Current videos and news from Ukrainian borders has shown that foreigners, especially Africans are been treated like animals. Reports showed that some Africans have been forced to remain in Ukraine.They are been pushed out of queues and priority were given to Europeans and other “white” nationals. African students are left waiting for days to cross in freezing temperatures without food, blankets or shelters. Some were pushed down as they tried to board trains. Ukrainian and Polish citizens were allowed to pass through while foreigners have to go through four stages process that lasted from 14 to 50 hour. Ukrainians and Poles we know it has not been easy, but nobody deserves to die please. Thank you the people of Moldova and Romania for your non-discriminatory warm welcome. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/2/more-racism-at-ukrainian-borderswhy do only africans and asians matter, the entire war was about discrimination and human rights abuses against the eastern ukranians that speak russian and that life there since around 1000 years the entire western media doesn't said a single word about that yeah, I know. It happened the same when the Christians killed new-borns during the Roman Empire and Caligula was forced, against his will, to kill them in the circus. The media did not say anything. I wonder why the press is not saying anything against the obvious racism against the Russian speaking population of Ukraine (nearly half)... they must be part of a secret conspiracy. Or, who knows...maybe you are simply wrong. |
|
|
|
I am interested in knowing what would people who think that the US should send ships or troops to Ukraine think that could happen in that case? I certainly have my own theory. For those who think that Trump would do so, I am interested in knowing what would they think Trump would do, what would tweet and what consequences do they think that would result. (e.g. nuclear war, Putin cancelling the war impressed by Trumps hairstyle, Putin forgetting about the war and simply tweeting back until he chokes....) U.S. officials believe Kyiv will fall in 4-6 weeks, with Russia/Ukraine war lasting over a decade.
...
With the amount of Ukrainian propaganda floating around, there is this notion that Ukraine is winning this war or even has the potential to win this war. It simply is not true. The Russian military has too many resources to throw away and the economic ramifications does not effect Putin directly. His fragile ego will put his political ambitions over his constituency. So without any input from NATO, this is prolonged losing battle for Ukraine. It seems like Russia has been targeting civilian areas over the last few days, and there are some reports that it might ramp up within the coming weeks. A 10-20 year time line sounds reasonable, and at the end Ukraine might end up being a wasteland like Afghanistan.
Firstly, there is and there will be abundant "Input" from NATO. Ukraine is not short on experienced soldiers with the ability and the willingness to fight and there is no legal impediment for any neutral country (e.g. NATO countries) to sell weapons (or give then away) to Ukraine's army. Ukraine is not wining Putin's war in the sense of preserving the territory or entering Russia to decapitate their government. How does an Ukrainian "victory" look like (sorry for being brutally honest): - Impossibility of Putin preserving his army as it is today. Loosing so much material and troops that it does not recover ever again and, eventually, looses its stance in the world (and perhaps Putin is "retired"). - Getting into a stalemate that Putin simply cannot afford in terms of reputation and in terms of the economy. - For a total victory, after a massive loss of Russian lives and an economic meltdown, Putin is somehow "retired" by a military junta. Sadly, none of this happens with Ukraine still being a place to live, nor without anger and hate for generations, nor without an economic shock across the world. The alternative is reaching an agreement. Unfortunately, that cannot be done before a war takes place because it has been proven that giving away territory or accepting aggressions to have peace (e.g. Austria with Hitler) does not work. Ukraine has no option but to fight and never give up or accept that they will be ruled by Putin - who obviously has zero regard for their future. |
|
|
|
...
Since Putin is apparently now a crazy old man with a Napoleon complex, this horrifying thought occurred to me: If Ukraine resists for many weeks, why wouldn't Putin use a nuclear weapon against them?
...
To try to prevent this, the West urgently needs to find some way of giving Putin some sort of hope that he personally can improve his situation
...
While nothing is impossible there are a few reasons why I think that is not likely possibility as of now: - Insofar as military uses, there are conventional fuel-air bombs that can do a small Nuke's job leaving no radiation.. nor anything else. - Nuclear weapons are to dissuade, not to be used. He who fires a Nuke has the certainty that he will be equally fired upon. There is no way that US, UK or France can ignore a nuclear strike without responding as this would void the nuclear deterrent. Getting hit by a Nuke on your territory is likely to end with you being assassinated by your own people. - It is extremely difficult to de-escalate after a nuclear attack. Relations may be broken for decades, economy would collapse (Putin's army is costly for a small PIB like Russia's) - Putin is not mad in the usual sense, he understand the consequences of his actions. On Ukraine, I think he has miscalculated the costs and the international reaction, but it was not madness, he simply based his strategy on a divided and slow Europe, a nearly unconditional support from China and a calculated non-intervention by the US. What is an scenario in which Putin would use a Nuke: - Direct intervention of NATO troops (e.g. the Black Sea) - Threat of other using Nukes. - The war goes so wrong that he is at serious personal risk. - NATO setting-up Nukes in the Baltic republics. Overall, once more Europe has a War, we all loose and US (and this time also China) come out stronger. Imagine this scenario: Putins nukes an Ukranian city. US states that they will nuke a Belorussian city in 24 hours. Can you imagine the chaos? On Putin having some personal gain... well I do not think that Ukraine will recover the Donbas in any case, so Putin can sell it as a victory. If you follow this logic, Ukraine should be bombing Moscow right now, and annexing Russia because there are millions of Ukrainians in Russia.
Ancient Kievan lands... 1000 years ago, since before Moscow even existed.  So Turkey should be invading Bulgaria and Crimea, lol. Complete madness. I wish we had a time machine so that we could send all these autocrats to the 11th century where they belong. Yes! that's it!, here's my proposal: Russian will rename to their old name "Russians of Kiev", Turkey will become the Ottoman Empire or even better, Byzantium and go back to from naming Istanbul to Constantinople. We will look for people to be the new Mongols and threaten Europe (they did a much better job than Putin) and we will mix that with the Brigands, Goths, Celtic tribes, Normans, the Teutonic Order... we can even have a Crusade! Oh, I forgot... we have to revive the Cossack cavalry or Europe would just not be the same. Oh Lord Wellington where are thou! I am such a diplomacy genius... Putin, are you there!? |
|
|
|
I was also thinking that with a limited GDP it may be difficult to replenish the weaponry and material loses. Ukraine may be Putin's equivalent to invading Russia by Hitler or Napoleon. Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/268173/countries-with-the-largest-gross-domestic-product-gdp/You may be mixing US billion 10^9 with and European billion 10^12 Bruh, make it challenging  Which of the following states have a higher GDP than Russia? - California, New York, Alaska or Texas. Which countries have a higher GDP per capita then Russia: - Barbados, Uruguay, Malaysia or Puerto Rico With which of the following countries does China trade more than with Russia - Germany, Australia, Malaysia or Thailand Which of the following companies have sold products worth more than all of the Russian global gas exports per year: - Apple, Mercedes Benz, PepsiCo, Caterpillar or Nike Disclaimer, I had to google the data myself for some of them. But either way, the numbers are just ridiculous, some really have problems understanding the tiny dot that Russia represents in the global economy. Of all these, I would have missed Alaska, maybe Texas (it must be close and may even depend on the year??), Thailand as trading power and Puerto Rico as having a good per capita. |
|
|
|
So the solution is to pack the nukes inside a package where its unilaterally optional to one side, after mutual collective defense is established? Now that makes all the difference and not sneaky at all.
Still not making any sense. Sneaky about what? That some countries want to share defensive capabilities? Unlike e.g. Russia and Belarus? That some of those countries don't want to trust Russia and rather turn westward? I wonder why. Ok, so China offering Cuba a pact where Cuba is free to enter into the most beneficial agreements they can choose within their possibilities, and China is obligated to declare war on anyone attacking or blockading Cuba (with an option for China to later bring in nukes to Cuba anytime they want after that pact is accepted) Now you'd be silly not to take up that great offer!
Actually that was the status quo for decades before the Soviet Union collapsed. So your point is still not quite clear here. Not sure how much clearer i can be. US will never allow Cuba to enter into any defensive pacts (regardless of how lawful/democratic/liberating/profitable... it will be for Cuba) that would allow other countries to bring nukes into Cuba. China will never allow Taiwan to enter into any pact (regardless of how lawful/democratic/liberating/profitable... it will be for Taiwan) that will allow 3rd country to bring nukes into Taiwan. Now you can argue whether it is right/ethical/lawful etc... but it'd be silly to argue the fact itself. You are assuming that NATO would require Ukraine to have nukes. That is not the case with many other countries even those close to Russia, so there is no real argument. |
|
|
|
Nuclear bombs don't work this way.
...
By 1950 it had 285,712 poeple living there and now more than 1 million. If the fireball of the nuclear detonation touches the surface, it produces large quantities of radioactive dust, which are long term hazardous to human health. ... I think we are forgetting one of the most important facts about nuclear weapons: He who uses one has the certainty that it will not be the last one fired. That is the main reason why they have not been used after WW II. If Putin uses the old USSR nuclear arsenal, retaliation and counter retaliation are likely to follow... nuclear winter, all humanity dead... How do you de-escalate after a nuke?? |
|
|
|
I would need some source for this.
The reason many wind and solar installations are being implemented, involves them being the most affordable and easiest solutions available. The market is often the best indicator of value. A high percentage of bitcoin mining operations are powered by renewable energy due to its low price. In cases where bitcoin mining is powered by coal, it is typically state subsidized and a recipient of government welfare. ... The above represents the norm. There are many misleading charts on the internet which compare solar versus the cost of coal fuel. They do not include the total cost of coal operations. I think that fossil fuels are still cheaper, yet it is true solar is catching up. My take is that is not yet there for large scale generation. For consumer use, it may be worth. On regards to market and investment, right now green and sustainable are super-cool so I would not take this as an indication of real profitability. |
|
|
|
Take the quizz - without looking into the graph below, which country on this list has more GDP than Russia as of today: - Italy - India - Canada - South Korea The answer is ...  All of them. Russia is living on the inheritance of weaponry, diplomacy and technical advances of the old USSR. Putin´s war may mark a step-stone in the path of Putin´s Russia loosing another chunk of their stance in the world. This could deal a blow to the country´s morale and perhaps drive a change. |
|
|
|
Ahora que Putin está dedicándose a ejercer su despotismo a pleno pulmón, conviene recordar que aunque ha heredado de la URSS un arsenal nuclear y bastantes cacharritos para matar a otros, al final la pasta da para lo que da: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268173/countries-with-the-largest-gross-domestic-product-gdp/Curiosamente España, estando como está y todo, tiene un GDP muy próximo al de Rusia y paises como Canadá o Korea del Norte, para nuestra sorpresa, la superan. Es Putin capaz de mantener un dominio territorial sobre las regiones con esta mierdecita de PIB? |
|
|
|
What will happen if at the end Russia succeed in her conquest against Ukraine and take over the economy of Ukraine. That will extend the economic power of Russia no doubt and that will make Russia more powerful.
How will EU and NATO countries relate with Russia if that happens ?
An unlikely scenario, since this war does not really increase the resources and economy of Putin's Russia significantly. What is certain is that he will now be considered an aggressive leader of a nuclear power willing to implement military solutions based on conquering free countries -would you trade with this country if you were a Western democracy? My view, everyone's economy will be impacted negatively, there is no winner. |
|
|
|
I think we are mixing macro and micro economy here. Profits from companies are different from purchasing power and people do notice the difference in my view.
I... What does macro vs micro have to do with it? This is currently implemented and utilized in economies of the world. Its standard policy. People notice the difference? This has been ongoing for many years. Decades. No one noticed. Ok, I think we are talking about different things. One is inflation of the currency respect to the products. That has been the norm and is considered desirable to avoid people hoarding money without investing. Now, the devaluation of a currency is relative to the other currencies. Governments tend to use the lame excuse that by doing so they are favouring the exports and thus the economy of the country, as it is cheaper to buy their products and actually does improve the results of companies that export in real terms, not just in numbers. These are different things. The fact is that currency loses value respective to other is due to lack of competitiveness of the economy and, just as you said, reduces the purchasing power of foreign products. Macro would be the general effect on the people and companies - general reduction in their capacity to import, whereas a micro effect would be a company increasing their bottom line in local currency. |
|
|
|
...
This appears to be a good test for the "devaluing currency is good for exports" school of economic thought.
That is not a school of thought properly, but the usual lame excuse of governments that fail to remain competitive. AFAIK many corporations define their profits in terms of units sold. For sake of discussion let's invent a random statistic: general motors reaps $1,000 in profit for every 1 unit of automobile sold. If the united states can devalue its native fiat currency by 100%. This enables them to sell 2 units for the price of 1, which might double their profits. This is one methodology behind currency devaluation being a worthwhile policy for nations with high exports. On the opposite end of the spectrum, currency devaluation weakens the purchasing power of consumers. While currency devaluation might appear good for exports and corporations, they can be bad for the purchasing power of individuals. And so they may represent a trade off where the strength of a currency is sacrificed for a better corporate balance sheet and perhaps better GDP stats. I think we are mixing macro and micro economy here. Profits from companies are different from purchasing power and people do notice the difference in my view. |
|
|
|
Upon Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the limited ability to stop the imports of gas and oil from Russia to avoid financing the military aggression. Ursula Von der Leyen today mentioned in the European Parliament that this shows how the strategy to transition to solar and wind is strategic in more than one way and is not only about climate change.
Solar and wind power and by nature quite distributed and avoid the existence of critical and dangerous energy infrastructure (e.g. nuclear centrals)
At last! Not sure how European governments are realizing the importance of green energy only now! The European people are usually known as environmentally educated people to the rest of the world. Just look at Norway how much they have done to contribute to the green energy. But anyway, realizing is great even if it is late! So I sincerely hope that European governments will start working towards 100% green energy production and try to become self reliant. Are you aware that the main export of Norway is crude oil an derivates? Norway sovereign fund moves billions... where do you think that came from? Selling codfish? Norway is very keen on green only at home my friend. ...
The cost of renewable energy per watt is generally lower than fossil fuel based energies like oil or coal. State based subsidies are the main market drivers for energy generation with a larger carbon footprint.
...
I would need some source for this. |
|
|
|
...
Certainly, nobody should blame the Russian people for this. When ancient Romans invaded some innocent place, could you blame the Roman's slaves for making the soldiers' weapons? To a greater or lesser degree, it's the same sort of thing for every government, including the US. If you are compelled by fate to be a citizen of some country, compelled by force to pay taxes to support your country, etc., then you bear no responsibility for what you are compelled to do, and you do not have a responsibility to put yourself at personal risk to make your country less evil. In my view, even "perfect" democracy would not change this. The average Russian bears zero responsibility for this invasion, just as I disclaim any responsibility whatsoever for the various atrocities committed by the US in the middle east and elsewhere.
While I agree that all Russians cannot be blamed for Putin's decisions, as they mostly do not get either a say on it or any means of opposing these without an immense risk to their lives and livelihoods, as a citizen of a Democracy, I do feel I am much more responsible for what my country does than people on authoritarian regimes are. I do feel I need to do something if my government does not have at least a morally acceptable conduct. In other words, when you live in a Democracy (imperfect or not), you do not get to blame others - such is the burden of freedom and so heavy that many choose to discharge it and accept dictators. |
|
|
|
Some of the horrific video clips I've seen from this war really illustrates how war has changed. Seeing tanks runover cars on the freeway like they're playing grand theft auto, or seeing cyclists having bombs dropped on their heads are things that are just unexpected to me and even unfathomable. I think most people just want to go about their daily lives without fear of some government squabble murdering them while trying to get a workout in, or trying to make it to work. It's pretty crazy that with all of the advancement of our civilization, war has turned even less personal and the loss of life seems almost expected. Personally, I would prefer the days of swinging swords to suddenly having your entire family murdered in a second as a jet flies by... If you haven't seen some of the horrific clips out there from this war, do yourself a favor and don't search for them. It's absolutely heartbreaking.
War, war is hell. Always was, always will be. That has not changed, if anything it became more humane due to public outcries. There is a lot of misinformation going around, which is understandable when literal lives are at stake, but I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, so giving the benefit of the doubt, your naiveness is frankly, shocking and perhaps telling of your overall selective world view? Unless you're really young, have you considered why you're just finding out that there are atrocities in every "conflict" and all sides? Why haven't you seen horrific video clips from previous conflicts, surely theres abundance of them on the internet? Perhaps they were less brutal? Or there were less civilian casualties? Or perhaps some other reason? ... Sorry to burst your bubble, but your ignorance to suffering is really telling about you/your upbringing. And no, powerful don't bear the consequences, you can even sanction ICC if you have enough power, that's why everyone wants more power. "US sanctions International Criminal Court officials" https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/us-icc-sanctions/index.htmlOn this I have to agree and add that Europe has risen its voice and started acting on the economic front only when Putin threatened directly everything that is dear to the EU and the US - democracies (even if imperfect), their ability to strengthen their relations to other countries if they wish to do so and to be free to enter into the most beneficial agreements they can choose within their possibilities. In other words, Ukraine does not have less rights to reach agreements with others than Putin or than any other country. Forcing them into neutrality, hindering their rights to associate or extend their diplomacy is something that Western Europe just cannot accept. Putin setting terms on what the NATO can do or not do in terms of accepting members is not acceptable. Putin giving himself the Tzardom or all that surrounds him because "he would not feel safe otherwise" feels too much like the old USSR regime. And do not get me wrong, I am no happier about the US intervening in Latin America than I am with Putin. |
|
|
|
...
there was no ukraine invasion the military operation was executed to catch the ukranian regime that violated human rights, there was an issue like that in georgia where sout ossetians got discriminated, and there is now an issue, where russians have been discrminated by those that where in charge. the ukranians invested nothing into the russian speaking regions of ukraine and focused all the investments on ukrainian speaking region, through that they effectively run a genocide. [/quote] No invasion, yet Putin's tanks are inside a foreign country. "Just a military operation" to depose a democratically elected government, yet the Ukrainians do not seem to be hailing the "liberators" but rather trying to send them back to their families (live or dead is their choice). Not investing in a region? Even if that was true, which is probably not, that is not genocide under any definition. You must be fully aware of how your arguments are perceived by now. If you think your are somehow helping Putin's cause by repeating over and over unbelievable arguments just keep on, you are simply showing how cynic, delusional and unbelievable this aggression is. Seriously, I have never seen Switzerland, Luxembourg, the whole EU, Turkey & Israel to agree on anything at the same time except in condemning Putin's war. That should give you some material for self-reflection. |
|
|
|
|
Upon Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the limited ability to stop the imports of gas and oil from Russia to avoid financing the military aggression. Ursula Von der Leyen today mentioned in the European Parliament that this shows how the strategy to transition to solar and wind is strategic in more than one way and is not only about climate change.
Solar and wind power and by nature quite distributed and avoid the existence of critical and dangerous energy infrastructure (e.g. nuclear centrals)
|
|
|
|
China has started to evacuate their people from Ukraine only today.
That may mean that Putin has told China that the war will not take longer than 4-5 days.
I think that Putin also greatly underestimated what Europe will do in the financial vs resources part of the war.
I honestly didn't think that Europe will become this united this fast (and I'm glad that I was wrong).
Unfortunately, my reading of this is that Putin may have told the Chinese that he has failed to secure a quick victory and has now to go into Godzilla mode on Ukrainian cities to seize control, as the Ukrainian army did somehow not bend to his delusion of being hailed as a liberator of shorts. This is very bad news and our leaders should works towards a halt and give a chance to diplomacy. |
|
|
|
At this moment, the West (EU mostly) is facing the fact that their energy is, in a large part, coming from Russia. Perhaps that is the main reason why the ruble is, within reason, holding better than it would be expected against the economic sanctions, with a mere loss of 20% - although short selling is not allowed and that is helping. chart liveIf anything, Putin's war of aggression will change how Europe looks at Russia in the future - from being a dubious partner to an outright danger to all democracies. Energy decoupling should be part of any future EU strategy. |
|
|
|
Its quite childlike of us to debate about whether Putin knows the cost of aggression or not. Here's a former KGB agent who has served as the head of state for one of the most powerful and unpredictable states of the world. That too in a time of falling from glory. That man definitely knows what he wants to do. Right now, it was bullying Zelinsky into giving up on his ambitions to make Ukraine join NATO. Who thinks this wouldn't hurt the ego?
This war is a powerful man's reaction to being miffed by a smaller nation. That too in the belief that they don't want NATO at their doorstep. War is terrible but I do hope that world's people and twitterati would have the same reaction for all the other wars that have been inflicted by the so-called "democracies" for the last over two decades.
Its amazing how the cold war perceptions still live on after three decades.
Your don't need to be an expert to understand that Russia will get zero benefits from this war. Giant economic loss, international isolation, no military benefits even if they succeed. Even domestically it looks bad, as people protest. That is right, there will be a very high price to pay and achieving the long term strategic target of controlling and avoiding permanent foreign presence in the Black sea is very dubious. Now, this is not a childish debate, Putin like all leaders know perfectly that you need money and a strong economy to sustain your stance in the world and, to be honest, a blow to Russian economy might make him loose the supports he currently enjoys at home. This is no joke and Putin is not a fool nor a madman - at least in the conventional sense. On regards to Ukraine joining the NATO (OTAN in Spanish), I personally think there is much work to be done before they can become a member safely. On the end, OTAN has to be about making all members be safer and more influential. ...
This appears to be a good test for the "devaluing currency is good for exports" school of economic thought.
That is not a school of thought properly, but the usual lame excuse of governments that fail to remain competitive. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
