World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
If you're not in the U.S., what's up in your part of the world?
Papa said, "They do not have the military everyone thinks." What's your response to this report? Very interested in hearing why China's no threat."China Has World’s Largest Navy With 355 Ships and Counting, Says Pentagon. China has the biggest maritime force on the globe with an inventory of about 355 vessels, according to a Defense Department report released Wednesday.
With 355 ships in its fleet, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is slated to expand its inventory to 420 ships within the next four years, the Pentagon’s annual China military report estimates. By 2030, the PLAN is expected to have 460 ships.
The 355 estimation accounts for “major surface combatants, submarines, aircraft carriers, ocean-going amphibious ships, mine warfare ships, and fleet auxiliaries,” according to the report, which covers events in 2020.
“This figure does not include 85 patrol combatants and craft that carry anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs). … Much of this growth will be in major surface combatants,” the report reads.
The report, which is mandated by Congress each year, describes China’s navy as having growing ambitions to operate with more versatile platforms beyond the Indo-Pacific region."
China's no paper tiger. What's your response, Papa?
Scout wrote: "Papa said, "They do not have the military everyone thinks." What's your response to this report? Very interested in hearing why China's no threat."China Has World’s Largest Navy With 355 Ships an..."
I already answered this a few posts back.
China cannot compete with the US Navy anywhere other than near China because it doesn't have the supply infrastructure. However, it probably is fairly close to being able to impose its presence in a MAD strategy. What happens then is curious, and awfully open to bad guesses. For example, if Russia really did invade the eastern Ukraine would the US be prepared to risk nuclear annihilation Just for eastern Ukraine?
Ian wrote: "China cannot compete with the US Navy anywhere other than near China because it doesn't have the supply infrastructure. However, it probably is fairly close to being able to impose its presence in ..." Well, it might be a good question to ask whatever the hell the US was thinking invading half the Arab countries for the last, what, 2 decades at least? In order for things to get symmetrical, Russia would have to go and invade the whole Africa and, maybe, Australia. Just for the hell of it and some fake chemical weapons? Yes, Europe wouldn't work for true symmetry in invading countries that are nowhere close to be neighbouring ones and therefore are not the invader's business. As for Ukraine, it's next to Russia and, frankly, it was Russia for 99% of its history. I know, maybe US should pave the way by not invading Texas anymore? Let it sit independently from now on? You know, just to show Russia how such things should be done?
I shall place a side bet with anyone that the UK will not invade Texas any time soon :-)
Ian wrote: "I shall place a side bet with anyone that the UK will not invade Texas any time soon :-)"Duly noted :) Corrected the misprint :) Korea/Crimea got me, finally. :)
Ian wrote: "I shall place a side bet with anyone that the UK will not invade Texas any time soon :-)"That's because they know better than to mess with Texas. Not everyone is that smart.
Do you remember when the terrorists attacked Charlie Hebdo for publishing cartoons of the pederast prophet? Some Texans decided that the proper response was a "Draw Muhammad Contest". A couple of terrorists showed up. This is what happened to them.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...
J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "I shall place a side bet with anyone that the UK will not invade Texas any time soon :-)"That's because they know better than to mess with Texas. Not everyone is that smart.
Do you r..."Exactly what I'm saying: independence must be a must for them, lol!
Beau remarked on some thread about "ruthless Conseervatives" ready to knife Boris. Well, here the leader of the Opposition has been rolled. In the last two years there have been three leaders of opposition, now we have a fourth, and he'll be gone in a week (largely because he is a compromise "holder of position" while the real contenders fight it out. Given that the opposition was massacred at the last election because of infighting, this seems untimely.Meanwhile Ardern must be laughing. She is pushing through some highly questionable legislation (Covid restrictions over Christmas, a takeover of the water infrastructure) and the opposition are busy shooting themselves in whatever feet they can locate.
Ian wrote: "Beau remarked on some thread about "ruthless Conseervatives" ready to knife Boris. Well, here the leader of the Opposition has been rolled. In the last two years there have been three leaders of op..."they never seem to run out feet to shoot.
J. wrote: "That's because they know better than to mess with Texas. Not everyone is that smart...
I wouldn't want to mess with Texas. It's a great state. I particularly admire the Governor, Greg Abbott.
Perhaps we should do the US a favour by sending a task force to California instead?
I wouldn't want to mess with Texas. It's a great state. I particularly admire the Governor, Greg Abbott.
Perhaps we should do the US a favour by sending a task force to California instead?
Ian wrote: "Meanwhile Ardern must be laughing. She is pushing through some highly questionable legislation (Covid restrictions over Christmas, a takeover of the water infrastructure) and the opposition are busy shooting themselves in whatever feet they can locate."
Someone sneezed and Ardern imposed restrictions.
Someone sneezed and Ardern imposed restrictions.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Well, it might be a good question to ask whatever the hell the US was thinking invading half the Arab countries for the last, what, 2 decades at least? ..."Not saying at all I'd be for it, but Afghanistan and Iraq put us on either side of Iran. If a president decided they wanted or needed to invade Iran, we could have swooped in from both sides and forced them to defend on two fronts. It would have been akin to Nazi Germany fighting the Allies on the western front, Russia on the eastern front.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "....invading half the Arab countries ..."Iraq & Afghanistan - the latter is not even Arab. There are so much more Arab countries ... to invade, if needed :)
J.J. wrote: "...Not saying at all I'd be for it, but Afghanistan and Iraq put us on either side of Iran. If a president decided they wanted or needed to invade Iran, we could have swooped in from both sides and forced them to defend on two fronts...."Invasions are more for Russia. No need to invade Iran, unless the regime is targeted. Its nuclear, ballistic and drone program can arguably be dismantled from the air. Invasions are costly and hard to handle once the operative goals are achieved...
An invasion of Iran would be a nightmare; just look at the topography. Iraq was unlucky, being just right for tanks and air power with nowhere to hide, yet it still bogged the US down and ended up a nightmare. Yes, a lot of Iraqis were killed so that was an achievement? The strongest anti-terrorist anti al Qaeda state in the region was converted into an ISIS stew. That was an achievement?As for Iran, yes the US can sit somewhere in the Indian Ocean and fire missiles at Iran, and that achieves what? If all you want to do is blow up stuff, nothing can stop the US, if it wants to spend even more on making rubble somewhere else, but it won't alter Iran's policies, and killing relatives tends to strengthen the hatred in those remaining.
Beau wrote: "Ian wrote: "Meanwhile Ardern must be laughing. She is pushing through some highly questionable legislation (Covid restrictions over Christmas, a takeover of the water infrastructure) and the opposi...""Someone sneezed and Ardern imposed restrictions." Great glib remark, Beau, but as expected, totally missing the mark. The problem for Ardern is she wants to take restrictions off Aucklanders and let them go wherever they want over Christmas - and take the virus with them. The problem is, everyone else has followed the previous restrictions, eliminated the virus, and they argue that they did all that just so it can all be thrown away so that Aucklanders can have a merry Christmas. Nobody wants Aucklanders to be miserable, but they don't want to see the rewards of their efforts flushed down the drain. It is more tricky than it seems because Auckland did not eliminate the virus this time because they did not follow the quarantines, in part because the Maori quoted treaty rights to be unrestricted and they spouted all the stuff about rights and freedoms Beau has been advocating, but equally they are complaining that they are grossly over-represented in the hospitalization. The Maori are also complaining the government has lifted restrictions on travel because Maori are seriously undervaccinated, yet Maori are also running around refusing to be vaccinated.
Ardern shouldn't win. If she restricts Aucklanders she should lose their votes. If she lets them out for Christmas she would expect to lose a lot elsewhere, except that this time, by having a leadership coup the opposition have ignored the opportunity to make life difficult for the government, and quite frankly, nobody cares which gunslinger wins this round of bloodletting when none of them will have any feet to walk on.
Nik wrote: "Iraq & Afghanistan" Syria?
Pakistan?
Lybia?
Arab Springs in what, 12 countries?
Non-Arab:
Vietnam?
Yugoslavia?
Panama?
Cambodia?
Yemen?
That's the ones I can name off the top of my head. There probably are more.
Ian wrote: "An invasion of Iran would be a nightmare; just look at the topography. Iraq was unlucky, being just right for tanks and air power with nowhere to hide, yet it still bogged the US down and ended up ..." Yep.J.J. wrote: "Nazi Germany fighting the Allies on the western front, Russia on the eastern front" Well, I just don't think that attacking any countries, in open military strikes or in hybrid ways (Arab spring) achieves anything other than blowing more of our precious resources pointlessly.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Nik wrote: "Iraq & Afghanistan" Syria?
Pakistan?
Lybia?
Non-Arab:
Vietnam?
Yugoslavia?
Panama?
Cambodia?
Yemen?
That's the ones I can name off the top of my head. There probably are more."
Syria? - Russians & Iranians. Didn't notice a US "invasion" there.
Pakistan? - what's there apart from whacking bin laden? No "invasion". It's also non-Arab, btw.
Thanks for reminding Libya. True, NATO!
In the post I referred to, you've mentioned: half the Arab countries and two decades :)
As much as I think the break up of the USSR was unwarranted, I can't possibly see why should Russia use military force against its fraternal neighbors. Who wants to be part of Russia, including Russians? :)
Nik wrote: "Invasions are more for Russia" I just love how the US has been doing all the invading and Russia gets pointed out for what, exactly? Shouldn't the US, if it is all that superior in its ways, pave the way and show everyone how not invading is done? And not the opposite? Do as you say not say what to do?
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "....Shouldn't the US, if it is all that superior in its ways, pave the way and show everyone how not invading is done? ..."The States are fed up with lasting military interventions. I foresee they'd abstain from those in the near perspective. Anything military would be left to pinpoint strikes, if and where necessary. Russia might continue though, basing on their perception that former USSR republics are parts of Russia. Formally recognizing their independence, but informally biting into their territories..
Nik wrote: "Syria? - Russians & Iranians. Didn't notice a US "invasion" there.Pakistan? - what's there apart from whacking bin laden? No "invasion". It's also non-Arab, btw.
Thanks for reminding Libya. True, NATO!
In the post I referred to, you've mentioned: half the Arab countries and two decades :)
As much as I think the break up of the USSR was unwarranted, I can't possibly see why should Russia use military force against its fraternal neighbors. Who wants to be part of Russia, including Russians? :)"
Syria? - Then who was Trump withdrawing from there all the time? The US military were there, got quite a lot of fighting done and they were not invited.
Russians were so you can't point fingers at them.
Pakistan? - Arab enough for me, don't be nitpicking. Wait a sec, how did all those US helicopters that kept falling over there and all that other military BS get lost enough to get over there from the US if they didn't mean to get there? You lost me and those military bases somewhere above the Indian ocean.
Lybia - NATO including theUS. Good that we're on the same page here.
Yes, about half the Arab countries if one bothers to count the Arab spring BS which was a paramilitary hybrid op, I'd say.
As for 2 decades you are right, the US has been doing this shit since what? 80s? Which's definitely longer than 2 decades. Thanks for catching that up.
Russians do. Trust me. And half the Ukrainians seemingly do as well seeing that they are fighting on both sides. As a matter of fact I know many people from the militant regions who do want those regions to get scooped by Russia ASAP. Some don't but hey, some people don't believe in COVID either or believe the flat earth.
Nik wrote: "The States are fed up with lasting military interventions"Not sure that hybrib military ops are any better. Personally I'd prefer that every country gets busy with domestic affairs.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Syria? - Then who was Trump withdrawing from there all the time? The US military were there, done quite a lot of fighting and they were not invited.Russians were so you can't point fingers at them...."
Fighting ISIS. Yet, I don't think it accounts for an "invasion of Syria". Russians were invited by Assad. It'll take time, until he gets his legitimacy back, if at all.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "....if one bothers to count the Arab spring BS which was a paramilitary hybrid op, I'd say...."
How would you know? I don't. Neither do I see any evidence for that. Why would they go at Mubarak, for example? The best US friend, ever.
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "....As for 2 decades you are right, the US has been doing this shit since what? 80s? Which's definitely longer than 2 decades. Thanks for catching that up.
...."
Sure, same as USSR/Russia. I don't endorse it, but I kinda like Putin's friends like Kim, Xi, Bashar, Ruhollah, a bit less than Angela, Boris and more...
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "....Russians do. Trust me. And half the Ukrainians seemingly do as well....."
No, ma'am, as much as I love Russia, I doubt that. The regime is unattractive, to put it mildly :)
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Nik wrote: "The States are fed up with lasting military interventions"Not sure that hybrib military ops are any better. Personally I'd prefer that every country gets busy with domestic affairs."As far as I notice "hybrid warfare" - solely a Russian franchise at this time
Nik wrote: "As far as I notice "hybrid warfare" - solely a Russian franchise at this tim"Well, one would think that you might want to start noticing a teensy tad more of stuff around.
Maybe, Misericordia, can’t boast about robust peripheral vision 😎
Nik wrote: "Fighting ISIS. Yet, I don't think it accounts for an "invasion of Syria". Russians were invited by Assad. It'll take time, until he gets his legitimacy back, if at all." Now that's rich considerting that ISIS is their creation primarily (or are they really goat-herders fresh out of goats?) and that they were supposedly fighting the scary and ballsy Asad. Also, they weren't invited by the said Asad who's the country's leader which is what invasions generally are.Nik wrote: "Arab spring BS... How would you know? I don't. Neither do I see any evidence for that. " What else do you think it was? Arab youths in love with FB simultaneously deciding that a bunch of civil wars is a nice touch to improve spring? I find that a bit hard to believe.
Nik wrote: " Why would they go at Mubarak, for example? The best US friend, ever."Bin Laden was a friend once as well.
Nik wrote: "Sure, same as USSR/Russia. I don't endorse it, but I kinda like Putin's friends like Kim, Xi, Bashar, Ruhollah, a bit less than Angela, Boris and more..."I kinda want to know where is that row of countries that Russia invaded? I'm sort of not impressed with Ukraine, considering that for decades their politics consisted of almost daily fist fights in Rada. (I actually loved to watch those once).
Nik wrote: "No, ma'am, as much as I love Russia, I doubt that. The regime is unattractive, to put it mildly :)" What regime? Russia's not any different from a lot of countries in terms of politics/state. Or, rather, where's that freedom island that the Earth's population is supposed to emigrate to?
Nik wrote: "Maybe, Misericordia, can’t boast about robust peripheral vision 😎" Most people can't, not really.😎
You know what, Yanukovich or Saakashvili also haven’t invited Russia. What their fighters do in other countries?As of Arab springs - I don’t know of a single piece of evidence that it wasn’t local youth. It doesn’t mean there wasn’t any, but it looks genuine to me.
Yeah, Russia is similar to other authoritarian states. Sadly so. Witnessing a meteoric rise of China, I regret Russia is nowhere near in terms of development 😕
Nik wrote: "You know what, Yanukovich or Saakashvili also haven’t invited Russia. What their fighters do in other countries?"Yanukovich is about Ukraine and frankly it's a joke of a country. But even if it does count, it's just 1 sorry country that's made an ass of itself and where there first a bunch of multicolored revolutions happened. Ones that I wouldn't be too sure that they weren't US hybrid operations. First. As always.Or else I dunno what Nuland and the rest of the bunch were doing there cheering people up? Also, whose shooters were there in the middle of Kiev? Did just random people decide to go sniping or was it a paramilitary false or true or some other flag op?
Saakashvili invited Russia to do a lot of stuff by attacking the Southern Osetia with his military forces. Russia has about zero interest about an all-out war happening in that region so they went in there in force and stopped Georgia from trying to conquer the Southern Osetia under its nose.
Also, let's kindly note that both Georgia and SO were not made Russian or adjoined to Russia or whatever else? Nothing happened to them other than a war got stopped which is a good thing, I'd say.
Something very similar happened with Armenia and Turkey last year when Russia went in, chose no sides and stopped everyone from killing each other for years on.
Also, I don't see why
- Southern Osetia can be invaded by Georgia but both can't be peacefully stopped from warring by Russia,
- Ukraine can't be invaded (not that it is or it would've long since been another fed region of Russia)/or even made peaceful by Russia, at the same time Ukraine can go and use whatever military planes it has against peaceful protesters in Lugansk,
- Kosovo can't by Yugoslavia but they both can by NATO,
- Syria can be invaded by the US and so on...
Where's the logic? Either they all obviosuly can and will be invaded by whoever wants it or they all shouldn't be. Same approach for everyone and no special kiddie gloves.
Also, why is it that revolutions are OK in Kiev, Kosovo and Arab countries worldwide but not OK in Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk?
Arab spring: I don't believe in random people starting doing uncharacteristic stuff w/o any motivation/financing/organising/etc. Or, how often do you go out to beat police in the streets as soon as someone on FB tells you to? Can I tell you now to go shoot someoneor set them on fire? Would you obey me? I doubt that.
I don't know of any states more authoritarian than the modern US. Russia doesn't hold a candle to them. Not only they insist on interfering with other countries internal affairs but they also are preachy about it. The worst combo ever in my book.
The problem here is defining terms. The strict definition of "Arab Spring" was a local affair, although it started, in think in Tunisia? - and that is rather questionably even Arab. I don't think Libya is Arab, and from what i saw, Egypt is predominantly not Arab, but I think "Arab" has been used instead of "Muslim", which might be more accurate.There is no doubt that Syria ran into trouble as a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq. There is also no doubt the US ran a campaign to get rid of Assad and "helped" by providing arms to the "Syrian Democratic forces" but most of those went through various routes to ISIL. The US has bombed Assad's forces several times, and has protected the old fields in Eastern Syria from Assad's forces, with the result that most of the revenue for a period founded ISIL.
As for Ukraine, Yanukovich would have been better off by inviting Russia. The CIA had been a prime encourager of getting rid of Yanukovich. In fairness, Yanukovich was both corrupt and didn't care much for Ukraine, but I am far from convinced the replacements are squeaky clean either on the corruption front. It is just a question of who collects the loot.
As for the peaceful interests of the US count the number of years Since T Roosevelt and his "rough riders" got involved with Cuba that the US has NOT had some military involvement with someone else. You might be surprised. One list that shows I underestimated because T Roosevelt was not the initiator of this policy of foreign wars is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...
Misericordia, we probably have a different perspective on jokes. Ukraine, maybe corrupted similarly to Russia 🇷🇺, is in many senses so much better and more of a country. But if you like a poorly guised monarchy, who am I to criticize your choice ;) Who is Russia to judge?
Revolution or whatever is none of Russia’s biz. They can rather put Chechnya and other autonomies on referenda how much they feel being a part of Russia.
Arab spring and other - I’m yet to hear how it is connected to the States other than ‘it must be’
Ian wrote: "The problem here is defining terms. The strict definition of "Arab Spring" was a local affair... and from what i saw, Egypt is predominantly not Arab, but I think "Arab" has been used instead of "Muslim", which might be more accurate."You're right, I'm being lazy here. I just went with the umbrella term instead of the bother to name about a dozen of countries. Well, it might be domestic in 1, maybe 2 cases but definitely not all. There must have been someone orchestrating things. Wouldn't you think so?Ian wrote: " the US ... "helped" by providing arms to the "Syrian Democratic forces" but most of those went through various routes to ISIL. The US has bombed Assad's forces several times, and has protected the old fields in Eastern Syria from Assad's forces, with the result that most of the revenue for a period founded ISIL." Agreed. Also, it looks to me like someone must have funded what would later become ISIS and I don't believe in dusgruntled farmers or goatherders going berserk. Someone spent money and provided know-how and training. And I don't think it was either Russia or China.
Also, the Chechen wars? Where did all those radicals get their military training at? Who taught them how to fight Russia well enough to warrant all that stuff? I'm pretty sure that's another part of the ISIS equation.
Ian wrote: "Yanukovich would have been better off by inviting Russia. The CIA had been a prime encourager of getting rid of Yanukovich. In fairness, Yanukovich was both corrupt and didn't care much for Ukraine, but I am far from convinced the replacements are squeaky clean either on the corruption front" He was considering playing 2 sides, I think. Lost both.
LOL! I don't think I've ever seen politics as vicariously embarassing as it seems to have always been with Ukraine.
Neither am I and... none of the Ukrainian presidents have ever been squeaky clean. Must be something in water... or in the air...
Ian wrote: "As for the peaceful interests of the US ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin... "Quite the modern warlords, aren't they?
Nik wrote: "Ukraine, maybe corrupted similarly to Russia 🇷🇺, is in many senses so much better and more of a country."Sorry, what senses? Well, they do fight more and better in Rada so one could say that they are more lively than Duma but that's about it.Seriously, how many crooks in a row does one need to start getting weirded out by Ukraine?
None were as squeaky clean as Vlad the Great and Terrible for sure 😋
Nik wrote: "None were as squeaky clean as Vlad the Great and Terrible for sure 😋"Who is that? Don't know anyone by that moniker... hmmm...Nik wrote: "a poorly guised monarchy" Was that a jab at the US, UK or Germany? Or maybe Norway? Lichtenstein?
Russia's a federation right now. Also, I don't like crooks in a row and Putin's quite good at this business. Definitely better that, I dunno, Sobchak replacing him? Or who do you see on the political arena of similar standing and sense?
Nik wrote: "They can rather put Chechnya and other autonomies"Chechnya is not an autonomy. It's a regular republic with a really heavy Islamic influence. Domestic Iraq of Russia, if you want it.
It is volatile but not in terms of referendums. It's literally volatile as in radicals taking up explosive belts and jihading their way through Russia into other countries. Fancy Chechen Jihadis in Paris or what?
As for the real autonomies, they would be hard-pressed to chase the good people of, say, Yamalo-Nenetsky autonomic region to even attend that vote,something tells me.
I don’t care about duma or rada, but it feels so much more free in Ukraine.Monarchy in my opinion describes Russia much better than UK, which officially is
Nik wrote: "I don’t care about duma or rada, but it feels so much more free in Ukraine.Monarchy in my opinion describes Russia much better than UK, which officially is" I do. I love watching Rada's fist fights. Duma's no fun in that respect.
Personally, I would've loved Russia to have been monarchy all along. But someone at a certain point in time funded the Russian revolutions. So, now there won't be a way back to that point and we'll have to stick to facts: it's not a monarchy, sadly. There just aren't enough good politicians around to switch all the time.
And lining up morons who double up as crooks is a purely Ukrainian hobby.
It is very cold in London today. Sunny but cold. The 'very London' combination of 'never quite good enough weather' ;)
☘Misericordia☘ wrote: "Personally, I would've loved Russia to have been monarchy all along. But someone at a certain point in time funded the Russian revolutions. So, now there won't be a way back to that point and we'll have to stick to facts: it's not a monarchy, sadly. There just aren't enough good politicians around to switch all the time.And lining up morons who double up as crooks is a purely Ukrainian hobby...."
You have most characteristics of the absolute monarchy. You can just put "king" instead of "president" and add the number and description, say "Vlad the 1-st Charming/Terrible/Merciful/Richest (your choice)" for he surely cannot be the second.
Didn't know modern Russia disowns the revolution. Surprise. As you are surely aware Mr. Tsar resigned something like 10 months prior to it.
Ukraine is surely imperfect, however it doesn't require nor justifies any military intervention on Russia's part. None of Russia's business.
Morons turned crooks? Well, I'm glad Russian establishment is staffed with impeccable angels turned sweethearts :)
Nemetra wrote: "It is very cold in London today. Sunny but cold. The 'very London' combination of 'never quite good enough weather' ;)"A rare aisle of stability and tradition :)
Nemetra wrote: "It is very cold in London today. Sunny but cold. The 'very London' combination of 'never quite good enough weather' ;)"
That's the sort of weather I love. Cold, frost on the ground, but brilliant sunshine and not a cloud in the sky :)
That's the sort of weather I love. Cold, frost on the ground, but brilliant sunshine and not a cloud in the sky :)
If you go to Quora.com y9u will see a lot of questions about Russia, and answered by Russians actually living there now. Needless to say there are a variety of opinions, but they appear to be free to express them. From the ones I have seen Putin is not regarded as a king, and by and large the opinions seem to be along the lines that just about all the alternatives would be worse. The memories of Yeltsin and the raiding of the economy by US interests as well as oligarchs and the terrible price paid by ordinary Russians is still remembered, and Putin gets credit for at least stopping that.
I am an unashamed monarchist and fully support Her Majesty The Queen, but I would swap Putin for our politicians like a shot.
Beau wrote: "I am an unashamed monarchist and fully support Her Majesty The Queen, but I would swap Putin for our politicians like a shot."Putin is just the latest Russian "Man of Steel". I invite you to study Russian history. When you do, give due consideration to the fact that your social status would grant you a spot against the wall.
You could also find the humor in referring to President Biden as Uncle Joe.
Ian wrote: "If you go to Quora.com y9u will see a lot of questions about Russia, and answered by Russians actually living there now. Needless to say there are a variety of opinions, but they appear to be free ..."Sure, people can express and sometimes pay for it too. Go find a critical article about Putin in major Russian media outlets be they TV, internet or print.
If Russians are happy, I'm happy for them too. Hope Beau's emigration goes smooth :) Maybe they'd become less aggressive towards their neighbors
I'm not going to argue with Nik about Russia and her neighbours because I completely accept his superior knowledge on the subject. A bit like Ian and Papaphilly on...err...umm. Moving on...
J, I accept your points. I admire President Putin's canniness of world affairs and his statesmanship but my complete support for him is tongue in cheek. I've no intention of moving there anytime soon.
I actually studied Russian at school and can still remember a few words...hello, goodbye, please, thank you and vodka. It's enough to get by if I ever do move out there ;)
I know Nik and J will be aware of it, but in case anybody else isn't, the story of the original Uncle Joe's death is fascinating. Apparently, reporting of it was delayed for quite a while because political associates, doctors, etc. were too frightened to report it in case it wasn't true. Now that is a warning against the fear instilled by a totalitarian state.
J, I accept your points. I admire President Putin's canniness of world affairs and his statesmanship but my complete support for him is tongue in cheek. I've no intention of moving there anytime soon.
I actually studied Russian at school and can still remember a few words...hello, goodbye, please, thank you and vodka. It's enough to get by if I ever do move out there ;)
I know Nik and J will be aware of it, but in case anybody else isn't, the story of the original Uncle Joe's death is fascinating. Apparently, reporting of it was delayed for quite a while because political associates, doctors, etc. were too frightened to report it in case it wasn't true. Now that is a warning against the fear instilled by a totalitarian state.
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
1984 (other topics)Common Sense (other topics)
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (other topics)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (other topics)
Lolita (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Mel Brooks (other topics)Victor Davis Hanson (other topics)
Peter Zeihan (other topics)
Bobby Fischer (other topics)
Jordan B. Peterson (other topics)
More...
Very different between Hong Kong and Taiwan. First Taiwan want to be separate and is separated by sea while Hong Kong is not. Second, the world will learn from Hong Kong as an example of Chinese promises.
As for invasion, China has no navvy to speak of and counting only toys will not provide the necessary ability to operate in a theater of war.