While China and Russia are currently on friendly terms, I don't think they are friendly enough to aid one another in a war with the US if it is happens that either China or Russia is the one that decides to start one with us. However whether this is true or not remains to be seen. — dclements

Obviously, it is not in Russia's long-term interest to be too close to China as it might end up as a Chinese satellite if it doesn't watch it. But Russia may be forced to side with China as a short-term defensive measure against Western aggression.

The root of the current tensions between the West and Russia is EU and NATO expansion aiming to seize control of Russian resources.

This had already been the plan in the 1990s when the EU wanted to incorporate Russia into its expanding union. Then Putin came to power in 2000 which spoiled the plan.

So, it's all about control of resources from oil and gas to gold, diamonds, and other assets. The US, EU, and UK are obviously hoping to share the spoils if Putin falls and they are trying to make him fall sooner rather than later.

The usual tactic is to "democratize" a country, then open up its economy to investment resulting in foreign financial control, and finally control its political system and its military.

This is a tactic China has learned from the West and is now applying in developing countries and, increasingly, in developed regions like Europe.

America and Europe are slowly beginning to wake up to reality. Unfortunately, they still have Russia in their sights. This has already forced Russia to gang up with Turkey and other unpalatable dictatorships.

This can only be bad news for Europe, America, and the whole international community.

The bottom line is even if China isn't able or willing to use military action to get what it wants in the near future, in the coming decades will it be able to use it's economic and/or military might to get whatever it wants and be able to eventually even push the US and her allies into a corner and make it so that the rest of world has to allow China to whatever it wants and eventually allow China to surpass the US as the world's major superpower? — dclements

Very long sentence.

Short answer: No.

A bit why this is...

1) If mainland China would have the same per capita income as Taiwan, it would have surpassed long ago the GDP of the US. Actually the Chinese economy would be then twice that of the US. Now it's still far smaller. This is the crucial factor: Mainland China is controlled by the CCP who think they are doing achieving true Marxism. Really, don't mind what people here say, that's what the CCP themselves say. They really believe that they have finally molded Marxism to work.

Hence they shoot themselves in the foot, because planned authoritarian economies can go just so far. When you look at Chinese history, they have been able to do this in many occasions. The biggest obstacle for China is that they are controlled by communists. A China that would remember Chiang Kai Sek would be different (what you can see from the tiny Island nation).

2) Never underestimate the effects of the disastrous "one child"-policy. Having been totally unable to fathom that higher prosperity lowers child birth naturally, the Chinese authorities with this drastic actions have dug a huge hole for themselves as the country will age. This is a severe problem for China. Just look at India: they never had limits to population growth and now it isn't a problem.

3) China will be facing hard financial issues in the future. You can only build so much, even if that building program has been something that has never been seen in World history prior to this day.

4) Finally, do note that this discourse is extremely American. It's the Americans that see any growing country as a possible rival that will take their place. Earlier it was of course the Soviet Union. Were they scary. Then it was Japan, remember? Oh, how Japan was taking over the US and how Japanese companies were buying the gems of American industry and commerce. This is a discourse that is promoted in the US in order to try to get Americans to go with the idea of them being a Superpower.

The root of the current tensions between the West and Russia is EU and NATO expansion aiming to seize control of Russian resources. — Apollodorus

This indeed is what the siloviks have and the KGB has said all along. Those evil Westerners!!!

(And people fall for this)

Having been totally unable to fathom that higher prosperity lowers child birth naturally, the Chinese authorities with this drastic actions have dug a huge hole for themselves as the country will age. — ssu

Yes. With a a microscopic population of 5.5 million, fertility rate of about 1.37, and average age of 40+, Finns are definitely in the best position to point the finger at China!

Statistics Finland unveils bleak population forecast – population to start decline in 2031 – Helsinki Times

I don't think I will bother with your other comments .... :smile:

Yes. With a a microscopic population of 5.5 million, fertility rate of about 1.37, and average age of 40+, Finns are definitely in the best position to point the finger at China! I don't think I will bother with your other comments .... :smile: — Apollodorus

LOL!!!

Have to say that has to be the strawman argument of the month! I mean talk about not refuting anything of the original argument. Yet actually your comparison only shows how dire the issue is to China. So thanks for taking another dismal example to compare how bad things are in China:

Btw, ALL European countries are below 2,0 fertility rate for those who don't know it. Yet Chinese fertility rate at 1,3 and hence EVEN LOWER than in Finland, now at 1,44, and still higher even if we'd take that 1,37 you refer to. (see here).

And China doesn't have similar net immigration. So if for Finland the peak of population (by the article given by @Apollodorus) would be in 2031. How are things in China? Some fresh news articles about it:

(The Guardian, 23rd Nov 2021) China’s birthrate has plummeted to the lowest level seen in official annual data covering the period from 2020 back to 1978, as the government struggles to stave off a looming demographic crisis.

Or worse:

(Korean Times, Dec 6th 2021)China’s population to peak in 2021 as demographic turning point has already arrived, threatening to disrupt Beijing’s economic ambitions

China's population is expected to peak in 2021 and fall steadily in the foreseeable future in a turning point for the country's population trajectory, according to James Liang.

Liang told the South China Morning Post on Thursday that the number of births across the country fell 20 per cent to about 10 million in 2021, citing published data from local Chinese authorities, while the number of deaths could be more than 10 million this year.

“That means the size of China’s population has peaked much earlier than previously expected,” said Liang, who has been one of the country’s loudest voices calling for pro-birth policies over the years.

Or even worse:

(Reuters, Dec 3 2021) - China may be downplaying how fast its population is shrinking, and a recent policy to promote three-child families has poor chances to improve birth rates, a fertility expert told the Reuters Next conference on Friday.

Fuxian Yi, senior scientist in the obstetrics and gynecology department at the University of Wisconsin, said he estimated that China’s 2020 population was 1.28 billion rather than the 1.41 billion census number reported and that fertility rates were lower than reported.

Yi estimates that China's population has been shrinking since 2018.

Of course, we will see quite quickly (in a decade or so) if the above articles are true or not. But I guess decreasing population NOW is worse than possibly decreasing population in ten years. Of course, the Chinese officials will likely hide this statistic as they hide nearly everything starting from a virus out brake that caused a pandemic. But things can be kept hidden only so long.

So I would urge Americans just to keep their cool. The only real worry is that the local dictator will do something extremely stupid (like invade Taiwan) if the domestic problems get really bad. But still I wouldn't say it is imminent.

Btw, ALL European countries are below 2,0 fertility rate for those who don't know it. Yet Chinese fertility rate at 1,3 and hence EVEN LOWER than in Finland, now at 1,44, and still higher even if we'd take that 1,37 you refer to. (see here). — ssu

I think you are clutching at straws there.

You may not realize this, but if replacement level fertility is above 2, then anything below 2 is below replacement level. This renders the difference between China's 1.3 and Finland's 1.4 negligible.

Basically, what your own statement boils down to is that Finland is in the same boat as China. So, it's a case of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black. :smile:

Basically, what your own statement boils down to is that Finland is in the same boat as China. So, it's a case of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black. :smile: — Apollodorus

No, that Finland has bleak demographics is a reality, but I'm not forecasting my country to be an economic juggernaut that will surpass others. So I'm clueless why you are thinking this is a "case of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black". The simple fact is that in order for China to surpass the US economy, demographics is a real issue, which you cannot simply deny. It simply does have an effect, because in order to take the position of the US, China has to grow.

Still, in my view the far bigger obstacle is the CCP and the authoritarian streak that has taken China during the era of Xi Jingping. Central planning can go only so far. Central planners cannot anticipate what are the new growth sectors will be during the next decade or two. That the CCP put down harshly the protest movement shows that in the end the Chinese authorities don't care if they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (as Hong Kong is a huge economic powerhouse).

that Finland has bleak demographics is a reality, but I'm not forecasting my country to be an economic juggernaut that will surpass others. So I'm clueless why you are thinking this is a "case of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black". — ssu

You first seemed to suggest that Finland’s demographic outlook is somehow better than China’s, and now you are admitting that it isn’t.

Finland may or may not aim to be an economic juggernaut, but the EU does of which Finland is a member.

If a low birth rate is a problem for China, it is also a problem for the EU and its member-states.

I also suggest you look at your other statement:

This indeed is what the siloviks have and the KGB has said all along. Those evil Westerners!!!

(And people fall for this) — ssu

On your logic, if “siloviki” say that the sky is blue, then it must be wrong and no one must ever repeat that statement.

The reality, of course, is that an EU silovik is not any better than a Russian silovik. Same rhetoric and same propaganda.

You first seemed to suggest that Finland’s demographic outlook is somehow better than China’s — Apollodorus

Nope. That was all your Strawman answer of the month! Please read the comments of others.

My original comment was:

2) Never underestimate the effects of the disastrous "one child"-policy. Having been totally unable to fathom that higher prosperity lowers child birth naturally, the Chinese authorities with this drastic actions have dug a huge hole for themselves as the country will age. This is a severe problem for China. Just look at India: they never had limits to population growth and now it isn't a problem.

No mention of Finland. :wink:

On your logic, if “siloviki” say that the sky is blue, then it must be wrong and no one must ever repeat that statement. — Apollodorus

Saying "Sky is blue" and a hilarious argument that "The root of the current tensions between the West and Russia is EU and NATO expansion aiming to seize control of Russian resources" are really not in the same ballpark.

Reality check: The Warsaw Pact collapsed. The Soviet Union collapsed. The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO. And for an obvious reason, just look at what happened to Ukraine and Georgia. You seem to forget that and go with the idea of Russia being the victim here. And the countries that wanted to join EU or NATO doesn't seem part of the equation for you.

The reality, of course, is that an EU silovik is not any better than a Russian silovik. — Apollodorus

Oh boy. EU siloviki. As if those bureaucrats in Brussels that make the EU are military & intelligence people. :snicker:

My original comment was .... — ssu

It may well have been your original comment.

However, your following comments were exactly as I stated:

1.

Chinese fertility rate at 1,3 and hence EVEN LOWER than in Finland, now at 1,44, — ssu

After which you admitted that Finland isn't any better when I pointed out to you that both China and Finland are well below replacement level:

2.

that Finland has bleak demographics is a reality ... — ssu

As you can see for yourself, that is the chronological order of your two statements. Statement 1 is first in relation to Statement 2.

As for "siloviki", it was your own choice of words!

If you don't like the sound of "EU siloviki" try "EU bureaucrats", "EU apparatchiks" or "EU stooges". It's all the same to me. :grin:

Anyway, if you think that China is the enemy of the West, then I don't think it makes sense to advocate conflict between Russia and the West. It certainly makes no sense to do so just because Finns hate Russians.

The pandemic has already caused a lot of tension in the West and the last thing we need is more division and hatred.

The way I see it, it makes far more sense for Russia and the West to cooperate against China.

What you preposterously call "reality check" is just more anti-Russian propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that it was the West who attacked Russia under Napoleon who wanted a "United States of Europe" ruled by himself. Now it’s his successors, the EU, UK, and US who are starting a war allegedly to “save” Ukraine from Russia but in reality to promote EU and NATO expansion with a view to getting their hands on Russian oil and gas.

Ordinary Westerners have nothing to gain from this. Oil and gas aren’t going to be cheaper. The only winners will be Western oil corporations and arms manufacturers. And China.

If you think about it, if Africa, India, and America don’t want to be ruled by the EU, why should Russia? Expecting Russia to surrender to the EU (and NATO) is just illogical IMO.

It may well have been your original comment. — Apollodorus

Indeed it was. Which you replied as a counterargument about Finland:

Yes. With a a microscopic population of 5.5 million, fertility rate of about 1.37, and average age of 40+, Finns are definitely in the best position to point the finger at China! — Apollodorus

Ooh, the finger waving in just mentioning an issue!!!

If you don't like the sound of "EU siloviki" try "EU bureaucrats", "EU apparatchiks" or "EU stooges". It's all the same to me. :grin: — Apollodorus

I thought so, you don't pick up the nuance. But to understand present Russia, it's important to know just what a "silovik" means:

In the Russian political lexicon, a silovik (Russian: силови́к, IPA: [sʲɪlɐˈvʲik]; plural: siloviki, Russian: силовики́, IPA: [sʲɪləvʲɪˈkʲi], lit. force men) is a politician who came into politics from the security, military, or similar services, often the officers of the former KGB, GRU, FSB, SVR, FSO, the Federal Drug Control Service, or other armed services who came into power. A similar term is "securocrat" (law enforcement and intelligence officer).

Do notice the difference to your usual bureaucrat: Putin's Russia is a very different animal compared to especially to the EU or Western democracies. This is crucial in understanding Russia. In the West, it's perhaps a general doing a table excersize who looks at the possibility of war, yet the actual politicians are in the realm of trade, economic issues, climate change etc. In Russia as the siloviks, the force men in their power ministries look first and foremost every issue from the security/military perspective. Authoritarians need a reason for their "special powers" and for Putin there simply has to be an enemy that is lurking to attack Russia.

Anyway, if you think that China is the enemy of the West, then I don't think it makes sense to advocate conflict between Russia and the West. It certainly makes no sense to do so just because Finns hate Russians. — Apollodorus

Again with your nonsensical and imaginary accusations. I have not said China is the enemy of the West or that Finns hate Russians. This is simply nonsense. That Russians have Putin doesn't make Russians themselves at all bad.

What you preposterously call "reality check" is just more anti-Russian propaganda. — Apollodorus

Just what is propaganda in saying:

1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO.

What is the "anti-Russian propaganda" in that? And Russia has now annexed parts of Ukraine and Georgia, so the incentive to join EU and NATO was obvious. Sorry, but these are simply facts.

Your total inability to understand that the various European countries are independent actors and have their own incentives to join either EU or NATO just shows how willing someone is to assume real propaganda.

If the EU, of all entities, is out there to "get their hands on Russian oil and gas", why did they let then Norway stay out of the union, not to join the EU? It has a lot of oil. Norway had it's talks on joining the EU same time Sweden and Finland had, but opted out. Germany with Helmut Kohl surely wanted all Nordic countries to join the EU. If the EU is conspiring to get oil, why didn't it start with small Norway? Has to be easier than Russia!

(Both in 1972 and in 1994 Norway decided not to join the EU. Pro-EU posters in Norway before the 1994 referendum.)


But the will of these small countries seems not to matter as according to you, it's all a EU / NATO power grab against the Russians. The fault seems by your thinking purely lie in the West.

The fact of the matter is that it was the West who attacked Russia under Napoleon who wanted a "United States of Europe" ruled by himself. Now it’s his successors, the EU, UK, and US who are starting a war — Apollodorus

Now you are forgetting Hitler. First, Napoleon, then Hitler, and Russians aren't going to stand idle for a third invasion. That's the modern Slavophile line which Putin also cherishes. That is the passive-agressive reasoning that the leaders in the Kreml use, yet then go on with annexing parts of Ukraine and Georgia. And of course, it's all because of the evil West with it's sinister intentions!

Now, I'm not at all sure if Putin has any intention to enlargen the war that already he is fighting in Ukraine. Many times the West has been worried about the Zapad excersizes with Belarus. That's why I have said (on a different thread) that this all seems to be sabre rattling. Hopefully things calm down.

Expecting Russia to surrender to the EU (and NATO) is just illogical IMO. — Apollodorus

Again, who is talking about a surrender to EU? This is a totally illogical narrative. If Norway can handle it's own oil wealth how it wants, I'm sure a nuclear armed state can easily hold on to it's natural resources, as it has.

As usual, obvious propaganda, distortion, and disinformation. Posting a few irrelevant pictures might make your argument more “credible” among Finnish school kids, but not in the real world. You are free to think otherwise if it makes you happy, though. :grin:

I for one can see no difference between the propaganda of what you call “Russian siloviki” and the propaganda of EU activists and agitators. But if you insist on “nuance”, the fact that the latter seem to be even more blinded by fanaticism than the former comes to mind.

Anyway, my original statement was this:

The head of British intelligence MI6 has said that China is now the biggest external threat on account of its aggressive foreign policy including espionage and economic activities

The head of MI6 does not normally make public statements of the sort (or of any sort). The statement is highly unusual and it makes two main points that I think are relevant to the OP and to my other comment.

First, it says that China is the “single greatest priority”. Second, it says "We're not trying to encircle Russia, we're not trying to prevent it from pursuing its legitimate interest." But that’s exactly what EU and NATO expansion is doing. And yet MI6 says that Russia is an “acute threat” to the UK!

Moreover, the MI6 statement was made at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and at the same time foreign secretary Liz Truss attended a NATO meeting in Latvia where she said that “we will stand with our fellow democracies against Russia’s malign activity”.

Latvia is right on Russia’s border, along with Belarus and Ukraine that the West would like to see incorporated into the EU and NATO.

MI6 a.k.a. SIS, of course, is the same outfit that in 2003 fabricated “evidence” purporting to show "beyond reasonable doubt" that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” that could reach London within 45 minutes, as an excuse for the West to invade Iraq and seize its oil fields.

Fortunately, we now know better as the British government’s own Iraq Inquiry found that it was all a pack of lies:

Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance – BBC News

Another example is the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 on the pretext that the Serbs were perpetrating “genocide” on the Albanians of Kosovo. In reality, there was no genocide. The Albanians had fled over the border to Albania and returned safely when the armed conflict ended.

The standard excuse used by the West to bomb or invade any country at will seems to be “weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)”, “attacks on civilians”, “actions that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity”, “genocide”, etc., often on very flimsy evidence and sometimes, as you can see for yourself, on evidence that is utterly false.

In the same vein, you conveniently forget that it isn’t Russia that is encircling NATO but NATO encircling Russia.

It isn’t Russia that is expanding but NATO and the EU.

Russia is reacting the same way America would react if Mexico and Canada were to enter into a military alliance with Russia, China, or any other rival power.

The fact is that Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia have very close historical, cultural and linguistic ties, all of them being linked with the Kievan Rus:

Kievan Rus’ - Wikipedia

The disputed areas in Ukraine like Crimea have Russian-majority populations. So it isn’t as if the Russians are invading England or France for those countries to feel threatened by Russia. And it's got absolutely nothing to do with America.

If Ukraine has a right to be independent from Russia, then Russian-inhabited parts of Ukraine have the right to be independent from Ukraine.

And yes, it was Napoleon who came up with the idea of a “United States of Europe” and who, as is well known, invaded and tried to conquer Russia, not the other way round.

The West’s plan to create a “United States of Europe” and incorporate Russia into it has a long history.

Even communism - which supported the idea of a “United States of Europe” - was introduced into Russia from the West.

But it takes EU-activists from Finland to deny established historical fact. In the final analysis, there is not one jot of objectivity in what you are saying.

You didn't answer anything when I asked earlier.

Again, just what is propaganda in saying:

1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO.

Nope, you went on from EU to M16 (which is now an intelligence service of a country not even part of the EU) to Saddam Hussein, bombing of Serbia, and even to the Kievan Rus!

Wow. :grin:

At least later, you do come to the actual subject.

In the same vein, you conveniently forget that it isn’t Russia that is encircling NATO but NATO encircling Russia.

It isn’t Russia that is expanding but NATO and the EU.

Russia is reacting the same way America would react if Mexico and Canada were to enter into a military alliance with Russia, China, or any other rival power. — Apollodorus

And here's perfectly shown just how you think.

What Mexico or Canada think doesn't matter. Not to you. Seems you are totally incapable of understanding that there is a difference of voluntary membership and straight forward occupation. Because in truth neither countries (Mexico and Canada) are really worried about the US invading them now. Wars between these countries happened in the 19th Century with an addition of one punitive raid into Mexico during the Civil War. Not like the US had been occupying them in the 20th Century.

Hence you conveniently forget totally all the reasons just why countries close to Russia would feel threatened by it. Again, the annexations of parts of Georgia and Ukraine seem not to matter to you. They have been the reasons for the change. In truth the EU and the West would have been all too happy to have good relations with Russia. Of course, you don't remember the Obama administration trying to "reset" the relations after the Russo-Georgian war.

The above issue simply cannot be understated enough. EU membership is voluntary. European countries like Norway and Switzerland have opted out of it, and the UK had it's Brexit. So is NATO. Warsaw Pact membership wasn't voluntary. Only Yugoslavia and Albania stayed out of it as simply the Red Army didn't occupy the countries.

If you want those kind of examples of the US/West forcing states to be their allies, then it would be present-day Iraq and the former administration of Afghanistan, that were put by force by the US into power. That surely was not voluntary membership.

Well, Afghanistan collapsed in a spectacular rapid fashion and Iraq has very cool and strained relations with the US. And if you would remember, even if the US did assist in the opposition overthrowing the Super-Serb Slobodan Milosevic, then Serbia didn't become an ally of the US, but now has close ties with Russia. Might have been that bombing of Serbia that made them not to be so hot about the West. But how smaller countries behave doesn't matter to you, there are only the pawns of the Great Powers it seems for you. Not independent actors, oh no!

What also has to be said is that in truth people would be OK with Russia putting down a Chechen independence movement, because they do know that there is a reason why there is Westphalian Sovereingty. But with sovereign countries, it's a bit different.

The disputed areas in Ukraine like Crimea have Russian-majority populations. So it isn’t as if the Russians are invading England or France for those countries to feel threatened by Russia. And it's got absolutely nothing to do with America. — Apollodorus

And there you have it. It's OK to annex parts of other sovereign countries because they have Russian minorities. Plain and simple from you, @Apollodorus. (And btw, I don't think that England of France feel threatened from a Russian invasion. Plenty of country between them and Russia.)

And there you have it. It's OK to annex parts of other sovereign countries because they have Russian minorities. — ssu

As I said, more obvious disinformation, distortion, and black propaganda. And straw men!

The FACT is, I never said it was OK. What I said is that it doesn’t threaten England, France, or America for them to attack Russia.

That England feels threatened by Russia was not my idea, either. It was what the British intelligence statement said which I quoted!

And what you are trying to cover up is that Turkey, which is a NATO member, has invaded and occupied Cyprus, and no one does or says anything about it!

Why is it OK for NATO members like Turkey but not for Russia? I bet you can’t answer even a simple question like that.

I think these are glaring double standards and complete lack of objectivity and impartiality on your part.

The fact is that I am neither Russian nor Finnish. So frankly, I think there is a greater chance of me being objective than you.

As a general rule, when analyzing a problem, it is common practice to start from objective observations.

In contrast, you are starting from political ideology and propaganda, as we’ve seen from previous discussions. It’s a well-known fact that pictures are a prime tool of propaganda and agitation, that’s why you keep posting them instead of proper rational and fact-based arguments.

This EU of yours seems to be like a religion (or given the circumstances, like a death cult), and anyone who disagrees with it is “evil” or, perhaps even worse than evil, “a Russian silovik”!

As I have pointed out to you before, there are a number of serious problems with the EU. For starters, the EU is in demographic and cultural decline. An association of countries whose fertility rate has dropped from far above replacement level to well below that level within a few decades, cannot be deemed “successful”, given that the existing trend leads to population decline and, eventually, to population extinction.

According to the European Commission, on the current trend, Europe’s population will rapidly age and decline.

Without migration the current EU population of nearly 504 million will shrink to 492 million in 2030 and 467 million in 2045. The declining number of young people and increasing longevity will also mean that society will 'age' rapidly. Today there is roughly one person over 65 for every four people of working age; in 2050, there will be one for every two.

The fact is that Europe’s fertility rate has fallen from 2.5 children per woman in the 1950’s to currently about 1.6:

The numbers of children being born has fallen from an EU-28 average of around 2.5 children per woman in 1960, to a little under 1.6 today. This is far below the 2.1 births per woman considered necessary in developed countries to maintain the population in the long term

Demographic Outlook for the European Union 2019 – European Parliament

Total fertility rate in Europe from 1950 to 2021 - Statista

Once a population has peaked, it will rapidly decline and reach a point of no return (or “fertility trap”) that can only culminate in extinction or near-extinction within a matter of decades.

Obviously, there are differences from member state to member state. Some, like France and England, will probably take longer to decline. For others, e.g. in Eastern Europe, long-term extinction is pretty much guaranteed.

Romania’s population, for example, has fallen from 23 million in the late 1980’s to currently 19 million, with a fertility rate of 1.59.

These countries also have a high emigration rate which (1) accelerates the population decline and (2) shows that their situation has not improved as a result of EU membership.

Between 2009 and 2018, more than a fourth (26 percent) of Romanians living in Romania expressed a desire to permanently settle abroad if they had the opportunity. This is one of the highest percentages in the region, exceeded only by Moldova.
The desire to emigrate is especially high for young Romanians, with nearly half of people aged 15-24 saying they intended to leave the country

Romania’s emigrant population is the fifth largest in the world and growing, OECD report finds – Business Review

Large European countries like Germany, France, and England, have been able to maintain their population levels only through mass immigration from other parts of Europe and from around the world.

In 2015, Germany recorded 2.137 million immigrants arriving in the country, many of them from the Mid East, and about 1 million Germans leaving.

China is projected to decline rapidly from currently 1.4 billion but it will still have a population of about 800 million in 2100 which is sufficient to dominate the West for the rest of the century.

Future population projections by country, 1970 to 2100 – Our World in Data

The EU also has a high unemployment rate (6.7%) compared to America (4.2%) and Russia (4.3%). In some European countries unemployment is very high, e.g. France (8.1%) Italy (9.4%), Greece (13%) and Spain (14.5%).

The EU is increasingly dependent on China and other anti-European and anti-Western dictatorships like Turkey.

There is a growing trend in Europe for people to be more concerned with “saving the environment” than with saving themselves. Which rather shows that they are out of touch with reality.

In sum, Europe is a bit of a joke, really. Not an example to emulate, but to avoid at all costs. I think Biden is making a big mistake if he gangs up with Europe against Russia instead on focusing on China.

So, as far as I am concerned, you can keep your propaganda to yourself. :smile:

As I said, more obvious disinformation, distortion, and black propaganda. And straw men! — Apollodorus

I've asked you now many times just what was false or propaganda in the statement I made.
So I gather that you think that stating the following:

1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO. — ssu

...Is disinformation, anti-Russian propaganda, distortion.

As a general rule, when analyzing a problem, it is common practice to start from objective observations. — Apollodorus

Try sometimes that! It's healthy.

But I guess the West trying to do everything to get Russia's natural resources is the conspiracy theory you cherish so much it's needless to continue. Anything contrary or even just another point of view to this I guess is "anti-Russian propaganda".

And what you are trying to cover up is that Turkey, which is a NATO member, has invaded and occupied Cyprus, and no one does or says anything about it!

Why is it OK for NATO members like Turkey but not for Russia? I bet you can’t answer even a simple question like that. — Apollodorus

Ok, how for an OBJECTIVE ANSWER starting like with the fact that we have not discussed Turkey and Cyprus!

But going for those strawmen as you do, you are already saying that I'm trying to cover up that. Guess by that thinking, there's a lot of history I'm "trying to cover up", because we haven't discussed all history.

Let's start from the actual facts, that you find so annoying. Turkey did not actually annex Northern Cyprus as Russia did with Crimea and South Ossetia, just as the rest of Cyprus isn't part of Greece. But let's look at the situation more (before you accuse me of something and not bother to read more...)

The simple fact is that Cyprus conflict is obviously a conflict involving two NATO countries, or should we say three (as the UK still has bases in Cyprus and has been involved in this mess from the start). That isn't a thing that NATO's article 5 was there to deal with in the first place. I would say the real reason for the problems in Cyprus is thanks to the British (again, no surprise there). So when the Greek junta gave the go ahead for the 1974 Cypriot coup d'état (which the UN saw as illegal), Turkey saw that the Treaty of Guarantee between Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom was broken. The rest is history. The US of course tried to mediate the issue. (I wonder where else has there been a British protectorate where thanks partly to the Brits two ethnic groups have started a conflict at each other and then neighboring countries have tried to fill the vacuum when the British have left? :wink: )

More likely the fact has been that because the two countries, Greece and Turkey, have been in NATO, they didn't continue from where they left it in 1922 now with the island of Cyprus.

Needless to say that this isn't the only occasion that US allies have nearly gone to war at each other. The GCC members ought to be allies with the US and with each other (yet it nearly came down to a military conflict). Even Iceland and the UK had their feud about fishing rights with the Cod Wars.

And demographics?

(Hmm... do you know something about Russian demographics? I guess I shouldn't go there with you.)

Varoufakis summed up the situation nicely:



How China saved Capitalism. This thread plays into a feint by the US at taking control of Chinese finance and technical innovation. It won't work, and it is dangerous.

Be afraid. It's what your masters want. It keeps you malleable.

So I gather that you think that stating the following ... Is disinformation, anti-Russian propaganda, distortion. — ssu

Absolutely. It’s a well-known fact that propaganda consists of a mixture of truth and falsehood.

The fact that you got one sentence right does NOT mean that the whole text or narrative is right!

As for distortion, I have just demonstrated that you are deliberately distorting my statements in the first place, so I don’t need to repeat myself.

I can understand that you have this fixation with Russia. Being from Finland, you probably feel that the EU has somehow “saved” you from the “evil” Russians, or whatever.

However, as we have seen, the EU hasn’t really saved you, as demographic projections indicate that soon you will be extinct or close to extinction.

In any case, it doesn’t validate your arguments, which was the point I was making.

In fact, they are not even arguments. They are just rhetorical questions and straw men.

To say that “Russian siloviki say so”, is NOT an argument. As I already explained to you, the fact that Russian “siloviki” or Russians in general say something, does not mean that it isn’t true. There is no logical connection between one thing and the other.

Here is your “logic”:

A. Someone makes Statement “S”.
B. But that’s what Russian siloviki say.
C. Therefore, “S” cannot be true.

You may not realize this, but the conclusion C does not follow from the premises A and B.

The same applies to Cyprus. I knew you would be unable to give an honest answer to a simple question, and you proved me right by resorting to more illogical statements.

To claim that if Turkey invades and occupies Cyprus without annexing it, is OK but that if Russia invades, occupies, and annexes Crimea, it is not OK is just too preposterous even for EU-activists like yourself.

By your logic, if Sweden invaded and occupied Finland without annexing it, that would be a legitimate operation!

In historical terms, the plain truth is that compared to other European powers like England and France, Russia has been remarkably non-aggressive. Unlike England, France, or Spain, Russia has never had a world empire built by African slaves.

Russia became mildly aggressive only after being attacked by the West, used by England and France to fight their wars on rival powers, and converted to communism by the West.

This is why I pointed out to you that it was Napoleon who invaded Russia and that the “United States of Europe” was Napoleon’s idea that was carried on by the founders of the EU who actually called their project “United States of Europe”.

The “Father of the EU” Jean Monnet set up the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE) to realize his project:

The role of the Action Committee for the United States of Europe – University of Luxembourg

As I pointed out to you, the EU actually aimed to incorporate Russia into its union in the 1990’s.

A first step in this direction was the 1997 EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), that included financial, economic, and cultural cooperation as well as political dialogue, and expressly aimed to “provide an appropriate framework for the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe”.

A Partnership is hereby established between the Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Russia, of the other part. The objectives of this Partnership are:
….
To provide an appropriate framework for the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe

Full text here:

EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, Document 21997A1128(01) - EURLex

Putin stopped that just in time, otherwise Russia would be now taking orders from Brussels, like you do.

All facts considered, it is the EU (and NATO) that are expanding, not Russia.

Your reply is that “this is what Russians say”. This is your standard method (or tactic) of argumentation. You are dismissing and trying to sweep under the carpet any fact that is inconvenient to your political agenda.

Incidentally, according to the UN, Finns are the “happiest nation in the world”. Presumably, awareness of the fact that you are heading for extinction is one of the causes. Or perhaps it’s a case of “ignorance is bliss”?

In any case, if believing your own propaganda makes you happy, feel free to talk to yourself. I don’t want to hold you back.

Oh, and don’t forget to post some more pictures to “prove” that your propaganda is true. Reindeer and Santa Claus would be just perfect …. :rofl:

Absolutely. It’s a well-known fact that propaganda consists of a mixture of truth and falsehood. — Apollodorus

So, for you the statements

1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO.[/quote]

is "well-known fact that propaganda consists of a mixture of truth and falsehood". Again wow. Wonder where you see the propaganda, but oh well.

To claim that if Turkey invades and occupies Cyprus without annexing it, is OK but that if Russia invades, occupies, and annexes Crimea, it is not OK is just too preposterous even for EU-activists like yourself. — Apollodorus

And here again it's seen how utterly incapable you are noticing the actual answer given, which was that it was three NATO members entangled in this issue (Cyprus) and hence obviously NATO is not for this (internal squabbles) and the US will likely try to mediate and not pick sides. That with Ukraine there was the OSCE Bupadest Memorandum on Security Assurances, that obviously one side broke it as Ukraine's political collapse made an opening for annexation would be rather different. doesn't I guess for you matter at all. As I should have predicted, you either don't understand that, or simply aren't even remotely bothered to actually to respond to. Hardly worth wile to make real arguments when the other simply doesn't read them.

So it's meaningless to continue with this babble as you are utterly incapable of anything else than changing the subject and make baseless accusations without even the remotest effort to try to show just where the other one is wrong. Or so desperate to win this argument. It's just shows that those crying the loudest of propaganda are themselves usually the victims of propaganda.

Oh, and don’t forget to post some more pictures to “prove” that your propaganda is true. Reindeer and Santa Claus would be just perfect …. :rofl: — Apollodorus

And Merry Christmas to you too. :sparkle:

I'm not "changing the subject" at all. It's a complex issue and you seem to be confused. So I’ll explain it to you one last time.

My actual position is pro-Western and pro-European.

Turkey is anti-European and anti-Western, and Europe's enemy No 1.

Therefore I am against Turkey.

Russia is a close ally of Turkey and, in that sense, anti-European and anti-Western.

So you can see for yourself that I cannot possibly be “pro-Russian”.

However, I am qualifying the above with the following caveats:

1. Russia is siding with Turkey (and with other dictatorships) because of the pressure Europe and the West are putting on it.

2. In terms of the wider geopolitical competition between the West and China, I think the logical thing to do would be for the West and Russia to bury their differences, at least for the time being, and form a united front against China (which, by the way, need not lead to military conflict).

So you are totally misconstruing my position.

Anyway, your own Prime Minister has just publicly apologized for her “lack of judgement”. This suggests to me, as it should suggest to you, that your blind belief in your leaders might be less justified than you think.

If we look at some EU statistics, we find some interesting facts:

Only 56% of EU citizens (and 49% of Finns) identify with being European.

Up to 28% do not identify with being European at all.

The rest are noncommittal.

Even more interesting is the following finding:

Across Europe, most politicians have long been treated with suspicion. According to Eurobarometer polling, the percentage of EU citizens who say they trust their national government and parliament has been trending upwards in recent years, but has nevertheless spent most of the 2010s below 30%.

Do you trust politicians? - Debating Europe

And this:

EU values respond less to the values of conservation (preserving group cohesion, order and security) and self-enhancement (seeking pleasure, wealth and esteem), which are also important to many citizens. To avoid further polarisation, EU policymaking could reflect more on these values as well.

The Joint Research Centre’s new report calls for the systematic consideration of values and identities in EU policymaking - EU Science Hub

Record 60% of Europeans ‘tend not to trust’ EU – Euractiv

So the European Commission’s own data show that:

1. A large percentage of EU citizens do not identify with being European.

2. An even larger percentage do not trust their political leaders.

3. There is a discrepancy between official EU values and the values held by the people.

This means that (a) there are legitimate reasons to be critical of the EU and (b) not every EU critic is a “Russian silovik”.

In any case, what you are presenting there is an obviously false narrative. This is not necessarily your fault. You may have been indoctrinated to hold those beliefs. Your fault lies in being unwilling to critically examine your beliefs.

As regards NATO, the fact remains that NATO was created by England and America as an explicitly anti-Russian, Atlanticist organization intended to represent Atlanticist interests. That’s why it’s called “NATO” (“North Atlantic Treaty Organization”) which refers to the North Atlantic countries England, Canada, and America.

Atlanticism was a joint project of England, Canada, and America designed to represent oil interests. The Atlanticist Movement was headed by Paul Cravath who was an employee of Standard Oil subsidiary Globe Oil.

Following World War I, New York lawyer Paul D. Cravath was a noted leader in establishing Atlanticism in the United States. Cravath had become devoted to international affairs during the war, and was later a co-founder and director of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Atlanticism manifested itself most strongly during the Second World War and in its aftermath, the Cold War, through the establishment of various euro-Atlantic institutions, most importantly NATO and the Marshall Plan.

Atlanticism - Wikipedia

This is not Russian or “silovik” propaganda. It is generally accepted fact as shown by Wikipedia articles and other mainstream sources on the subject.

From the very start, NATO represented Western, especially Anglo-American, oil interests. And its purpose, as stated by its first secretary-general, Lord Ismay, was to “keep the Americans in and the Russians out”.

It is beyond dispute that in geopolitical terms, there is growing competition between the Russian and Euro-Atlantic spheres of influence. This is precisely why NATO and the EU are expanding, to expand Euro-Atlantic (or EU-UK-US) influence!!!

As already stated, it all began with Napoleon, a delusional man who imagined that he could rule the world and who murdered millions of people in pursuit of his megalomaniac ambitions. His “United States of Europe” plan backfired, France lost, becoming a second-rate power, and England and Germany took over.

Next, England and France used Russia to get rid of Germany but they lost their own empires.

They are now getting kicked out of Africa because of their colonial past and Russia is moving in. This is the true reason why they are ganging up on Russia.

England and France have been predatory entities for centuries. It is absurd to claim that they wouldn’t like to get their hands on Russian oil and gas if they had the chance.

The idea is that if they dismantle Russia piece by piece and seize its resources, then they will no longer need Africa which is turning against the West and toward the East.

However, if Russia falls, China will likely become the next superpower. So I think the plan is going to backfire for Europe and for the West in general.

But the main problem is Biden. He is an old man with health problems. He is also a vindictive man who would love to see Russia being “punished” for allegedly siding with Trump. If he allows himself to be pushed by Europe and other vested interests (military industrial complex, etc.) into waging war on Russia, I don’t think it is going to end well for the world in the long term. And that includes Finland – or what’s left of it.

But, as I said, if you prefer to take a blinkered, frog-in-the-well approach to geopolitical issues, that’s your choice and your problem.

Merry Christmas & regards to Sanna and to Joulupukki! :wink:

Turkey is anti-European and anti-Western, and Europe's enemy No 1.

Therefore I am against Turkey. — Apollodorus

Why start with portraying countries as enemy No 1? It's been a long time since the Ottomans were trying to take Vienna. And do remember that they do have their history of Western aggression and the West wanting to divide into colonies the whole of their country. The whole westernization of the Atatürk era was first and foremost done to make the country strong enough to defend the country from outside aggression and not be "the sick man of Europe".

I don't view Russia as the enemy. Russia under Putin simply has a very aggressive stance in the defence of it's "near abroad". In truth likely a less aggressive stance would have in the long run been better, just as it played out in Central Asia. Russia patiently waited for the US simply to leave...and it did so. No US bases in Central Asian countries anymore. And the countries are in good relations with Russia, because it hasn't done any annexations there.

Let's not forget that both Russia (and Turkey as the Ottoman Empire) were Empires that collapsed. Nobody really wants these empires back, just as there's no intention of getting back the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Soviet Union just gave time for the Russian Empire to continue, but still, the empire was an assortment of very different people. You have to be a political Houdini to get people that speak different languages, are from different religions and have different cultures to somehow belong to one nation. Or in other words, the Russification of the Empire failed. Russia had that problem (and earlier the Ottomans). Yet when you start from the view that as there was this Empire, Russia has special privileges over former parts of the empire, you obviously end up in conflict. Yet the idea that you indeed have this "sphere of influence" is the imperialist cause you are holding onto. And basically you are accepting this imperialist view that some nations have "spheres of influence" over others.

This means that (a) there are legitimate reasons to be critical of the EU and (b) not every EU critic is a “Russian silovik”. — Apollodorus

Well, I view myself as an EU critic as I think it is absolutely detrimental and damaging that EU leaders are trying to make EU a US-style federation. It simply won't work. They should be happy with basically a loose confederation that they have now.

From the very start, NATO represented Western oil interests. And its purpose, as stated by its first secretary-general, Lord Ismay, was to “keep the Americans in and the Russians out”. — Apollodorus

There's actually a lot more interests than just oil. This is too simplistic.

England and France have been predatory entities for centuries. It is absurd to claim that they wouldn’t like to get their hands on Russian oil and gas if they had the chance. — Apollodorus

Yet do notice the limits. You really have to be a very vulnerable, poor country basically incapable of performing the most basic task of a sovereign state and YES, then Great Powers like France or England will be all over you like vultures. But again, remember Norway.

As I said, Russia with it's nuclear arsenal is quite capable of stopping Western influence over it's own resources.

Next, England and France used Russia to get rid of Germany but they lost their own empires.

They are now getting kicked out of Africa because of their colonial past and Russia is moving in. This is the true reason why they are ganging up on Russia. — Apollodorus

Now this is way far fetched. First of all, the Soviet Union had far more influence in Africa than Russia ever has now. Russia has only so many resources, so they pick their allies. So I don't buy this argument of Russia "moving in" to Africa. Syria is one and in Africa it's basically Algeria and some parts, but there isn't a large presence of Russian forces in Africa. The one country that has a large footprint in Africa is France as it basically never left it colonies, actually. With the exception of Algeria, of course.

Why start with portraying countries as enemy No 1? — ssu

Not “portraying”, identifying.

It’s just common sense. That’s what everyone does in the real world. It’s called situational awareness.

England and France have identified Germany and Russia as their enemies and are using America to keep those countries down. That’s the principle on which NATO itself operates. As stated by its own founders, the idea behind NATO was to “keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down”.

And yes, it wasn’t just Atlanticism that was initiated by oil (and banking) interests, but NATO itself.

It is a well-known fact that the US administration in the 1940’s and 50’s was dominated by oil and associated interests (banking and business). Here are some examples:

Grenville Clark, founder of Wall Street law firm Root & Clark, Standard Oil representatives, confidential counsel to Secretary of War Stimson.

Felix Frankfurter, co-founder and partner, Root & Clark, presidential adviser to F. D. Roosevelt.

Henry L. Stimson, partner, Root & Clark, Secretary of War.

Robert P. Patterson, partner, law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, Under Secretary, later Secretary of War.

John J. McCloy, associate, Cravath, Henderson, & de Gersdorff, later Milbank, Tweed & Hope, Rockefeller lawyers, Assistant Secretary of War, President of the World Bank, US High Commissioner for Occupied Germany.

James V. Forestall, Dillon, Read & Co., stoke brokers with close links to the petroleum industry and acting for the Rockefellers, Secretary of the Navy and the first Secretary of Defence.

In 1940, Clark and Frankfurter advised F. D. Roosevelt to hire Stimson as Secretary of War.

Stimson hired friends and associates like McCloy, Patterson, Robert A. Lovett (partner, Brown Brothers Harriman), Harvey H. Bundy (partner, Putnam, Putnam & Bell), and others.

Forestall recruited his own team of Dillon, Read colleagues and associates.

Also in 1940, Roosevelt appointed Nelson Rockefeller Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and later Assistant Secretary of State for American Republic Affairs.

In 1941, Roosevelt introduced the idea of “Four Policemen or Sheriffs” (America, England, China, Russia) to police the world.

In 1945, at the instigation of the US Administration, the Four Powers convened the UN Conference on International Organization in San Francisco.

The Conference was dominated by the US State Department, with Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., the Chairman of the US Delegation, also chairing the Steering and Executive Committees of the Conference.

In turn, Stettinius was advised by Nelson Rockefeller and Rockefeller men with connections to the Rockefellers’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Rockefeller-associated intelligence community, like Dean G. Acheson (Stimson’s protégé and director of the Reckefellers’ CFR), John Foster Dulles (brother of Central Intelligence director Allen Dulles), and Charles Yost (who had been on the Board of Economic Warfare).

At the Conference, Rockefeller demanded that that there should be a strong system of Western Hemisphere defense, and recommended the formation of regional pacts for the purpose. The result was the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (RIO Pact), established in 1947, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), established in 1949, and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), established in 1954.

Acheson was the main architect of NATO and signed the treaty for America. Later that year, during a meeting of the Allied Occupation Powers in West Germany, he put a gun to French foreign minister Schuman’s head, ordering him to form a United States of Europe with Germany (the European Coal and Steel Community that formed the core of the EU), and was involved in the creation of the West German government together with McCloy and other Rockefeller operatives.

So there is no doubt that representatives and associates of oil interests not only ran the War Department all through the war, but also became the key architects of American national security policy after the war. They were the managers and technicians of that policy and they built the structures through which that policy was implemented, the intellectual concepts, the rhetoric, the alliances, the military and intelligence networks, etc. And this, of course, includes NATO.

Incidentally, in 1952 President-Elect Eisenhower asked Rockefeller to chair the Advisory Committee on Government Organization to recommend ways of improving efficiency and effectiveness of the executive branch of the federal government. Rockefeller recommended thirteen reorganization plans, especially in the Department of Defense and Office of Defense Mobilization, all of which were implemented.

Nelson A. Rockefeller - Rockefeller Archive Center

The United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco, California, April 25–June 26, 1945 – Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)

Minutes of the Third Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments (Part I), Held at San Francisco, Saturday, May 12, 1945 - FRUS

Together with RIO and SEATO, NATO enabled America, England, and France to intervene anywhere in the world to advance their political and economic interests by military means.

The other facts are as follows:

1. Finland is getting loans from EIB (European Investment Bank) and other forms of financial assistance from the EU. So this would be one good reason for Finns to uncritically follow the EU’s anti-Russian (and pro-China) stance.
2. Finland is located on the outskirts of Europe and has little contact with, or knowledge of, the rest of the continent.
3. Turkey is a neo-fascist dictatorship responsible for invading and occupying other countries’ territory (Cyprus, Syria, Iraq) in addition to fostering violence against ethnic and religious minorities, suppressing women, sponsoring terror organizations like Hamas, etc.

No one invaded the Turks. It was the Seljuk Turks who came from Central Asia to invade Iran, Iraq, and most of the Mid East, after which they invaded Anatolia which was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and other local populations:

From their homelands near the Aral Sea, the Seljuks advanced first into Khorasan and then into mainland Persia, before eventually conquering Baghdad and eastern Anatolia. The Seljuks won the battle of Manzikert in 1071, and then conquered most of the rest of Anatolia, wresting it from the Byzantine Empire.

Seljuk Empire – Wikipedia

And don’t forget the genocides perpetrated by Turks on Armenians and Greeks. If your idea of history is to deny and distort historical facts, don’t expect to be taken seriously.

Anyway, given that Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus, and China invaded, occupied, and annexed Tibet with impunity, it doesn’t make sense to call for war on Russia for annexing Crimea.

Clearly, there is a conflict of interests between the Russian and Euro-Atlantic spheres of influence, and the West is seeking to end this conflict by military means. This is why NATO has been constantly expanding and encircling Russia, having incorporated 14 new countries since the end of the Cold War.

This is why to claim that Russia is “threatening the West” is pure black propaganda motivated by economic interests, i.e. greed, and exposes the ugly face of out-of-control monopolistic capitalism.

What countries joining the EU and NATO don’t realize until years later (when it is too late), is that they are being made economically and politically dependent on the interests behind these organizations.

All this sabre rattling against Russia is motivated by oil and military-industrial interests, and is pushing Russia closer to China and India, exactly as I said. And this can only be to the detriment of the West.

Putin and Xi to discuss 'aggressive' talk from U.S. and NATO - Reuters

Russia's Rosneft and Indian Oil sign 2022 crude supply deal – Reuters

IMO it makes much more sense for the West and Russia to be allies instead of enemies.

Not “portraying”, identifying.

It’s just common sense. That’s what everyone does in the real world. It’s called situational awareness. — Apollodorus

So... when it comes to Russia, it's all a hoax, anti-Russian or russophobe propaganda, Russia is the one under attack, but with Turkey, it's the real enemy! And that's just common sense according to you. :roll:

Well, I would leaving calling any country an enemy only to when you are in a real war with the country. Otherwise depicting other people and countries as enemies or "anti-European and anti-Western, and Europe's enemy No 1." is counterproductive. Such cries will only make Turks afraid of the "evil West". The time when Islam was a real threat to "the West" is the time of Charles Martell and perhaps the early stages of the Ottoman Empire. Not now when Turkey is facing extremely diffucult economic times. An immigration as the fifth column? Humbug.

IMO it makes much more sense for the West and Russia to be allies instead of enemies. — Apollodorus

Never understate the distrust of the West that the Russian present day "slavophiles" have. Likely those who in the West promote ideas like these are viewed as "useful idiots".

Basically after the Kosovo War that alliance would be one hard issue. And after the annexations of Crimea and South Ossetia, even harder. Of course, Putin might be deposed, but I don't think any opposition leader that could get into the Kremlin will hardly run to the West. The window of opportunity for real alliance with the West was just after the Soviet Union collapsed. But then two things happened: 1) the haughty West thought Russia was finished and 2) a KGB-colonel and FSB director came into power in Russia. That Russia was accepted (for some time) in the G7 countries making it the G8 and Russia having ties to NATO happened briefly then.

One simply would have to had greater than life politicians both in the West and in Russia to make the great alliance between the US and Russia. Of course, the US having Russia as it's closest ally would make anyone scared shitless of this juggernaut. For "the War on Terror" Russia would have been the perfect ally that the US would want. An ability to take losses, a large intelligence service, capability to project power to other continents would be what the US would want... if the ally would see eye to eye US objectives. Yet that would have taken a larger than life Russian politician to make the country accept it's role as the new "UK" and not anymore a superpower, but just a great power like France and UK (perhaps combined).

It's really a thing for alternate history now.

I'm sorry to everyone that has posted and I haven't gotten to reply to yet. I have been dealing with a UTI infection and because of it haven't been feeling all that well. I will try to look at and read the posts submitted and reply in a timely manner.

The "had to" is debatable. We have to in order to prop up a manufacturing sector with inefficient contracts because our consumer goods corporations went overseas to increase their profits. We have 11 aircraft carriers and twice the deck space of the world combined. I think the Chinese government is more concerned with their government not being undermined by appearing weak. Trying to get 1.4 billion people operating under a system that is not tailored to competitive interests is a contest against human nature. — Cheshire

I think I more or less agree with your statement. When one is a superpower it is almost always a hard time to keep one's manufacturing sector, infrastructure, social programs, etc. as good as other developed countries who DON'T have to spend as much as you do on your military. A good example of this is pre-WWII Britain who was constantly having to deal with the issue of having the strongest navy and yet overtax or underspend on other sectors while doing so. I think the problem kind of boils down to is in the short term it is easier to spend on the military then the private sector or at least until everything starts falling apart like it did in Russia at the end of the Cold War.

I don't know if it is true or not but I have been watching some video's and reading some articles about China considering using bio-weapons (ak. the "B" part of NBC weapons that i talked about in an earlier post). Some people even believe that the whole Cov-Id outbreak was because of "accident" at on of Chinese labs where they where experimenting on the SAR virus. I know that any talk about China trying to weaponize viruses and other biological measures is hearsay without more evidence, but it should be noted that it isn't that far from fantasy since it should be noted that Japan during WWII was more or less trying to do the same thing but at the time medical technology was too primitive to allow them to target specific ethnic groups.

it should be noted that Japan during WWII was more or less trying to do the same thing but at the time medical technology was too primitive to allow them to target specific ethnic groups. — dclements

Yes. Japan used biological weapons against Chinese during the war with the infamous unit 731. And killed Japanese soldiers also, but that naturally happens when you do something as stupid as use biological weapons.

Estimates of those who were killed by Unit 731 and its related programs range up to half a million people.

From this we come to the reason just why in the first place Russia, US and China (and others) have had bioweapon-programs: first and foremost to anticipate what the possible enemy can do. It's a devilish way how to justify one's own research something that is as a weapon utterly crazy.

So with the Youtube-video I would be extremely cautious or sceptical. It argues that the Chinese trying to make "racial targetting" bioweapons. This guy is a China-commentator and even if he has made some nice videos about ordinary life in China, but here he is talking about things where he obviously is a layman. But if you find other credible sources saying similar, I can change my mind. The conspiracy theory of COVID being a bioweapon put out there by China is so bizarre that likely it's used to discredit any talk of the lab leak hypothesis, which is a genuine possibility.

I remember there were earlier allegations made that South Africa was developing such "race-targetting" bioweapons. Well, the Apartheid-era South African "Project Coast" is now over and quite much literature is there about it and what little I have glossed over doesn't tell of anything as crazy as this. Blacks were targeted or planned to be targeted, but with bioweapons that would harm whites too.

So with the Youtube-video I would be extremely cautious or sceptical. It argues that the Chinese trying to make "racial targetting" bioweapons. This guy is a China-commentator and even if he has made some nice videos about ordinary life in China, but here he is talking about things where he obviously is a layman. But if you find other credible sources saying similar, I can change my mind. The conspiracy theory of COVID being a bioweapon put out there by China is so bizarre that likely it's used to discredit any talk of the lab leak hypothesis, which is a genuine possibility.

I remember there were earlier allegations made that South Africa was developing such "race-targetting" bioweapons. Well, the Apartheid-era South African "Project Coast" is now over and quite much literature is there about it and what little I have glossed over doesn't tell of anything as crazy as this. Blacks were targeted or planned to be targeted, but with bioweapons that would harm whites too. — ssu

To be honest, I can't find any reliable source that says they know about any bio-weapons or programs working on such that are designed to target any specific race. That shouldn't be too much of a surprise since such weapons and programs would be classified as the highest of state secrets and since China is almost a police state in and of itself it would be hard for anyone outside of the US or some other countries spy agency to be able to access such information. so public knowledge of such is not likely.

However, it should be noted that one doesn't really need to even develop such a weapon to have such much of the desired effect since if a country that develops a virus has either a vaccine and/or other measures in place that can lessen the effect before a virus was released, they could minimize the harm in their own country. In many ways that is what has happened with Cov-ID, while the rest of the world has been trying to deal the virus China has been trying to take advantage of the situation to undermine the US and her allies in order to strengthen their own position as a world super power.





While it is hard to prove that China deliberately created the Cov-ID to create the havoc that it has, it isn't so hard to prove that they are trying to take advantage of situation caused by the mess that they made. While it may seem like only crackpots would believe that China would create and use viruses or other bioweapons to their own advantage, I think the current situation proves that they are not really above doing it if they are really motivated to do so. Take that with the fact that on many occasions the people in power in China have publicly said that they are ready to do anything in the near future in order to secure their place as the world's most powerful superpower and I'd say that it is a problem waiting to happen as long as China (and possibly like minded groups with vast resources as well) isn't content until the rest of the world has to kowtow to their whims.

While it is hard to prove that China deliberately created the Cov-ID to create the havoc that it has, it isn't so hard to prove that they are trying to take advantage of situation caused by the mess that they made. — dclements

Well, I honestly believe that the lab-leak hypothesis is a real possibility. The Chinese officials surely did actively try to hide the pandemic and that they would try to manage the best outcome in this situation would be obvious.

I guess only Norway would be a country that would openly admit that they f**ed up and had a laboratory leak, and then willingly face the huge international outcry and pay compensation (and emptying their sovereign wealth fund from that).

Otherwise the strategy is to deny to the end. The more consistent you are in denials, the more logical and in the end truthful people think you are.

I don't buy this argument of Russia "moving in" to Africa. Syria is one and in Africa it's basically Algeria and some parts, but there isn't a large presence of Russian forces in Africa. The one country that has a large footprint in Africa is France as it basically never left it colonies, actually. With the exception of Algeria, of course. — ssu

I think you are missing the point. The French are definitely upset that Russian mercenaries are operating in Mali and other parts of Africa and they are using this as an excuse to gang up on Russia together with Canada and other European countries.

France among 16 nations to hit out at deployment of Russian mercenaries in Mali – RFI

What France is forgetting to say is that the Russians only moved in after the French withdrew 5000 troops when their pointless “Operation Barkhane” proved to be a complete failure.

Macron is also upset because Russia is sponsoring the French opposition who has claimed that his wife is a man called Jean-Michel Trogneux:

Viral, French First Lady Brigitte Macron Rumored to be Born a Male – World Today

Marrying his teacher who is 24 years older than him does seem a bit odd and may help explain some of Macron’s strange personality traits. And personality, as is well-known, does influence political decisions.

And don’t forget that America has an interest in creating discord between Europe and Russia so it can sell oil and gas to Europe instead of Europe buying from next-door Russia.

U.S. LNG Cargoes Flock To Europe Amid Record-High Gas Prices

So, who has to gain from this? US oil and gas corporations. And the military industrial complex, as usual. The same people who founded NATO, as I've already explained!

In any case, if the EU-US pressure on Russia continues, Russia will have no other choice than ally itself with China. They are already cooperating on space and military technology. If they come to some mutual defense agreement, this will vastly increase China’s position in the world to the detriment of the West.

China-Russia Space Military – USAGM

In any case, if the EU-US pressure on Russia continues, Russia will have no other choice than ally itself with China. They are already cooperating on space and military technology. If they come to some mutual defense agreement, this will vastly increase China’s position in the world to the detriment of the West. — Apollodorus

Russia and China have already held military exercises together, China has been a large arms customer for Russia and the vast majority of both Russians and Chinese have favorable views of the others.

The conflict in Ukraine could pick up dramatically it's intensity as Putin has made tough statements against NATO.

But here's the issue. I notice that you are a firm believer of this idea foreign policy serves (and is dictated) by private companies. In the US this is a popular belief especially with the military-industrial establishment. And things like Dick Cheney being the CEO of Halliburton makes this argument quite credible.

But seems it hard for you to think that other people in other societies think differently. Russia is the case where national security and 19th Century power politics trumps economic issues and companies don't have much to say. Putin doesn't care of the stock market or individual companies, state security is paramount. He doesn't care about economic sanctions, he doesn't work for the oligarchs, the oligarchs take orders from the Kremlin or are in jail or exiled in their luxury condos in London or other places.