World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
A playbook to defeat your enemy's country without fighting a war: Your ideas?
P.K. wrote: "Nik wrote: "I don’t think there is much info about it in English. Old links:https://www.ft.com/content/700a9450-1...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-3...
With ..."
I couldn't get the FT link (paywall)_ but the BBC link said 115,000 hectares. There are a little under 2.5 acres to a hectare, so that is a very large area. The employment is about 1 person per 230 cres, which is not that excessive.
The reason NZ has a [policy of not having nuclear deterrents is we would never have enough to deter, but any would act as targets. Most countries do not have nukes.
Living in a country with no nuclear deterrents, Ian supports Russia. Living a peaceful life in a free country that feels no need to defend itself against Russia, the destroyer of freedom, Ian supports Russia's efforts to deny freedom to Ukrainian citizens. The word hypocrite applies.
Who said I supported Russia? I have no skin in the game. All that Russia is doing is a consequence of the initial bad move of trying to change the government of Ukraine, and the need for doing that was the result of Western politicians and the CIA, which sometimes seems to act on its own behalf. This use of the word "freedom" is also interesting - it is being bandied around as a consequence of the West not wanting to show what really happened. Now they paint a picture of these valiant Ukrainians fighting for freedom, when what really appears to be happening is that conscripted Ukrainians are dying to cover up the Western blunders. As I have pointed out Ukraine had three obvious chances to avoid this: first, honour the Minsk agreements, second publicly deny any Ukraine could be admitted to NATO, and third, at the Turkey conference. Now they are paying the price.
J. wrote: "Russia isn't set up to liquefy natural gas. Without that ability, Russia has to ship their natural gas by pipeline. That's why that pipeline to Germany was such a big deal. Building equivalent pipe..."Apparently the first pipeline between the two was completed in 2010, See Nik's link above.
Ian wrote: "Who said I supported Russia? I have no skin in the game. All that Russia is doing is a consequence of the initial bad move of trying to change the government of Ukraine, and the need for doing that..."Then do your homework on the Minsk Agreements, Ian. The first Protocol was broken when Russia sent a large force into Ukraine in 2015 and took control of Donesk International airport. Also, while these so-called agreements were being talked about, Russia had already invaded the Crimea.
The problem originated by a division of support for Russia in the Donesk and Dombast regions and had nothing to do with the CIA or the West or any talk of joining NATO at that stage. It was a familiar division of which way to go politically with a huge three quarter majority wanting to change a Russian federated government which was done at the ballot box and not with arms.
Russia, and Putin, have never tried to hide their opinion that Ukraine belongs to Russia. Your obvious dislike of the US and western democracies in general is untenable - unless you are just an iconoclast by nature.
There weee two battles to control Donetsk international airport, and I doubt that could have happened has Russia sent its army to control the airport. Nobody denies Russia acquired Crimea; as to why, and why it felt justified in doing so has been gone over before.However, there was no doubt that Ukraine wanted NATO membership. The fact it might not have got it is beside the point from Putin's POV. And there is reasonable evidence the removal of Yanukovich was helped by the CIA.
Everybody seems to think Putin wants all of Ukraine. There is no doubt initially Putin wanted to change the government of Ukraine, but it is hard to find evidence that he wanted to incorporate Ukraine into Russia. When he invaded, Putin made ill-considered speeches, but invasion and occupation made no sense with such a limited number of troops. I think that invasion was supposed to be like that of Czechoslovakia - which was NOT incoporated into Russia.
There is no dislike of Western democracies. That does not mean that I have to like the actions of a number of politicians involved in this mess.
I have no idea what you mean by "It was a familiar division of which way to go politically with a huge three quarter majority wanting to change a Russian federated government which was done at the ballot box and not with arms." Yanukovich was voted in at the ballot box,and what is this "Russian federated government"?
Ian is clearly pro-russian and anti-US.Yanukovitch was abducted by russia a day after he signed an agreement with all protesting factions! The conflict was over! And of course the West had nothing to do with the protests. Their initiation and handling was all russian doing. Whatever the protests were it was Ukraine’s internal affair. As if GKChP or Yeltsin’s coup gave grounds to any invasion into russia.
Ukraine would never need NATO were it not attacked by russia.
Ian keeps saying Crimea was discussed before, but he himself never offered an explanation how come russia invaded the peninsula with zero justification, hitherto recognizing it being a part of another country and renting a port there 😎
Tbh, after reading JJ Mearsheimer, the transcript of the Nuland tapes and the NYT's recent expose, all of which have been posted on various threads, it's quite easy to take Ian's nuanced view on the conflict in Ukraine.
The origins of this war have been done to death, so let's consider the possibilities of what happens next.
IMO, it will either be:
1) A peace deal in which Ukraine loses large parts of the Donbas, with the possibility that some of it becomes a type of buffer zone, put under the control of international peacekeepers. China would certainly have a role to play here. Crimea is long gone.
2) The war continues and the Ukrainian Government falls. If this happens, we could either see a pro Western government replace it and an uneasy truce, or a pro Russian puppet government with fighting confined to freedom fighting/ terrorism (depending on your POV).
3) Mutually assured destruction.
I don't know how things will pan out but I'm convinced that the longer this goes on, the worse it gets for Ukraine, and the rest of us.
And once the war is over, whenever that may be, people will want to keep a very close eye on who owns what within Ukraine, i.e. Blackrock Bank and the like or the Ukrainian Government.
The origins of this war have been done to death, so let's consider the possibilities of what happens next.
IMO, it will either be:
1) A peace deal in which Ukraine loses large parts of the Donbas, with the possibility that some of it becomes a type of buffer zone, put under the control of international peacekeepers. China would certainly have a role to play here. Crimea is long gone.
2) The war continues and the Ukrainian Government falls. If this happens, we could either see a pro Western government replace it and an uneasy truce, or a pro Russian puppet government with fighting confined to freedom fighting/ terrorism (depending on your POV).
3) Mutually assured destruction.
I don't know how things will pan out but I'm convinced that the longer this goes on, the worse it gets for Ukraine, and the rest of us.
And once the war is over, whenever that may be, people will want to keep a very close eye on who owns what within Ukraine, i.e. Blackrock Bank and the like or the Ukrainian Government.
You need to look at longer perspective - unless Ukraine has ironclad security guarantees from the West, any peace deal will fail, as russia will rearm and come again - Budapest memorandum held 20 years, Minsk - 10. I hope those bilateral security treaties Ukraine signs - 9 signed, 5 more - at work, incl with the States, are worth more than previous papers. There will be peace summit in June, we’ll see what happens. Once renewed western supplies arrive , we’ll see what happens too. And how mobilization and rotation go
How about this for a basic peace treaty?...
1. Ironclad guarantees, signed by all NATO and BRICS countries, and enshrined in International Law, that Ukraine territorial integrity is from that moment respected by Russia.
2. Ukraine agrees not to join NATO, and no NATO troops or weapons to be positioned within Ukraine, but the signatories of The Treaty recognise that if Ukraine is unjustifiably* attacked by Russia (*under International Law), NATO reserves the right to declare war on Russia.
3. Crimea remains Russian.
4. Donbas is temporarily governed and policed by the UN and UN troops, until a long-term agreement for it is reached.
5. Any other areas of Ukraine occupied by Russia, since February 2022, are handed back to Ukraine.
6. Ukraine is allowed to join the EU, subject to EU member states voting for this.
7. As part of the reconstruction programme, contracts relating to the sale of Ukrainian land or assets to Western corporations, in exchange for weapons, are declared null and void.
8. Economic sanctions against Russia are reviewed and assets seized from Russian businesses are handed back.
9. Allegations of war crimes are treated on a case by case basis in an international court, set up by the UN for this purpose. Putin does not face any charges.
This is Beau's 9-point plan for peace.
1. Ironclad guarantees, signed by all NATO and BRICS countries, and enshrined in International Law, that Ukraine territorial integrity is from that moment respected by Russia.
2. Ukraine agrees not to join NATO, and no NATO troops or weapons to be positioned within Ukraine, but the signatories of The Treaty recognise that if Ukraine is unjustifiably* attacked by Russia (*under International Law), NATO reserves the right to declare war on Russia.
3. Crimea remains Russian.
4. Donbas is temporarily governed and policed by the UN and UN troops, until a long-term agreement for it is reached.
5. Any other areas of Ukraine occupied by Russia, since February 2022, are handed back to Ukraine.
6. Ukraine is allowed to join the EU, subject to EU member states voting for this.
7. As part of the reconstruction programme, contracts relating to the sale of Ukrainian land or assets to Western corporations, in exchange for weapons, are declared null and void.
8. Economic sanctions against Russia are reviewed and assets seized from Russian businesses are handed back.
9. Allegations of war crimes are treated on a case by case basis in an international court, set up by the UN for this purpose. Putin does not face any charges.
This is Beau's 9-point plan for peace.
2 is weak - “reserves the right” will never happen. It won’t deter russia from coming again. If there is money from russian reserves, as opposed to businesses, for example , I think it could be a basis for negotiations, but it’s for Ukraine to decide
I agree with Beau that we should think about what next? There has to be peace, but how, and what compromises do each side make? The problem then becomes, WHY are they agreeing to peace?The problem for Ukraine is that it is getting progressively weaker. Unless NATO puts boots on the ground, and a large number of them, the situation will not get much better because Ukraine's economy will continue to hurt more over time, and the only way they can gain strength in negotiations is to push Russia back. If they were to succeed in doing that they would not stop for peace talks. They would keep going until Russia was removed from their lands.
So we now have to ask, how can Ukraine boot the Russian troops out? The army is losing troops and losing morale. It is short of ammunition, and it is burning through at a rate that the West may have trouble filling, particularly since the West does not make much ammunition for the Ukrainian 150 mm artillery.
Western Boots will mean direct war with Russia, and either China comes in to help Russia with manpower and manufacturing or Russia has no option but to go clear, and that means strategically. No need to worry about overpopulation then.
So what initiates peace? Both sides have to get something out of it, and the only way Russia can get anything AND abandon the lands it has taken over is, in my op0inion, to have a Kosovo type solution. Otherwisee the Donbaws will have left Ukraine too because Russia is not going to have paid that price and have nothing to show for it when it has got what it has and is in no p-esent danger of losing it.
Peace requires deterrence. As I've pointed out multiple times, this is all happening because deterrence has failed.Therefore, because a just peace is not currently possible, what you are advocating is appeasement. Appeasement will further erode deterrence.
Both sides want deterrence. Russioa fears a strike from the West, and such strikes have been planned multiple times, and the West has these bases rather close to Russia. What are they for? The difficulty then is if you cannot come to peace, then one side has to be thoroughly defeated. Exactly how is Ukraine going to thorougly defeat Russia? Even assuming Russia would stop if it were removedm from what Ukraine claims as its territory, how is Ukraone going to do that?
The only way there could be a 'just' peace of the type most group members want is if Putin were removed and replaced by some sort of Westernised moderate. That is fantasy land.
Equally fanciful is the scenario of them being beaten back to the Russian border by Ukraine.
If NATO put boots on the ground to bolster numbers (improving quality isn't required, as I would imagine the battle-hardened rump of the Ukrainian Army is at least now the equal of anything in the West), we would risk nuclear war and the complete annihilation of Ukraine + others.
Compromise is the only way forward. My 9-point plan requires this but also gives both sides some sort of security moving forwards. It also allows both sides to save face.
However, I took the unusual decision of watching our news, while eating my tea. No, not 'our news' (wink, wink, Ian), the BBC.
Big feature on Russia and China's ever closening relationship. I see this partnership, and both countries' fortunes, going from strength to strength, so the window of opportunity for Ukraine to get any sort of remotely palatable deal may well be rapidly closing.
Now is no time for sabre rattling or taking the moral high ground. It's time for realpolitik.
Equally fanciful is the scenario of them being beaten back to the Russian border by Ukraine.
If NATO put boots on the ground to bolster numbers (improving quality isn't required, as I would imagine the battle-hardened rump of the Ukrainian Army is at least now the equal of anything in the West), we would risk nuclear war and the complete annihilation of Ukraine + others.
Compromise is the only way forward. My 9-point plan requires this but also gives both sides some sort of security moving forwards. It also allows both sides to save face.
However, I took the unusual decision of watching our news, while eating my tea. No, not 'our news' (wink, wink, Ian), the BBC.
Big feature on Russia and China's ever closening relationship. I see this partnership, and both countries' fortunes, going from strength to strength, so the window of opportunity for Ukraine to get any sort of remotely palatable deal may well be rapidly closing.
Now is no time for sabre rattling or taking the moral high ground. It's time for realpolitik.
Russia and China coming closer together has a lot of sense behind it: each has things the other needs.
V different circumstances, J. I don't see the comparison, for reasons given on other threads.
And my 9-point plan doesn't require capitulation, it's more of a reset to account for a changed situation, so as to avoid unnecessary escalation.
In fact, considering Ukraine's robust defence of itself over the last 2 years, the West's financial and hardware support, and the points contained in my proposed peace treaty, I believe that the level of deterrence would be far greater than it was 2 years ago.
Ian, together, they could replace the US as the world's dominant power. Incompetent Western leadership has pushed them together. Russia could've been an arms-length ally to us. If only you and I had been in charge, the world would now be a safer place.
And my 9-point plan doesn't require capitulation, it's more of a reset to account for a changed situation, so as to avoid unnecessary escalation.
In fact, considering Ukraine's robust defence of itself over the last 2 years, the West's financial and hardware support, and the points contained in my proposed peace treaty, I believe that the level of deterrence would be far greater than it was 2 years ago.
Ian, together, they could replace the US as the world's dominant power. Incompetent Western leadership has pushed them together. Russia could've been an arms-length ally to us. If only you and I had been in charge, the world would now be a safer place.
Just to reassure potential voters, while mine and Ian's government would very much be a partnership of equals (a bit like the 2 Davids in the UK's old SDP Liberal Alliance), Ian would have no input on public health policies.
Gee, thanks Beau. Health portfolios tend to end politician's careers :-)
From what I hear here when prig moved towards moscow the West or the States implored Ukraine not to intervene and not to rock the boat. There was quiet on the frontline. Maybe the West doesn’t want putler out, as the monarch means stability for them and supplies small dozens of arms so that Ukraine wouldn’t lose, but won’t be able to win either. One of the opinions here.Funny how even Beau’s plan conveys deceit and trepidation. He won’t state - if russia attacks Ukraine, we are automatically at war with russia. First, it reflects that despite everything Beau said elsewhere - he doesn’t truly believe in russian goodheartedness. Second, that’s exactly why there is no deterrence. putler senses tremor not resolve from the West. If Burns in moscow would’ve told putler, don’t you dare, he would’ve considered twice whether to venture in.
Nik, the only reasons my peace treaty isn't perfect is that I haven't written one before, am not a lawyer, and I'm typing my thoughts out on a phone while doing other tasks. I'm also not an international statesman. I know this last point might come as a surprise to some group members, but it's true.
However, I think you're onto something re the Prog (chef bloke - whatever his name was) situation...
The West (ie Biden's US Deep State) wants a stable but WEAKENED Russia. That's what it's all about. Not helping Ukraine, it's all about them.
Tell you what, you might think my support for Ukraine is lukewarm but, once this is over, if it turns out Blackrock and the like have stolen Ukrainian land and assets, you will see me morph into a Ukrainian nationalist because I don't like seeing brave and honourable people having the mickey taken out of them, and their national wealth stolen, by slimey NY bankers. (Nothing against NY, Papaphilly.)
However, I think you're onto something re the Prog (chef bloke - whatever his name was) situation...
The West (ie Biden's US Deep State) wants a stable but WEAKENED Russia. That's what it's all about. Not helping Ukraine, it's all about them.
Tell you what, you might think my support for Ukraine is lukewarm but, once this is over, if it turns out Blackrock and the like have stolen Ukrainian land and assets, you will see me morph into a Ukrainian nationalist because I don't like seeing brave and honourable people having the mickey taken out of them, and their national wealth stolen, by slimey NY bankers. (Nothing against NY, Papaphilly.)
Yes, I know all the provisos therefore it’s much more telling - it’s your subconscious speaking - and you are scary as hell to provide real security guarantees to Ukraine like “if you attack again next time you need to deal with us too”, because (a) you know full well how aggressive russia is and (b) your awe is what encourages russia and others to attack whom they want.The West wants to weaken russia? Fine, it coincides with what Ukraine wants. It’s a win - win.
I don’t worry about black rock or anyone else, they’d lose their pants 👖 or trousers here.
I don't see Russia as being an aggressive country. Throughout history, it has only shown aggression when it has been attacked, provoked or has felt threatened.
Contrast that with the Western European states' empire building or the US sticking its nose into affairs the other side of the world - that's aggression.
I'm not in awe of Russia. As a country, I don't even particularly like it. But I respect it, just like I respect Ukraine.
For all his downsides, I also respect Putin. He is the greatest global leader of the age.
Prior to the Ukraine conflict, he took Russia from being a basket case, teetering on the brink of anarchy, and turned it back into a major power. Alright, not quite a superpower, but still a major power. He has called most of the big global issues of the last 20 yrs correctly, while Western leaders have been found wanting.
As for this war, what choice did he have? The globalist deep state mafia has set former allies against each other, for their own ends. It upsets me to see this, and I don't even have any beef in the conflict.
As for not worrying about Blackrock and the like - you should do. Those (pick your own rudeword) people currently make the world go round, and are responsible for most of its ills too.
Sure, in a decent world, if they appeared in Ukraine and claimed land and resources as their own, they would be sent packing in seconds. But you, as a lawyer, should know that manly qualities no longer hold the upper hand. In the modern age, sickeningly, snakes in suits, through their deviousness, now hold all the power.
Contrast that with the Western European states' empire building or the US sticking its nose into affairs the other side of the world - that's aggression.
I'm not in awe of Russia. As a country, I don't even particularly like it. But I respect it, just like I respect Ukraine.
For all his downsides, I also respect Putin. He is the greatest global leader of the age.
Prior to the Ukraine conflict, he took Russia from being a basket case, teetering on the brink of anarchy, and turned it back into a major power. Alright, not quite a superpower, but still a major power. He has called most of the big global issues of the last 20 yrs correctly, while Western leaders have been found wanting.
As for this war, what choice did he have? The globalist deep state mafia has set former allies against each other, for their own ends. It upsets me to see this, and I don't even have any beef in the conflict.
As for not worrying about Blackrock and the like - you should do. Those (pick your own rudeword) people currently make the world go round, and are responsible for most of its ills too.
Sure, in a decent world, if they appeared in Ukraine and claimed land and resources as their own, they would be sent packing in seconds. But you, as a lawyer, should know that manly qualities no longer hold the upper hand. In the modern age, sickeningly, snakes in suits, through their deviousness, now hold all the power.
Pity u respect putler, who’s responsible for death of hundreds of thousands. russia is a bottom, which spilled its internal violence outside. There was not a single reason for a war. Far from it.Your peace plan is much more telling than all your posts about russia/ Ukraine or whatever.
You can live your life not worrying about global corporations. They need to be dealt with in some respects , but otherwise they rarely have a direct impact on us.
They impact everyone, from the poverty-stricken villager in Africa to the Australian bourgeoisie struggling with mortgage payments.
They create every problematic issue too, from the crooked response to covid to the zero carbon scam.
They make Putin look like a poodle.
They create every problematic issue too, from the crooked response to covid to the zero carbon scam.
They make Putin look like a poodle.
If yo9u want to see the effect of corporations in Africa, I repeat my recommendation to read the book "Dictatorland", by Paul Kenyon. Anyone who thinks they are interested in anything but money at any cost to the impoverished locals simply have no idea.
Nik, your statement "There was not a single reason for a war. Far from it." shows (a) your refusal to address the previous posts in various threads that outline the reasons Russia did what it did, (b) it shows a complete refusal to accept nobody goes to war without a reason, and (c) there is no real evidence Russia wants more territory. For example, Russia could easily have conquered Georgia before when the Georgian military was in a shambles but it did not. It merely rearrange borders to protect Russians.As fir aggressiveness, the US has been at war for over 90% of its total history, and almost always for one reason: money. The only real exceptions are the world wars (which led to total US economic superiority) and arguably the south-east Asian wars, such a Viet Nam where, because they effectively lost, we don't know what their objectives were intended to achieve. Anticommunism was a US obsession, but for economic reasons.
Ian, since the US War of Independence, which Britain abandoned as not being a cost-effective exercise, the US has lost every single war it has ever fought unilaterally.
That is an absolute disgrace!
And yet through devious frog-faced bankers, it has become the world's dominant power!
Americans, a history lesson for you. Do you know how the White House got its name?...
During the Napoleonic Wars, when you took France's side, the Royal Marines landed in America, marched up to your main government building, and UNOPPOSED (because you bottled it!) burnt it down.
Then, to disguise the scorch marks and humiliation, you painted it white. The colour of surrender.
That is an absolute disgrace!
And yet through devious frog-faced bankers, it has become the world's dominant power!
Americans, a history lesson for you. Do you know how the White House got its name?...
During the Napoleonic Wars, when you took France's side, the Royal Marines landed in America, marched up to your main government building, and UNOPPOSED (because you bottled it!) burnt it down.
Then, to disguise the scorch marks and humiliation, you painted it white. The colour of surrender.
I generally accept Scout’s attitude - you’ve never been to Ukraine, have no idea what’s going on, all you do is transmit whatever you pick up on RT website. Ignoring is the attitude.Moreover, I despise this kind of parallel: US was aggressive somewhere, so why blame russia. The US would never attack Canada, while orcs attacked Ukraine. Whatever the US did, you never justify with that your despicable actions. Don’t drive to lowest denominator, go to the highest
Nik, it is true I have never been to Ukraine, but so what? AS for the RT website, I have posted a number of links to opinions before and the links were usually either US or UK sources. I don'[t recall posting a Russian link, but I may have.You wrote: "The US would never attack Canada". It did in 1812 and got its arse kicked. It wouldn't now because too much is owned by US corporations.
My "despicable actions?" Care to elaborate? I remind you to respond ad hominem is falacious in logic, and the last resort of someone who cannot respond with facts.
Exactly - you know nothing first hand, citing russian propaganda- what good does it do?You say “the US has been at war…” . What the …. does it have to do with what russia does?. If you rape a little girl, does it mean that I can rape one too? I see much more merit in US action when compared to russia - the bottom
We can't get RT here. It's banned. I'm not overly fussed as it's low brow - a sort of Russian equivalent of The Daily Mail.
For an overarching view of the conflict, the BBC, NYT, France 24, Hungarian Conservative, Aljazeera, The Hindustan Times and Tass provide a good mixture.
Ian, I thought Nik was talking about me.
Scout is a good person and on the money with most issues, but has been tricked by Biden propaganda on this issue. Never mind. Happens to the best of them.
For an overarching view of the conflict, the BBC, NYT, France 24, Hungarian Conservative, Aljazeera, The Hindustan Times and Tass provide a good mixture.
Ian, I thought Nik was talking about me.
Scout is a good person and on the money with most issues, but has been tricked by Biden propaganda on this issue. Never mind. Happens to the best of them.
Listen to tass, my friend, you’ll know the truth 😎
:-) Beau, I've been tricked by Biden, the person for whom I have no respect. I stand up for the Ukrainian people who want freedom. That's important to me because I value my freedom, and I hope you do, too. And I think logically that if Ukraine falls, so will other countries. Putin will not stop there, and I know from his previous actions that he's not a good guy, and he doesn't give his own people freedom. Why wouldn't I want him stopped? Why wouldn't you want him stopped?
Too much crap for my little head. Too much theory, too much naivety. I'm old enough to have been in Russia when the government was still proud to be communist; when KGB families ate in the best hotels and kept everybody else out. Putin is soaked in that generation. Once KGB always KGB. He's a confessed admirer of Stalin, who killed millions of his own people. Bad history, bad genes. The KGB opposed the separation of Ukraine. Putin has declared Ukraine to be part of Russia. You can theorise all you like and create your peace plans but The Bear will keep its claws and use them until Ukraine is once again part of the Federation or Putin and his generation are dead.I'm dismayed by the amount of anti-US feeling too. Yes, they are corporate by nature. Yes, they like making money. Yes, they don't like socialists but ever since Churchill persuaded them to abandon their protectionism they have encompassed the right of other countries to enjoy the same freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of choice that they themselves enjoy - and they have spent billions of dollars in doing so. $60 billion allocated to Ukraine. Do you think that is easy for them to do? It comes out of their taxes, from every working person. What do you anti-Americans think they are getting out of it? I am old enough too to have lived through the second World War: I know how it felt to be near defeat by other countries: it was a damn close-run thing - until the US came with their massive spending. That's what they are hoping to do for Ukraine. They may fail. It may be declared a stalemate after two more years and weariness prevails. But they tried. They, and other western countries, have tried. They tried to give another country their right to choose who they want to be.
And if any of you think that is wrong, then state your case and live with it.
PK, I disagree with many of the points in your post...
1. Do you think most Brits or Americans eat in the best hotels? Bureaucratic hierarchy vs financial hierarchy - that's all it is. I don't hold any real opinion on which is better/ worse, but let's recognise that neither system has any justification in feeling superior to the other, particularly when most of the poor blighters in the world can't afford to dine at any hotel.
2. For its own self preservation, The Bear needs to keep it's claws sharp. It is rich in natural resources, but is not a global super power. If it allows its claws to blunt, it will be gobbled up by the men in suits.
3. Ukraine appeared to peacefully exist as an independent state and Russia's neighbour UNTIL it started to look to align itself too closely with the West. Speeches/ overtures were made about NATO and EU membership, and the CIA were active within its borders. We can argue until the cows come home about the extent of it all but the fact remains that all of Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, since 2014, came immediately AFTER events that moved Ukraine closer to the West and undermined Russia's national security.
4. Yes, the US came to our aid in WWI and WWII. But they demanded a price for it, didn't they?
Do you think they've come to other nations' aid since WWII without asking for anything in return? And do you think they might sometimes have intervened in areas where they weren't welcome - let's just say for rather Machiavellian purposes?
And do you seriously think that they are sending all those arms to Ukraine expecting nothing in return? They are feeding their military industrial complex, man! And I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if their major corporations now OWN most of Ukraine in return for those arms. Let the dust settle and you will see.
5. I am not anti US. I might dislike the Biden regime and its 'progressive' supporter base, who export most of their nonsense over here, but overall I respect it as a country. In fact, the US, with politicians like RFK Jr, offers me far more hope for the West's future than the UK does.
Like every country, it has good and bad aspects to it. And, heck, as a BRIT I can hardly look down my nose at countries that try and exert their influence around the world, can I?
All I try to do is share a few thoughts about things not always being quite as they seem. Just like the Russians and Chinese get their daily doses of propaganda, we do too.
And I think the active US group members are, to a man and woman, WONDERFUL people. I might occasionally give them some stick, but much of it is tongue in cheek and I've never been afraid to take some stick back off them. Although I have never met any of them in person, and am not really an internet kinda guy, I genuinely think of them as friends. Real people and friends.
6. Finally, the question of patriotism. You strike me as an old school Englishman - part of a very special generation in our country's history.
I always considered myself a patriot, and am still a big fan of the values your generation espoused, but I'm afraid I no longer like our country's direction of travel. In fact, since 2020ish, I barely recognise it as the nation I grew up in. And I'm not on about the changing demographic - that is meaningless to me - I'm on about us as a people becoming such suckers for such obvious BS, on an ever widening range of issues.
1. Do you think most Brits or Americans eat in the best hotels? Bureaucratic hierarchy vs financial hierarchy - that's all it is. I don't hold any real opinion on which is better/ worse, but let's recognise that neither system has any justification in feeling superior to the other, particularly when most of the poor blighters in the world can't afford to dine at any hotel.
2. For its own self preservation, The Bear needs to keep it's claws sharp. It is rich in natural resources, but is not a global super power. If it allows its claws to blunt, it will be gobbled up by the men in suits.
3. Ukraine appeared to peacefully exist as an independent state and Russia's neighbour UNTIL it started to look to align itself too closely with the West. Speeches/ overtures were made about NATO and EU membership, and the CIA were active within its borders. We can argue until the cows come home about the extent of it all but the fact remains that all of Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, since 2014, came immediately AFTER events that moved Ukraine closer to the West and undermined Russia's national security.
4. Yes, the US came to our aid in WWI and WWII. But they demanded a price for it, didn't they?
Do you think they've come to other nations' aid since WWII without asking for anything in return? And do you think they might sometimes have intervened in areas where they weren't welcome - let's just say for rather Machiavellian purposes?
And do you seriously think that they are sending all those arms to Ukraine expecting nothing in return? They are feeding their military industrial complex, man! And I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if their major corporations now OWN most of Ukraine in return for those arms. Let the dust settle and you will see.
5. I am not anti US. I might dislike the Biden regime and its 'progressive' supporter base, who export most of their nonsense over here, but overall I respect it as a country. In fact, the US, with politicians like RFK Jr, offers me far more hope for the West's future than the UK does.
Like every country, it has good and bad aspects to it. And, heck, as a BRIT I can hardly look down my nose at countries that try and exert their influence around the world, can I?
All I try to do is share a few thoughts about things not always being quite as they seem. Just like the Russians and Chinese get their daily doses of propaganda, we do too.
And I think the active US group members are, to a man and woman, WONDERFUL people. I might occasionally give them some stick, but much of it is tongue in cheek and I've never been afraid to take some stick back off them. Although I have never met any of them in person, and am not really an internet kinda guy, I genuinely think of them as friends. Real people and friends.
6. Finally, the question of patriotism. You strike me as an old school Englishman - part of a very special generation in our country's history.
I always considered myself a patriot, and am still a big fan of the values your generation espoused, but I'm afraid I no longer like our country's direction of travel. In fact, since 2020ish, I barely recognise it as the nation I grew up in. And I'm not on about the changing demographic - that is meaningless to me - I'm on about us as a people becoming such suckers for such obvious BS, on an ever widening range of issues.
P.K. That is certainly a case, but I disagree with much of it, and I am not anti-American as some assert. I am against certain US politicians, and for that matter i am seldom admiring our politicians. As for US nobility, look at all the military interventions.The case I made before, and I am not going down that rabbit hole again, was that the US and EU encouraged the Maidan coup and did nothing to stop[ Ukraine form killing the 3,500 civilians in the Donbas shortly after. You were correct that I partially misread the Minsk agreements. I saw an American statement that these agreements were never properly ratified within certain countries so they did not have to honour what their representatives had promised. An interesting legal point of view.
I may be wrong, but I think the money being spent now is still a mix of hoping that Russia will be degraded and partly conscious obligations for previous involvement.
As for US protectionism having gone, that is not quite true. Try agricultural products and see how free the market really is. It is, of course, freeer than the EU. I can understand the reasons, but cannot accept it as a "free market".
Very well said, P.K. And Ukraine appreciates US, UK and other countries staunch support!There is this strange inclination among some in the West that would assume blame, put it in Boris, Biden, whoever, but would admire a shithead responsible for hundreds of thousands dead ☠️. Luckily, they have no impact, so nothing to worry about 😎
Beau, you said the Bear needs to keep its claws sharp. Why do you care about the condition of the Bear's claws, this thing that cares nothing about the freedom of its own citizens or of those it consumes? I'd like to understand.And as far as the US expecting something in return for its financial and military support, what's wrong with that? To make it simple, if you paid bail to get someone out of jail, wouldn't you expect to be repaid? US citizens pay taxes and give military support to countries fighting for freedom, but do you expect that to be a gift free from obligation to repay?
And thanks for giving us US members the benefit of the doubt. Not sure we're wonderful, but appreciate your support. I have the same respect for you Brits, as I'm sure others do. It's good that we can have differing points of view and still remain friends.
Scout, in answer to your questions...
1. I don't have any emotional attachment to Russia, but I want to try and understand the reality of the world we live in. Although I've always had a questioning nature, the response to covid removed any bias I had towards British/ Western politicians. I'm more objective now and think - only think, mind you - I see political events more clearly.
2. I completely agree. Everyone is entitled to act in their own self interests, including Russia.
3. Thanks, Scout. It would be great to meet some of the regular contributors to this group some time :)
1. I don't have any emotional attachment to Russia, but I want to try and understand the reality of the world we live in. Although I've always had a questioning nature, the response to covid removed any bias I had towards British/ Western politicians. I'm more objective now and think - only think, mind you - I see political events more clearly.
2. I completely agree. Everyone is entitled to act in their own self interests, including Russia.
3. Thanks, Scout. It would be great to meet some of the regular contributors to this group some time :)
Ian wrote: "P.K. That is certainly a case, but I disagree with much of it, and I am not anti-American as some assert. I am against certain US politicians, and for that matter i am seldom admiring our politicia..."Ian. For 'protectionism' I should have said 'isolationism.' ww2 ended that and the US was then forced to continue its leadership of western countries but there are many there (mostly Trump supporters) who seem to be wanting to go back to those bad days.
It's not a Trump thing. There are just a lot of Americans who have spent our entire lives being called war mongering imbeciles by our better educated European cousins. But when European lives or interests are at stake, they scream at us to fix their problems. For me personally, the most pointed demonstration of this mindset is when our British cousins insist on singing, "...Rule Britannia. Britannia rules the waves...", as if it had been true at any time in the last eighty years.I sometimes think that our European cousins would do well to read Kipling.
https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem...
"...An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!"
J. wrote: "It's not a Trump thing. There are just a lot of Americans who have spent our entire lives being called war mongering imbeciles by our better educated European cousins. But when European lives or in..."Sorry about Rule Britannia J: I think you would only hear that on the last night of the Proms broadcast on the BBC. If you could attend that occasion you would find that many foreign visitors are joining in too. It is not a statement of fact, as everyone there knows, it is a little bit of a wonderful (and tongue-in-the-cheek) piece of music appropriately called 'Pomp & Circumstance). I love Kipling but he, I am sure, would have agreed with another author that, ' A little learning is a dangerous thing.'
P.K. wrote: "... I love Kipling but he, I am sure, would have agreed with another author that, ' A little learning is a dangerous thing.'In this case, how so?
J. wrote: "P.K. wrote: "... I love Kipling but he, I am sure, would have agreed with another author that, ' A little learning is a dangerous thing.'In this case, how so?"
That you equate the song Rule Britannia with any seriousness on our part. The song was written in the 18th century by Thomas Arne as a musical celebration for the Royal family. I don't think it was inappropriate then. It is only ever heard at the annual Proms after Elgar's Pomp & Circumstance as a rousing finale for the end of the concert season. I am not sure why you equate that with other countries (not us) not paying their due for the NATO alliance.
Thank you for being plain and honest. Many try to hide their barbs.I equate it with the general view by many Europeans that Americans are uncouth, uneducated, buffoons who should learn our place.
You may dismiss or deride the sentiment, but take to heart the understanding that this is why a large number of Americans would leave the world to burn. What keeps us at the table is the knowledge that after you have all burned, the flames will find their way to our shores.
J. wrote: "Thank you for being plain and honest. Many try to hide their barbs.I equate it with the general view by many Europeans that Americans are uncouth, uneducated, buffoons who should learn our place...."
I have no idea what brings you to the idea that many Europeans hold that view: it seems bizarre in the least. There is enough detail and news out there for all except someone living in the mountains of Virginia to not be aware of it. We do happen to be aware of your excellent universities (my niece went to one) and cultural history and if you hold such views of Europeans perhaps you might try a better fitting jacket.
Do you mean New Zealand's opposition to possessing a nuclear deterrent?
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/peace-rig....