situations where the opponent is also adapting and the cost of assertive action is high. Neither is "correct." But the teleological model has a structural blind spot: it is looking for discrete actions aimed at a goal, and when it doesn't find them, it registers the absence as incoherence or irrationality.
That's the frame I'd apply here. If Iran or China is operating in the shi framework - managing the flow, eroding position over time, allowing the result to come about as a consequence rather than aiming for it directly - then the Western observer is evaluating the wrong thing. There is no "war being conducted" in the teleological sense. There is a situation being managed, and the "result" is not a goal to be achieved but a transformation to be allowed.
I have no idea if he has read Jullien, but Joe Kent, the former CIA deputy director, made this contrast explicit in an interview a few months ago. He stated the US model was to set a goal, calculate the resources required, and execute. What Kent described as Israel's approach to Iran was structurally different: the goal is the induction of a particular condition - chaos - and only once that condition is established does the next moves get decided. The first phase is aimed at creating a situation or process from which later results can then be extracted. So even within the Western alliance, two different logics of efficacy are already in play, and the one that looks "rational" depends entirely on which framework you're using to evaluate it.
Braudel Marx retweeted
According to Jungian psychology, everyone has something of a psychic mask called the “persona.”
When we start off very naive we can be shocked by the presence of the persona, and treat it as evidence of inauthenticity. But the persona is actually a needed part of your psyche. It’s your costume and protection. Our actual psychic material is too soft and squishy and chaotic to be outwards-facing.
The important thing is for your persona to be a pretty-good approximation of who you are underneath and to clearly communicate the role you intend to play. When people put on a persona that doesn’t fit them it reeks of insecurity and attracts ridicule, like a kid trying to walk in daddy’s shoes but not cute. But an appropriate persona commands respect and often helps ppl do their jobs. Think about a doctor’s clean robes.
Why am I talking about all this? I think the world feels chaotic because we do (still) live in an American-led world and the persona that America has adopted since the end of the 2nd world war of a superhero fighting for justice and the greater good just does not fit anymore.
The persona was never the literal truth. America always had some ugly warts to hide under the mask. But that was acceptable. Nobody is perfect. Then we went through something of an anti-hero arc where we really come to see the moral ambiguity of America, but even that is acceptable with enough storytelling.
But now, we see America increasingly disempowered and beclowned. This is unacceptable. This is embarrassing. You can’t be a superpower if you are not super.
This is not the end of America, which will go on, maybe catch a second wind. It is young, optimistic and lucky. No reason why it shouldn’t be great again.
But it has to find a different role. The old persona is no longer fitting.
It is very bad when a person can no longer tell where their psyche ends and their persona begins. Trying to conform too rigidly to a persona that no longer fits robs your consciousness of the suppleness it needs to absorb the shocks of life. A brittle ego doesn’t flex, it cracks, unleashing the primordial megafauna long repressed in the unconscious.
The saintly king breaks down into the cruel tyrant. The hyper-rational sage who denies all emotion becomes possessed by the most fanatic dogma. The stoic parent becomes the helpless child.
Braudel Marx retweeted
There's a scene in Doctor Zhivago, the David Lean film, which depicts a wretched and exhausted division of First World War Russian soldiers moving away from the front. They come into contact with a brigade moving the other direction, led by supercilious and stereotypically imperious officers. Those retreating tell those advancing to turn around -- the war is slaughter, they say.
An officer then stands atop a wagon, intending to motivate them.
"Ten miles up that road are THE GERMANS. And it's YOU who've let them in. Now they're coming for your country!"
"YOUR country," one of the bedraggled soldiers heckles.
Before he can respond, the officer trips and is shot by another soldier. The other officers are quickly pulled off their horses and beaten to death by what is by now a rampaging and uncontrollable mob.
I could not help but think of that scene as I listened to Giga-Posho Jacob Rees-Mogg tell the working-class lads of Britain that they were going to have to fight. Of course, the difference now is that the Germans really were coming for the Russians in 1917, and eventually disembowelled the country. This time, though, the call is to fight for somebody else's borders even as our elites won't defend ours, and to fight for Our Values (the possessive in that phrase being much more personal and particular to a small subset of Britons than Rees-Mogg and Michael Gove perhaps realise).
Yet the similarities remain. A working class that hasn't had a pay increase for almost two decades. Whose political views have been acknowledged in every election manifesto of the 21st century, and then ignored once the voting is through. Whose culture is being denied and atomised. Whose wives and daughters feel increasingly unsafe on their own streets. Whose ruling class has become unmoored from both the values of those they govern and, it often seems, reality itself.
Now these people are being asked to offer themselves to be slain for values to which they do not hold true, against an opponent with whom many of them have no real quarrel. (Really, who cares which set of corrupt oligarchs controls the refuse collection in Donetsk, many would no doubt ask.)
I do not think many people know how bad a civil war or a revolution would be. There's an annoyingly glib assumption among many of those who post in (righteous) dissatisfaction here that a revolution is just what we need, based on the assumption that their preferred political system and policies would rise from the ashes and take control. No. That's not what would happen. Revolution and civil war are the moment you lose control and open the gates for all the turpitude and iniquity of hell to flood into Britain. The groups and ideologies given power by the chaos and horror of civil wars and revolutions are not pleasant (read anything about the Jacobins or the Bolsheviks by way of proof).
Real revolutions (unlike those of 1668 and 1776, which were as much a restorations) thus almost always leave countries much less civilised, much less kind, much less gentle places, leaving multigenerational scars of distrust, violence and penury. The ballot box and persuasion are the only ways to get the change you want. We must try everything in our power to avoid the alternative.
But sometimes I worry, I really do.
Listening to JRM demanding that the ignored, put upon average Brit goes to fight for the psychodrama in which the Yookay Elite seem to have become involved with Vladimir Putin makes me worry that our ruling class simply won't get their act together in time, this time.
As a far greater aristocratic figure is supposed once to have said:
"Good God, why should they mock poor fellows
thus?
The man that once did sell the lion’s skin
While the beast lived was killed with hunting him.
A many of our bodies shall no doubt
Find native graves, upon the which, I trust,
Shall witness live in brass of this day’s work."
Replying to @michaelgove
Jacob Rees-Mogg translated and summarised: ‘Stop yapping, you dogs, it’s time to die.’ Michael Gove: ‘hear hear!’ Very predictable.
What we have here is a problem of sequencing on an overextension of US security commitments. The US had always depended on its adversaries attacking it one-by-one, like the Kung Fu movie trope.
From my piece Geopolitical Bank Run:
"Never expecting depositors to all simultaneously withdraw their funds, a bank only holds cash-on-hand to cover a small percentage of its deposits. In the rare event that sudden depositor demand exceeds cash-on-hand, a bank must hastily sell assets to reinforce its cash position to keep from going under. These desperate moves by a troubled bank only reinforce the aura of collapse. What follows is a bank run where crowds of depositors rush to the bank to withdraw their savings. The once powerful institution limps meekly into bankruptcy.
In geopolitics, a global hegemon, particularly in its declining stages, will naturally overextend her security commitments far beyond her military-on-hand’s capabilities. The great power relies on strategies of deterrence to stop several theatres of war from erupting all at once. Just like the Romans did in ancient times, an overextended hegemon promises to launch wars of annihilation against any opponent who dares attack. But once belief in the hegemon’s power to decisively punish an adversary is diminished, as happened after the US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, opponents become much more emboldened."
beyondwasteland.net/p/geopol…
I read this article 🔽 in this morning's New York Times.
The US designates Saudi Arabia a Major Non-NATO Ally. Last year it entered into what is apparently the largest arms deal in US history with Saudi Arabia. Yet, if you read the article, it becomes apparent that the US is materially unable to defend Saudi Arabia against Ansarallah - at least in the context of how the war is currently shaped.
Yesterday I watched Robert Fico say that there is no supranational power – meaning in effect NATO – that would be able to defeat Russia in a conventional war. I wondered about the accuracy of his view; the Russians are certainly not having it all their own way in Ukraine. But then I look at the situation in the Middle East and, if the US is unable to effectively defend Saudi Arabia against Ansarallah, what is the situation going to be in an all-out war with Russia – bearing in mind that Russia has not yet anything close to mobilised its economy and people fully for a war? Of course neither have Europe or the US – but still.
Perhaps the most striking thing to me is that Robert Fico referred to 1938 and said that despite the guarantees that had been given to Czechoslovakia, they were "served up like a roasted chicken". If you take the time to go through the actual documents, you will see that the 1925 Franco-Czechoslovak Treaty of Mutual Assistance guaranteed that France would immediately lend to Czechoslovakia "aid and assistance" in the event of it being attacked and pursuant to Article 16 of the League of Nations Covenant, which in its turn reads very much like NATO Article 5 - "be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League". In short, the message is that a NATO member has little or no faith in NATO. People decry - with justification - the '1938 again' thinking that pervades much of the current discourse. Yet there is no avoiding the fact that it resonates.
nytimes.com/2026/09/20/us/po…
Braudel Marx retweeted
Question of my HOI4 players out there. I'm stuck in this playthrough & need help.
I need to take all of the territory in red. The mod I'm using doesn't let me use ground troops. How can I overcome this dilemma by using only a few standoff munitions from the green dots.
My good friend @j2parman wrote this piece on Taiwan and what a peaceful resolution might actually look like. He's been thinking about this longer and harder than most, and the argument is sharper than the usual "one China / two Chinas" noise:
theastyanax.com/essays/apply…
Braudel Marx retweeted
''Every single "game-changing" wonder weapon the West sent was, within a month or two, rendered next to useless by Russian innovation.''
Replying to @RSA_Observer
Schmidt seems confused or inconsistent in applying the trusty old David vs. Goliath trope to this war. Is it really Ukraine as David against the Russian Goliath? Or is it not NATO + Ukraine that is the Goliath against Russia's David? Certainly by most measures - GDP, population, defense spending - NATO + Ukraine is the Goliath. Only in manpower does Russia hold an advantage.
His comment about "total war" does have some justification. Obviously there is no such thing as total war, only a tendency toward it and away from limited war. After four years of a frustratingly limited warfare strategy — which, among other things, allowed NATO to ship arms by sea into Odesa — Russia has finally woken up. Over the past few months, Russia has launched an offensive total air war against Ukraine: ports shut down, grain exports halted, weapons shipments stopped, and food logistics infrastructure systematically destroyed. This is the double catastrophe — no weapons in, no grain out, and the internal supply system under attack. An increasingly broke Ukraine is fast becoming a growing fiscal burden on Europe.
Schmidt's tired trope of Russia's "lumbering military bureaucracy" was no doubt true as Russia entered the war, but the setbacks in the fall of 2022 woke up the slumbering bear. Every single "game-changing" wonder weapon the West sent was, within a month or two, rendered next to useless by Russian innovation. And let's not forget the Western propaganda about the ruble being rubble and Russian missile production being halted to the point that the Russians were supposedly scrounging microchips from washing machines. Even the Geran drones were innovated from the original Iranian model.
The truth is that it is the decadent and financialized West that has failed not only to innovate, but to produce such simple items as artillery shells. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte himself described the sorry state of Western industrial capacity: Russia produces in three months what all of NATO produces from Los Angeles to Ankara in a full year. To an outside observer, Russia has been slow-walking the war for years, but the result is a West that has been either demilitarized or had its latest weapons rendered meek by Russian innovation.
Now as the total war phase intensifies, the West will try to cut its losses and abandon Ukraine. But there is no fury like a scorned proxy. We have seen this before: the OAS, once abandoned by France after Algerian independence, turned against its former patron. Ukraine may follow the same path - and the West may find that casting away that Ukrainian millstone invites blowback of its own.
Braudel Marx retweeted
This recursive / repetitive circuiting traumatic Thing ... has an Ur-template in our ``spirit`s`` vicious and hot pursuit of the lost ``Presence``!
Traversing this ``mythic`` past and acknowledging it could ``cure or break`` the cycle.
Replying to @BraudelMarx
Braudel Marx retweeted
Ojala vivas tiempos interesantes: América Latina en el centro del proyecto de poder pos-hegemónico.
Escribí este articulo en sbstack, espero les guste. comparto a @gabrielmerino1 y @BraudelMarx ya que los cito con algunas de sus ideas y comentarios...
link en el comentario:
With @FinnAndreen discussing my Substack article Grievance and Geopolitics (link to article in first comment): youtube.com/watch?v=7VK3uy9l…





















