*

* — Wayfarer

I see your point (or asterisk) :smile:

However, I think the current problems tend to be caused by the fact that in a normal world, Europe should be dominated by the continental state with the largest population and strongest economy, and that is Germany.

Unfortunately, as Germany was destroyed after two world wars, there is no proper European balance of power. This has led to a highly anomalous situation with the resulting power vacuum leaving the whole of Europe in a position of subservience to America, China, Turkey, and other non-European (and anti-European) powers.

As for Ukraine, it will never be independent. It will be dominated either by Russia or by Western Europe, i.e., Brussels.

But I wouldn’t be overly concerned over Ukraine as such. I doubt very much that the Russians will round up all Ukrainians and send them to the gas chambers. They’ve been part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries and they’ve survived and will continue to survive. Life goes on, after all. And Putin is not Stalin.

A bigger concern seems to be that Western pressure on Russia forces Russia to gang up with China, which can only serve to strengthen China's hand vis-à-vis the West. Ultimately, the US-UK-EU combine may be shooting itself in the foot ....

Russia and China show united front amid rising tensions with West - Sky News

Well, I don't know any clergymen so I can't tell. But I think that kind of stuff would be more like Nation of Islam style .... — Apollodorus

Except they don't have a reputation for sexually assaulting children the way Christian clergymen do.

Maybe they keep it in the family .... :grin:

In any case, my suspicion is that Muslims do it even more than other religious denominations:

The hypocrisy of child abuse in many Muslim countries - The Guardian

Child abuse also among Senegal's Muslim clergy - Afrol News

Child abuse case rocks Pakistan's clergy - TRT World

But perhaps you should start a thread on it, as I don't think it's got much to do with the OP?

Wrong thread....

That's terrible!

But I got you to stop whining about hip-hop you racist slob!

I can't stop what I never started, Einstein. Maybe you should quit drinking and start thinking. It might do you good .... :wink:

I don't drink
. :wink:

Then quit whatever it is that causes you to make irrational comments! :roll:

My reference to "violent hip hop, rape rap, and war drums of the slums" was NOT about race but about this US-made subculture that celebrates violence, especially violence against women, that is alien to European culture and that many Europeans object to, which clearly is their right.

If this kind of "culture" appeals to you, that's your problem, but don't impose it on the rest of the world.

And if you are talking about "racism", it is a well-known fact that Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X liked to beat up white women.

I pray that my country (US) will stop provoking Russia. I support the latter in the protest against NATO expansion (bullying).

I generally support Biden but his hawkishness is the one thing I worry about, though God bless him for finally extracting our country from Afghanistan.

I agree with that. While Biden has done decent things - at the very beginning - for people, his foreign policy in action, not in rhetoric, is not much different from Trump's.

Which is scary considering how bullish Trump was.

Not much good will be achieved by escalating tensions even more.

It looks like China is now siding with Russia on NATO expansion, so it will be interesting to see what Biden is going to do about it.

Incidentally, the way I see it, the typical US government logic is something along these lines:

(A). There is a situation somewhere in the world.
(B). We’ve got absolutely no idea what the causes are and we don’t give a dime – unless it affects us.
(C). And this situation affects our business interests.
(D). Therefore we must intervene.
(E). And we must intervene in a way that advances our business interests without caring about anyone else ....

So, basically, this is why the world is the way it is, because it is based on an upside-down kind of “logic” based on US self-interest. It used to be the same when Britain was a world empire, before America took over. The only difference is that America has simply replaced Britain.

A saner kind of logic would organize the world in a much more rational, coherent, and equitable way.

Such a logic would acknowledge that Germany occupies a central position at the heart of Europe, and therefore it should also hold a central position in political and military terms as it does in economic and demographic terms.

Unfortunately, the problem seems to be Britain because it acts as an extension (or as some say, “poodle”) of America and disturbs Europe’s natural balance of power. Whenever Britain has an issue with other European powers, it runs to Uncle Sam for help, like a kid to his or her nanny.

This necessarily means that the European order really is an American order. And this is why despite all the "democracy-and-freedom" propaganda, Europe cannot be truly sovereign and free unless and until it stands up for itself and stands on its own feet.

It makes sense for China to support Russia here, given the Taiwan situation, which surely merits its own thread. In that case, I think there is more room for considerable nuance, but still tense.

In any case, it's not as if NATO is giving Russia much of a choice in terms of having partners. Incidentally, as you know, the US has been losing power since WWII, so they just can't stand other countries defying "the international community" [aka whoever supports the US]. The opinion of the rest of the world, doesn't fit into this scheme.

What gets me is that, pointing these things out, somehow makes others think that one is "Pro Putin" or "Pro Xi". This is silly.

Ugh the EU, what a mess. It could be a great example for the world, but having a monetary union without a political one may lead to its disintegration, following fanatical market thinking.

I hope Germany could persuade cooler head to prevail. The UK is lost cause at this moment.

What gets me is that, pointing these things out, somehow makes others think that one is "Pro Putin" or "Pro Xi". This is silly. — Manuel

Not just silly, but totally preposterous IMO :smile:

The way I see it, Europe, Russia, and America should be partners and allies, not enemies. But this is impossible so long as America only thinks of its own self-interests, which usually means the interests of US banking, oil, and defense industries.

It was American business that started investing in China in the 1970's. Others followed suit, and China is now a major power and growing. China will also be the main winner in a military conflict between the West and Russia. It is already watching the West very closely and identifying all our weak points so it will know exactly where to strike when its turn comes, which is going to be pretty soon.

NATO and EU might try to bully Russia now, but they won't bully China.

I agree it would be nice if Germany could talk some sense into the other Europeans, but without a proper military, Germany doesn't count for much these days. Just imagine, it has to depend on Turkey and other NATO members to defend it!!! And how can Europe be free and independent if Germany is not free and independent?

If we think about it, the EU has a population of some 450 million. And yet it plays second fiddle to America with a population of only 330 million. Surely, this can't be right. Shameful and disgraceful, really. And definitely undemocratic.

One of the positive consequences of Trump, totally freak-ish, but, could have led to something, was when Germany (and maybe France too) said, essentially, it's time for Europe to have it's own defense. Which makes sense, but, never materialized. I doubt the US would permit it, because NATO has to have a reason to continue existing.

As for bullying China, well, they're getting bullied with Taiwan, with serious provocations on both sides, but more incendiary for the West, generally. Not that I think China should just invade Taiwan, which has a pretty decent government, and so on. But even if they wanted to invade, that would also lead to a nuclear war, Taiwan could not defend itself against China for too long.

I know, the Germany thing is a pipe dream, but, at least its being vocal about it. It's nice to have some opposing voices when this situation is so tense. I totally agree that the US, Europe AND Russia should form a coalition.

I believe Putin once asked Clinton, only half jokingly, if Russia could join NATO, I think Clinton asked the generals, they didn't like that idea.

Man, once you dig into the EU as an institution, you just see a total tragedy. They out of all people in the world, because of two World Wars, should now better. The leadership, apparently does not.

Man, once you dig into the EU as an institution, you just see a total tragedy. They out of all people in the world, because of two World Wars, should now better. The leadership, apparently does not. — Manuel

I think the leadership know exactly, but they don't care because they've been brainwashed to believe in a United States of Europe that is subservient to the United States of America. It's like a cult.

If we think about it, the whole situation makes no sense whatsoever. An association of states with the population and economic power of the EU, has to depend on America financially and militarily!!! Are you kidding me???

So the EU has a population of 450 million and an economy much larger than Russia which has a population of only 145 million and a much weaker economy (though it is rich in natural resources like oil and gas). And yet the EU is totally dependent on America, Turkey, and other NATO countries to defend it.

No wonder the world is such a screwed-up place. IMO this is totally insane and it has got to stop. Europe needs to grow up and get a life.

And you are absolutely right. The more you dig into the history and facts of this EU business, the more skeletons in the European (and US) cupboard you discover ....

The Ukrainians and the Russians have got to work out their issues on their own.

Varoufakis' And the Weak Suffer What They Must? his book and many lectures on Adults in the Room, and Mody's Eurotragedy are very eye-opening.

Euro leadership is essentially a power struggle in which they French thought they would be able to command the German economy. And no political union worthy of the name, was ever seriously considered.

The bureaucrats in the EU in the end had a far more conservative (neo-liberal) approach to the economy compared to the US! It's insane, some kind of market worship. Germany mostly wins, at least the German elites.

But it's hard to see them turning around. A crisis like this does not help.

The way I see it, Europe, Russia, and America should be partners and allies, not enemies. But this is impossible so long as America only thinks of its own self-interests, which usually means the interests of US banking, oil, and defense industries. — Apollodorus

The absolute inability for you to understand Russia leaves me nearly speechless.

You have a Russian leader, a president for life, that sees the main enemy number 1 the United States. A former intelligence chief that started his political career as a President by killing Russian citizens in order to start again a war that Russia previously had lost. Then has annexed parts both from Georgia and Ukraine, considers the fall of Soviet Union the worst disaster in the 20th Century and openly writes about Ukraine should be part of Russia and how an independent Ukraine is an artificial country. And now has had a proxy war with Ukraine for 8 years and has massed a nearly third of the Russian army ground forces on the border of Ukraine, and you see the problem in the US to be too hawkish, re-urgitating the line that Putin says.

Yes, Russia could be an ally with the US, if the regime of Putin would fall itself. Even then it would be extremely difficult, which can be seen how cool Navalnyi and other Russian opposition leaders (the few if any) are to the West. And the Putin apologists in the West don't make that better. For some reason you cherish the current totalitarian regime so much.

And if that would happen, if the Russians would have enough of their dear leader for life, likely some people would be screaming how awful it is and how it has to be a CIA lead "color revolution" and how bad it is that the West has "taken over" Russia. Because, obviously, nobody else has a say than " the interests of US banking, oil, and defense industries".

by killing Russian citizens in order to start again a war that Russia previously had lost — ssu

Still peddling that dumb conspiracy theory? Although it's interesting that a while ago you presented it more as a mere possibility, but now present it as established fact.

Following the fall of the USSR the view was that a cordon of neutral countries could act as a barrier to avoid tensions. Russia was still respected as an important player in world politics and their interests were therefore strategically considered. Several decades later, the respect is gone and it's basically Western hubris they can just intervene in the geopolitical sphere of a strong regional power without consequences - or so they thought until Russia annexed Crimea.

Russia's internal politics are irrelevant. I don't give a shit that Putin is a criminal. I care about avoiding needless bloodshed and accepting that regional powers project a sphere of influence in which you cannot fuck around without consequences. So all this IMF and NATO shit should be called out for what it is : provocations.

The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate.

Still peddling that dumb conspiracy theory? — jamalrob

Well, I think it hasn't been refuted and it makes sense. Those former intelligence people who did say that the conspiracy theory was true have been killed by Putin. And what terrorist would choose for a terrorist strike (that basically is a media event) sleepy suburbs? Wouldn't they pick a central downtown spot? And it does make sense as there was a peace agreement with the Chechens, so just ripping it off without any provocation would look bad. And if the Chechens had already de-facto won (then the first) Chechen war, why would they then plant bombs in Moscow suburbs? They had repelled the Russian attack.

It's interesting that a while ago you presented it as a mere possibility, but now present it as established fact. — jamalrob

I put in the category of being more likely to be true than false. But thanks for the correction. We naturally don't know as the archives haven't been opened.

Well, I think it hasn't been refuted and it makes sense. Those former intelligence people who did say that the conspiracy theory was true have been killed by Putin. And what terrorist would choose for a terrorist strike (that basically is a media event) sleepy suburbs? Wouldn't they pick a central downtown spot? And it does make sense as there was a peace agreement with the Chechens, so just ripping it off without any provocation would look bad. And if the Chechens had already de-facto won (then the first) Chechen war, why would they then plant bombs in Moscow suburbs? They had repelled the Russian attack. — ssu

That's one way of looking at it, but it seems to me you don't know much about it. Anyway I just wanted to make a quick point that it's a disputed account, and one that is denied not only by Russians in Putin's sphere, but by other observers. I'm not going to argue here though. Maybe another time.

Following the fall of the USSR the view was that a cordon of neutral countries could act as a barrier to avoid tensions. — Benkei

Yes. Like the Netherlands in the 1930's. But hey, it worked just splendid during WW1!

Being a buffer state sucks. But it reinforces the truth that foreigners genuinely truly don't give a shit about you or your people or about values.

The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate. — Benkei

So the "de-escalation" would be that NATO would withdraw troops or never deploy troops to Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, The Baltic States, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania and North Macedonia?

That's what Russia is saying it wants.

That's one way of looking at it — jamalrob

Well, let's hope that we don't get some similar event in this crisis justifying for Russia to respond.

Yet on the other hand, if nothing happens, then nothing happens. NATO was bellicose with Serbia, that's a historical fact. Then it was desperately looking for a "new mission". But when the opponent has the most nukes in the World, I don't think there is that desire, which people seem to see. The motivation would be to have normal relations, which can be seen from all the efforts and attempts to reset the relations by several US presidents. Nothing like that has happened with let's say Iran and the US.

But apparently Russia has a right for it's historical empire, I guess.

So the "de-escalation" would be that NATO would withdraw troops or never deploy troops to Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, The Baltic States, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania and North Macedonia?

That's what Russia is saying it wants. — ssu

Do they have the will and the means for that?

It's speculated that they don't have the means to fully occupy Ukraine, much less spread eastward.

Although it would be cool if there were 130,000 Russian troops surrounding the Netherlands rights now. :grimace:

This article says Russia suppressed economic activity in Ukraine and half the population has left. Why?

The article talks about Donetsk and Luhansk, the rebellious states that opted out (with Russian help) from Ukraine. And the situation in these regions is bleak. One article said that Russia is pouring about 1 billion dollars into these areas, but naturally that when they are cut out from Ukraine, it isn't easy to realign the economy to work for Russia (just like Crimea has a tough time without the Ukrainians coming in for a holidays etc). Everything basically comes from Russia (and Belarus) and the natural issue of commerce isn't happen now. Russia is givin Russian passports to the people, so it's easy for them to go to Russia. As, well, there is a war going on. If there are no jobs and artillery shells may land on your doorstep, a lot of people will opt to move.

Basically the Minsk accords/protocol have not been ratified, especially with the Minsk II being left open from 2015. Basically what is left open are the following terms:

1)To ensure an immediate bilateral ceasefire.
2)To ensure the monitoring and verification of the ceasefire by the OSCE .
3)Decentralization of power, including through the adoption of the Ukrainian law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts".
4)To ensure the permanent monitoring of the Ukrainian-Russian border and verification by the OSCE with the creation of security zones in the border regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
5)Immediate release of all hostages and illegally detained persons.
6)A law preventing the prosecution and punishment of people in connection with the events that have taken place in some areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts.
7)To continue the inclusive national dialogue.
8)To take measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Donbas.
9)To ensure early local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian law "On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts".
10)To withdraw illegal armed groups and military equipment as well as fighters and mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine.
11)To adopt a program of economic recovery and reconstruction for the Donbas region.
12)To provide personal security for participants in the consultations.

The issue is that Ukraine is very fearful of giving autonomy (above decentralization) that then Russia could use.

Do they have the will and the means for that? — frank

The only thing worrisome to me is that Russia makes demands it knows NATO cannot accept to. Now it might be a negotiation tactic, but still.

It's speculated that they don't have the means to fully occupy Ukraine, much less spread eastward. — frank

The whole reason to invade Ukraine seems illogical, but who knows. Some say a partial invasion would be the likeliest, happening in the east, basically on the eastern side of the Dniepr. But who knows what will happen or not happen.

As I've said, I'm so optimist that I think that the likeliest outcome is that there is no war. It ends up in just as one of those scares. But that there is some kind of conflict is unfortunately a genuine possibility. Russia has been now multiple times been accused of a coup plot, and at least in history it has intervened quite aggressively into Ukrainian politics (even before 2014). So what is certain is that Russia will continue to be a bully to Ukraine.

The only thing worrisome to me is that Russia makes demands it knows NATO cannot accept to. Now it might be a negotiation tactic, but still. — ssu

Putin is a butthead. We'd elect him president if he was American.

That must be why you've elected Biden then ... :grin: