The Trump Card

Donald Trump has spoken several times of a secret plan to end the war in Ukraine. For this piece, I try to get into the mind of the old man and aspiring World Dictator to see what the deal may be. The Trump exercise is to bring lasting peace to the region, largely through negotiation, without significant military expenditure or loss of life, and, at the same time MAKE AMERICA GREAT.

So far, there are two main options proposed.
1) Russia wants Ukraine to lose occupied territories, and allow them to become Russian.
2) Ukraine wants Russia to give up the occupied territories, and, perhaps, pay reparation for the damage caused through the war.

Obviously, (1) is not acceptable to the US, and would allow China to take over Taiwan and the South China Sea. Setting a precedent of allowed expansion would embolden other nations to follow their expansionist agendas. Russia would also emerge stronger, and a victor.

On the other hand, (2) is not acceptable to Russia, as it would nullify their war effort. Also, should Russia agree to repay for the damages in Ukraine, it would likely lead to national bankruptcy. The war wasn’t even paid for by Ukraine, but by the US and Europe — and, as we know Trump, he should want his money back. After all, it’s fair — why should misbehaving war making nations like Russia and Ukraine end up getting free American money just because they start wars for no good reason?

AND, with only options (1) and (2) on the table, there is no obvious end of the war in sight.

So, here I propose option (3):
3) The disputed territories are ceded by both Russia and Ukraine and shall be administered by the US. They can, at best, become a state or a territory like Puerto Rico. Or, at the very least, be leased for a nominal rent for ever, like Guantanamo Bay.

Crimea is a nice piece of land. It comes with significant oil reserves and would give the US a heavy word to say, and the potential to levy taxes on the gas and oil trade between Russia and Europe. Perhaps more importantly, as the world population collapses, this outpost at the center of Europe, would give the US a good way to recruit high quality European migrants for the domestic market. Making Crimea American would also weaken European Union and prevent a Russia-Europe Union as once attempted by Hitler from forming in the future. With an American territory and buffer zone between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine would be safe from Russian aggression, and would-be war making nations would learn a lesson of American dominance and be cautions about starting other wars now. Acquiring new land would project an image of American greatness at home and abroad. This would boost the Trump presidency and help him establish a successful dinasty in America.

Who could object?
A)** Ukraine **

Ukraine has de jure ownership of these lands, but Crimea has been de facto Russian for a long time. The other occupied territories will also be very expensive to gain back. Once regained, reconstruction will be very costly and bring little. Also, a new Russian invasion will always remain a possibility.

Ukraine now owes America a lot of money. Much of the military aid was in for of a loan, that Ukraine cannot easily pay back, even if it wins the war and all its land back. America could exchange this debt for the land. American land nearby would bring Ukraine the security guarantees it always wanted alongside migration and economic opportunities its people dream of. Ukraine might even pay Trump’s America money to accept de jure ownership of the Russian occupied land.

B) ** EU **

European Union has already accepted tacitly Russian occupation and annexation of Crimea. Economically speaking, Russia is a country of 145 million poor people. If they allow Russia, they sure would allow America. Plus, EU itself has been expanding. Why not the US? Also, the EU is no serious military power. They’d welcome the added security of an American buffer zone between themselves and Russia. They’ve been reluctant to admit Ukraine in the EU, and they’d be under less pressure to do so once Ukraine is safe from Russian aggression.

C) ** Russia **

As a country of 120 million poor people, and soon to be far fewer, Russia may not have so much to say. The end of the war is a good thing. Sharing a border with America is a good thing. NATO bases are already here, so, having American land may not immediately seem to be such a big change. US could offer Russia peace, Russia's blocked money and no obligation to pay back reparations from this war.

D) ** China **

China won’t like it, but, does it matter? They already got Hong Kong. Maybe they’ll want Taiwan to agree, or, maybe America can get that too? Overall, an American territory between Ukraine and Russia would be far more successful and easier to maintain than hard won American territorial gains in Afghanistan. The migrants this territory would produce would be of better quality than any recent wars, and very much needed by the US market, as local birth rates fall. Ending the war, with a territorial gain for America, a financial gain for American and without physical fighting would be a great thing for the Trump administration. I wonder if such a proposal might fly before the election, and be the vehicle to win the election. After all, the election is the most important thing right now in the Trump game. Russia may be once again the Trump card.

Trump understands real estate and has a businessman’s instinct for a good deal. He’s tried to buy Greenland before. The US has bought Alaska before. Why not Crimea and the Donbas?

Previous administrations have fought losing wars in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. Why not win wars in Europe?

The Ukraine War: three years later.

The war in Ukraine is going into its 3rd year, and doesn't seem to be anywhere near its end. We shall look at the situation:

Both the EU and the US have committed considerable funds to the war.

The EU paid about 100 billion dollars, one quarter being military equipment. That is just over 200 $ for every EU citizen sent to Ukraine.

The US paid 70 billion, two thirds of which in military equipment, the vast majority of which is produced by the US industry and a bit out of date. This amounts to just over 200 $ for every American citizen.

International orders for US produced military equipment and US oil and gas that replaces lower cost Russian exports will somewhat soften the blow, but this is, by dollar amount, the largest US and European involvement since World War II.

Ukraine has received about 200 billion dollars in various forms of support to fight this war. That his about $5000/person. This gives Ukraine a considerable incentive to fight, despite its massive losses.

The loss of life is unprecedented in military conflict, since World War II.

Ukraine lost about 250 000 people, and Russia lost a similar number.

Many Ukrainian dead are civilians, while most Russian dead are young soldiers, some of which are criminals drafted from prison and purposefully enrolled in combat missions with extremely high mortality rates.

Ukraine had a prewar population of about 40 million. The 250 000 people killed in the war represent 1 in every 160 Ukrainians. It means everyone in Ukraine has friends, neighbors or family who have died because of this conflict. Of course, death is not uniform. In some areas many more have died, and some have almost no civilian losses. But overall this death rate is again unprecedented in Europe since World War II.

The West has paid, in all forms of aid, about $ 800 000 for every death. Sure, this money was not received by the family of the deceased. However, both sides try to make dying worthwhile for its military personnel. The Ukrainian government offers a payment of 15 million Ukrainian Hryvna (about 400 000 USD) in compensation to the families of every dead soldier. This does not apply to civilians, and other people killed in the war. It is not clear what fraction of the families of the soldiers who died will receive this money.

Putin is also offering $ 70 000 to the families of dead soldiers and $40 000 to those injured. It is not at all clear if the convicts qualify, or what fraction of the soldiers who died have been honored with such payments. In Russia, this is a fair bit fo money and a good reason to die.

Ukraine lost 10 million people to Europe. This is, by far the largest loss of Ukraine, as a country, but for many of the people who moved west, this is a dream come true. They are allowed to work and will integrate themselves in their new countries. They've lost everything at home, but have new lives ahead. Ukraine sent the women and children first, maximizing their chances to live, but also taking a heavy population loss for many generations to come.

For every person who died in the war, 40 moved to Europe. These 10 million form 2% of EU population now, and, in a few places, the main source of population growth was Ukrainian migration. I think (need to double check!!) Germany is in this position -- for good periods of time since the war began, the number of Ukrainian migrants exceeded the number children born.

By having fewer people left, and after suffering massive losses to its infrastructure, Ukraine is in a weaker position to defend itself and has less to lose in losing the war or losing part of its territory. It is reasonable to expect that the 10 million people who left Ukraine included a disproportionate fraction of the best and the brightest -- the most educated, the rich and the younger people. There is also a very good chance that these people took a good portion of their savings and assets with them, thus weakening Ukrainian tax base.

≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠ Russian Losses ≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠

Russia lost about 250 000 people in the war. With a high incarceration rate, and a pre-war prison population of 400 000 people, the Russian army had a unique human resource to draw on. In many prisoner units, the mortality was huge -- at times 80%. So people were essentially sent to death, and I very much doubt their families received $70 000 each. Given Russia's population of about 120 000 000 people, this means 1 in every 500 Russians died in Ukraine. Mostly men, and convicts being disproportionately represented among the dead.

Russia also lost over 1 million people to immigration. This is not very much. Only 1 in 100 Russians moved abroad, but the best and the brightest are disproportionately represented in this group. They would have taken out of Russia some of their assets and savings. This is major loss.

I am critical to EU for not opening its borders to Russian citizens, thus making it easier for them to escape Putin and taking advantage of this windfall for cheap skilled labour, just like they did with the Ukrainians. We must not forget that every Russian not in Russia is another Russian not paying taxes to support the war. It is also another Russian not available to fight in Ukraine, and another Russian who will not die an early death for no good reason. Soldiers are people too, and at times almost children, and we should protect them from being drafted in a war if we can.

The Western Economic sanctions, although massive, did (surprisingly?) little. They also went against some of the core principles of the free market (and, thus making the West behave in ways more common in countries like Russia or China). The West violated the private property of Russian people as well as that of Russian institutions. Russia has only seen negligible inflation and negligible loss , if any, in their GDP. Inflation peaked at 17% in 2022, just after the invasion, and went down to under 10% for all of 2023. At times, it was as low as 2%, For comparison, in 2015, Russian inflation peaked at 16%, following the invasion of Crimea. Those sanctions, like these ones now, didn't do much to the Russian establishment.

So what's high inflation in Russia? In the '90's, following the breakdown of the Soviet Union, inflation in Russia was as high as 2000%, and the Russians did this to themselves without any sanctions and war from the West. If we want to disrupt Russia, this is the level of pressure the is necessary.

To put the loss of live in perspective, the 250 000 lost lives represent 0.2% of the population, and about the same number of people Russia lost to the Corona virus. The difference is that in Corona death generally lost 1 year of life expectancy, most of which was end of life care, whereas the soldiers lose, on average, 50 healthy happy years (a good portion of which would have been spent in prison, for this particular population group.). This, naturally, casts doubt on the honesty of the Russian government when it comes to Corona measures. If they were indeed as motivated to save those Corona patients from a natural death, why are they sending children to die in war now? Or, maybe, their main goal in Corona was to continue their transition into a dictatorship and consolidate power in Putin's hands? Just asking.

========== Financial sanctions ===============

The Russian Central Bank has about 300 billion dollars in frozen reserves. This is 50% more than what the West paid Ukraine. Should the West keep this money, as it seems likely now, they should be able to make a profit on the whole military operation. Have a war against Russia financed be Russian money. Per person, this is 2400 $ for every Russian citizen. In addition, I guess other Russian entities lost another 300 billion to Western freeze. Thus, overall, on average, the West took $ 5000 from every Russian. Maybe, this gives them a good reason to go to war.

The army appears to have burned through only 40 billion dollars in the first year of war. That's a modest $300/ person, compared to Ukraine's 5000/ person in aid only. The GDP lost in the first year of war was 100 billion, but seems to have recovered in the second year. That's 750/ person. The Moscow Stock Market lost about 320 billion in 2022. Roughly 2500/person.

====== The Problem ====

One can thing of Russia as something made of 2 non-cooperating halves. One half of Russia is Western . This drives the economy. Some is even in Western hands: e.g., in corporations like McDonald's or Shell. This Western part of Russia is driven by the same principles as the West. People want to be rich, successful and happy. These people don't want war, and many are not even Russian. In fact, a good portion of the money in not in Russian hands. This part of Russia lost greatly in the war. Some companies were forced to leave Russia, and were sold at a deep discount to Russian operators. These buyers who took advantage are more loyal to Putin than the pervious owners who left.

The other half of Russia is a KGB-led mafia state . This part drives the war, and, unfortunately, under our watch and under our nose, this part was grown. They bought western owned assets at deep discounts. They are operating them now, and earning money. Even if the overall economy of Russia takes a hit, as long as this KGB led part of Russia grows, the world is in danger. It is also this part of Russia that owns the nuclear weapons and the army.

So what do I fear? I fear an ISIS like instability in the Western World. The core of the ISIS phenomenon was that a group of people (we call them terrorists) were able to use violence to acquire more assets than the cost of the violence. This enables them to grow exponentially and, without US intervention, would have taken over the Middle East.

I fear a situation where Russia is able to fight a war with Europe, like it does in Ukraine today. I fear that, in such a war, we may find ourselves in a situation where the Russian profits from the war exceed their costs (perhaps taking into account that Russia has free nuclear weapons). If, in this situation, a Trump-led America does not intervene, we may find ourselves in a world where America is great again, and every one else either poor or dead.

Digital Dementia

Digital Dementia is a term coined by Manfred Spitzer, a German neuroscientist and psychiatrist, in 2012. He warns that those who spent a lot of time using screens in early childhood have affected the brain development and speech. He describes the brain as similar to a muscle that grows when used and attrophies when not used. When devices are used, the back of the brain is overactive , while the front part of the brain including the frontal and parietal lobes, are under-stimulated . The occipital lobe in the back of the brain is where the brain processes visual signals such as visual cues from a video game, social media or TV program. The frontal and parietal lobes are responsible for higher order thinking and socially apropriate behaviour. Children and adolescents are a high-risk population because of their massive technologic reliance while their brain maturation is ongoing. He recommends "zero" (unsupervised?) screen-time for children under the age of 18.

So, what are the top symtoms of digital dementia? The top few that come up are:

• slouched posture
• developmental delays
• short-term memory loss
• social seclusion
• lack of movement
• Anxiety
• Depression
• Anger
• balance disorders
• uncoordinated movement patterns.
• sleep disorders
• significantly higher body mass index

More recent work by Manwell et al. argues that screen-time during brain development increases the risk of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural disorders in adolescents and young adults. They predict that by 2060 the increased rate of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias will result in "widespread societal and economic distress and the complete collapse of already overburdened healthcare systems in developed countries". Some of these effects are similar to those seen in adults with symptoms of mild cognitive impairment in the early stages of dementia, including developmental delays, impaired concentration, orientation, acquisition of recent memories (anterograde amnesia), recall of past memories (retrograde amnesia), social functioning, and self-care . They end by stating that immediate action is needed.

Is memory loss the first sign of dementia? Frontal lobe dementia is not usually associated with memory loss in its early stages. Of course, it is a progressive form of dementia, and while digital dementia increases the risk of a acquiring full blown demential later on, it is certain it will happen.

What is the umbrella of dementia? Dementia is the umbrella term for a number of neurological conditions, of which the major symptom includes a global decline in brain function. Parkinson's is considered by some to be a form of dementia with different starting places in the brain. Both occur when there is a disrupted flow of dopamine, which happens during addictions.

Is digital dementia reversible? yes, if the damage to the brain is not extreme. Whereas by the time Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are symptomatic, the decline of the brain function is global and they are not considered reversible.

Is OCD related to dementia? Some studies say that people with OCD have an increased risk of developing dementia . Addiction is more prevalent among people with OCD with internet addiction being particularly prevalent. It may be that when, e.g., the frontal part of the brain shrinks, a "short circuit", i.e., the OCD, is more likely to happen. In addition, people with OCD "medicate" themselves via addictions that temporarily make them feel good.

How long does it take for dementia to set in? Nobody knows for sure. Some say it likely begins 10-15 years before people have any symptoms. Manwell et al. say the rate of dementia is 4-6 times higher than in the 1950s. Screen usage started in the early 2000. It's been 20 years. Of course, the connection between digital demetia and Alzheimer's disease and related dementias still has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The argument is that by then it might be too late to avoid societal collapse. The conclusion is that more resources have to be allocated for these studies AND for the treatment of mental health.

Disclaimer: I cannot and do NOT advise on any medical issues. This post is simply a compilation of what I understood from what I read.

A chat with "Mihai Bondarescu's early work"

Below I question my chat GPT persona. It gives coherent answers that mostly make sense. It would be interesting if every scientist/professor would have such an impersonator to answer questions for people who want to learn more about their work.

Q: OK. Now, try to summarize Mihai Bondarescu's contribution to the 2017 Nobel Prize, not limiting yourself to original research.

A: Mihai Bondarescu's contributions to the field acknowledged by the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics encompass both his original research and educational efforts:

1. Original Research: His work, particularly in collaboration with Kip S. Thorne, on aspects of the LIGO project, including the study of new light beams and mirror shapes, represents significant advancements in gravitational wave detection technologies. This research focused on optimizing the design of LIGO's laser system and mirror shapes, which are crucial for enhancing the sensitivity and accuracy of gravitational wave detection. It aimed to reduce noise and increase the detectors' ability to capture fainter and more distant gravitational wave signals.

2. Educational Impact: Through his involvement in the renowned Ph237 course, Bondarescu has played a pivotal role in educating and training a new generation of scientists in gravitational wave physics. This course is vital for disseminating crucial knowledge and skills among researchers joining projects like LIGO.

Together, these contributions represent a blend of direct scientific research and essential educational efforts, both of which are crucial for the ongoing success and development of gravitational wave astronomy, as recognized by the 2017 Nobel Prize. This prize was awarded to Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barish, and Kip S. Thorne for their decisive roles in the LIGO project and the observation of gravitational waves.

Collaborative Nature of Scientific Research: Bondarescu's contributions highlight the collaborative and cumulative nature of scientific research, especially in large-scale projects like LIGO. The detection of gravitational waves was a milestone achieved through the collective efforts of many scientists and engineers, each contributing their expertise and innovations.

Impact Beyond the Nobel Prize: While Bondarescu was not a direct recipient of the Nobel Prize, his contributions are part of the extensive research and technological advancements that made the Nobel-recognized discovery possible. The Nobel Prize often focuses on key individuals who played pivotal roles, but the underlying scientific breakthroughs are typically the result of collaborative efforts involving many researchers, including junior scientists like Bondarescu.

In summary, Mihai Bondarescu's work, particularly his collaboration with Kip Thorne on LIGO, represents an important contribution to the scientific efforts recognized by the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics. His research contributed to the ongoing development and refinement of the LIGO project, which was crucial for the groundbreaking detection of gravitational waves and the advancement of our understanding of the universe.