in both parties and in the media, who spent the majority of their time trying to stifle, discredit, and remove Trump from office — NOS4A2

Oh, just LIKE WITH THE BILL CLINTON ADMINISTRATION! :grin:

Talk about passive aggressiveness.

The new term is to escalate things by laying out de-escalation demands.

President Vladimir Putin used some of his most direct language to date on Tuesday in his escalating standoff with the U.S. and its European allies. The Russian leader warned that if the U.S. and NATO do not halt what Moscow considers aggressive actions along the country's border with Ukraine, Russia would respond in a "retaliatory military" manner.

"If the obviously aggressive line of our Western colleagues continues, we will take adequate, retaliatory military-technical measures [and] react toughly to unfriendly steps," Putin told senior military officials during a meeting in remarks carried by Russian state TV. "I want to emphasize that we have every right to do so."

Putin had previously spoken of his "red lines" on Ukraine — first and foremost his demand that the U.S. block Ukraine's bid to become a NATO member. He had accused the West of crossing his red lines already, but the stern warning in Tuesday's speech marked the first time he had personally warned of potential military action.

It would be hilarious, if it wouldn't be so bad. I assume as there's no Olympic Games going on, Russia will wait the US and NATO countries go off to the holidays when it declares that it's last red line has been walked over and has "absolutely no other solution than a military one".

Pre-emptive strike. That's what escalatory attack is called.

Wonder how the Biden administration will reply to this.

Vice President Kamala Harris reiterated the Biden administration's support for Ukraine and warned that the U.S. and its allies were prepared to respond to any Russian incursion with harsh sanctions. The Biden administration has not ruled anything out in the standoff, but has not thus far said explicitly what level of assistance Ukraine could expect from Washington if Putin does attack.

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.

This was picked up even in our local newspapers here:

Barbara F. Walter, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego, serves on a CIA advisory panel called the Political Instability Task Force that monitors countries around the world and predicts which of them are most at risk of deteriorating into violence. By law, the task force can’t assess what’s happening within the United States, but Walter, a longtime friend who has spent her career studying conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Rwanda, Angola, Nicaragua and elsewhere, applied the predictive techniques herself to this country.

Her bottom line: “We are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.” She lays out the argument in detail in her must-read book, “How Civil Wars Start,” out in January. “No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war,” she writes. But, “if you were an analyst in a foreign country looking at events in America — the same way you’d look at events in Ukraine or the Ivory Coast or Venezuela — you would go down a checklist, assessing each of the conditions that make civil war likely. And what you would find is that the United States, a democracy founded more than two centuries ago, has entered very dangerous territory.”

The interesting thing is how we report these issues. When it's a poor Third World country, we openly talk of civil war or insurgencies. When it's the First World, we don't. An example: in hindsight the British Army has openly acknowledged that it faced and fought an insurgency in Northern Ireland. Yet the very smart British understood how important it was never to utter those words... or have the media to refer it as an insurgency. It was only "The Troubles". And if someone dared to say that the UK was fighting an insurgency in the British Isles in the late 20th Century, many would immediately come to correct the phrasing about the issue.

And likely so it will be if everything goes to hell in a handbasket in the US...

If not "insurrection," what do you call the events of January 6th? — ZzzoneiroCosm

At worst, a riot. — NOS4A2

A sloppy self-defeating chaotic riot that the inept former President hoped somehow would get him turn obvious election result somehow to something else. An extremely Trumpian attempt (meaning a poor, clueless attempt) on a self coup. An organized attempt? Hardly organized...

(Which btw would have could have worked if Trump had a ruthless drive and leadership qualities. There was the "strategic surprise" to do something so outrageous. Even the crowds to celebrate such attack on democracy.)

But again, I don't see the relevance. The Fed does buy treasury bonds, yes. But they always have. — Xtrix

OK, let's concentrate first at the most important issue. The obvious question is the following: when is a central bank doing the basic thing which it has been created for and when is a central bank issuing money to pay for government expenses, printing money like in Zimbabwe?

This is an important thing to get clear...as obviously NO central bank will admit that they are financing government debt with money printing. Just as no central bank will ever admit that if there's an economic problem, they will pump up the competitiveness of the export sector by devaluating the currency. These two things are never admitted, but I hope you do understand that these things do happen. When looking at central bank statements, they will never admit this. But central banks providing money for governments for wars and stuff is a historical fact, which one cannot disagree with (and I think you agree with me on this).

So, the federal reserve owning US treasuries isn't itself a problem the US dollar plays a dominant role in the currency system, the US economy as being so big isn't export oriented hence there simply isn't a reason for the Federal Reserve to have it's assets in large foreign currency holdings. The old Finnish central bank (now part of the ECB) didn't have it assets just in Finnish government treasuries for obvious reasons.

Yet here is the obvious difference: if the central bank would just focus on monetary issues, there would be no need to expand the balance sheet of the bank rapidly. Now if there is a financial crisis and the threat of run on the banks, then naturally the central bank can take of the bad loans from the bank and reorganize the banking system to be more healthy. The bad loans are in option given to a "bad bank" that will look to minimize the losses (this option wasn't done in the US, but for example in the Nordic countries it was done so as not back then to tarnish the balance sheet of the various small central banks).

So let's look at that balance sheet of the Federal Reserve:



The 2008 financial crisis and it's aftermath can be seen here clearly. Before the balance sheet was small, because why not? There was trust in the system. Few years ago the Fed was on the path to decrease it's balance sheet afterwards, but then COVID-19 happened. The stock market tanked, but the came again the Fed to say the rich people. And then with COVID-19 it wasn't only the rich.

What effects this has for the stockmarket can be seen smartly from these to graphs shown together:


And then let's look in side to see what has made the Fed balance sheet to explode. We find it's the buying of US treasuries.



Now you might argue that the Fed just happened to come and swoop up US treasuries from the open market from participants holding treasuries. Not so. If so, there would be a decrease in the holdings of other holders as you can see here:



From above, you can see the Fed is a the largest buyer of the new debt.

That's not true. The biggest owner of treasuries is social security. The Fed owns a great deal. — Xtrix

Yes, biggest buyer but not (yet) biggest owner, so I stand corrected here. Thanks for the correction.

Ok, we should then look what it means when social security owns US treasuries. First a question: If I write check to myself for a 1 million dollars (saying the SSU will pay me 1 million dollars), am I more wealthy? No. If I put earn somehow 1 million and then write a check saying SSU will pay me 1 million dollars, that's just a reminder for myself I have the money. With the Social Security Trust fund one has to remember that it is basically an accounting thing, but that doesn't mean it's fiction. But the role is different.

I think the following explains article explains this well:

Social Security was designed primarily as a “pay-as-you-go” system. Instead of prefunded accounts for individuals, such as individual retirement accounts (IRAs), contributions from current workers have always paid for most of the benefits. For the most part, money going into the system each year almost immediately goes out to pay for benefits.

When Social Security’s receipts from payroll taxes and other sources exceed program costs, as when the baby boom generation dominated the workforce and had not yet started retiring on Social Security, excess funds purchased interest-bearing special-issue US Treasury bonds. In effect, the Social Security trust fund lent money to the general fund.

Where does the money go? When the non–Social Security part of government is running deficits, any Social Security surplus funds other government activities, reducing the size of the unified fund deficit. When the trust funds themselves run deficits, however, they add to these other non–Social Security deficits to produce an even larger unified fund deficit. Because these special-issue bonds are essentially both sold and held by the government, aren’t publicly traded like other financial assets, and represent IOUs from the government, some people believe that the trust funds are nothing more than an accounting fiction.

Another factor confuses the issue. Because the trust funds represent an asset to one side of government (the Social Security Administration) and a liability to another side of government (the general fund), some accounting presentations based essentially on cash flows make the effect of the trust funds on the budget look “neutral.” In fact, future obligations are also liabilities to be paid but are not counted in that trust fund ledger.

So, are the trust funds real? Yes. They have legal consequences for the Treasury and are backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government, just like other Treasury bonds. When the Social Security Administration redeems the bonds, the government has a legal obligation to pay the money back with interest, with no additional appropriation by Congress required.

The trust funds are not a free lunch for taxpayers. Money from the general fund used to repay debts to the trust funds cannot be used for other purposes, like building roads or providing for national defense. And as an additional outlay for the government, those general fund payments increase the Treasury’s need to borrow from the public, increasing federal deficits and adding burdens on future taxpayers.

For all the heat about whether the trust funds are “real,” the debate misses a larger issue: the long-term fiscal challenges posed by Social Security and Medicare are not caused by inadequate trust funds, which will be depleted after only a few years of drawdown, but to decades-long imbalances between promised benefits and the revenues required to fund those benefits.

Which takes us back to the fundamental question: the US is uncapable of doing anything else than deficit spending and now it's own central bank has had to buy a huge share of that new debt. Furthermore: nothing, absolutely nothing will happen before there is a huge crisis. The Republicans spent as there's no tomorrow (let's remember that it was Dick Cheney who said "deficits don't matter") and so do the Democrats. The Republicans just bitch about the issue when they are in opposition, and hence leftist people think I'm a Republican if even talk about the same issue.

The whole fucking system is built on these cards. It can blow up some day. And then we all have some expedient narrative fed to our tribe that it was the fault of the people in the other side of the political spectrum.

How long are you going to believe in monetarism? — Xtrix

Uhh... I do believe in economic history. Been a believer for a long time.

And btw it's not just monetarism, it's classical economics going back to Adam Smith. And basically what also Keynes says:

Keynes had noted in ‘A Tract’ that in all the Western countries from 1914 to 1920 the money supply had increased considerably leading to inflation. The case in Germany was the worst because the price level in 1923 was higher by 7,650 times of the price level in 1913. He called this an inflation a tax imposed by governments on society to avoid being declared bankrupt, the notion proposed by Adam Smith earlier. It also redistributes wealth in a manner injurious to savers, but beneficial to borrowers.

So these ideas just to be "monetarist" is wrong.

It most certainly was. They went through several rounds of QE, which at that point hadn't been done before. No one even knew what it was. — Xtrix

Oh like nobody knew who the "little green men" were that occupied Crimea. QE is just a fancy way to avoid terms like money printing or debt monetization.

Whatever "alphabet soup" of programs you're talking about, there is a difference: last March the Fed started buying corporate debt as well. — Xtrix

Alphabet soup refers to TAF, CPFF, TSLF, PDCF, etc. which you can read from The Alphabet Soup Explained: An Analysis of the Special Lending Facilities at the Federal Reserve . It's basically how QE rounds were implemented. And I think they have for a long time bought corporate debt and were directly involved in helping other entities than banks.

About the financial crisis of 2008-2009:

As expected, the data showed that the Fed loaned trillions of dollars to banks and other financial companies during the crisis. (The Fed says it hasn't lost any money on the loans, and the emergency lending programs are winding down.)

But the data also showed smaller loans to some companies that aren't usually associated with the workings of the Fed; companies like McDonald's, Harley Davidson, Verizon and Toyota.

These companies used an emergency program the Fed set up to keep a key financial market going in the teeth of the crisis -- commercial paper.

The commercial paper market is basically like a credit card for giant companies in every major industry; it's something they use every day to borrow money that they plan to pay back very soon.

During the crisis, when people were afraid that Wall Street would collapse, the commercial paper market basically shut down.

So when you have a banking crisis, give money to McDonalds.

The Fed is still propping up banks and corporations to this day. They're hostage to the banks, and are a backstop for them. — Xtrix

I'm not at all contradicting this!!! The financial crisis of 2008-2009 never went away. This is extremely important to understand just why the situation could be a bit sinister.

And contrary to your implication, inflation was predicted back in 2009 -- and never came. — Xtrix

I think we agree on this, so I'm not contradicting you. The whole thing basically propped up the speculative bubble from not bursting...which actually would be the way free markets would correct the situation, if there would be free markets. The banks didn't lend, people saved, stock market went down, that is what people saw as the deflation era.

It's gasoline that people mainly care about. — Xtrix

Yeah, do you remember that not long ago we had negative oil futures prices in the US? Tells how great the markets casino is in predicting the future.

I do admit that thanks to the covid pandemic lockdowns have created supply chain problems, but those really, just as with toilet paper or masks, do get solved. They do get fixed and do go away. As we agree, the financial crisis never went away and the stock market was boosted by monetary policy. And this is why this is far more serious than just supply chain problems or a temporary bout of inflation.

First of all, let's look at the forecasts and then the reality:

Here's a forecast done in 2014 how the next six years will be. Notice the idea of the financial crisis being a one off event and then it's back to "smooth sailing with moderate deficits".


In 2020 and this year the deficits to GDP were well over 10% last year over 3 trillion, I think somewhere 13% or so, hence they don't fit in the above graph. Now comes the crucial question:

Do you think this spending is totally abnormal and can be lowered? Or the economy will hugely improve? On the contrary. If the pandemic worsened the situation, the overall situation was already bleek.

The Fed has nothing to do with the fiscal policy of last year or this year. Nothing. — Xtrix

Isn't the actor who is the biggest buyer of US government debt a major player here? I think so. The Federal Reserve is already the biggest owner of Treasury debt. Not China.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has significantly ramped up its holdings of Treasury securities as part of a broader effort to counteract the economic impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, the Federal Reserve holds more Treasury notes and bonds than ever before.

As of July 14, 2021, the Federal Reserve has a portfolio totaling $8.3 trillion in assets, an increase of about $3.6 trillion since March 18, 2020. Longer-term Treasury notes and bonds (excluding inflation-indexed securities) comprise nearly two-thirds of that expansion, with holdings of those two types of securities doubling from $2.2 trillion on March 18, 2020, to $4.5 trillion on July 14, 2021.

China owns about 1,0 trillion dollars of US treasury debt. The Fed, now a quadruple amount from that.

Yes, the Federal Reserve is the biggest player buying the debt. And is monetizing the debt, which can be said to be an important part of fiscal policy.

Not if you’re leading a country and should be avoiding contact with others, as your own government recommends. — NOS4A2

Actually, the government then didn't recommend avoiding contacts. We had just "opened up" and for those a) that have two vaccination shots and b) aren't in the group who have medical issues or c) are not old, partying was accepted. The government is just now (today) implementing (again) tough new measures.

(Nope, the outcry was that the foreign minister who she had met got a corona-positive result, yet she didn't have her phone with her where she got the text message about it (allegedly). Oooh, the horror!!! At least the opposition didn't cry for her removal from office, just had a great time seeing the prime minister in a mess of her own making.

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.

They were retired. — NOS4A2

Of course. Only retired officers open their mouth ...and for a reason. Basically it's the Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that speaks on behalf of the armed forces in this kind of issues. And he has had to make points that usually one doesn't make. Like mentioning that the armed forces is there to defend the constitution and doesn't pledge allegiance to any person (like you do).

At least In Finland your leader gets to go clubbing. — NOS4A2

Hey, if you're a 36-year old mom and your 4-year old daughter is with the grandparents at another city for the weekend, you go with your husband to parrrty!!!

Well, the Canadian army doesn't have to publicly state that it acknowledges the election results when there is an election. And Canadian politicians aren't calling your generals to ask them what they think of other politicians and then leaking the tapes into public.

But the generals finally get to the meat of the matter when they suggest odious state and military tactics to silence dissent and mutiny. — NOS4A2

Yeah.

That's called doing their job.

Like starting from the oath they take:

I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

So why not be ready for anything that might happen? They're ready for zombie apocalypse, so why not go for other scenarios as well? Doesn't mean they will happen...just like CONOP 8888 is surely hypothetical.

BLM and the Good 'Ol Boys should just agree on a time and place in some dark alley and have at it and leave the rest of us alone. — Harry Hindu

That's what people thought in Weimar Germany, actually. Have the NSAPD brownshirts fight the Rotfrontkämpferbund of the Communist party, so they will everybody else alone. Didn't go that way.

From the OP's Washington Post article:

The potential for a total breakdown of the chain of command along partisan lines — from the top of the chain to squad level — is significant should another insurrection occur. The idea of rogue units organizing among themselves to support the “rightful” commander in chief cannot be dismissed.

I think this is the actual problem: the politization of all branches of the government. And that every issue out there will be made a partisan issue, basically part of "the culture war". Departments that ought to be non-political are actively drawn into being partisan players.

I think this first happened with the FBI. The way how the organization was dragged from being supporter of one side to another and how the former director tried and failed to keep non-partisan. The end result is that people's faith in the government will erode even more. Now it's happening to the army.

I'm not worried about a civil war in the conventional meaning. More apt possibility is a "time of troubles", a confusing time when the country will look more like Mexico.

Did you know that in 2018 about 20,000 people lost their lives in the Syrian civil war and that roughly the same numner of people died by homicide in the US in 2021? Civil war? Yes, there's a civil war ongoing in the US. — Agent Smith

Better to look south of your border. It's a better example. There the country isn't in literal civil war... at least in the capital and many parts are tranquil. Yet a total of 350,000-400,000 have died from organized crime homicides 2006–2021. Yes, that's a lower body count than the Syrian Civil War, which has killed 400 000 - 600 000 people.

Inflation is a yawn that is being used by neolib wreckers to further institute cuts and hurt the poor. — StreetlightX

We'll see.

Especially about this line:

Inflation now is ‘transitory’ in the sense that after the ‘sugar rush’ of consumer and investment spending ends during 2022, growth in GDP, investment and productivity will drop back to ‘long depression’ rates. That will mean that inflation will subside.

I guess the question is how long is something 'transitory'.

Especially the idea that the spending will end during 2022 is hilarious. :snicker:

But it's nice to see that you believe in what the Federal Reserve is forecasting!

Oh, they have such great history of accuracy in predicting what will happen. :blush:

There is no 'brewing' economic and monetary crisis. The world economy has been in crisis for more than a decade now. — StreetlightX

That is actually true. Perhaps better to say that things could get even worse.

It's only 'brewing' for those who are comfortable and benefiting from the misery of those who have been in unending crisis for years. — StreetlightX

Nah. Those who have it the worse now will be the ones hit the hardest in the future too, if we have another crisis (on top of the current long one).

For sure it's the valley of death I open up my wallet and it's full of blood because of inflation. — Maw

:smile:

Well, there was this argument of MMT going around that especially the US government can spend more than they think without spurring runaway inflation. (I'd call it the Cheney-rule: "deficits don't matter".) That deflation is our main problem. But I guess if things stay as now, it's great for the wealthy class with those negative real interest rates.

Yes, it isn't the only problem and surely isn't the biggest problem facing us (when you have things like a pandemic and climate change...)

That’s not why we have inflation. We have inflation because of the supply chain. — Xtrix

So how long are you going to believe the official "supply chain" argument?

The Fed has been printing money galore since 2009. — Xtrix

First, no, not in this way. The alphabet soup of programs they went through wasn't at this level and intensity AND the money basically went to uphold the banks, which sat on the money like Scrooge McDuck. Banks sitting on money doesn't create inflation. Or basically just creates asset inflation, which isn't so bad as people don't have to buy assets (but they do have to buy food).

Now the money is going directly to consumers, which does put the money into circulation. Yes, incredible isn't it! Sure, those who have debt and have invested it in something that holds value are going to be the winners. Part of those are ordinary people, but it's the rich who profit most from this. Worse are those who have fixed income like pensioners.

Yes, keep enabling denialism. You’re doing great work. — Xtrix

Yeah, having a debate about the actual issues is enabling denialism.

Doom is nigh and we have to repent our sins!!! (?)

It's not a serious question, we can't grow perpetually. The only question is how long can we grow before we bump against all sorts of limits? — ChatteringMonkey

Market mechanism creates the obvious limits. But if those are disregarded, then simply you will have "official" prices that nobody can get the stuff and then a black market. Perhaps the following remark on what you later note sheds light what I'm trying to say.

At some point fossil fuels will become so expensive that it costs more energy to extract them then you are getting from the extraction. Let's call that a negative Return On Energy (ROE). If ROE is negative it's not worth is from an energy-point of view to extract them... maybe you'd still do it for other applications like plastics, lubricants etc etc, but not for the energy. — ChatteringMonkey

Glad you take this up. First of all, market mechanism will stop the use far before you get negative ROE. Negative ROE is for research stuff. For example, we are quite capable of making Fusion reactors with very low or negative ROE. Profitability goes negative far before a negative ROE is reached.

And you are correct that the end product does determine what is used, hence fossil fuels surely will be used for some of the high end stuff now produced from fossil fuels.

Yeah solar-panels that are produced by a fossil-fueled economy and mass-production process. I'd want to see how that works without fossil-fuels to jump-start the whole process. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, energy policies DO MATTER. The fixation on the US based fossil fuel guzzling economy doesn't tell the truth. Let's compare it with another country.

Here is the fossil-fuel dominated electricity production in the US:


As I said, just look how different the electricity production has been in France, which opted for nuclear:


End result? An actual real difference. Here are the biggest fossil fuel users country by total aggregate use. Do you notice one thing? Yes. The large economy of France is not included:



So policies actually matter. But are they truly implemented? That's the real question.

And even if it would be theoretically possible, it surely isn't in practice as we haven't even succeeded to reduce fossils fuels one iota since we started trying to reduce them consciously — ChatteringMonkey

Have we really tried? Have we had enormous Manhattan-project like programs on this?
No. Here is one statistic that shows the effect to be quite puny even on a global scale:



In today's dollars the Manhattan project was about 20 billion dollars (btw the B-29 was more costly). Nothing close to Biden's Reconciliation Bill (or the trillions to pump up the US economy in general) and the amounts that we put into transfer payments and welfare, which is simple spending that doesn't help this issue at all.

Hydrogen is no source of energy, just a way to store it. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, but doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere, especially when made by non-fossil fuel energy.

I don't know if you even can have a "production-proces" without oil. — ChatteringMonkey

Do notice what is important for climate change is the amount of carbon released to the air. Having lubricants or hell, I warming my sauna in the countryside with wood isn't as important as gas engines being the dominant vehicle motor or the coal plants producing energy. It's the aggregates that matter.

I dunno,I think people just all to easily gloss over the fact that it's not evident (not possible I'd say) to just replace oil and gas, which is solar-energy densely-stored over millennia gushing out of the ground. — ChatteringMonkey

You are totally correct and I agree with you. It isn't at all simple. And likely there isn't the actual political will.

The worst thing is that people won't understand it when or as the climate change is happening. Because the real outcome of draughts, famines, economic crises is political crises and wars. And those have a different narrative: it was this and that politician, it was these factions that started the conflict. Nowhere do you see an link to some political conflict to truly happened because of climate change. Now every smart facet will understand this (like the US Armed Forces), but it simply won't go down to the level of political narrative on how we explain political developments.

In the end, people will take the weather as "Gods will", if the link isn't as obvious as the London smog was to how houses were heated back then. This is the real problem.

We were born and raised in the candy-store, never to know anything else, how could we realistically conceive and really feel like it was not to last. Fossil-fuels being such a potent, yet one time source of energy, really threw us a nasty curve-ball there. — ChatteringMonkey

I still am an optimist and think that we can prevail. We are still standing on the "shoulders of giants" and all that gathered knowledge that science has given us is available for us. The economy hasn't collapsed as it did during antiquity and we haven't gone full backward that we would be going back to the "dark ages part 2". I'm not sure that it will happen. I think it's going to be just a bumpy road. After all, we are living during a global pandemic right now, @ChatteringMonkey. :mask:

And still, I cannot say that my grandparents or especially their parents lived a far more affluent and easier life than me. For me as a young second grader, I remember the first time I walked into an American Supermarket, a Safeway in Seattle in the early 1980's. I just laughed with my father at how much stuff there was. How many entire rows of cereals. It was something I'd never seen in Finland and no, Finland was not part of the eastern bloc back then. But it was ruled by euro social-democrat type semi-controlled economy and such "gluttony" of the US standard basically landed in the country in the 1990's. Now it's quite similar to the US. Ah, the hated capitalism!

And many countries around the World are starting to be like Seattle of the 1980's. So yet we haven't seen this slide downward. Not yet, at least.

A Supermarket in Kenya. Things are changing...

The few rare times I agree with @StreetlightX.

But of course, if you print so much money, you will get inflation. And finally that has happened. Inflation. Finally, MMT doesn't look so smart now. And old school economics is looking to be correct (again).

(is it off to the races here?)

All-in money printing totaled $13 trillion: $5.2 for COVID + $4.5 for quantitative easing + $3 for infrastructure. Mountains of money cause inflation

More than the spending on WW2 by the US in todays dollars. The Fed has gone down the rabbit hole where there's no turning back. 40% of dollars now created out of thin air in the last year and a half.

I think there is brewing a real economic and monetary crisis here. Good luck if you can hold on to your wealth (if you have any) as the next 10-15 can be hard.

Without further use of fossil fuels there can be no growth economy as we know it. — ChatteringMonkey

Do notice what I said. If alternative energies ARE MORE CHEAPER than fossil fuels, then the transformation will be rapid. And do notice what is happening in the World. Things don't happen in an instant, but they do change in decades.

There are no alternatives that work because fossil fuels were a one-time, easy to use energy-dense source of energy. — ChatteringMonkey

I disagree. There are alternatives that are totally realistic. Just look at how for instance the price of solar energy has come down. In fact, the situation where non-fossil fuels are cheaper than fossil fuels isn't at all a distant hypothetical anymore. It is starting to be reality.



Just compare this to then fossil fuels:


The real hurdle are niche things like aircraft. But here the also there is a lot of investment in hydrogen fueled or electric aircraft. (Hydrogen can be made by electrolysis without causing emissions)

The real problems happen when don't invest and just ruin our economies. Then there isn't going to be any investment and then we will have to rely on fossil fuels just to keep our present energy consumption. Ruining the global economy will create political instability and at worst widespread war. Not much investment will then go to climate change. And just notice how for example the US energy consumption has leveled off in this millennium. And do note from below how huge the level of fossil fuels are in the US. But in for example France, it's a different matter (as they have opted smartly for nuclear energy).



So I do disagree in the idea that the global economy cannot grow without fossil fuels. The way things are going now, with little and sporadic investment in technology, with pompous declarations by politically correct politicians (who know people don't remember the promises six months from now), it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Now things might prevail somehow, but likely that isn't enough for those who are against the how our society works in general. They surely will be as disappointed as now are, even if we do manage along for the next one or two hundred years without any cultural collapse.

Since economic growth tracks energy consumption, it doesn't look to hot for the economy going forward. — ChatteringMonkey

Hmm, looking at this statistic, comes to my mind a statistic of the consumption of whale oil. The 19th century likely would produce such a graph. Yep, whales were really hunted down to extinction in the 19th Century, but then came an alternate way of producing similar oil.

The long time question is of course if we need economic growth after we have hit peak human population. More prosperous people have less children, and when the fertility rate is well below 2, do we in the long run need perpetual growth? It's more a like a question for our debt-based monetary system, which needs perpetual growth itself. But otherwise, I don't think so.

The whole discussion is moot anyway because fossil fuels (and other resources too) are a limited resource. Even if we would want to keep using them, we can't because we will run out of them soon enough. The economy will have to collapse no matter how you want to look at it. — ChatteringMonkey

But just how limited is the question. That's why the economy is far more capable to deal with these changes.

You see, it's all about the price. Higher the price, more exotic ways to create oil become profitable. With a lower price, those exotic ways are left to the pages of scientific papers in universities and R&D laboratories and never implemented in real life.

In fact current history of oil production shows this perfectly. Actually "peak conventional oil" happened already years ago (and at the same time when forecasted in the 1970s). But then, what do you know, the US became again a huge producer thanks to technological advances.

I guess @Xtrix is in the camp that endorses the juxtaposition of either we "solve the climate change" or "we think of economics" where "economics" is the filthy "capitalism" of everything bad in the World for him. :smirk:

The problem with climate action is that if the appropriate steps were taken, the result would be a global economic meltdown. — Agent Smith

Actual appropriate steps would be more of investments in the "Manhattan project" -scale to tackle climate issues and simply get non-fossil fuels and energy to be cheaper than fossil fuels. Then things would change rapidly. But otherwise we just create a mess.

But too many times the offered woke answer is that "we have to dramatically cut everything" and other silly but good sounding policies that don't care at all how complex the world is. The juxtaposition between an effective response to climate change and "the economy" isn't actually correct.

I'd say is rather more like this: I think that if you stop purchasing the products of animal cruelty, you will be a more moral person than if you don't, in a way similar to how a person who stopped murdering and stealing would be more moral than what he'd be if he chose to instead continue doing those things. — Amalac

You definitely are of the evangelist sort, just looking at the loaded terms you use and from the debate with others. I have no desire to debate an issue of faith. It goes absolutely nowhere.

Freedom of religion, I guess.

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 don't think people hate vegans per say. They hate vegan evangelists. Vegans who do it because they think its the right thing to do, and don't believe it makes them better than other people, I think are respected like anyone else. But, these vegans don't make a display of it, they're just living their life. — Philosophim

I think this is the main point. It's the evangelist attitude, the "your are bad and I'm better" and I'll tell you that. People don't like evangelists, especially arrogant evangelists that are full of themselves and see them as being better, more enlightened, woke, contrary to others. This is a quite general issue with any kind of evangelist: a leftist progressive (looking down on those right-wing fascists), a conspiracy nut (looking at as others as the ignorant sheeple) or the classical right-wing evangelist (looking down at those hedonistic atheists).

Veganism is an ethical philosophy, not merely a diet. — Amalac

And thus you also have vegan evangelists.

And if your diet finances an industry which is cruel to animals, then you will have to admit that you care more about tasting some particular flavor than about the suffering of animals. — Amalac

Don't predators cause suffering to their prey? And humans have domesticated animals and farmed them from around 11 000 - 9 000 BC, only a thousand or two years after plants were "domesticated" in similar fashion by humans. That this has been a necessity for our present numbers of humans and our society and culture should be considered too.

In fact, the examples of other animals "farming" shows that this basically is a symbiotic relationship which humans as being smart animals have advanced.

Because of their holier-than-thou attitude. They (vegans) need to get off their high horses! :lol: — Agent Smith

Or basically that some Vegans, not all, have the attitude of actively judging what other humans as omnivores eat. That they feel nauseated of others eating meat and make a huge issue of their veganism sometimes happens. Or think that others are committing murder. I think vegans have this attitude far more than your ordinary vegetarians, who can eat things like cheese made from animal milk.

People of other dietary following don't necessarily have this arrogant haughty attitude and the simply fact is that if you have chosen one diet, you should let other people choose their diet as independently also. Simple manners.

It's so convenient to blame covid for what is actually the general decline of quality in human interaction. — baker

Oh but of course! What else would be better that when being rude and not caring about manners, you can insist that you are only being thoughtful and taking into consideration others. And that those who perform these antique antics, likely shaking hands or (OMG!), hugging or kissing to the cheek are putting others in danger. Just as one now famous and widely popular doctor said, he would like that people would not shake hands anymore in general.

People just love it when something that has been nearly a vice can be portrayed as an virtue. And yes, I think people have become more rude and unfriendly in the past two decades compared to the 20th Century.

And yeah, then we'll notice that being lonely has increased! Well, thanks Faceb, correction, META, we will have a better alternative reality to go in later. (As if I'm not here already commenting someone who is a totally stranger to me likely living on another continent or at least in another country)

Do they not work? — baker

How many now have started to work from home? Working from home isn't because of Covid, but this experiment has surely increased working from home.

It's far cheaper for your employer if the employees stay at home and work from there and only occasionally comes to a physical meeting or something. No need to have or rent huge office spaces.

What has been the normal, regular, ordinary experience for so many minorites, for those bullied and mobbed, excluded from normal society, has now become a temporary experience for a few more people. And they cry foul?! — baker

Ah yes, the evil arrogant majority with their white privilege. They (we) surely deserve this!

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.

I am really wondering what comes next. — Jack Cummins

I will assume it's just a very long haul of the same debate, same restrictions, vaccinations and coronapassports until it fiddles out like the War on Terror.

You see, there was no time the "War on Terror", that started 20 years ago, did come to an end. It's still basically fought in various places. In Iraq the "War on Terror" is still fought, and so is in North Africa. After the disgraceful pullout from Afghanistan people simply don't want to talk about it, to refer to it. The term has vanished from the vocabulary, and the new threat that people are urged to be afraid is China.

Same will be with the Covid-19 pandemic. The virus will simply become similar to influenza A, and the officials will urge people to have the next shot, and then the next. Just as with the annual flu shots. And politicians, health officials, simply will stop referring to the pandemic...as a pandemic. Nobody has the balls to declare that the measures taken now will be ended at a formal time, so they will be there for years to come. Even then when far less people die of Covid than other spreadable diseases.

Perhaps in 2030 when you go to your local medical center, you'll still see some signs about how to prevent COVID-19. And people won't bother about it, but likely many won't shake hands anymore. I assume that will happen: the World will be a colder place with less physical contact with people you don't know. Hand shaking is then such an old gesture then, I guess. Just like the gesture of a man kissing the hand of a woman, it will perhaps become too theatrical.

I'm not sure the "billionaires to Mars" private mission will do it in the end. Not that it could happen, but come one deep economic depression and suddenly these billionaires have no money to do it anymore (assuming they won't be saved by the government, which isn't obvious as they aren't banks.) Suddenly Elon and Jeff can have some 50 billion less. Let's hope that doesn't happen (as millions of poorer people will be in dire straits).

It only shows how little effort has been put after the 70's into manned flight de facto. But let's not kid ourselves: the whole manned space mission was an PR offshoot from the real program of building the ICBM arsenal. Russia even had a military space station and experimented shooting an AA cannon in space.

So obviously without an nuclear arms race, it has been slow on this theatre. But hope that something will come out of it. Going to Mars is one for the history books, at least then something from our time could be remembered in a positive light. I fear otherwise that the 21st Century will look quite pale and boring compared to the 20th Century.

Moon first, then Mars.

Or we could try establishing civilization on Earth first. — James Riley

Hear hear!!!

Hope they have a flawless launch!

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:

Lol. That's the problem with you Americans. Always taking the credit for everything! :wink:

Believe me, other people besides you can also fuck up things too in a spectacular fashion. Many times even without you.

ust as Gödel discovered back in the 1900s, the American constitution has loopholes that allow a dictator to come to power. What those loopholes are only Gödel and the friends to whom he had confided this info to, Einstein among them, knows. They're all, unfortunately, dead and gone! Beware Americans. — TheMadFool

I read somewhere, that when Gödel was applying for US citizenship, he started to take up the matter of the loopholes up with the citizenship examiner. Luckily Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern did calm Gödel down (as perhaps it wasn't the best place to start debating the subject) and he got his citizenship.

Trust a native, sir, my country was a "shithole" in 2019 (in 1989) too. — 180 Proof

Well, things can always get even worse. Just look at Mexico. It's surprisingly like the US, but just worse. Worse corruption, worse police, worse crime. Of course, what is lacking is the hyper-partisan political tribalism as Mexicans know all their politicians are thieves. (You might think the election of Lopez Obrador would cause a divide and an Mexican "culture war", but actually...no.)

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.)

Well, that seems like a nice future there.

I can always remember how nice the US was actually in 2019, the last time I was there.

I agree.

Yet the problem is this. In 2016 Trump was already totally ready and in fact expecting to play the "stolen election" card. Now in 2020 that became the reality. Now with 2024, both sides seem to think that the election will be stolen. The article is sure about that and is a good example of this.

Perhaps this part shows this most clearly:

One year later, Douthat looked back. In scores of lawsuits, “a variety of conservative lawyers delivered laughable arguments to skeptical judges and were ultimately swatted down,” he wrote, and state election officials warded off Trump’s corrupt demands. My own article, Douthat wrote, had anticipated what Trump tried to do. “But at every level he was rebuffed, often embarrassingly, and by the end his plotting consisted of listening to charlatans and cranks proposing last-ditch ideas” that could never succeed.

Douthat also looked ahead, with guarded optimism, to the coming presidential election. There are risks of foul play, he wrote, but “Trump in 2024 will have none of the presidential powers, legal and practical, that he enjoyed in 2020 but failed to use effectively in any shape or form.” And “you can’t assess Trump’s potential to overturn an election from outside the Oval Office unless you acknowledge his inability to effectively employ the powers of that office when he had them.”

That, I submit respectfully, is a profound misunderstanding of what mattered in the coup attempt a year ago. It is also a dangerous underestimate of the threat in 2024—which is larger, not smaller, than it was in 2020.

For all I know, to do a self-coup with the powers of the US president is far more easier than not being the President. So really to argue that the threat is bigger in 2024 than it was in 2020, nah. There's no strategic surprise anymore, Trump isn't getting the political establishment caught like deer in the headlights.

Where does that lead the US? Both sides already making the charge that the other one is up to no good. It's like both sides are saying: "Let's not even wait for the actual election years from now, it will be stolen." Seems like elections will get to be only bigger dumpster fires than the last one.

Although I think this is a view that still can change:

Unless biology intercedes, Donald Trump will seek and win the Republican nomination for president in 2024. The party is in his thrall. No opponent can break it and few will try. Neither will a setback outside politics—indictment, say, or a disastrous turn in business—prevent Trump from running. If anything, it will redouble his will to power.

There still are the midterms before this, and things have changed in US politics quite quickly.

And one thing, I don't think that a guy like Patterson in the article represents all the 74 million that voted Trump. I'm sure that you can find the most woke, most stereotypical liberal that perfectly annoys everything in Republicans, just as the racist Patterson does.

Let's not forget that the vast majority of American voters don't believe the steal.

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.)

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.

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: