I disagree this was a failure. It was strategically a brilliant move. He ensured access to the Black Sea and it cost him almost nothing. — Benkei

Almost nothing?

Let's start from that prior to the annexation of Crimea and the push, Putin was actually very popular in Ukraine. He really isn't now. Remember the situation before 2014.

I should remind that they changed the G7 to G8 to get Russia into that Club, NATO was looking at "new security threats" and Article 5 style defense was of an already past time. NATO had NEVER exercised in the Baltics. There actually were no plans to defend the Baltics. Or with Sweden and Finland in their territory. NATO countries were disarming. It was the time of new security threats: terrorism, climate change and so on.

(Earlier Vlad was part of the gang)


And then there are the sanctions, which do have had an effect.

Western sanctions and Russian counter-sanctions reduced Russian real gross domestic product (GDP) initially by 1–1.5% and that prolonged sanctions would lead to an even larger cumulative output loss. In 2019, the IMF estimated that sanctions reduced Russia’s growth rate by 0.2 percentage points every year in 2014-2018.

While a number of academic studies give different estimates of the extent of the economic loss, most of them support the view that sanctions have clearly reduced Russia’s economic development. The prohibition of long-term financing for certain large state-owned companies, including the major banks Sberbank and VTB, has been particularly significant. Another notable measure has been the export ban on certain sensitive technologies that can be used for oil production, because it hinders the exploration of important future resources in deep water, Arctic, and shale deposits.

So what did Putin really get in return? A naval base? Well, there are the straights of Bosporus, hence the Black Sea hasn't been as important as the bases in Kola peninsula and Vladivostok. The economy of Crimea isn't good and Russia has to spend roughly 1 billion into Luhansk and Donetsk.

Your idea of just "waiting patiently" leaves things to chance; it's not a real strategy. — Benkei

I disagree. Do note that that strategy really did work. The US withdrew all it's bases from Central Asia. Yet especially now it would want to have a base to check the Taliban, but Russia said no. Now I do think that Russia had to be active in this, so it surely wasn't passive on this. But Russia simply wasn't openly bellicose and hostile at the former Central Asian states. How can you say that a strategy that actually did work wouldn't have worked here? Russia could have done similar things as there as really there wasn't much enthusiasm for Ukraine in the West.

All Russia had to do is to have one NATO country being against the membership of Ukraine. To simply to postpone it to such a distant future that IT NEVER HAPPENS. Just like the EU has done with the Turkish membership talks. I think they started in the 1980's, well before my country joined the EU. That is how things are done. The EU simply won't say NO to Turkey. But it surely won't take in into the union. Ukraine on the waiting list for perpetuity is actually something that easily could have happened.

And more to it, with Crimea and Donbass in Ukraine, even NATO membership there would have been questionable. And do notice just how much the US has been talking about on shifting the focus to the Pacific and China and not in Europe. And lastly, just look at the GOP hawks in Washington. John McCaine is dead. The old GOP hawks are few and far between as Trumpism reign supreme in the party.

The idea that Ukraine would have joined NATO as George W Bush had stated is highly speculative also. After all, the US focus is (and even more would be) in China.

If Russia was seriously considering joining a military alliance with say, Mexico, then they would be the aggressors and the US would have the right to place troops on its borders. — Manuel

Don't forget Cuba or Venezuela. Or Nicaragua. You see, bullying and starting a "hybrid attack" (like we saw with the Bay of Pigs etc) simply puts these countries into a corner. And then they can have those Russian bombers visit them.

(Russian Military Aircraft in Venezuela Satellite photos provided by DigitalGlobe show two Russian nuclear-capable Tu-160 Blackjack bombers along with a heavy-lift AN-124 cargo plane and an Il-62 passenger plane outside of Venezuela's capital on Dec. 10, 2018.)

Ukraine itself may be no threat to Russia. — Apollodorus

Exactly. You said it even yourself. It isn't may be, it is no threat to Russia.

And NATO?

What you utterly (and intentionally) fail to notice is that the actions of annexing parts of other countries, starting and continuing a proxy war in Ukraine ARE THE REASONS why Russia's western neighbors are contemplating joining NATO. The Baltic states and Eastern Europe countries surely see now that joining NATO (when there was the chance) was the right thing. Without those annexations, that you are silent about, Sweden wouldn't have gone back to conscription and would have just focused on international missions. There wouldn't be a discussion here in my country about possible NATO membership. NATO genuinely would have been focused on outside theater peacekeeping / peace-enforcing mission. Likely there wouldn't have been any thought to given for article 5 in NATO circles and there had been no exercises in the Baltic states. In fact, prior to the occupation of Crimea, Putin actually was very popular in Ukraine. And European countries would be far more interested in trade relations with Russia and the hawks in Washington would be a minority now. NATO membership of Ukraine would be like EU membership of Turkey. Nope, not going to happen. The security environment has changed.

Annexing parts of other countries just does that.

This is where Putin utterly failed. If he would have just stood back and patiently waited just as it did in Central Asia, let the Americans do their thing, and then he would be out. But I guess the lure to re-establish a greater Russia, snatch Crimea, was too seductive for him. You fail to notice that the US had bases all around the Central Asian states...and no it has none.

And you still have not answered if you condemn or not the annexations that Russia has done.

Sweden just announced that it's lifting all pandemic restrictions.

The Public Health Agency of Sweden has evaluated that the Omicron variant does not lead to serious illness as previous variants did. For this reason, the requirement to present a vaccination certificate and other measures will be lifted.

“The phasing out of measures in response to COVID-19 will begin on February 9, 2022. As of that date, measures such as the participant limit for public gatherings and events and the possibility to demand vaccination certificates upon entry will be removed,” the statement of the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs reads.

People might remember that Sweden chose a different path from other EU or Western countries. Now it's signalling basically the end of restrictions due to the pandemic.

The Czech Republic is on a similar path:

People in the Czech Republic no longer have to show COVID passes from Thursday to gain access to bars, restaurants, cafes and hairdressers, as well sports and cultural events.

It comes after the Czech government moved forward on Wednesday with easing coronavirus restrictions.

Prime Minister Petr Fiala said his government will lift measures further during February, depending on the development of the pandemic. The majority of coronavirus restrictions should be lifted by March 1, Fiala said.

I'm hoping my country follows the similar path. They have already basically abandoned the corona passport requirement.

This is not an anti-Russian bias. :roll: — frank

But for some it seems that to be opposed to Soviet propaganda is the same as being against the Russian people.

Btw, @frank, do notice what I said about Russia hating to engage in talks with European countries by using the EU. Or the EU giving answers on behalf of it's member states. This kind of response limits Russia's ability to find weak spots or put EU members against each other. As Russia also approached the Nordic countries, it was obvious from the start that there would need to be cooperation to answer to Russia's inquiries.

(REUTERS) Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Thursday said a collective response from the European Union to Russian security proposals would lead to a breakdown in talks, but insisted Moscow was in favour of diplomacy to ease tensions over Ukraine.

Well, EU minister Joseph Borrell answered on behalf of the member states.

“We remain gravely concerned about the current situation and firmly believe that tensions and disagreements must be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy,” the EU leader writes. “We call on Russia to de-escalate and to reverse its military build-up in and around Ukraine, and in Belarus.”

Again false. Do understand that "mutual non-aggression pact" obviously refers to a situation where either side could show aggression towards the other, or that there is the potential for it. That somehow really Ukraine would show aggression towards the largest nuclear power is beyond reason. As I have said again and again, the proper term would be to make a peace agreement. There is nothing false in that, but you keep just strawmanning.

And any way, it's now clear you won't even answer the question if you condemn or not Russia's actions of annexing parts of it's neighbors, which are quite similar to those examples of Turkey and China we referred to.

And that tells actually a lot about you.

So the separation between church and state is also desirable because one cannot judge a king with the same moral standards used to judge day to day activities. — Olivier5

The state usually makes only a rather mediocre effort in anything, hence the result of the state and the church being together is that secularization is rampant. At least in the West (as there is no religious police around).

Americans are religious because the various churches don't belong to the state and they have to compete for members. But when the church is part of the state and gets tax revenue, it doesn't have to compete. It basically rests on it's laurels. So anyone who wants atheism, agnosticism and overall secularization to advance should promote state religion and the church being part of the state.

That's exactly what I'm saying. We've established that it was a lie, and it's good that you agree! :grin: — Apollodorus

What we established was only that both agree that Ukraine hasn't been the aggressor.

So, are you going to answer my question:

Do you or do you not condemn the annexations that Russia has done? Do you think it is similar to what Turkey has done in Cyprus or China in Tibet?

hat was your response to my comment on Turkey's invasion of Cyprus! Are you retracting that now? — Apollodorus

That is totally false. Your making up things.

What you said and what I actually responded to was you very hostile statement about Turkey:

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

Therefore I am against Turkey. — Apollodorus

This statement wasn't at all about Cyprus. This statement shows what you think of Turkey in general. To this I responded how Turkey hasn't been actually a threat since the Ottoman's tried to take Vienna.

So you do you or not condemn the annexations that Russia has done? Do you think it is similar to what Turkey has done in Cyprus or China in Tibet?

Please answer the question.

And you did appear to defend Turkey’s actions in Cyprus by invoking Ataturk and by falsely claiming that Europe attacked Turkey, when it is a well-known fact that it is the other way round. — Apollodorus

Nonsense. I don't know what you are blabbering about.

The Ottoman Empire, the sick man of Europe, had huge parts of it made Western colonies. If you refer to earlier history, well, weren't we talking about the present, not the siege of Vienna or the fall of Constantinople.


(Of course, in the above map some parts were lost even earlier than WW1)

It is in the interest of both to foster peaceful economic cooperation between them. — Apollodorus

Of course. European countries do want to have good relations with Russia.

Perhaps Russia then should stop annexing parts of other countries make demands on just what other countries can do with their own foreign and security policy and what kind of military exercises they can have inside their own borders. Russia surely can have whatever exercises inside it's own territory. The simple fact, that you are incapable to fathom or more likely, deliberately don't want to understand, is that the aggression Russia has shown has altered the relations with Europe.

I NEVER said that Ukraine is the aggressor. So, clearly, that is another straw man of yours and a lie. — Apollodorus

Well good that we cleared that. Do note that you still said this:

Ukraine should sign a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia. — Apollodorus

It's a bit strange to sign this when the other country is fighting a proxy war against you. (And even the proxy part is dubious as there are Russian forces in Donetsk and Luhansk.) I mean really: would Ukraine, that has a weaker army and no nuclear weapons, take hostile action against the country that has the most nuclear weapons in the world?

A peace treaty would be the more fitting word for this, not "mutual non-aggresion pact". Comes mind the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

I'll ask you again.

Do you condemn the annexations that Russia has done concerning Georgia and Ukraine?

Do you view them equivalent to what Turkey did? Both countries (Turkey and Russia) "came to the help" of their ethnic minorities, just with Russia going past the puppet state phase and made direct annexations.

You have accused me of double standards, which is false. I don't accept Chinese annexation of Tibet or Turkish actions, but seems that for you the above is extremely hard to do when it's Russia doing similar actions. But of course I could be wrong, but I wish you would reply to this and not brush it aside again.

The way I see it, in this particular case, even if NATO refuses to set limits to its expansion, Ukraine should sign a mutual non-aggression treaty with Russia. If it refuses to do so, then I think it is obvious that there are some ulterior motives there, probably instigated by the EU and NATO's expansionist intentions. — Apollodorus

Obviously Russia and Ukraine could make a peace agreement. Russia is fighting already a proxy war with Ukraine, which you seem not to understand.

Who has attacked whom? Conveniently forgetting the Budapest memorandum from 1994 along with a multitude of international laws and agreements, yet somehow you see Ukraine as the aggressor and Russia as the victim, hence you sure talk like a Russian troll.

Let's just remember what Russia and the US agreed with Ukraine and other ex-Soviet countries that posessed nuclear weapons in order to have their nuclear weapons to be given to Russia:

According to the memorandum, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they would:

- Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

- Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

- Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics.

- Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

-Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.

As Russia doesn't respect the sovereignty and borders of it's neighbors, there urge to join NATO is totally logical. Your total inability to understand this is obvious as the actions of the dominant country does have an effect on how countries view it.

So, are you actually agreeing with me or trying to make a point? How does the many hours of work to get some information affect the acuity of the brain? — L'éléphant

Intelligence isn't something easy to measure and define like measuring muscle strength or how fast can someone move from point A to B.

Intelligence is perceiving or inferring information, learning and having the ability to deal with new situations. And when those situations change, it doesn't affect intelligence as the problems and the situations change. We simply have different problems and situations than hunter-gatherers had. Memorizing or learning by heart is an ability, but it isn't at all synonymous to intelligence. In fact, as a way of learning it has many negative aspects starting from people can memorize "by heart" something they have absolutely no idea what it's about (as even the saying learning by heart, not by brain, tells us). But of course put into extreme, some transferring accurately through time the vedas in Hinduism by the Vedic oral tradition can be successful.

So if we have things starting from having the written word (a massively useful tool that no animal has, even if they can communicate to each other) and then computers and so on, it really doesn't mean that our intelligence has become worse. We just can solve different problems far more quickly. That doesn't make our intelligence lazy.

I think I understand your point, but it isn't so straightforward than comparing physical stamina and physical strength to what we need to "survive" in our society and what a hunter-gatherer needed in his society. And even that is a far more complex issue than it might at first seem as then we understand the importance that physical exercise has for our health and well being.

I don't think you can reduce it all to the economy either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I was only referring to poverty. Now crime is different and complex. Starting from having effective institutions like the justice system and a working and among the people an accepted police force. Huge income inequality and lack of social cohesion helps crime. I've always said to Finns that Finland would be like Mexico, if no criminals would be jailed and they could do whatever they want. Mexico is a perfect example when organized crime just can go rampant and integrates into the legal system and security forces. Basically if something happens to you in Mexico, stay away from the police.

Basically it just takes a few criminals and everybody loses the notion of safety. In Mexico over 90% of the homicides go unsolved. In Finland they make books and television series of the unsolved murder cases. Which there are in a hundred years like 10 or so. There has been a huge scandal here when a drug police chief had been too friendly with the local criminals.

But at the moment, the priorities are saving travel and tourism, levelling down, profiting from vaccine sales, and 'getting back to normal' — unenlightened

Perhaps there are reasons also for that.



The economic recession due to the pandemic was just papered over by the central banks, which made the statistics simply not make sense. And now thanks to that we have inflation. (Which I estimate will not be as transitory as they say).

While this is not the subject of the studies I mentioned on this thread, are you forgetting the masterpieces created in the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries? Literature, fine arts, music? — L'éléphant

All those masterpieces are actually far more accessible to me now as they would have been then.

The most obvious case is when I look at my children's school books where there can be a question to use the internet to answer some question. Do you know how difficult it would have been to answer those question without using search engines conveniently at your fingertips with one's smartphone or the laptop they gave from school? It would many times taken hours first to go to a library, find then a book where the information might be.

The conspiracy isn't public housing, drugs, or guns. The "conspiracy" -- if you can call it that -- is 155 years worth of post-slavery economic, political, and social suppression of blacks. — Bitter Crank

Partly it's also about poverty being this vicious cycle: poverty creates poverty. If some region is poor, it likely will stay poor. Active entrepreneurial people will move to bigger places where there are jobs and it's the old and the poor with not much to offer that will stay. The smart investments will likely go somewhere else. For this to happen you don't need racial or ethnic differences or divides. You being from the poor neighborhood can be a stigma. That city dwellers look down on the country folk and the countryside dweller being suspicious about the city slickers is actually quite universal. When you add ethnicity and race to mix, the issues just become more ugly.

You mean about splitting the US off from NATO? Or what? — frank

Of course Putin would really want to see NATO going the way of SEATO or CENTO. If Russia can engage European countries on a bilateral basis, it will be strong. That's why Putin absolutely hates to face Western Europe in the form of EU. Or in security issue talk to NATO. Yet let's not forget that both CENTO and SEATO are not anymore.

But do note the difference between those treaty members: CENTO dissappeared in revolutions and later two former member states, Iraq and Iran, had a bloody war. In SEATO there was hardly much if anything unifying in the security worries of it's members: for Pakistan the central threat was India, for South Korea North Korea and for New Zealand nobody I guess. The members simply started jumping out of the treaty.

NATO here is different. European countries have gotten content with the organization and wanted to have it around even after Soviet Union collapsed. (Let's not forget that an unified Germany still got some to be worried about the militarily harmless economic giant.) So Putin has a lot to do.

What I'm saying is that EU and NATO unlimited expansion can only lead to world government and that countries objecting to this have a right to take countermeasures. — Apollodorus

And hence it's OK for Russia to annex parts from Georgia and Ukraine?

Or do you condemn that kind of action, just as invading Tibet? (Do notice that the Turkish part of Cyprus hasn't been annexed by Turkey, but is a republic only recognized only by Turkey).

Clearly, not all Europeans want to be America’s puppets. — Apollodorus

Not either Russia's puppets, but that I gather you see Putin only "defending the interests of Russia". And Brussells? It might be a huge bureaucracy, but it isn't imperialist and de facto confederation however much they would want to be a federation.

And I was objecting to Europe being dominated by America and its British and German puppets. — Apollodorus

You talk easily of puppets. Or see just puppets and puppet masters everywhere.

The Normandy format can be a way to solve this crisis.

We'll see what it was.

The likeliest thing is that this hasn't gone as Putin planned earlier, the moves of the game are still going on.

Your comments merely expose the inconsistency and double standards of the anti-Russia camp. And as I said before, irrelevant pictures should not be mistaken for rational argument. — Apollodorus

Lol.

I think an Independent Tibet would be great. There is Nepal, Bhutan etc. so why not an Independent Tibet! On the status of the government-in-exile I didn't know. China is another of these countries who see as a victim of history and having the right to it's "old provinces".

we must admit that unlimited expansion as insisted on by the EU and NATO (a) logically leads to world government — Apollodorus

:roll:

-Wasn't that already the UN? :snicker:

The way I see it, in a genuinely free, democratic, and equitable world, every country and continent should be ruled by the people who live there. — Apollodorus

Oh sure, @Apollodorus. But apparently they are not allowed to make organizations and collaborate with each other.

Back to the actual topic of the thread:

Macron held talks with Putin. I think France is also in charge of the EU presidency now. At least France and Russia agreed on something. Perhaps the way out of this threat of war is for the Normandy process to continue and the Minsk peace agreement to be ratified. If this is done, of course the West ought to support Ukraine that the agreement isn't used as a Trojan horse by Russia (which Ukraine fears). And Putin would show to his domestic public that he has showed it again to the West and the border camping-trip of perhaps 170 000 troops was needed.

(They couldn't find a longer table?)


Or then he could perhaps just annex parts of Donbass that he already has and nobody basically can do anything about it. At least the shelling might stop then.

Therefore, it depended on US financial and military assistance and had to comply with US demands. Nothing to do with Suez! — Apollodorus

You didn't understand.

The Suez crisis was the time when the US used real pressure on UK and France to stop their military operation. That's the time when the US used pressure. Not when they asked France to take leadership on an issue both countries agreed on. Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand that sometimes countries can find policies they both find beneficial.

To begin with, some European states like Germany and Austria were under Allied military occupation which really means US control, as the US held the supreme Allied command. — Apollodorus

And others were not defeated Axis powers.

I think Tibet and Cyprus must be returned to their original and rightful owners before any demands are placed on Russia. — Apollodorus

Who do you think their rightful owners are? Independent Tibet? And with Cyprus? UK? The Ottoman Empire? The Venetians?

The hope is that the flare up in violence is actually a sign of gang's economic fundementals collapsing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think that is way too optimistic to think so. In truth only a rise in the economic prosperity and a functioning local economy in the society will dramatically alter crime. Then only those who genuinely want to be criminals are criminals.

The quasi-conspiracy theory I'm going to lay on you is that gangs are part of a situation that was intentionally fostered: they built projects for black people to live in, allowed those communities to be inundated by drugs (there's more credibility to that than I would have thought : the FBI looked into it.). And reusing to do gun control not only reduces the population of black men, but makes sure a lot of them end up behind bars. For real, black men have the highest mortality rate in the US demographically.

I'm not saying it is all orchestrated. I'm saying the way choices are made is partly influenced by an interest in undermining the progress for blacks. Maybe it's a leftover from the late 1960s? — frank

I genuinely think that drugs are a way to control the masses in the US as vodka has been a way to control the Russians. Only two Russian leaders have tried to take the vodka-bottle out of the hands of the Russian people. Both events lead to the collapse of the state (the leaders were Nikolai II and Gorbachev). It's not a deliberate written policy you will find somewhere. It's just a thing that leaders are happy with, because it makes any organizing of a social movement difficult.

Without all the description drugs, and the "undescribed" drugs you too would have a revolution.

And don't get your hopes on it being a revolution that you would want to see, @Frank.

I've had some crappy jobs that paid poorly, and they were still better than standing outside all day asking for handouts. — Bitter Crank

I remember the story of a German guy who made a decent amount of money by begging. But how he did it was different: he was well dressed, drove his BMW to a parking lot and simply politely asked people for coins to pay the parking. Assuming he had no coins, suddenly many Germans gave him Deutshce Marks as the situation was easily relatable for them.

My own opinion is that I will continue my de facto boycott of The View that has been going strong ever since the show first aired. — Hanover

"And today we have as our guest an conservative internet commentator from the well revered Philosophy Forum, @Hanover.

There is a huge problem of circular causality/feedback loops in figuring this out. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In truth I think something simply like a turf war of organized crime (or the lack of it being organized) or competition for the lucrative drug trade can be the real reason for the statistics.

Although gang membership is difficult to pinpoint, local authorities estimate that there are over 100,000 active gang members in the Chicago metropolitan area. Collectively, Chicago street gangs serve as the primary mid-level and retail-level distributors of drugs in the city and are responsible for a
significant portion of the city’s violent crime.
_ _ _

Disputes between rival gangs or individual members are a contributing factor in Chicago’s recent rise in violent crime, with the majority of incidents occurring on the South and West Sides of Chicago where gang presence is high. Local authorities in Chicago have attributed much of this rise to the fracturing of Chicago’s street gangs into multiple factions that lack hierarchical authority. This fracturing has been the result of decades of internecine warfare among and within gangs, as well as the removal of many key leaders through incarceration or death. Consequently, previously agreed upon gang rules or social mores have dissolved and internal discipline has eroded. As a result, much of the violence in Chicago has become less controlled by gang leaders and more disorganized.

Of course, France could have refused. But it depended on US financial and military assistance in its wars in Indochina and Algeria. So it had no choice but to comply with US demands. And once it had accepted US aid, it was obliged to deliver what it had agreed to. — Apollodorus

Oh right.

This is something that happened far earlier than Suez. You see, if you have the US forcing something on France and the UK, there you have the example. Not here.

How you interpret for example the Dean Acheson letter as "forcing France to do" is beyond me, or anyone that reads the letter.

Now you might refer to historical events, but we disagree in the interpretation. Where you have a total blindspot can be seen from many of your comments, just like the following, for example:

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. — Apollodorus

You see, I gather you understand well the policy of "divide et impera", divide and rule. Yet you have really problems to understand the opposite, a policy to encourage integration and union, and how it actually works. It has been very successful for the US. Yet this strategy only works when there is a mutual desire to do it and when those to be encouraged to integrate don't view the other (here the US) as a threat. Divide and rule "works" when otherwise the people would form an alliance against you.

And why it is shameful and disgraceful not to aspire for World domination and be a team player I really don't know.

And I don't mean to be offensive. — baker

Actually, you made good points there.

I think that a person who is approaching art in a consumerist, easy fashion is not making the best use of their time and resources. It's a bit like insisting on eating cold pizza. — baker

So some people put ice cubes into the best single malt whisky's there are. That's reality.

Yet I think that the distiller and the shopkeeper are still happy that the person bought the expensive bottle.

But ....I get your point. Still, even if the consumerist doesn't or cannot appreciate the fine touches, at least he or she gets hopefully something out of it that is positive. And that counts.

Which is why in the earlier stages of the buildup they were mostly moving armor, and artillery, which take longer to transport and deploy - with skeleton crews and little support. (This actually prompted some commentators to dismiss the possibility of an invasion.) But now it looks like they are deploying additional infantry, military hospitals, support units.

No one knows whether this is a monstrous bluff or the real thing, but some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making. — SophistiCat

This I've read now from many various references. When Russia occupied the Crimea in 2014, the lack of a logistics tail fooled Western observers (and they were then focused hunting terrorists anyway). Now the arrival of that logistical tail, field hospitals, ammo depots etc. sends a message.

Of course what is totally lacking here is the strategic surprise (which they had in 2014). This might genuinely make Putin to weigh his options here. Or then, let's hope, that this genuinely is a huge bluff to get the US and NATO to sit down and talk (or as others put it, a Western media hype) and a huge camping out of the Russian military.

(A pro-Ukrainian demonstration in Kharkiv yesterday)

As I said, it is very easy to trace the history of the EU (and NATO) IF there is a will to do so. — Apollodorus

You seem to be simply a bit illogical or confused here, even if I think you have the historical facts correct.

For example, let's take how you see French involvement:

France was under US pressure to join the United States of Europe project and to take a leading role in it by merging its coal and steel industries with those of Germany. — Apollodorus

You don't realize how loonie what you say is.

So if it's the French Foreign Minister that first proposes an European Coal and Steel Community in 1950 in order to to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible", then somehow, somewhere, you concoct this idea that France WAS FORCED to take A LEADING ROLE in this project.

That's how it goes? Forcing France to take a leading role? How do you force a country to take a leading role? I've never heard about such micromanagement. What was the pressure? How was France forced to do that? Or is impossible for you to think that they might have themselves also seen this as something good?

You see, the vast majority of history books say and I agree that the US encouraged European integration for obvious reasons, as Europe had just gone through a devastating war. Encouraging a person or state to do something is a bit different than to force them to do it. But of course, you don't see it that way (I get it).

The basic problem is that you see all West Europeans as puppets of the US that behave just how Washington wants them to act! Starting from agent Churchill, who obviously is just a mouthpiece of the Americans that served loyally his masters in Washington.

As if Europeans would have been utterly unable to see themselves how devastating two World Wars had been to their continent and that France and Germany ought to do something else than prepare for the next war against each other. Oh no! For @Apollorodus, that was just a machination of the Americans! The French had to be forced into these kind of ideas.

And naturally, any other view than his is Pro-EU, Pro-NATO propaganda.

So, essentially, half of Europe was ordered by America to join the United States of Europe, and the other half was ordered by Russia not to join. — Apollodorus

And this shows clearly your bias. As if Europeans didn't have anything to do with this. Also leaving obviously out that the actual orders and commands, more than just not to join the West, were given in the countries that the Soviet Union occupied tells a lot too.

Again. That's neither here nor there because we don't support Russia. — Benkei

I am just putting things into scale here, when you talk about genocidal behavior. I think countries and their actions ought to be judged on a similar scale.

How you deal with independence movements, secessionist movements or with ethnic tensions do matter. How many civilians are killed does matter. Even your country has "overseas countries and territories", but we don't read about political turmoil or human right violations (or at least, I haven't noticed) in Sint Maarten or Curacao. Perhaps those countries that insist they are democracies and say that they uphold international laws ought to be looked even more critically.

Now as we tend to look at Israel being a democratic state, we can raise the bar for it. I can imagine what would have happened to the Jewish people if they would have lost let's say the Six Day War and they wouldn't have the Samson Option. Yet that was even then quite hypothetical and now days no Arab country, not even them together, do really pose an existential threat to Israel. It's really no excuse what and how let's say Syria would have dealt with Jewish people. (We shouldn't forget that the neighboring countries of Israel were not fighting in 1948 for Palestine, but trying to annex as much territory of the former British Mandate)

Unfortunately the welfare state is failing too. In my town people live in doorways and tents on the street. They beg politely. Crime is still not up horribly.

The problem with the welfare state is that the money doled out is clearly not enough to pay for food and rent, and absolutely not for clothing and entertainment. If they raised the welfare amounts to livable levels, there would be a revolt, because minimum wage jobs full time (40 hours a week) still don't pay for food, rent and clothing for an individual. — god must be atheist

Actually there ought to be a genuine debate (even here) about US "welfare state". Just like with the US health care system, I have really troubles of understanding for example just how California can spend so much on welfare and still have people living in tents. It all seems to have totally illogical and counterproductive objectives. It seems just like the health care system: hideously expensive, but fails on the overall population level. Some stories seem to point that it's basically some kind of racket. (But then there is a huge opposition towards welfare in the US)

I'm familiar with his policy of removing political opponents but I'm not aware of a policy of genocide. There's a qualitative difference between the two though. — Benkei

Hmm, let's think about this.

There's about two million Chechens of whom 1,2 live in Russia (and Chechnya) and then you have 4,75 million Palestinians in what is now the Palestinian state,over a million in Israel (proper?) and in all 13 million when you count the diaspora, so there is over six times more Palestinians.

In the first Chechen war the Russian Statistical office estimates 30 000 to 40 000 Chechen civilians died while Human rights groups estimate that 80 000 civilians is closer to the truth and about 10 000 Chechen fighter died or went missing. In the Second Chechen war, that was the war Putin instigated, Chechen military and civilian losses estimates range from 50 000 to 100 000.

Add them up and you have what, perhaps from hundred thousand to two hundred thousand killed from a far more smaller population of a few million.

Now perhaps you can correct me with the statistics, but I gather that far more Chechens have been killed than Palestinians since 1948 in the wars. And there are far, far more Palestinians than Chechens. During the war of 1948 about 10 000 Palestinian civilians died. First Intifada, perhaps 2000 Palestinians were killed, in Second Intifada, a bit over 10 000, in Gaza during 2008-2009 about 6 000 killed. The numbers don't come close even to the official Russian stats from the two wars, which extremely likely don't tell the truth. And even if they would come to the same range, then you are talking of one people being 2 million and the other 13 million.

So you just HOW you consider Israel's actions to be genocidal and while Russia's actions against Chechens isn't I really don't understand.

(Of course, such accurate statistics as below aren't available from the Chechen conflict)

The other side of that coin is that one can be fired without any justification -- unless one is working under an agreement, like a union contract. (You probably already know this.). — Bitter Crank

And you probably know that because the role of the unions is so small is the reason just why so often firing can happen without any justification or for the most unimportant issues.

It's not a political view to join an union, it's just common sense. Or should be.

Why is it Europe that depends on America on defense matters, and not America on Europe, or Russia on America? WHY is Europe always the weaker partner even though it has a larger population???

It is this totally abnormal, unparalleled, and unacceptable situation that has created a dangerous power vacuum right in the center of Europe, and has enabled non-European powers like America to bully the whole of Europe into submission. — Apollodorus

A good question.

I think the reason is that only the UK wasn't defeated, wasn't occupied, during WW2. The only two European countries that think they are Great Powers, that see themselves to be in a position that they should use the military as an extension of their foreign diplomacy are UK and France.

For (West) Germany it was a traumatic experience and they truly had to search their souls after Hitler and nazism (while East Germany denied it had anything to do with them and Austrians suddenly noticed that they weren't actually Germans). Just like Japan, it has been cautious of not looking militaristic. Italy suffered a humiliating defeat and the other smaller countries that participated in WW2 lost and were occupied (with only one avoiding occupation). And Spain had lost it's Empire a long time ago (and had even a civil war after that). For Soviet Union and Russia it of course was different.

Yet it truly affects the psyche of country when it's defense fails and the huge sacrifices, if there were those, were for nothing. And WW1 and WW2 have made an impact. Hence Europe simply doesn't have the will or the stomach to carry that "big stick", be bellicose and genuinely is all but happy with the US handling those issues. And do notice that the US behaviour in Europe is totally different from let's say it behaves in Central America and Caribbean. Something like the Berlin Airlift did show the Germans that the US were friends.

A similar story from history would be when Rome at first defeated the Carthaginians and the Carthaginians adopted a non-militaristic approach. While they weren't fight Rome anymore and didn't have a huge army as an expense, the city-state prospered in trade. In they found it totally acceptable. Yet of course the Romans didn't, and they decided to annihilate the city altogether as there could not be any successful competitor in trade with Rome.

Western Europe is simply happy to be the junior partner with the US, just like the UK. After all, how many times has the US toppled British governments, backed up military coups, assassinated it's Prime Minister's, made open threats about intervention or sent cruise missiles into London?

If it had done any of the above, I would guarantee that the British wouldn't like you as much as now. And that's the bottom line just why the US can in your own words, "bully the whole of Europe into submission". Let's say it has used silk gloves and not an iron fist to handle West Europe.

I don't know if a member of the CIA has ever run for president. — frank

A director of the CIA has actually been later the President of the US. (Not a career spy, but anyway)


...and btw, a far more cautious foreign policy with him than with later Republican presidents, even if he invaded Panama.

Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target. — frank

And costly. Put into the field over 100 000+ troops and then have them there for months is expensive. Usually armed forces don't do it. Just to put things into context, the largest military exercise the Soviet Union held towards the West had 150 000 troops (Zapad-81). The largest military exercise since WW2 held in the West was Reforger 1988 with 125 000 troops.

Yet Russia has persistently trained it's troops in huge formations not seen in Western military exercises and hence can adapt to the troops being there. And of course, tanks assembled row after row in vehicle depot means that they aren't fielded tactically.

It should be remembered that the Zapad exercises (same name as with the exercises the Soviet Union held) with Belarus have nearly always stoked fears (after 2014) about Russian motivations in the West, yet nothing has happened so far. So perhaps the Russian army simply adapts to live in tents for a prolonged time. Which actually isn't such a bad idea for an army...

I think American employees should have some protection on how easily their employers can fire them.

The welfare state, as nearly everything in our complex world, has negative sides too.

Simply put it, if you don't need to work, some can choose then not to work. And then you basically slide off "the society", even if the welfare state does provide you housing and free health care. In that case you look for a job only so many times and then say f*k it. And what it creates is apathy.

Yet that negative side isn't so bad as that you would have people begging in the streets and pushed to be criminals. I'll choose that apathy if the other choice is people living in tents in the street.

I guess if he would be the US President Vladimir would have been born in a place like New York or Chicago, then joined the CIA and now would protect American interests all around the World.

If, by your own admission, even Russian opposition leaders are "cool toward the West", what does that say to you? — Apollodorus

I've always said that there was a brief window of opportunity when the Soviet Union collapsed when Russia and Russians were truly open for a new relationship with the West. It was the time when Dzerzinsky's statue was taken out of the front of the KGB headquarters. But the West, self centered and haughty as usual, thought Russia was over and nothing would come of it. You simply would have had larger than life politicians to make these two countries friends as they were no American tanks on the Red Square. Then Russia has always had two sides, the Westernizers and those who see the West as trouble. These two views go long into Russian history. (And should be noted, that the West Europe has also had this difficult relationship to Eastern Europe and especially Russia, to Orthodoxy and East European culture since the time of East-Rome, which we called Byzantium)

And then two things happened. NATO went into finding "a new mission" for itself with "peace-enforcement" and if the intervention to Bosnia was somehow tolerated by Russia, what was the end point was the Kosovo war. That broke the camel's back and you had the first direct confrontation between Russia. I think that was the time it all went south, so don't assume Russia would even want to be an ally of the US. NATO enlargement was one thing, but an active NATO not only confined to defending itself and having it's members not to fight each other, but active somewhere else was the issue (do note for example that the Gulf War wasn't a NATO mission).

(Why the incident in Pristina airport was important can be seen how Russians view it now)

or see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzZm2zdZ9_U

And the second reason of course is that an intelligence service chief who saw the fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest disaster of the 20th Century into power. He needs an enemy to justify the power grab he has done. Simple as that.

A country of Russia's geographic dimensions inhabited by distinct ethnic and cultural groups would fall apart very fast without a degree of central authority, and that's for Russian citizens to decide, not for Finland. — Apollodorus

LOL! Oh yes, as we would have any say about that.

And Umm...my point is that countries should themselves have the right to decide themselves their future.

Oh you'd love him. Or at least many Republicans (democrats?) would love him. I guess here in PF would be people that absolutely would hate him (even more than Trump). And you would have him for President for two terms and then you would have him as vice-president of the following administrations for a long, long time. After all, there was a time he did have that role and Medvedev was the President (for one term).

(Do notice where Vladimir is sitting in this picture.)