Who'd Have Thought (back in 1984)?

[Raellus]

Times have really changed. Back in the mid-to-late 1980s, it seemed like the only way that the Cold War would end was in nuclear Armageddon (worst case) or, in the best case, a Red Storm Rising type conventional war scenario that would see NATO triumphant. As it turned out, the end was a lot less spectacular (thank heaven). Subsequently, for a little over a decade, it seemed like the West no longer had anything to fear from Russia.

And now here were are, in the midst of a new, even more complicated Cold War. Several former SSRs are now NATO members. Several former SSRs, and former Warsaw Pact members, now belong to NATO. Poland, the original setting of T2k, is a full NATO member that has just concluded a deal to purchase one of the USA's most advanced conventional weapons systems, the F-35 (check out the cool promo pics in the linked article).

https://www.twz.com/air/polands-first-f-35a-hussar-stealth-fighter-rolled-out

Even perennially neutral Sweden is now a NATO member.

Today Russia, rather than the USSR, plays the role of NATO's major antagonist. Its government is yet again a one-party state led by an anti-democratic dictator. During the Cold War, a Soviet attack on Free Europe was a major fear, one that the USA's government and military-industrial complex were dedicated to preventing (or stopping, should deterrence fail). Two-and-a-half years ago, Russia launched an unprovoked invasion of its democratic neighbor, former SSR, Ukraine.

In the USA, the once markedly more hawkish-on-Russia political party is now more sympathetic to the oppressive, imperialistic Russian government than to its fellow democracies, so much so that many American office-holders (and candidates) wish to stop aiding Ukraine, thereby appeasing the Russian dictator. In 1984, this would have been unthinkable, except perhaps in a Superfriends episode featuring Bizzarro World. It's still hard to believe that this is the way things are now.

What else would the inhabitants of 1984 be shocked to learn about the present day

-

[kato13]

From the Dark Conspiracy novels that GDW parallel earth game had some predictions about the year 2013 (the canon year for that game I believe).

I remember it saying that a full fledged video camera would be the size of a paperback book, and I did not believe that was going to happen. It also had the following stats for a powerful home computer



They only missed most of the stats by about a factor of 1000.

This world was supposed to be more technologically advanced as well due to alien influence.

[stilleto69]

@Raellus I don't think that it's so much that some of us in the US want to stop funding Ukraine and thereby "appeasing" the Russian dictator, it's more of a "what's in it for us". I look at it this way 1) America should have never forced Ukraine to give up it's portion of the old Soviet equipment after 1989. 2) The Democrats should have never forced the military to deactivate forces in Europe as part of the "Peace Dividend". 3) I find it funny that the party that told us Americans to "Trust the Russians", "reset our view of them", "Hey Mitt, the 1980's are calling and they want their Foreign Policy back (Laughs)", etc. are now the party of "let's get those Russkies". 4) I find it very disingenuous having said politicians trying to scare Americans with "if Ukraine falls, Poland is next." Considering that Poland is a NATO member and any attack would automatically trigger Article 5, so now Russia would be facing not just 1 country, but most of NATO. And 5) Even if he wins in Ukraine, I don't see his forces be "welcomed" any more than we were in Iraq. I see nothing but partisan attacks on his forces until it becomes too much for them. I have more points, but this is just small sample of some of my thinking.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Times have really changed. Back in the mid-to-late 1980s, it seemed like the only way that the Cold War would end was in nuclear Armageddon (worst case) or, in the best case, a Red Storm Rising type conventional war scenario that would see NATO triumphant. As it turned out, the end was a lot less spectacular (thank heaven). Subsequently, for a little over a decade, it seemed like the West no longer had anything to fear from Russia.

And now here were are, in the midst of a new, even more complicated Cold War. Several former SSRs are now NATO members. Several former SSRs, and former Warsaw Pact members, now belong to NATO. Poland, the original setting of T2k, is a full NATO member that has just concluded a deal to purchase one of the USA's most advanced conventional weapons systems, the F-35 (check out the cool promo pics in the linked article).

https://www.twz.com/air/polands-first-f-35a-hussar-stealth-fighter-rolled-out

Even perennially neutral Sweden is now a NATO member.

Today Russia, rather than the USSR, plays the role of NATO's major antagonist. Its government is yet again a one-party state led by an anti-democratic dictator. During the Cold War, a Soviet attack on Free Europe was a major fear, one that the USA's government and military-industrial complex were dedicated to preventing (or stopping, should deterrence fail). Two-and-a-half years ago, Russia launched an unprovoked invasion of its democratic neighbor, former SSR, Ukraine.

In the USA, the once markedly more hawkish-on-Russia political party is now more sympathetic to the oppressive, imperialistic Russian government than to its fellow democracies, so much so that many American office-holders (and candidates) wish to stop aiding Ukraine, thereby appeasing the Russian dictator. In 1984, this would have been unthinkable, except perhaps in a Superfriends episode featuring Bizzarro World. It's still hard to believe that this is the way things are now.

What else would the inhabitants of 1984 be shocked to learn about the present day

-

Well, I know in 1983/84 I was 17, turned 18 in 1984. I remember having a discussion with me fellow friends who were interested in the geopolitics at the time. We knew the USSR was going to fall but ou4r predictions were a generation off, we figured it would go on until the early 2020s and then collapse or change as the case may be. I remember a decade later talking to my old German teacher where he felt optimistic about the end of the Cold War. He told us stories about taking the class over to the DDR in 1979 and lectured us on end about the differences between both sides.

I did ask this question in Social Studies in 1983 after the school year began because the time period was from 1900 to 1983 (then present). Just for "shats ang giggles" I asked, "what if the US became like the USSR (or Evil Empire) and the USSR became like the US" Well, in some what's that's true, in some ways Russia's economy is more market based but not all the way with the oligarchs but from 1983, it is more of a better system by comparison but the embargo is hurting them now. Politically, just a wee better, but basically you replaced one dictator with an other.

On our side, I'm trying hard not to sound too political but we have poor leadership in almost all Western nations. In a way like an Evil Empire, well maybe Evil is a bit strong, more like Stupid Empire, it seems like we are pushing Russia possible into a corner.

Backing up, it started in the 1990's where we got involved with the Balkans. We should have stayed out, we, I'm talking about the United States as "we," have little or no interest there.If Europe or any other nation wants to go in, it is their decision. It started there, the pressure on Russia and it snowballed from there. Maybe if we did not put the pressure on them then, Putin might not be in power today as a response. I admit playing "what if" is tough but I think we share part of the blame here.

Putin is the power in Russia, like it or not, we have to deal with him. We cannot back him into a corner. OK, I'm more of a Libertarian/Conservative/America and Western World First, South Park Republican, whatever. I'm not for appeasement or sympathetic to the Russians, they are wrong. I just believe we need to work more to get both/all sides to the peace table after working a cease fire and talk this out and make deals. As much as I hate to say it, we might have to give something to Putin if he will give something to us, we need some some of negotiated compromise settling the problem. A compromise sometimes is where all sides may not get 100% of what they want but perhaps 80% ov erall but are welling to accept the deal and call it quits. What that will be, I don't know, but we need a cease fire to stop the bloodshed and then we can play Monty Hall, Let's Make a Deal.

I know on my side there are the Putinistas, a pro Russian faction. I can explain it this way. A lot of people on that group see or have seen Russia as a saviour for traditional family values as a result of the Orthodox faith. A lot of people do not like the direction where the West is going ethically and morally so they turn their eyes to Russia or did. If I may be candid, honestly, I felt that way myself for a little while. We need to tolerate others who are different, i'm willing to bend and accept and even support but the pendulum swung so far with the wokeness out there, I can understand this faction even though I'd never throw in with them.

Does Putin believe in family values of the Orthodox faith I can't say. Some say he opportunistic and willing to use them to get his way, certainly possible. Only God and Putin knows what's in their heart.

We need to find a way to get all sides to talk and work out a peace deal. Already a lot of nations are cutting back aid, maybe it is the right thing to do, that is if we take this opportunity to get all sides to the table. Still at the very least, we might have to work on containment like we did in the 1980's.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

@Raellus I don't think that it's so much that some of us in the US want to stop funding Ukraine and thereby "appeasing" the Russian dictator, it's more of a "what's in it for us". I look at it this way 1) America should have never forced Ukraine to give up it's portion of the old Soviet equipment after 1989. 2) The Democrats should have never forced the military to deactivate forces in Europe as part of the "Peace Dividend". 3) I find it funny that the party that told us Americans to "Trust the Russians", "reset our view of them", "Hey Mitt, the 1980's are calling and they want their Foreign Policy back (Laughs)", etc. are now the party of "let's get those Russkies". 4) I find it very disingenuous having said politicians trying to scare Americans with "if Ukraine falls, Poland is next." Considering that Poland is a NATO member and any attack would automatically trigger Article 5, so now Russia would be facing not just 1 country, but most of NATO. And 5) Even if he wins in Ukraine, I don't see his forces be "welcomed" any more than we were in Iraq. I see nothing but partisan attacks on his forces until it becomes too much for them. I have more points, but this is just small sample of some of my thinking.

I agree with a lot of it. Again in the 1990's we kind of blew it where we should have engaged Russia more to get her on our side. I say the real threat is Red CHina and even though the Russians are with them now, I foresee the Chinese screwing them at some point and they will be Jonesin for help. I always felt as a trump card, Ukraine should have held on to all or some of their nukes, *I mean we promised to protect them in the future, but many times we write check with our mouths we can cash and that leaves them in the lurch. We need to work to get all sides to the peace table.

[Nowhere Man 1966]

From the Dark Conspiracy novels that GDW parallel earth game had some predictions about the year 2013 (the canon year for that game I believe).

I remember it saying that a full fledged video camera would be the size of a paperback book, and I did not believe that was going to happen. It also had the following stats for a powerful home computer



They only missed most of the stats by about a factor of 1000.

This world was supposed to be more technologically advanced as well due to alien influence.

They were close in in some ways but way off on the specs although being able to access the world anywhere with a modem reminds me of Starlink a little bit.

[Targan]

I always felt as a trump card, Ukraine should have held on to all or some of their nukes, *I mean we promised to protect them in the future, but many times we write check with our mouths we can cash and that leaves them in the lurch.

Well of course. In hindsight, Ukraine absolutely should have held onto its nukes. The other signatories have basically used the Budapest Memorandum as toilet paper.

[bash]

They were close in in some ways but way off on the specs although being able to access the world anywhere with a modem reminds me of Starlink a little bit.

The "access anywhere in the world" is just describing a dial-up modem. Modems were pretty amazing despite their downsides. You could make a phone call, even with an acoustic coupler on a pay phone, and connect to other systems hooked to phone lines and communicate digitally.

The ~24 year projection in Dark Conspiracy was positing that phone connectivity and thus the reach of modems would increase, not envisioning dedicated IP data networks. DC was released even before consumer access to the Internet was even a thing.

[Raellus]

The Rise of China

I wonder if any of the original T2k team anticipated the rapid rise of China over the past three decades or so.

I remember as a teenager watching a documentary that I taped in 1989 about the Chinese military. At the time, the PRC's most high-tech weaponry was designed in the 1950s and '60s. It seemed that China was decades behind the west when it came to military technology. PLA troops spent more time farming than training.

China today is arguably fast approaching global superpower status. It's entire military has modernized by leaps and bounds since 1989. It's navy is larger than the USA's and its new ship construction far outstrips ours. It's developed and produced indigenous stealth aircraft (thanks to a lot of successful industrial espionage). The PLA has a presence in both space and cyberspace.

I think the original T2k team would be surprised.

-

[castlebravo92]

I wonder if any of the original T2k team anticipated the rapid rise of China over the past three decades or so.

I remember as a teenager watching a documentary that I taped in 1989 about the Chinese military. At the time, the PRC's most high-tech weaponry was designed in the 1950s and '60s. It seemed that China was decades behind the west when it came to military technology. PLA troops spent more time farming than training.

China today is arguably fast approaching global superpower status. It's entire military has modernized by leaps and bounds since 1989. It's navy is larger than the USA's and its new ship construction far outstrips ours. It's developed and produced indigenous stealth aircraft (thanks to a lot of successful industrial espionage). The PLA has a presence in both space and cyberspace.

I think the original T2k team would be surprised.

-

I think China is where the US was in 1935. Depending on how you want to measure it, half of the world's industrial output is produced in China. They are aiming for strategic nuclear parity with the US and Russia by 2030 or 2035, and are increasingly modernizing their navy. They have a long way to catch up, but, they produce 35% of the global naval/marine tonnage. US is way down on the list of global ship producers. China's main problem is lack of energy and food security...which are not small problems to be sure.

[castlebravo92]

I agree with a lot of it. Again in the 1990's we kind of blew it where we should have engaged Russia more to get her on our side. I say the real threat is Red CHina and even though the Russians are with them now, I foresee the Chinese screwing them at some point and they will be Jonesin for help. I always felt as a trump card, Ukraine should have held on to all or some of their nukes, *I mean we promised to protect them in the future, but many times we write check with our mouths we can cash and that leaves them in the lurch. We need to work to get all sides to the peace table.

The problem is, Russia was/is a mafia state. The realistic post-USSR choices for Russia were either an extremely corrupt democracy or a return to autocracy of some form. From a Russian perspective, the US and the West used and abused Russia even when Russia acted in good faith (like after Sep 11). Then again, the US isn't forcing countries to join NATO. That kind of thing happens when you invade your neighbors and murder and rape their civilians.

The ironic thing is, the US and Russia share many of the same geopolitical threats (China, radical Islam), and Russia is under much more of a direct threat from both.

[Raellus]

I agree with a lot of it. Again in the 1990's we kind of blew it where we should have engaged Russia more to get her on our side.

I don't get "the USA was mean to poor Russia in the 1990s and that's why Putin is so antagonistic to the West these days" takes. That's the narrative Putin's propaganda machine has been spitting out for decades now. What does the USA stand to gain by kowtowing to an autocrat who's goal in life is to become the next Peter the Great and rebuild the Russian Empire, one former SSR at a time The guy is a ruthless sociopath. Putin ordered the FSB to bomb a couple of Moscow apartment blocks as a frame-up and fait accompli for his revanchist invasion of Chechnya. He's imprisoned scores of political opponents had had at least a dozen assassinated (R.I.P. Navalny). He's been up to no good re Ukraine since the Orange Revolution in 2004. Time and again, Putin's told the world who he is- an opportunist who's only interested in rapprochement with the West if and if and when it gives him leeway him to pursue his expansionist agenda- and we'd be foolish not to believe him.

@Raellus I don't think that it's so much that some of us in the US want to stop funding Ukraine and thereby "appeasing" the Russian dictator, it's more of a "what's in it for us". I look at it this way 1) America should have never forced Ukraine to give up it's portion of the old Soviet equipment after 1989. 2) The Democrats should have never forced the military to deactivate forces in Europe as part of the "Peace Dividend". 3) I find it funny that the party that told us Americans to "Trust the Russians", "reset our view of them", "Hey Mitt, the 1980's are calling and they want their Foreign Policy back (Laughs)", etc. are now the party of "let's get those Russkies". 4) I find it very disingenuous having said politicians trying to scare Americans with "if Ukraine falls, Poland is next." Considering that Poland is a NATO member and any attack would automatically trigger Article 5, so now Russia would be facing not just 1 country, but most of NATO. And 5) Even if he wins in Ukraine, I don't see his forces be "welcomed" any more than we were in Iraq. I see nothing but partisan attacks on his forces until it becomes too much for them. I have more points, but this is just small sample of some of my thinking.

How is allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine in the USA's national interest If NATO turned a blind eye to the Russian conquest of Ukraine in 2022, would Putin really have believed that NATO has the stomach to go to war for Latvia or Estonia Putin's proven that he's an aggressive expansionist again and again (Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Eastern Donetsk, Ukraine). If we don't learn from history- namely, the failure of Appeasement in the late 1930s- then we're doomed to repeat it. Hitler didn't stop after the Sudetenland, or even the rest of Czechoslovakia, despite strongly worded warnings against doing so from Great Britain and France. Consequently, he felt comfortable ignoring their "red line" of attacking Poland in 1939. Poland in 2024 has every reason to be concerned about Russia. Even if Putin stopped at conquering the Ukraine, should Poland and the rest of Europe be expected to take in millions more refugees, or rest easy whilst a grinding guerilla war festers on its doorstep

I think China is where the US was in 1935. Depending on how you want to measure it, half of the world's industrial output is produced in China. They are aiming for strategic nuclear parity with the US and Russia by 2030 or 2035, and are increasingly modernizing their navy. They have a long way to catch up, but, they produce 35% of the global naval/marine tonnage. US is way down on the list of global ship producers. China's main problem is lack of energy and food security...which are not small problems to be sure.

Interesting comparison. I think China is closer to the USA in 1942 than 1935, and we're becoming like 1942-'43 Japan (in terms of naval building and capabilities). I hate to say it because I come from a USN family, but our navy is slipping. Our last two major surface warfare classes have been unmitigated disasters and the new Constellation-class frigate project is off to a very rocky start.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-started-building-its-new-constellation-class-frigates-2023-5

We lost our numerical advantage years ago; our fleet is getting old and we're quickly losing our qualitative advantage. We can't continue to lean on our illustrious naval tradition and superior operational experience, in lieu of new construction and upgrades of aging platforms. That's the mistake the IJN made during WW2 and look what happened to Japan.

-

[Brit]

Back when I started working in 1986 all I needed was a black ink pen and a red ink pen. No computers...

[stilleto69]

@Raellus "How is allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine in the USA's national interest If NATO turned a blind eye to the Russian conquest of Ukraine in 2022, would Putin really have believed that NATO has the stomach to go to war for Latvia or Estonia" I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not for allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine, I'm just asking are we (the West) sure we have the stomach to do what is necessary. Is the West ready to possibly go to war with Russia and deal with the consequences (possible reinstatement of the Draft, massive casualties (military & civilian), etc. I mean look at how the world is slowly changing it's attitude regarding Israel and it's war against Hamas, first it was do what you need to do to retaliate, now it's become you need to find a ceasefire agreement ASAP. Furthermore, the argument that the West would not fight for Latvia or Estonia is erroneous due to both members being in NATO and any hesitation/refusal to intervene would basically destroy the entire purpose of Article 5. And finally, as I stated even if Putin wins in Ukraine, I don't see the Ukrainian Resistance just trowing their hands up and walking away. I see it like the Taliban/Iraqi forces that drove our (the US) "F'ing nuts" with the constant roadside attacks, etc. I see them doing just the same to any Russian "Liberators" until their military/political leadership has had enough and withdraws (even just to save face) like they did in Afghanistan 1989.

[Raellus]

I'm not for allowing Russia to conquer Ukraine, I'm just asking are we (the West) sure we have the stomach to do what is necessary. Is the West ready to possibly go to war with Russia and deal with the consequences (possible reinstatement of the Draft, massive casualties (military & civilian), etc.

Thank you for the clarification. My point is that, by supporting Ukraine with materiel aid now, we are reducing the chances that we would have to go to war with Russia in the near future. The UAF is bleeding the Russian military dry using Western weapons systems. A weaker Russian military reduces the threat of invasion to its neighbors. Conversely, I think allowing Putin to conquer Ukraine by withholding military aid would actually increase the chances of a war between the USA and Russia for reasons I've outlined in previous posts (some of which I will reiterate here).

I mean look at how the world is slowly changing it's attitude regarding Israel and it's war against Hamas, first it was do what you need to do to retaliate, now it's become you need to find a ceasefire agreement ASAP.

I think this is a function of worldwide discomfort with the disproportionate civilian casualties Israel's military operations v. Hamas are generating, more than anything else. If Israel's "self-defense" operations in Gaza hadn't killed something in the neighborhood of 35,000 civilians, I don't think there would be nearly as much diplomatic pressure on them to negotiate/accept a cease-fire.

Furthermore, the argument that the West would not fight for Latvia or Estonia is erroneous due to both members being in NATO and any hesitation/refusal to intervene would basically destroy the entire purpose of Article 5.

I don't disagree with this point. My point is about perception and how an expansionist tyrant (Putin) would perceive NATO's failure to support Ukraine after a full-scale invasion. I firmly believe that Putin would see such failure as evidence of a lack of willpower on the part of NATO to go to war to defend a former SSR (applicable to the Baltic States). I'm basing this on Putin's psych profile and past behavior (the best indicator of future actions), as well as the historical parallels- namely the consequences of Great Britain and France failing to use military force in response to Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia. As a result of this failure of resolve, the German dictator concluded that England and France would not go to war on behalf of Poland despite their public declarations to the contrary. As the infamous "Sitzkrieg" (Phony War) that followed Poland's partition showed, he was essentially correct.

And finally, as I stated even if Putin wins in Ukraine, I don't see the Ukrainian Resistance just trowing their hands up and walking away. I see it like the Taliban/Iraqi forces that drove our (the US) "F'ing nuts" with the constant roadside attacks, etc. I see them doing just the same to any Russian "Liberators" until their military/political leadership has had enough and withdraws (even just to save face) like they did in Afghanistan 1989.

I agree with you on this point, but I don't think this scenario would make Poland and the Baltics any safer than the current status quo. A long, bloody guerilla war in Ukraine would destabilize the region even more so than it is destabilized now. For one, Eastern European NATO members would be inundated with millions more Ukrainian refugees. This would create economic, social, and political turmoil in those countries, greater than we've already seen. Furthermore, if Russia believed that Ukrainian partisans were receiving military aid (even just small arms and LAWs) from across the border with Poland et al, it would put those countries in greater danger from Russian aggression than they are in now. That is because Russian forces would presumably be at that border trying to stop said weapons shipments. Consequently, the potential for Russian military clashes with Polish forces would be much, much greater than they are now.

In conclusion, absent Putin declaring an end to his "special military operation" in Ukraine or coming to the negotiating table in good faith, I firmly believe that giving the UAF military aid that it requests (short of direct NATO intervention, of course) makes Europe safer than not aiding the UAF would.

-