Interestingly this little piece just came to my attention The Covert Operation to Back Ukrainian Independence that Haunts the CIA
...
The main body of Ukrainian insurgents, and in particular the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, had already been linked directly to Nazi atrocities in the region. “They were Nazis, pure and simple,” one CIA operations chief said. “Worse than that, because a lot of them did the Nazis’ dirty work for them.”
Beyond those concerns about enabling fascists, there was also increased understanding of how the Soviet secret police and counter-intelligence operations actually worked
...
https://news.yahoo.com/covert-operation-back-ukrainian-independence-083000650.htmlLooks like this is not the first time around, CIA operation Red Sox, US sponsors Ukrainians who weren't just Nazis but did Nazis' "dirty work". And who's the head of said directly linked Nazi group OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists)? You guessed it, the "hero" Stepan Bandera. Naturally there's Stepana Bandery Avenue 50.488572, 30.512898 in the center of capital, Kyiv, recently named in 2016. If that doesn't say Ukraine is ready for EU i don't know what will. I guess the enemy of my enemy logic... didn't turn out that well with Osama bin Laden either.  This is fine, right!?!? In other news, Janet Yellen confirmed it’s unlikely the US will allow Russia to continue making bond payments on its foreign-currency debt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-18/yellen-confirms-russia-debt-payment-license-extension-unlikelyAhh the, you default because i won't accept your payment, logic. I'm not sure if USD can be militarized anymore than this, so they decided to totally kill USD as a global reserve currency, how much of the US debt do they expect China to buy up after such antics? US cannot run on balanced budget especially now, so Yellen will need to force EU (Germany/France) to start propping up USD at the cost of EUR. USD/EUR parity incoming. Scholz and Macron are set up to be played hard, guess that's why they're running around the way they do |
|
|
|
People are made to think that deescalation in Ukraine is now literally in no ones best interest.
May be not in your or Putin's best interest, but if you had bothered to read what I said... remove the tanks -> deescalation. Tanks invaded Ukraine, Javelins did not invade Russia. Bravo, right so Russia removing all tanks is the only acceptable "deescalation", must've been really tough to propose such radical thought? Thanks for making my point, currently escalation is in everyone's best interest, so the war must go on. “In a dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on working out specific agreements that would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory,” Putin said.
He charged that “the threats are mounting on our western border,” with NATO placing its military infrastructure closer to Russia and offered the West to engage in substantive talks on the issue, adding that Moscow would need not just verbal assurances, but “legal guarantees.”
“We aren't demanding any special conditions for ourselves and realize that any agreements must take interests of Russia and all Euro-Atlantic countries into account,” Putin said. “A calm and stable situation must be ensured for all and is needed for all without exclusion.”
Putin's statement came a day after he sternly warned NATO against deploying its troops and weapons to Ukraine, saying it represented a red line for Russia and would trigger a strong response. Medieval thinking 100%. Again, Putin telling the people of other countries what they can and cannot do in the name of his safety. Again, Putin telling all countries that they cannot join NATO because he says so. This is Putin considering himself ruler of the old USSR and the one who can tell Europe what can and cannot do. It is no longer the case and, after this war, he will be lucky if other "territories" do not start revolting in view of the inefficacy of its army. US pretty much said that Russia is not allowed to have national security interests
On the contrary, Russia has security interests, Ukraine has security interests (even more now), Finland has security interests, Sweden, Lithuania, Letonia,... all have security interests... the question is why Putin's interest are better than anyone else's. Is it because he's got a better army / more power? Now that argument seems to have a few leaks. ... And we're back to hypocrisy and double standards. Due to their proximity, US can have national security interests in Cuba, totally normal for NATO and Australia to have national interests in Solomon Islands etc... But why should Russia have national interests that spans to the country directly on it's border that speaks the same language and was part of the same country?? Then we go into, all countries are equal but some are more equal than others, and the ones that clear some imaginary level of democracy/freedom are allowed to absorb countries bordering other superpowers with beneficial offers, while others are not. Great policy, guaranteed to result in wars, so here we are. Coming up next, everyone acts super surprised when China starts "special operations" in Taiwan after US decides to add Taiwan to it's "defense" pact. US will also be willing to supply Taiwan with any and all weapons till the last standing Taiwanese. Any comment on why you believe the Pope is wrong as well, in seeing how such policies cannot possibly lead to peace? Edit: wording If you're going to use whataboutism, I think the United States committing genocide against the Native Americans would be more appropriate. Also, remember when you defend Russias actions by comparing them to those of other countries, you're also defending those other countries actions. Ahh whataboutism, there is no hypocrisy or double standard that it cannot retort. I'm not defending or justifying anyone, just being a realist. In a perfect world, we all have unlimited freedoms, hugs and kisses, and sing Kumbaya. Unfortunately we're not there yet, so through hard lessons of MAD best we could come up with is to give superpowers their distance and let them all play in their own sandboxes. Sure it's not perfect, has it's own issues but that's the best we could come up with. Now, this whole concept that provided relative peace is being unilaterally challenged, under cover or freedom (of course applied selectively only where it's preferential i.e. not Saudi Arabia or middle east). The results are as expected, and shouldn't surprise anyone. As an added benefit such convenient new policy can easily start a war between China and Taiwan anytime US wishes, just start sending weapons to Taiwan, it's like everyone knows you'll be starting a war but you can totally get away with it under premise of freedom spreading. ...
Any comment on why you believe the Pope is wrong as well, in seeing how such policies cannot possibly lead to peace?
Edit: wording
I did not say anything about the Pope. I think that his thoughts on this matter are irrelevant at this point if you really need a comment from me. As for the rest, you are comparing today's situation with Cold War. That explains why you consider Putin's actions valid - you live with him in the sixties. The US know it. The US is using it. There is no winner. I didn't think that the idea that rules either have to be applied equally or non at all, was such a hard concept to grasp. From April 26, 2022 ...we also wanted to let them know that if steps were taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power-projection capabilities, or a military installation, then we would have significant concerns and we would very naturally respond to those concerns.
So, again, I’m not going to speculate what that may or may not involve, but I think our goal was to be very clear in that regard... https://www.state.gov/teleconference-with-assistant-secretary-of-state-for-east-asian-and-pacific-affairs-daniel-kritenbrinkThink US/Australia said it best (military alliances are a red line for Australia) and US have a significant concerns and it would very naturally respond to those concerns (apparently even the ones on the other side of the world), and cold war has nothing to do with it. You do not want to set a precedence where China can buy their way into military bases on US/Mexico border. |
|
|
|
People are made to think that deescalation in Ukraine is now literally in no ones best interest.
May be not in your or Putin's best interest, but if you had bothered to read what I said... remove the tanks -> deescalation. Tanks invaded Ukraine, Javelins did not invade Russia. Bravo, right so Russia removing all tanks is the only acceptable "deescalation", must've been really tough to propose such radical thought? Thanks for making my point, currently escalation is in everyone's best interest, so the war must go on. “In a dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on working out specific agreements that would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory,” Putin said.
He charged that “the threats are mounting on our western border,” with NATO placing its military infrastructure closer to Russia and offered the West to engage in substantive talks on the issue, adding that Moscow would need not just verbal assurances, but “legal guarantees.”
“We aren't demanding any special conditions for ourselves and realize that any agreements must take interests of Russia and all Euro-Atlantic countries into account,” Putin said. “A calm and stable situation must be ensured for all and is needed for all without exclusion.”
Putin's statement came a day after he sternly warned NATO against deploying its troops and weapons to Ukraine, saying it represented a red line for Russia and would trigger a strong response. Medieval thinking 100%. Again, Putin telling the people of other countries what they can and cannot do in the name of his safety. Again, Putin telling all countries that they cannot join NATO because he says so. This is Putin considering himself ruler of the old USSR and the one who can tell Europe what can and cannot do. It is no longer the case and, after this war, he will be lucky if other "territories" do not start revolting in view of the inefficacy of its army. US pretty much said that Russia is not allowed to have national security interests
On the contrary, Russia has security interests, Ukraine has security interests (even more now), Finland has security interests, Sweden, Lithuania, Letonia,... all have security interests... the question is why Putin's interest are better than anyone else's. Is it because he's got a better army / more power? Now that argument seems to have a few leaks. ... And we're back to hypocrisy and double standards. Due to their proximity, US can have national security interests in Cuba, totally normal for NATO and Australia to have national interests in Solomon Islands etc... But why should Russia have national interests that spans to the country directly on it's border that speaks the same language and was part of the same country?? Then we go into, all countries are equal but some are more equal than others, and the ones that clear some imaginary level of democracy/freedom are allowed to absorb countries bordering other superpowers with beneficial offers, while others are not. Great policy, guaranteed to result in wars, so here we are. Coming up next, everyone acts super surprised when China starts "special operations" in Taiwan after US decides to add Taiwan to it's "defense" pact. US will also be willing to supply Taiwan with any and all weapons till the last standing Taiwanese. Any comment on why you believe the Pope is wrong as well, in seeing how such policies cannot possibly lead to peace? Edit: wording |
|
|
|
So this was back on December 1, 2021 and we all know how that turned out, US pretty much said that Russia is not allowed to have national security interests in any country and NATO will expand anywhere it wishes. Because freedoms and such (except where it's not convenient for US like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Myanmar, Turkey etc...) \
Actually what US said was "No, we will not tell another country that they can never ever join our alliance no matter what." Semantics only work on internal electorate, so each side can sell the news to their people, however they can phrase it best to them. Reply on international relations level was clear, Putin's concerns were ignored and he's made out into a fool who shouts hollow threats. With the current massive NATO "military exercise" my outlook is even bleaker than before. In fact we might've passed the point of no return for Ukraine. Russia made it clear that their red line was crossed. The failure in diplomacy is when it comes to a point where a war becomes more beneficial than peace to all relevant parties. Russia has people and indicated that its more than willing to sacrifice a lot for Ukraine, in fact Putin's ratings have gone up, and an underestimated enigma of Russians has always been their willingness to come together and unite the worse things got for them. US is totally fine littering non NATO country with weapons, and it can come out of this with another Marshall Plan for Europe to reestablish it's dominance and reset it's financial system. China will be more than willing to send a train full of gold to Russia, to kick this dumpster fire off, EU has no say in this (that's why Macron and Scholz running around like headless chickens). Russia declares full war and gets Ukraine, US becomes a saver of Europe once again, China enjoys stability and quietly pushes its agenda in the temporary vacuum. A shame really It's not semantics, Putin literally demanded the no other country be allowed to join an alliance that he wasn't a member of. Obviously an alliance that was established to defend against the Soviets isn't going to let Russia dictate the rules. Ironically Putins response has made NATO and Europe more united than ever and to some countries made joining NATO all the more appealing. Military alliance against Soviet Union is expanding after demise of Soviet Union. Who's the military alliance defending against and what realistic options were left for Russia? Watch unfriendly military alliance absorb every country around you now, or later? It's hard to argue that angle when even the pope himself doesn't agree with you. Regardless, my point being is everyone has a justification for their electorate to consume, and we're at a point where escalations would benefit everyone more than a peaceful solution. Drums of war are getting so loud that even Pope's voice is drowned. Defence is now "escalation"?  How about withdrawing those tanks, then Ukraine won't need as many Javelins. ... Try replacing it with other countries and see how it works, Russia providing defense to Cuba is "escalation"? Or China providing defense to Solomon Island is "escalation"? Or how about if China provided 10:1 defense weapons to Russia would that be escalations? But there's never ending justification for double standards so because reasons... Point being, Russia is bad, so now any and all escalations are justified. People are made to think that deescalation in Ukraine is now literally in no ones best interest. |
|
|
|
So this was back on December 1, 2021 and we all know how that turned out, US pretty much said that Russia is not allowed to have national security interests in any country and NATO will expand anywhere it wishes. Because freedoms and such (except where it's not convenient for US like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Myanmar, Turkey etc...) \
Actually what US said was "No, we will not tell another country that they can never ever join our alliance no matter what." Semantics only work on internal electorate, so each side can sell the news to their people, however they can phrase it best to them. Reply on international relations level was clear, Putin's concerns were ignored and he's made out into a fool who shouts hollow threats. With the current massive NATO "military exercise" my outlook is even bleaker than before. In fact we might've passed the point of no return for Ukraine. Russia made it clear that their red line was crossed. The failure in diplomacy is when it comes to a point where a war becomes more beneficial than peace to all relevant parties. Russia has people and indicated that its more than willing to sacrifice a lot for Ukraine, in fact Putin's ratings have gone up, and an underestimated enigma of Russians has always been their willingness to come together and unite the worse things got for them. US is totally fine littering non NATO country with weapons, and it can come out of this with another Marshall Plan for Europe to reestablish it's dominance and reset it's financial system. China will be more than willing to send a train full of gold to Russia, to kick this dumpster fire off, EU has no say in this (that's why Macron and Scholz running around like headless chickens). Russia declares full war and gets Ukraine, US becomes a saver of Europe once again, China enjoys stability and quietly pushes its agenda in the temporary vacuum. A shame really |
|
|
|
“In a dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on working out specific agreements that would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory,” Putin said.
He charged that “the threats are mounting on our western border,” with NATO placing its military infrastructure closer to Russia and offered the West to engage in substantive talks on the issue, adding that Moscow would need not just verbal assurances, but “legal guarantees.”
“We aren't demanding any special conditions for ourselves and realize that any agreements must take interests of Russia and all Euro-Atlantic countries into account,” Putin said. “A calm and stable situation must be ensured for all and is needed for all without exclusion.”
Putin's statement came a day after he sternly warned NATO against deploying its troops and weapons to Ukraine, saying it represented a red line for Russia and would trigger a strong response. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-worried-ukrainian-military-buildup-81487169So this was back on December 1, 2021 and we all know how that turned out, US pretty much said that Russia is not allowed to have national security interests in any country and NATO will expand anywhere it wishes. Because freedoms and such (except where it's not convenient for US like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Myanmar, Turkey etc...) But now in interesting turn of events for religious? Biden Pope Francis quoting Putin "It is necessary to put an end to the irresponsible policy of intervening from outside and building democracy in other countries, ignoring the traditions of the peoples."...Francis suggested that perhaps “NATO barking at Russia’s gate” had caused Mr. Putin to invade his neighbor, which doesn’t belong to the alliance. “ https://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-blames-nato-russia-ukraine-11651598988I mean we have the Pope himself directly saying that Ukraine doesn't belong to the alliance. Will be an awkward Sunday mass for Biden. Not sure how this could be spun any other way, is it time to bring freedom and democracy to Vatican??  The only way for US to save face is to get rid of Putin at the cost of Ukrainian lives. But back then, from the same article Zelensky himself pretty much admitting that Ukraine had no chance against Russia ...“We must tell the truth — we wouldn't be able to stop the war without direct talks with Russia,” Zelenskyy said. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-worried-ukrainian-military-buildup-81487169But what do you know apparently the ghost of Kiev, and the guy who told the Russian ship to fuck itself, before surrendering, are super warriors who are able to hold Russia back! Well that, and little help... Ukraine supplied 25,000 anti-aircraft weapons by US...and its allies had also supplied Ukraine with 60,000 anti-tank systems. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-supplied-25000-anti-aircraft-weapons-by-us-allies-us-general-2022-04-07Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., noted the U.S. has sent roughly 5,000 Javelins and 1,400 Stingers to Ukraine, comprising 33% and 25% of their respective stockpiles. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., described the state of the missile inventory as “very thin.” https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-05-03/ukraine-russia-war-weapons-stockpiles-austin-javelins-stingers-5884318.htmlIt's from a month back, even with only the "official" numbers that's like what, 10 anti-tank missiles for each Rusisan tank? Now we wait how Russia will reply to such escalations, either folds or doubles down and escalate by mobilizing, and what will NATO do then? The world inches closer to midnight, Ukraine suffering huge losses now and stands to loose exponentially more. Anyone left who still thinks this is not a complete failure for everyone? 8yr preparation of Ukrainian army tells me that this was not a surprise for anyone, was just a matter of time |
|
|
|
.... Australian PM warns Chinese that new base would be 'red line' for Australia and the US...Western countries are scrambling over a security pact reached between China and Solomon Islands https://www.foxnews.com/world/australian-pm-says-new-chinese-base-would-be-red-line-for-australia-usThink we're hitting the peak of the irony here. So how many here are going to start yelling about Solomon Islands' right to join whatever pact they want? Or Chinese cookies are different than Nuland's cookies? Surely China can find a lot more countries around the globe where it can offer some irresistibly profitable trading terms in exchange for some military cooperation. That's the problem with precedents, once you set them then you reap what you sow. The justification for US screwing Cuba was that Cuba's proximity to US was an existential threat, that got us through cold war. Why, why did they have to challenge that and rock the boat now? ... As far as Cuba, Castro's regime is not a representation of the people of Cuba, thus does not represent the will of the people living there. I will get flames for this, but that government, IMHO, while de-facto is the Cuban government, cannot be assumed to speak of behalf of the Cuban people and any agreement entered by it is not legit. Chinese cookies are China's Communist Party's cookies, clearly a regime that cannot in anyway be assumed to represent the majority of the Chinese, even less now that Xi has decided to perpetuate himself in power. Again, I will get flames for this, but their government lacks legitimacy to act on behalf of their people. If the majority of people of the S.I. and majority of people in China wish to have an agreement and are informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) then they should. There are some doubts about the level of representativeness of the current Prime Minister, who is accused of being in China's pocket.Now, back to Putin's Russia, currently at war with Ukraine. Ahh right, the "will of the people", totally objective position for international relations, who wouldn't buy up such logic. Now who do you think should decide which governments "speak on behalf of its people" enough to allow them to join pacts? Care to share your list? Did Bush represent the majority of Americans, majority supported, had an agreement and were informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) of getting into Afghanistan? So were Trump's and now Biden's actions? I mean if we're going to make up justifications why some countries are not allowed to do things that others can, after the fact, why not just say that counties that are in a pact that begins with NA* or in alliance with such pact, can just do whatever they want, wile everyone else gets sanctioned? S.I. GDP is just $1.71 billion if China double/triple/10x... countries GDP overnight do you not think that majority wouldn't be dancing on the streets welcoming it's military in their houses?? Such idiotic diplomacy is what got us to this place. Now China is just going to buy up "majority" in every poor country that it wishes. If this is the best argument for foreign policy they can come up with, then it's a total diplomatic failure. No one with IQ higher than a rock will accept such mental gymnastics. RE GDP, you are right to assume that people would be very happy about a better lifestyle - that is, if that money really ever reaches the average Joe. However, you should as well tell them that they are becoming a military target, should a war ever occur and they will be from then on depending on keeping in the good side of the CCP and thus loose their independence and, to a great degree, their freedom. You, see ... there are no free lunches, particularly, there are no free "swallow nests" when dealing with the CCP (and I am the one being classed as Naïve... oh my).# By the way, if you have an army of, let's say 1000 soldiers and you have a base in your territory of, let's say 5000 Chinese soldiers, backed up by a massively superior force ... who's country is it? See, you can argue about how representative democracies are, however, you cannot argue how representative is the system in Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran... because there is no argument. Your position is that "since representative governments are not perfect then everything is equally bad". Cuba and US have the same level of legitimacy for you. Also, you take the practical approach to world diplomacy, but an ethical approach to judging representation in democracies. We do not agree, that's all. Certainly, I am not trying to make anything up, I am simply expressing my view. I do not need to "list" ... you need free press, respect for the law and the individual rights and a representative system to elect a government plus independent judiciary... the more the better), Also, I am not trying to convince you of anything either, nor do I need to justify anyone else's doing and I am certainly not going to try to justify any of the Bushes - Junior is certainly psychopath IMHO. I think that my way of seeing things is what corresponds to a civilized position in the XXI century. Tzars, despots, kings, feudal lords... that is medieval and humanity should strive to get rid of those systems and those who support and promote them. I am not a fan of the US nor I defend their way of electing representatives, the massive private donations, the gerrymandering and many other of the idiosyncrasies of the voting system. I could say the same for France, UK (extreme gerrymandering), Spain (you vote for a list, not a person) and even Switzerland which tends to delegate too much into referendums, even for decisions that are too complex, ... you can name any representative system and it has its faults. Wait, are you being sarcastic here? Talking about no free lunches, after Ukraine accepted Nuland's cookies? Or do you believe full scope of consequences, how it will be crossing Russia's red line and Ukraine becoming a military target, resulting in loss of life that we're seeing now, was fully disclosed to Ukrainian people as condition of accepting those cookies?? BTW if you're any country in central or south Americas with opposing views from US...who's country are you? Or better yet, how long will you have before you're sanctioned? My position is that all big boys get their own sandboxes (spheres of influences). After loosing the cold war, Russia's sand box was eroded down to bare bones of Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan (all Russian speaking countries). And more or less everyone was fine with/accepted it. USA/Europe were growing, Russia was more liberal and positioning itself towards Europe. Now what genius decided to ruin that stability by taking Ukraine out of Russia's sandbox with cookies, is beyond me. And after that claiming the following: One of the most senior US officials in the Pacific has refused to rule out military action against Solomon Islands if it were to allow China to establish a military base there, saying that the security deal between the countries presented “potential regional security implications” for the US and other allies. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-out-military-action-if-china-establishes-base-in-solomon-islandsSo Russia in 2014 when it was in shambles and was not a threat to anyone, shouldn't consider loosing a Russian speaking country ally, through which majority of its gas is exported to EU, as having "potential regional security implications". But somehow Solomons Islands have regional security implications for Australia which is 1.000miles away and US which is 10.000miles away? No one can be expected to swallow such BS, and that's how wars start. Now what I hope is that US haven't gone full retarded, in fact clandestinely filling up the Ukraine with weapons and bringing their army from 0 to 101% in 8yrs [although by leveraging NAZIs] points to US fully expected Russian retaliation. Now this will either bare fruits and will bring a fall of Putin, or will be a total diplomatic fuck up, EU would be freezing and unable to compete on global markets (due to higher costs of raw resources), while Russia is pushed into China's hands and now with set precedent China uses same playbook to buy loyalty of poor countries situated closely to its adversaries. Great high risk low reward move... I might be taking a practical approach, but your approach that any hypocrisy and blatant double standards could be justified by claiming that it represents the "will of people" just doesn't hold water. If anything it makes pushing back on China impossible when US does exactly the same thing. Was a fan of Switzerland, bottom line their referendums and neutrality worked out great for them (isolation by alps helped out too). But by bending over on bank reporting to US, and now joining EU sanctions, the saying "neutral as Switzerland" doesn't make much sense anymore. In fact i have no idea what they have left going for them, that Nazi gold they're holding must be running out soon, and not sure how much millennials care about great watches. But in any case, as far as all regimes having issues, sure can't argue there, but then should we start with biggest offenders, those who start the most wars, who objectively caused the most loss of life, who's weapons kill the most people bar none? There are consequences for setting precedence and breaking international norms. Claiming unique rights because you represents the "will of the people" just makes you a clown in international relations You consider that all governments are equally legit, so North Korea and Denmark are at the same level to you. I disagree - legitimacy comes from the will of people, period. Anything else is slavery and serfdom. Ukraine, as far as I know, is not accepting NATO bases nor troops in its territory as of now, although the people could decide so if properly informed of the consequences. They certainly know now the consequences of not being protected. I never said that this lunch is free either, but stands a better chance of increasing living standards while keeping a reasonably representative government. As said, if the people of the SI, properly informed of the consequences, decide to enter an (extremely asymmetric) treaty with the CCP, they are free to do so. The key is being properly informed and properly represented when making the decision. This is not entering and agreement with China, it is entering an agreement with a ruling elite that has China under their thumb. On the Ukrainian topic, I partially agree. Would be an Ukraine under Putin's control be stable: most likely yes. Would that be a country that could develop, advance and have a choice about their destiny? Not a chance. Again, if you take a short term and practical approach, Ukraine joining the EU and looking west makes no sense. If you look into the future and want a higher degree of freedom, social progress and development, it does. But in any case, as far as all regimes having issues, sure can't argue there, but then should we start with biggest offenders, those who start the most wars, who objectively caused the most loss of life, who's weapons kill the most people bar none? Oh, sorry, I did not answer this. The regimes that have caused the most violent (no-defensive or otherwise reasonably justified) deaths are Communism under Stalin, Japan imperialism under the military junta, Nazi Germany and, to the scale of it's time, the Roman Empire. I you want to count the number of wars, the Roman Empire probably. However the answer you are looking for, as profiting from war in the last few decades, US & Russia. Both are major weapons dealers. What you're proposing is a double standard, with obscured concepts of the "will of the people". It ignores the idea of sovereign states and what that realistically translates to is whoever gets to define who is "legit" gets to rule all others and can get away with anything by simply claiming supremacy over "legitimacy". Even kids wouldn't fall for such rules in a game. Practically, with such rules it means that no competing democracy can prosper, which implies that other countries (not in a club) must switch to totalitarianism for a chance to compete. Which i think is what we're seeing now, can you think of a democracy that really prospered financially over last 20yrs? Russia was much more liberal before 2014, was not a threat to anyone, and was not aligned with China, now to survive it has little choice but to completely align itself with China. What will come out of it is anyone's guess, but i cannot see how this can be considered anything but a total diplomatic failure. by the end of 2020, 45% of the population of Ukraine fell into the poor category. The study claimed that this was 6.5 percentage points higher than in 2019. A pre-COVID-19 study forecast the poverty rate in 2020 to be 31.2%. The study stated that the real increase in poverty was 13.8 percentage points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_UkraineSure we might value freedom above all, but regardless of what anyone says, nothing is unconditional, and it's directly proportional to your finances. Majority gladly sells their privacy for a bit of convenience, and will sell their freedom for a cookie. That's why bringing freedom to Iraq, Afghanistan etc turned out the way it did, you need to take people out of poverty before they start seeing value of freedom, it cannot be forced on them. Putin will not be around in a long term outlook, and how totalitarian Russia will be largely depends on Wests policy, so far it's not looking too good |
|
|
|
.... Australian PM warns Chinese that new base would be 'red line' for Australia and the US...Western countries are scrambling over a security pact reached between China and Solomon Islands https://www.foxnews.com/world/australian-pm-says-new-chinese-base-would-be-red-line-for-australia-usThink we're hitting the peak of the irony here. So how many here are going to start yelling about Solomon Islands' right to join whatever pact they want? Or Chinese cookies are different than Nuland's cookies? Surely China can find a lot more countries around the globe where it can offer some irresistibly profitable trading terms in exchange for some military cooperation. That's the problem with precedents, once you set them then you reap what you sow. The justification for US screwing Cuba was that Cuba's proximity to US was an existential threat, that got us through cold war. Why, why did they have to challenge that and rock the boat now? ... As far as Cuba, Castro's regime is not a representation of the people of Cuba, thus does not represent the will of the people living there. I will get flames for this, but that government, IMHO, while de-facto is the Cuban government, cannot be assumed to speak of behalf of the Cuban people and any agreement entered by it is not legit. Chinese cookies are China's Communist Party's cookies, clearly a regime that cannot in anyway be assumed to represent the majority of the Chinese, even less now that Xi has decided to perpetuate himself in power. Again, I will get flames for this, but their government lacks legitimacy to act on behalf of their people. If the majority of people of the S.I. and majority of people in China wish to have an agreement and are informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) then they should. There are some doubts about the level of representativeness of the current Prime Minister, who is accused of being in China's pocket.Now, back to Putin's Russia, currently at war with Ukraine. Ahh right, the "will of the people", totally objective position for international relations, who wouldn't buy up such logic. Now who do you think should decide which governments "speak on behalf of its people" enough to allow them to join pacts? Care to share your list? Did Bush represent the majority of Americans, majority supported, had an agreement and were informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) of getting into Afghanistan? So were Trump's and now Biden's actions? I mean if we're going to make up justifications why some countries are not allowed to do things that others can, after the fact, why not just say that counties that are in a pact that begins with NA* or in alliance with such pact, can just do whatever they want, wile everyone else gets sanctioned? S.I. GDP is just $1.71 billion if China double/triple/10x... countries GDP overnight do you not think that majority wouldn't be dancing on the streets welcoming it's military in their houses?? Such idiotic diplomacy is what got us to this place. Now China is just going to buy up "majority" in every poor country that it wishes. If this is the best argument for foreign policy they can come up with, then it's a total diplomatic failure. No one with IQ higher than a rock will accept such mental gymnastics. RE GDP, you are right to assume that people would be very happy about a better lifestyle - that is, if that money really ever reaches the average Joe. However, you should as well tell them that they are becoming a military target, should a war ever occur and they will be from then on depending on keeping in the good side of the CCP and thus loose their independence and, to a great degree, their freedom. You, see ... there are no free lunches, particularly, there are no free "swallow nests" when dealing with the CCP (and I am the one being classed as Naïve... oh my).# By the way, if you have an army of, let's say 1000 soldiers and you have a base in your territory of, let's say 5000 Chinese soldiers, backed up by a massively superior force ... who's country is it? See, you can argue about how representative democracies are, however, you cannot argue how representative is the system in Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran... because there is no argument. Your position is that "since representative governments are not perfect then everything is equally bad". Cuba and US have the same level of legitimacy for you. Also, you take the practical approach to world diplomacy, but an ethical approach to judging representation in democracies. We do not agree, that's all. Certainly, I am not trying to make anything up, I am simply expressing my view. I do not need to "list" ... you need free press, respect for the law and the individual rights and a representative system to elect a government plus independent judiciary... the more the better), Also, I am not trying to convince you of anything either, nor do I need to justify anyone else's doing and I am certainly not going to try to justify any of the Bushes - Junior is certainly psychopath IMHO. I think that my way of seeing things is what corresponds to a civilized position in the XXI century. Tzars, despots, kings, feudal lords... that is medieval and humanity should strive to get rid of those systems and those who support and promote them. I am not a fan of the US nor I defend their way of electing representatives, the massive private donations, the gerrymandering and many other of the idiosyncrasies of the voting system. I could say the same for France, UK (extreme gerrymandering), Spain (you vote for a list, not a person) and even Switzerland which tends to delegate too much into referendums, even for decisions that are too complex, ... you can name any representative system and it has its faults. Wait, are you being sarcastic here? Talking about no free lunches, after Ukraine accepted Nuland's cookies? Or do you believe full scope of consequences, how it will be crossing Russia's red line and Ukraine becoming a military target, resulting in loss of life that we're seeing now, was fully disclosed to Ukrainian people as condition of accepting those cookies?? BTW if you're any country in central or south Americas with opposing views from US...who's country are you? Or better yet, how long will you have before you're sanctioned? My position is that all big boys get their own sandboxes (spheres of influences). After loosing the cold war, Russia's sand box was eroded down to bare bones of Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan (all Russian speaking countries). And more or less everyone was fine with/accepted it. USA/Europe were growing, Russia was more liberal and positioning itself towards Europe. Now what genius decided to ruin that stability by taking Ukraine out of Russia's sandbox with cookies, is beyond me. And after that claiming the following: One of the most senior US officials in the Pacific has refused to rule out military action against Solomon Islands if it were to allow China to establish a military base there, saying that the security deal between the countries presented “potential regional security implications” for the US and other allies. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-out-military-action-if-china-establishes-base-in-solomon-islandsSo Russia in 2014 when it was in shambles and was not a threat to anyone, shouldn't consider loosing a Russian speaking country ally, through which majority of its gas is exported to EU, as having "potential regional security implications". But somehow Solomons Islands have regional security implications for Australia which is 1.000miles away and US which is 10.000miles away? No one can be expected to swallow such BS, and that's how wars start. Now what I hope is that US haven't gone full retarded, in fact clandestinely filling up the Ukraine with weapons and bringing their army from 0 to 101% in 8yrs [although by leveraging NAZIs] points to US fully expected Russian retaliation. Now this will either bare fruits and will bring a fall of Putin, or will be a total diplomatic fuck up, EU would be freezing and unable to compete on global markets (due to higher costs of raw resources), while Russia is pushed into China's hands and now with set precedent China uses same playbook to buy loyalty of poor countries situated closely to its adversaries. Great high risk low reward move... I might be taking a practical approach, but your approach that any hypocrisy and blatant double standards could be justified by claiming that it represents the "will of people" just doesn't hold water. If anything it makes pushing back on China impossible when US does exactly the same thing. Was a fan of Switzerland, bottom line their referendums and neutrality worked out great for them (isolation by alps helped out too). But by bending over on bank reporting to US, and now joining EU sanctions, the saying "neutral as Switzerland" doesn't make much sense anymore. In fact i have no idea what they have left going for them, that Nazi gold they're holding must be running out soon, and not sure how much millennials care about great watches. But in any case, as far as all regimes having issues, sure can't argue there, but then should we start with biggest offenders, those who start the most wars, who objectively caused the most loss of life, who's weapons kill the most people bar none? There are consequences for setting precedence and breaking international norms. Claiming unique rights because you represents the "will of the people" just makes you a clown in international relations |
|
|
|
.... Australian PM warns Chinese that new base would be 'red line' for Australia and the US...Western countries are scrambling over a security pact reached between China and Solomon Islands https://www.foxnews.com/world/australian-pm-says-new-chinese-base-would-be-red-line-for-australia-usThink we're hitting the peak of the irony here. So how many here are going to start yelling about Solomon Islands' right to join whatever pact they want? Or Chinese cookies are different than Nuland's cookies? Surely China can find a lot more countries around the globe where it can offer some irresistibly profitable trading terms in exchange for some military cooperation. That's the problem with precedents, once you set them then you reap what you sow. The justification for US screwing Cuba was that Cuba's proximity to US was an existential threat, that got us through cold war. Why, why did they have to challenge that and rock the boat now? ... As far as Cuba, Castro's regime is not a representation of the people of Cuba, thus does not represent the will of the people living there. I will get flames for this, but that government, IMHO, while de-facto is the Cuban government, cannot be assumed to speak of behalf of the Cuban people and any agreement entered by it is not legit. Chinese cookies are China's Communist Party's cookies, clearly a regime that cannot in anyway be assumed to represent the majority of the Chinese, even less now that Xi has decided to perpetuate himself in power. Again, I will get flames for this, but their government lacks legitimacy to act on behalf of their people. If the majority of people of the S.I. and majority of people in China wish to have an agreement and are informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) then they should. There are some doubts about the level of representativeness of the current Prime Minister, who is accused of being in China's pocket.Now, back to Putin's Russia, currently at war with Ukraine. Ahh right, the "will of the people", totally objective position for international relations, who wouldn't buy up such logic. Now who do you think should decide which governments "speak on behalf of its people" enough to allow them to join pacts? Care to share your list? Did Bush represent the majority of Americans, majority supported, had an agreement and were informed of the consequences (economic, political,...) of getting into Afghanistan? So were Trump's and now Biden's actions? I mean if we're going to make up justifications why some countries are not allowed to do things that others can, after the fact, why not just say that counties that are in a pact that begins with NA* or in alliance with such pact, can just do whatever they want, wile everyone else gets sanctioned? S.I. GDP is just $1.71 billion if China double/triple/10x... countries GDP overnight do you not think that majority wouldn't be dancing on the streets welcoming it's military in their houses?? Such idiotic diplomacy is what got us to this place. Now China is just going to buy up "majority" in every poor country that it wishes. If this is the best argument for foreign policy they can come up with, then it's a total diplomatic failure. No one with IQ higher than a rock will accept such mental gymnastics. |
|
|
|
Australian PM warns Chinese that new base would be 'red line' for Australia and the US...Western countries are scrambling over a security pact reached between China and Solomon Islands https://www.foxnews.com/world/australian-pm-says-new-chinese-base-would-be-red-line-for-australia-usThink we're hitting the peak of the irony here. So how many here are going to start yelling about Solomon Islands' right to join whatever pact they want? Or Chinese cookies are different than Nuland's cookies? Surely China can find a lot more countries around the globe where it can offer some irresistibly profitable trading terms in exchange for some military cooperation. That's the problem with precedents, once you set them then you reap what you sow. The justification for US screwing Cuba was that Cuba's proximity to US was an existential threat, that got us through cold war. Why, why did they have to challenge that and rock the boat now? Putin warns West: Moscow has 'red line' about Ukraine, NATO November 30, 2021 https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putin-warns-west-moscow-red-line-ukraine-nato-81466257 |
|
|
|
... ... Geneva convention uh? While all 196 countries comply with the Geneva conventions, in 2019, Russia withdrew itself from Article 90 of protocol 1. This article expects the country to oblige and comply with any international fact-finding mission. I wonder why. You see, the only proof of Putin following the Geneva convention is... your word. Did US sign it? Or you holding Russia to higher standards than US? Big powers are fighting, war is hell, innocent people that are stuck in the middle die. So far civilian deaths are relatively low for the war this size. One side dominates control of the media, so huge efforts are extended to keep up the moral and try to manage surrenders. Top generals are sacked for treason, mayors declared traitors, videos of military police roughing up alleged saboteurs in civilian clothes, 500k Ukrainian refugees went to Russia etc... Who really cares what's proven true/false in few months, when you need to survive today. Ukraine needs more Russian Warship Go Fuck Yourself moments, just as Russia needs more videos of tictoc battalion doing cool things I do not hold anyone to a particular standard other than not providing misleading information. It Putin is saying there are no crimes, I, with the information I have currently, disagree. In so far as I am concern, US presidents and troops have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity and denied it. That does not give others the right to do the same. Ok so Russia doing the same shit US and NATO did. Big powers do what big powers do, wage wars for sphere of influence. All are shit. I'm assuming you're a logical person, and addressing the issue starting with the biggest offenders? And being objective you covered demolition of Raqqa the city about the size of Mariupol, how many children, women, elderly died? How many maternity wards, hospitals, kindergartens were bombed there, what percentage of infrastructure was left standing? How does it compare to Mariupol, in term of civilian casualties?
From a practical perspective, the US is not threating Europe and, for me, Attacking a democracy is not the same as attacking a despotic regime.
Oh boy, really hoping you didn't mean that. So gov just needs to convince average TV watching population that the regime is despotic, and that somehow makes killing their children better? Dehumanizing opponent is part of every warfare, and we're watching unprecedented levels of this here, i expect lots of books written about psy ops, and media coverage of this war after this is all over. Do you not see the irony in your own words, by your logic Russians are justified because they're fighting Nazis, a despotic regime. Is DPRK, Democratic Republic of the Congo are democracies (after all, it's in their name), Uzbekistan, Hungry a democracy, where is a cutoff? Care to rate democracy in Ukraine? If you can judge school bombings by their level of "democracisness" would you be able to rate a bunch of them if i provide examples? 500k Ukrainian refugees went to Russia etc...
Sure, and millions of people "went" to Siberia and other exciting places during Stalin's "pacкyлaчивaниe". Care to look up how many mixed Ukrainian/Russian families lived in Ukraine? How many held dual citizenship (even though Ukraine doesn't seem to allow it), how many of those predominately Russian speaking cities in east Ukraine on the boarder with Russia had family/relatives in Russia that can shelter them? Let me know what you find ...
I've seen (can't find the source, sorry) a more insane variation of this with regards to Mariupol:
"This is not genocide against Ukrainians because Russian forces are killing Russian (or Russian-speaking) civilians".
Well one of the main units assaulting Mariupol is from Donbass, lots of Units (navy) is from Crimea, which Ukraine and majority of the world still considers to be part of Ukraine, so how could it be genocide??? Surely you're not just parroting talking points by mass media, and can explain which category of people is being targeted for you to think it's a genocide? 500k Ukrainian refugees went to Russia etc...
Like going to Russia was free choice for most of them... And when there is war and your life is at question, going to Russia is probably better option than die. There's always a choice. Unlike Bandera, I think my grandparents would have higher chances staying in a war zone than trying to go to Nazi Germany. It's an oxymoron to claim genocide when hundreds of thousands of people go to the country supposedly committing said genocide. |
|
|
|
... Geneva convention uh? While all 196 countries comply with the Geneva conventions, in 2019, Russia withdrew itself from Article 90 of protocol 1. This article expects the country to oblige and comply with any international fact-finding mission. I wonder why. You see, the only proof of Putin following the Geneva convention is... your word. Did US sign it? Or you holding Russia to higher standards than US? Big powers are fighting, war is hell, innocent people that are stuck in the middle die. So far civilian deaths are relatively low for the war this size. One side dominates control of the media, so huge efforts are extended to keep up the moral and try to manage surrenders. Top generals are sacked for treason, mayors declared traitors, videos of military police roughing up alleged saboteurs in civilian clothes, 500k Ukrainian refugees went to Russia etc... Who really cares what's proven true/false in few months, when you need to survive today. Ukraine needs more Russian Warship Go Fuck Yourself moments, just as Russia needs more videos of tictoc battalion doing cool things |
|
|
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60916098Russia has announced it will "drastically reduce" military combat operations in two key areas of Ukraine "to boost mutual trust" in peace talks.
[...]
Officials in Washington said they had already seen the Russians draw away from Kyiv, but they were still pounding the capital with air strikes and the US had little confidence that it marked any significant shift or meaningful retreat.
"mutual trust" my ass. Russian forces have been stalled there for a month with and Ukrainians started to counterattack. The decrease in the intensity of the operation near Chernigov and Kiev began two days ago, today it was presented as a gesture of goodwill on the part of Russia. I think everything is more prosaic - the main goal now is to clean up Mariupol and defeat the troops of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Donbass. After the defeat of the Ukrainian regular army in the east, Russia will probably take a short pause to force peace negotiations, simultaneously moving to Nikolaevsk and Odessa and threatening to completely deprive Ukraine of access to the sea (even the loss of Mariupol in this regard is very painful for Ukraine). If it is possible to conclude a peace treaty, all nationalist detachments in the West of Ukraine will turn into ordinary terrorist gangs, which in fact they are. If a peace treaty is not signed on terms acceptable to Russia, the operation will continue, but in the West there will be much less loyalty and desire of Russian soldiers to save the lives of civilians. There, the main task will be to save the lives of Russian soldiers to the maximum, so artillery and aviation will work more. This is my vision of the development of the situation as the most likely scenario. The current proposals of the Ukrainian side in the negotiations are unrealistic and even close to unacceptable for Russia. There will be no second Khasavyurt or new Minsk agreements. I would be surprised Putin would cave in and accept stronger than the Article 5 security guarantees. Ukraine knows they don't need NATO to defend themselves. They need arms. Putin wants Ukraine territory but without anti-Russia resistance, i.e. without Ukrainians. And he wants it to be annexed to Russia. I am afraid this war will go on until the last Ukrainian (or his children and grandchildren) are alive or until the last Russian occupier or their supporter leaves Ukraine (Donbas/Luhansk and Crimea). Until then, it will be an open hunting season on Russian occupiers, supporters, and collaborators. If they reach an agreement, it will be temporary, I am afraid. Lasting peace can only be reached when one side wins or loses. The Mongols have been raiding Kievan Rus for hundreds of years. This is just another attempt. Nothing new here. Seems like Russia is doing divide and conquer. No way it can take Kyiv with <200k troops much less west Ukraine. Looks like now they're just taking out UA mech units and going after fuel reserves. Then they can concentrate on everything east of Dnieper river one at a time, without worrying about reinforcements coming in from the west. It's not how you start a war, but how you adapt to it. As far as duration of the war, Ukraine's GDP is $3,700k per capita (2020). Think everyone knows how Ukraine managed to supply their military from 0 to like 101 in under 8yrs, seen UA fighters with $40k thermal scopes, and overall better personal equipment than RU. Wars are expensive, people don't live on positive tweets, and tanks don't run on flag avatars. Once great powers come to agreement, funding and war will stop, people will move on with their lives, not much use to hold grudges and holdouts/partisans after that. Edit: ...
The EU is run by a bunch of Transatlantic Woke Tards, they have no idea what they are doing and will let anyone except russia do damage as much as they want in the EU
It might be inevitable, it's in human nature to become complacent. Old leaders get challenged by new blood in endless cycles https://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8 |
|
|
|
...they’re [Russia] coming off a bit like the United States as we invaded Iraq for imaginary weapons.
Yeah pretty much. Only Iraq didn't share a land boarder with US (wasn't even on a same continent), had different religion, didn't have 30% of population with English as their native language, didn't have regions where majority of population were Americans, and then official Russian attache didn't come out with their RuskiBear cookies during a coup where American leaning leader was removed, after which ultimately laws weren't passed that banned English books (when 60% of them were in English), English folklore heroes , and didn't de-Americanize Iraq toponymy implied also the removal from railways and airports of any information board written in English, and didn't put in language quotas against English etc etc etc... You know totally non discriminatory laws squeezing out English that people didn't know they needed before. But of course, coincidences, semantics, and they took Crimea. So even without all that how did it turn out for Iraq? Non friendly regime changed, brought ISIS to the world, kept Saudis as a regional powerhouse, wiped out it's OPEC competitor, ensuring sale of weapons for billions of dollars to Saudis for decades, all while suffering no consequences or long term condemnations. Only 103,160–113,728 civilian died but now US gets to use that money and petrodollar on soft power, to offer preferential treatments and cookies to regimes it wants changed. That sweet soft power ensures US control of the media, so its population can be triggered and start condemning others nations that attempt to do even a small portion of the damage that US did. Pretty amazing gig, benefits of being on the top, until you go too far and someones cost of reputation becomes less than the benefits of doing same thing (oh and they have a hypersonic nuke so you can't really just bomb them into submission). Or are you an exception and made posts condemning all other more brutal conflicts that were beneficial to US? ...
I think that the first thing you need to stay competitive is having a country. If you are feeding a bear, he will bite you, so competitiveness at the cost of an existential threat is out of anyone's table. Before this war, I was already quite surprised of how close Germany was getting to Russia, but I thought they had really good reasons or leverage that I just was not in the know. Apparently, they did not.
Commodities and resources markets are usually quite "perfect" in the theoretical sense - products from Russia are no cheaper, they are just market price and easy to transport and, mid to long term, replaceable. A question we should be asking ourselves is why Putin is willing to sell to "unfriendly" countries as well. Seems that he cannot do without either? I am not sure that EU will accept paying in rubles. It may be the case of a pissing contest coming.
Just to put in context: Germany pays for the gas and funds Putin's war and then Putin send the gas to feed the industry that eventually produces the weapons that will kill the Russian young soldiers. Seems like everyone wins. Well, almost.
On regards to Germany "helping" the South Europe... Germany only helps Germany. Anything from them comes with strong strings attached.
Long term countries and markets adjust to newer circumstances and, as said, while Putin remains in power Russia is an unreliable partner, does not abide by any international law and cannot be assumed to honour commercial contracts.
Don't believe anyone thinks that Germany is under any existential threat, in fact it was doing pretty good pre 2014 coup and still sitting pretty good. Countries do what's most beneficial for them, a bit less so when they're in a pact. Doubt Germany thinks that US is doing them a lot of favors now, and after Brexit there's a huge pressure from UK & US on EU to sabotage its industrial complex. US & UK don't depend on Russian gas so what do they care. “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests” - Henry Kissinger What options does EU have, they are a declining energy importer, and will be even more so now. US won't redirect much of its output from lucrative contracts from South and Latin America (that just opens a door for Russia to come in). Doesn't make much sense to invest and increase deliveries into declining market for middle east either, to just loose their share in growing markets (India, China) to Russia. There's a reason why EU didn't sanction oil/gas. But products from Russia are cheaper, if EU was able to obtain cheaper gas/oil surely they would've already done that. Can't do much about geography. There was a complex balance that seemed to work enough for both sides, when one sides decided to take something, it has to give up something somewhere else. Can't only have wins in international trades. What will really boggle your mind is who's transferring Russian gas to EU receiving payments from Russia for it. |
|
|
|
...
We all agree that Albania, Hungary, Iceland etc... don't really have any say in NATO right?
They have a limited say, but an attack on any member is an attack on all. If that is not honoured, NATO would cease to exist. US and other members would take a"proportional response" as it is the standard in diplomacy and war. The choice of means and targets could vary - but certainly the nuclear response is not the first choice to respond to a non-nuclear aggression. I meant for NATO to attack Russia, we all know it'll be only one country making that call. After bombing of Yugoslavia NATO cannot technically be called a "defensive" pact. If US declares war on Russia it'll do it under NATO no-fly zone, NATO intervention etc... Russia will have 30 nations declaring war on it and start attacking its air force. And people are willing to bet their lives that Russia won't use it's nuke arsenal under such circumstances? US used nukes on Japan for much dumber reasons. ...
Biden has already enough trouble with his popularity and chances of re-election to do that. He needs something he can sell as a successful peace and there is no way he can do so giving away Ukraine. Also, that would be a huge strategic error for the future and US analysts know that it would leave a less safe - thus more expensive - world behind.
US is the biggest unknown. Not a fan of Trump but with upcoming food shortages and gas prices, it's just too easy for a populist to win, Biden's ratings are already down and we're at the top of the hype. Think Biden is a lost cause, and that's an additional headache for EU. Consequences of their decision with Russia will be long term and painful, where any promises of support from US can flip in 2 years. Anyone seriously think that Trump will keep EU as a priority vs making America great once again, especially when China will be overtaking US? ... Best case, well that depends for who? There are always competing interests but some ideas from top of my head: -Russia: Ukraine surrendering (4 weeks ago or second best now), and Russia getting it back under it's sphere of influence -US: Maximize chance of collapsing Russia by maximizing its pain via a proxy up to the last Ukrainian standing -EU: This thing just going away ASAP, receiving natural resources to keep its heavy industries from collapsing and its population fed and warm during next winter -Ukraine: Majority of populations just want to live "better" and don't really care about politics. Ukraine was the poorest country in EU and its GDP per capita was almost 4x lower than Russia. So financially, average Ukrainian would most likely be better off, under Russia. Freedom loving part of population are better off not coming back and staying in EU countries. Pretty much just like Cuba. -China: Costly, long, drawn out conflict requiring huge investments from US with another Marshall Plan for Europe. ... I think that it is very clear which side I am on: best case for Europe and Ukraine. US & China are only getting stronger with this and Putin's Tzardom, insofar as most of their population seem to be quite apathic about how they are governed, is not of my concern other than their ability to cause problems to others. Certainly, not a war with WMD would fit a desirable solution to any party, which is the point of my post. Again, I think that my position on this is very clear, but if I have to make it even more clear: a solution that causes a low number of civilian casualties, something the parties can live with given the damage inflicted to both sides, something that can be politically accepted for the relevant stakeholders, and, above all, a solution that does not encourage or that makes economically unfeasible any further conflict in the future. On regards to your comments on EU, of course, ideally Europe wants this gone ASAP. While short term Germany chose to interlink with Russia, I think their leaders have gotten the message quite clear and the strategic exposure to Russia, while unchangeable short term, can and will be changed during the next five years. You cannot feed the bear no mater how nice he looks when asleep. On your comment on Ukraine, people all over the world want to progress and "live better" in the ample sense. They know that this is not happening if they are part of the Tzardom. Also, people tend to like feeling free, even if freedom is never perfect something that, again, does not happen under a despotic foreign power's direct control. Trades happen because they're beneficial for both parties, have you considered that maybe those cheap(er) natural resources what helped Germany become/stay where they are now? Do you think it can continue to stay competitive in global economy with it's high labor costs and now with natural resources say costing 20% more over China? Really doubt that their margins are that high. Germany already had to support economies of Greece, Portugal, Cyprus... pretty sure they didn't care and were fine with UA as it was pre 2014, and thinking WTF are you doing when US decided to hand out those freedom cookies. Don't see a good way out for them, oil/gas is a commodity, so it doesn't really matter how you shuffle it around the globe, all you're doing is making distribution less efficient. Freedom LNG from US would be at 20% premium and still won't cover their needs. Now on April 1st EU will have to start buying rubles to pay for gas while somehow trying to save face. One thing Russia has going for it is that after hitting the bottom it's hard to fall any lower, but EU still has a lot at risk and stuck between a rock and a hard place. These events can be a footnote in global history where (outside of UA) in 10yrs most won't remember it or it can end it. |
|
|
|
Pardon Please. This guy is spreading wrong information on Twitter. I have contacted whith with Emaar. They are saying they don't accept crypto for payment. Proof is here.  "normal" currency?? WTF pass their contact info to JJG |
|
|
|
Russia's deadline for unfriendly countries to pay in rubles coming on Monday. More drama in the fiat world, i see a lot of people panicking about inflation, food shortages etc... But oddly i'm somehow at peace, wondering why that might be  Not going to happen, imho. They were saying that they would pay bonds in rubles too, then paid in $ and euro. I am not sure why their contracts stipulated ONLY $ and euros, apparently, but they are valid contract nevertheless. You can't just ask to be paid in rubles when the contract says: euros (for example). There might be willing intermediaries, though (for the low low 5% or something). Also not familiar with the terms and it might have to go through courts, but frankly once you steal/freeze someones money I can't imagine many people expecting Russia to continue to deliver tangible resources in exchange for imaginary units which it cannot use. Default is just a financial term, it implies that entity cannot pay it's debt. It's an indicator that such entity is a high risk, and shouldn't be dealt with unless you want to loose your money. Not sure how much creditors will care if Russia is financially solvent and pays its debt (in convertible yuan or with rubles with say set conversion rate to gold), but is forced to technical default just because US decides not to accept/process it's payments in USD. Business is business. I understand that EU oil/gas reserves are pretty low coming out of the winter, think few countries even switched to spot for oil deliveries, not sure about the length of current contracts, but alternatively Russia can agree to continue accepting USD/EUR for bare minimum deliveries on current contracts but force any new contracts for next winter to be done in RUB. I expect everyone here is well aware that trades only happen when it's beneficial to both sides. When one side freezes all trades but leaves oil/gas, logic dictates that stopping these trades would hurt them more than the adversary. Russia was running surplus even before these high oil/gas prices, their main imports were machinery computers vehicles etc which now they cannot import anyway, they literally cannot spend the money that they're getting from their exports. Shitty part about sanctions is once you applied them all you have no more leverage. I wouldn't want to be on the EU side during these gas/oil contract negotiations: EU: so here is our proposal, we just add binary bits in our computer which you cannot use and you send us that sweet sweet oil and gas so our heavy manufacturing can continue to operate and our people won't freeze next winter. Russia: ( slowly opens its fly and whips it out) no, no, please go on, continue, what else would you like... Edit: They have the money, paying their obligations on bonds is not an issue. US just decided to allow it this time JPMorgan sent the money to Citigroup after it sought and received the required approvals from U.S. authorities on Wednesday |
|
|
|
Russia's deadline for unfriendly countries to pay in rubles coming on Monday. More drama in the fiat world, i see a lot of people panicking about inflation, food shortages etc... But oddly i'm somehow at peace, wondering why that might be ...Maybe that's where you went wrong, there are some things that's universally right, if you question those you by default end up on the bad side.
Oh how i envy your naiveness, to the point where I'd feel bad popping that bubble. |
|
|
|
...
I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine.
...
How does a reasonable, unbiased and feasible solution looks like for you on this war of agression: NATO intervenes, Putin feels free to use non-conventional arsenal and attack NATO bases. Possible results: a - Putin gets very scared, he sees that he may loose power and withdraws the army. b - Putin goes harder, he cannot afford to loose face. Nato and Russian troops engage and by some miracle, Putin does not use any WMD. Relations are broken for decades, NATO and EU weaponize, Russia limps on a sanctioned economy. c - Limited nuclear response (tactical or limited strategic) Ukraine radioactive for the next few decades as other bits of Europe and cities in Russia. Massive re-arming across the world, massive health and hunger across the world... d - It escalates, first nuke fire, then second, then.... well...end of story and history. NATO supports Ukraine with as much conventional means as to stop the ability of Putin to continue the war effectively. a - Putin decides to keep the conquered land. He will be facing stiff opposition even funded by the West, the region may be on an undeclared war for decades. b - Putin decides to reach a peace agreement that includes returning part of the conquered land. This looks like something that could be sustainable for both parties. c - Putin completely withdraws in exchange for removing sanctions. d - Putin puts all he is got and war escalates, we found ourselves on the first scenario. e - Ukraine is not able to hold. A peace is achieve at the cost of massive loss of territory and a puppet government without military power. On the second scenario, the chances of a massive catastrophe are much lower. And that is the better option, even for Ukraine that stands a chance of keeping large parts of the territory and have a very weakened neighbour that may not have the economics to wage further wars. Now, consider that on the first scenario there is a chance of global or regional full nuclear destruction. Is that how a solution looks to anyone? Even if there is a 10% of that happening. It does not work for Ukraine either as they would likely be the first ones being nuked in all likelihood. And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing [...] I do not think I can make it more clear. Nato intervenes means clearly acts of war against Russia yes - what is the hypocrisy here? The wording?. I could not care less about how each would decide to call it, the scenario is the same. BTW, I do not complain about propaganda, I just tend to say it is propaganda. As for the rest of your message, I am not sure I get your point - what is you realistic and feasible best case solution? On the lateral topics you are talking, like Cuba, ... I do not think the embargo to Cuba has ever brought anyone any closer to a peaceful solution of any kind, if that is the question, nor I consider it particularly ethical. We all agree that Albania, Hungary, Iceland etc... don't really have any say in NATO right? So in reality, US, who's officially not a party to this conflict, and under no obligation whatsoever, deciding to attack Russia under whichever flag, would probably lead to Nuclear Winter. I mean Putin would have to be a saint to just stand down and save the world. Frankly i just don't see it happening. I'm not an expert on this by any means so imagining that within minutes of the attack a single hypersonic missile with a nuclear warhead lands somewhere in Poland EMP frying some airplanes and troops stationed there getting radiation poisoning. Auto MAD system and Russian Dead Hand are activated. Hundreds of thousands die, and some idiots whom humans somehow bestowed with such powers, pick up the red phones and decide if they should end our civilization. Realistic case: US sells out Ukraine with some backhanded deal with Russia. Covered in such a way so everyone saves face Best case, well that depends for who? There are always competing interests but some ideas from top of my head: -Russia: Ukraine surrendering (4 weeks ago or second best now), and Russia getting it back under it's sphere of influence -US: Maximize chance of collapsing Russia by maximizing its pain via a proxy up to the last Ukrainian standing -EU: This thing just going away ASAP, receiving natural resources to keep its heavy industries from collapsing and its population fed and warm during next winter -Ukraine: Majority of populations just want to live "better" and don't really care about politics. Ukraine was the poorest country in EU and its GDP per capita was almost 4x lower than Russia. So financially, average Ukrainian would most likely be better off, under Russia. Freedom loving part of population are better off not coming back and staying in EU countries. Pretty much just like Cuba. -China: Costly, long, drawn out conflict requiring huge investments from US with another Marshall Plan for Europe. And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing, attacking and thus starting a war with Russia.
The complaints are Russia making it a crime to call the war a war. Look at all those media outlets that had to close up shop and leave the country because they were afraid if they reported on the war truthfully they would be arrested or worse. Don't you think that's fucked up? Wouldn't it be nice if Russian news was independent of the government and the people were free to disagree with Putin? Russia is in survival mode. It tried to compete on the soft power field, but its sphere of influence was being taken away with cookies faster than it could grow. They were playing a game that they were meant to loose. Boat was rocked too far, and we're seeing Russia take its last stand. Truth Is the First Casualty in War always was, and probably will be. Information warfare is a thing and is just another front. US has control over mass media and social networks, so they can just censor unfavorable coverage like this (not safe for life!) and majority would never know about this, if Russia had such soft power it wouldn't have rolled tanks into Ukraine in the first place. Yeah it's fucked up and unfortunately I'm afraid it's only the begging and I fully expect them to follow in US's footsteps like with Kent State massacre |
|
|
|
...
I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine.
...
How does a reasonable, unbiased and feasible solution looks like for you on this war of agression: NATO intervenes, Putin feels free to use non-conventional arsenal and attack NATO bases. Possible results: a - Putin gets very scared, he sees that he may loose power and withdraws the army. b - Putin goes harder, he cannot afford to loose face. Nato and Russian troops engage and by some miracle, Putin does not use any WMD. Relations are broken for decades, NATO and EU weaponize, Russia limps on a sanctioned economy. c - Limited nuclear response (tactical or limited strategic) Ukraine radioactive for the next few decades as other bits of Europe and cities in Russia. Massive re-arming across the world, massive health and hunger across the world... d - It escalates, first nuke fire, then second, then.... well...end of story and history. NATO supports Ukraine with as much conventional means as to stop the ability of Putin to continue the war effectively. a - Putin decides to keep the conquered land. He will be facing stiff opposition even funded by the West, the region may be on an undeclared war for decades. b - Putin decides to reach a peace agreement that includes returning part of the conquered land. This looks like something that could be sustainable for both parties. c - Putin completely withdraws in exchange for removing sanctions. d - Putin puts all he is got and war escalates, we found ourselves on the first scenario. e - Ukraine is not able to hold. A peace is achieve at the cost of massive loss of territory and a puppet government without military power. On the second scenario, the chances of a massive catastrophe are much lower. And that is the better option, even for Ukraine that stands a chance of keeping large parts of the territory and have a very weakened neighbour that may not have the economics to wage further wars. Now, consider that on the first scenario there is a chance of global or regional full nuclear destruction. Is that how a solution looks to anyone? Even if there is a 10% of that happening. It does not work for Ukraine either as they would likely be the first ones being nuked in all likelihood. And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing, attacking and thus starting a war with Russia. First step NATO will have to do is control the sky, to do that it needs to take out all Russian planes and try to take out all Russian anti-aircraft missile systems and ships with AA capabilities, many AA systems are located on Belarus and Russian land. If all of these countries in their great wisdom decide to make this regional war into global, stop pretending to be a defensive pact and start shooting down Russian planes, and if i somehow survive initial blasts as a radioactive ghoul, my sole mission in life (?) would be to hunt down and eat the brains of any remaining survivors who participated in that decision making! Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Montenegro
Netherlands
North Macedonia
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States Hope surviving astronauts would be able to transmit out a last message into space that the Great Filter is maniacs in power, and send out our world's history finishing it with ...we were able to split the atom and one country decided to nuke two cities, then that same country decided to start a war with another nuke country as it thought the second country wouldn't nuke it back. Now, don't laugh, but yeah they were wrong. In retrospect we have no idea how our species managed to make it this far. Good luck. -The End" World is unfair, care to estimate civilian deaths from US embargo on Cuba? They're commies but somehow totally different from Chinese commies which are the biggest trade partner, despite literally whole world (except Israel) asking it to stop for like 30yrs now. A total of 184 countries on Wednesday voted in favour of a resolution to demand the end of the US economic blockade on Cuba, for the 29th year in a row, with the United States and Israel voting against. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612US couldn't care less and justifies it as an existential threat, i fail to see why same logic cannot apply to Russia and Ukraine. Yeah unfair, still I bet any Cuban wishes to have it as good as Ukraine did, but sucks for them both. Putin will take Ukraine, easy way or the hard way, or Russia will collapse, or of course we all die in a nuclear winter. There's also a good chance of Russia taking Ukraine but then still collapsing afterwards. I put chances of scaring Russia out of Ukraine with escalations at the same level as scaring US into letting Russia go into Cuba. Edit: i can't spell |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
