Don't then leave Brazil out of the club. When Brazil decided to get into lucrative satellite launching service with their own space program, one country deeply opposed this. I think you know who. — ssu

I don't. Or was this about who got to launch the satellites? India vs US?

@ssu do you think it's a good idea for Finland to join NATO? Or is there any alternative in the world of the possible (including the improbable) that you would prefer?

Do you think a referendum on a European army would give different results if we'd have one now?

The sarcasm of the presentator is incredibly annoying. Just report the facts. The only fact in there is how the Saudi advisory board was overruled by MBS. The rest is just... cringe worthy.

Any use of any nuclear device would lose Russia whatever respect it still has on the world stage, this would be the last straw that every nation in the General Assembly will not fail to condemn. — FreeEmotion

Every nation will condemn it and then turn around and continue to do business with Russia except for the West. If the use of nuclear weapons is so problematic, one wonders why the USA is still respected.

I did, which is why I find the claim they were making headway incredulous and was asking for clarification, instead you chose to react like a petulant child.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/26/imf-review-ukraine-debt-gdp-linked-warrants-reform/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/ukraine-russia-zelensky-putin.html

Thanks. Not very clear yet what is going on but I wouldn't be surprised if war crimes are committed. We haven't seen a war yet that doesn't have them.

wtf? What's that about? Why? Got a link too?

Join Nato? Because they had too much corruption up until just recently. They kicked out the pro-Russian people and started working against state and societal corruption. Nato demands a core focus on democratic stability so they couldn't have joined earlier. And this is probably one reason why Putin acted to invade now, the timetable became shorter, if not now, then never and he would never have had any chance of reclaiming Ukraine. The problem for Putin is that he sees Western standards as weak, so I guess he thought that when the pro-Russian people were kicked out, Ukraine would have sunken into the decadence of the west and would be easy to invade, but if he actually understood history, then he would know that people fighting for freedom are the fiercest of all. — Christoffer

Where's the story that Ukraine was making headway with it's anti-corruption drive?

You guys are grasping at straws now. — Olivier5

1. There's no "you guys", that's just your association;
2. That whole exchange with Christoffer was cringeworthy;
3. I understood what you were saying and gave you the charitable interpretation so there was no "grasping at straws", where I even agreed with you;
4. Maybe stop being belligerent just because I mostly disagree with you and keep thinking and reading properly.

This has been pointed out several times. Also, Sweden and Finland stayed neutral for decades precisely because they didn't want to provoke Russia but now we have Swedes and Fins arguing on this board that such a statement didn't provoke Russia, that NATO expansion isn't a strategic threat because everything Western is totally benign and we're free to choose because "sovereignty". :chin:

So, don't bother.

BTW, I take exception to this. I appreciate Russian culture and folks. I've read Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, Andreï Makine, Nabokov... Nothing in my comment pertained to a supposed Russian race or ethnicity or even to their culture. When I speak of 'the Russians' I mean their army. — Olivier5

Where in that reply did I suggest this? I was just pointing out your choice of words were poor even though I quite clearly understood your meaning.

That totally doesn't read like a racist trope. But I get what you're saying, in this war the preparation and execution of the Russian attack seems incompetent (from where we're standing), which makes you doubt as to the qualities of its leadership. It's that or a gross underestimation of the abilities of the Ukrainians. I can't imagine their intelligence being off though, that close to Russia with that many familial connections across borders.

Are you seriously pretending we were talking about history and not parroting Biden's idiotic qualification of the current war? Come on.

that the US has openly promised to protect in coordination with Russia — Count Timothy von Icarus

It has made no such promise, which is why they were stringing Ukraine along for 14 years precisely to avoid having to protect them. Which is now also the problem for Ukraine pursuing neutrality. It refused neutrality as long as its neutrality isn't guaranteed by a guarantee to protect by several Western powers.

So why dangle membership if you never intended to let them join and aren't willing to protect them? Hmmm... What other motive could they have had? Wow, this is so complicated... :zip:



What I don't understand is why now? Why not wait until the pressure is at least a bit lower making it less provocative and less likely to lead to further escalation?

That's insulting to Jews, native Americans, Aboriginals and a multitude of other people who were actually the target of genocide.

Did Russia invade Ukraine in 2022 because the US set up missiles in Europe decades ago to counter the USSR? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I missed your earlier post. I agree with most what you say so I'll just cherrypick what I think is a misrepresentation. Russia invaded because of the continued talks and reaffirmation of Ukraine joining NATO along with a history of NATO expanding where Russia didn't want that.

Also, here's a decent article in the Guardian from yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/13/nato-ukraine-russia-end-war

What? That the US and Russia are both to blame for this war thanks to them waging a decades long proxy war there? Based on stuff people predicted 25 years ago, repeatedly repeated and now we have to buy that there's a new set of conditions and motivations because Putin made a speech even if NATO withdrawal and cessation of expansion was the demand right before the war?

Why don't you tell me what you think is true and argue why the above is false instead of handwaving at it?

@frank Btw, had an interesting discussion with a friend today who paraphrased recent history of Europe as: we have to thank the Russians for not speaking German and thank the Americans for not speaking Russian.

I do agree. So thanks for that, now convince your oligarchic overlords to stop with the empire building and maybe take global warming seriously.

That's neither here nor there. Nobody in this scenarios cares what the Mexicans think - I just indulged your question because listing US crimes is a hobby so that nobody forgets how everything it touches becomes worse.

The point is the USA would not accept (and did not during the Cuban missile crisis) that countries it considers dangerous or hostile sets up military bases and equipment on its border. Neither does Russia. And surprise, there's war.

Obviously some impute more sinister motives or argue it's not the main reason but it's enough of a reason by any standard that the US would apply itself.

Doesn't make it pretty or morally just but it is entirely in line with expectations and exactly what most countries would do if they had enough power.

Oh, I don't know, because of the US war on drugs, attempts at regime change in countries nearby, rhetoric suggesting Mexicans are sub-human (they're all rapists remember). The fact the US has broken more treaties than any other country in history (every treaty with native americans ever) might be a reason too and has started more aggressive wars in the past 40 years than any other country. They have extensive covert operations since the Cold War and this has hardly abated or it just pretends it's all one big "war on terror" and has military operations, regularly without local authority (talk about "sovereignty") in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, CHad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia, Philippines, Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana, Suriname, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan.

Of course, when the US does it, it's called "foreign intervention" instead of "use of force" and "aggression".

Mexico in particular is further confronted with clandestine US military interventions in the war on drugs or has the US bankroll political opposition groups.

Oh yeah, we're supposed to be allied and the US things international law is important, except if we would try a US american citizen at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, in which case they can invade the Netherlands (an ally) without a recognised ground in international law. So if there's one country that has exactly zero standing to complain about any other country about "breaking the rules" it's the US.

Of course, once we forget about the rules, we realise the rules are whatever power can enforce them to be. So they will change and our chance to develop a system of universal rules after WWII has been squandered.

As @Olivier5 put it succintly: the US stabbed the UN system in the back when it attacked Iraq (and even before that with the illegal war in Afghanistan).

Putin knew NATO had no intention of threatening Russia militarily. He wasn't worried about that. He felt it was time to raise Russia's global profile. — frank

I find the argument that the NATO is purely a defensive alliance rather naïve. As if the US would accept a defensive pact between Mexico and China where China places ballistic missiles in Mexico.

It's also waylaid by the fact it took military action in Kosovo in 1999 which was most definitively not a defensive war but a "humanitarian intervention" where everybody pretended the KLA didn't commit them as well (and then retreated over the border to Albania in the hopes of turning it into an international conflict).

In Ukraine. See: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/26/imf-review-ukraine-debt-gdp-linked-warrants-reform/

The IMF’s $5 billion financial package for Ukraine, agreed on in mid-2020, has stalled, with the most recent review mission ending in February without a deal on the next tranche of funding. The IMF is waiting until Ukraine’s leadership decides to recommit to the agreed priorities, which include bank independence and judicial reform, as well as anti-corruption measures. This is not the first time Ukraine’s cooperation with the IMF has been delayed due to the pace of Kyiv’s corruption reforms. Back in 2016, Christine Lagarde, then the managing director of the IMF, gave a harsh warning to Ukraine that it would stop a $40 billion bailout program for the country unless it was serious about fighting corruption.

At the same time, the debt problem is only becoming more urgent. Ukraine’s public and publicly guaranteed debt increased from 50.4 percent of GDP in 2019 to a projected 65.4 percent in 2020, according to the IMF. In December alone, Ukraine’s Finance Ministry raised roughly $4 billion in government bonds, with the majority of the securities at interest rates between 10-12 percent. Among other debt, Ukraine also announced a $350 million short-term loan from Deutsche Bank that month. According to Ukraine’s finance ministry, the country will have to repay roughly $11 billion during the first half of 2021, or about 7 percent of the country’s GDP. It will then have to repay roughly an additional $10 billion during the rest of 2021.

I think the anti-corruption-democratic activities that went on in Ukraine were seen as a threat to Putin directly. — frank

All accounts I read were reporting that corruption reform wasn't going anywhere.

Military integration resulting in all sorts of military bases surrounding Moscow is in my view the main worry of the Russians, which is why they are against NATO encirclement and what I see as the main reason for Russia to start the recent war. The declaration of NATO last year was the last poke of the bear, Russia demanded withdrawal, which was seen as a gambit to allow them to negotiate that no further expansion of NATO would take place.

I seem to recall, but can't find it right now, that Russia explicitly stated economic integration with the EU wasn't the issue. Not sure what they mean with that since the EU has an assistance article in case of an attack as well for its EU treaty members. So maybe they meant association treaty or partnership and cooperation agreement.

Economics has never been the issue as far as I know. The question is the level of corruption and to what extent that's a barrier to integrate with the EU economic system.

I was editing my previous comment but you already replied. :-)

The 40 billion is local currency, so only 1,5 billion USD. Not that bad if they hadn't already had huge debt with a debt to GDP ratio of over 65% in 2020. Yield for 10 year bonds is almost 20% at the moment. For comparison, Dutch is 1.09% and Germany 0.81%.

40 billion in war time bonds. Ukraine is fucked even if Putin loses.

Did an overview of articles again today. I'm reading a lot Al Jazeera, which seems the only non-Western newspaper to have Ukraine as front page news but that probably doesn't have much of a bias.

The Buenos Aires Herald hasn't written about the war.

The Rio Times barely (Brazil urges independent investigation without "pre-judiging Russia"). Certainly not front page news.

Japan today has one link on the front page but main story is about pregnant women facing abuse in an internship. Neutral reporting.

The Korean Chosun Ilbo does not have it on the front page. Pro-Ukraine reporting.

The Times of India do not report about it on the front page. Reporting appears sympathetic to Russia.

Taipei Times it's not front page news even when selecting the section "world news". Reading western media you'd think Taiwan was in a state of panic because of the precedent this war would create. Except of course, every US war already gave them enough of a precedent to worry about. The Taiwanese don't really care.

In the South African the only Ukrainian news is that the bear Kiryusha has found a new home in the Netherlands. Reporting neutral.

Africanews only reports that the war will affect world trade and that the EU is negotiation with Nigeria for extra gas. Reporting neutral.

Haaretz. Not front page news. An article on Israeli diamond traders funding the Russian effort. Reporting neutral.

Nobody cares except the West, Ukrainians and Russians. The rest of the world knows what the rules are worth. Which is basically nothing because if you have power and you can project it, countries will. For them it's just another war not worth talking about.

What does that say about Western media and politicians? What does it say about the hopes of a rule-based international order?

I think it lays bare the continued Western "exceptionalism" thinking. We still think we're superior, we still think our moralising is what should govern the world and because it isn't universal and we haven't applied it consistently to ourselves as well, our vaunted treaties on wars (The Hague and Geneva conventions), the UN Charter, they're all worth less than the paper they're written on.

EDIT: This is a depressing conclusion to me as a trained human rights lawyer. I had high hopes 20 years ago.

At least he has had no troubles of doing that partly for 8 years. So why take some more?

There's no reason why he now would have to stop. Do notice the logic behind terrorizing people to move away from their homes. Will he stop because of sanctions??? Lol.

The only way Putin is going to come to the negotiation table is if a) Ukraine gives in to his demand or b) he has similar success in the Donbas as he had encircling Kyiv. — ssu

They weren't in a costly war for 8 years. Sanctions obviously don't deter, they've never done that and basically act as a mechanism for collective punishment that kill a lot of people (Israel - Palestine, Cuba, Iraq are prime examples) and in some cases (like now Russia but also Palestine and Cuba) I'd even argue they rise to the level of a blockade.

In any case, at some point the costs don't outweigh the (potential) benefits any more. I would suspect that if Mariopol falls and control over the Donbass region would be obtained, that that too would count as a victory to him and would have him move to the negotiation table.

So what's the difference with France? — ssu

France has already recognised that Russia does have security interests in the region, which a lot of people keep pretending don't exist because "sovereignty". The US only communicates positions, complains about crimes it regularly commits itself and makes childish insults everybody that knows anything is happy to ignore. And in any case it does not have a real interest in the region other than its insane imperialist ambition to have a sphere of influence across the world, which we shouldn't be supporting to begin with. Both the EU and Russia have a shared security interest in the region where stability and peace are preferable over war. That shouldn't include the US. It shouldn't have any business here but Europeans have been only too happy to rely on US military power. That has to stop. Finally, Russia and the EU have an important shared history and we aren't under Nazi-rule largely thanks to them. There's plenty of common ground, which Macron understands and has stated several times.

Long term peace for whom, exactly, I mean the man on the street (except the streets of Kyiv) wants that but he is over-ruled is he not, by the feudal lord is he not? — FreeEmotion

Everybody. In the short term though a ceasefire in Ukraine would be nice.

Macron believes in diplomacy first and foremost and has rightly been insisting on the EU breaking away from NATO for years to avoid being caught up in the imperialistic endeavours of the USA, which, by the way, proves to be totally unreliable for the degenerate nutcases it votes into office. The EU needs to become a strategic player if it wants a say about its long term future.

That he has consistently pursued a diplomatic solution makes him a statesman that understands the long game better than his 10-second attention span US and UK counterparts. Putin will have to come to the table at some point, he can't occupy Ukraine and large areas are vehemently opposed to the Russians. Other than calling Putin names, the US hasn't helped Ukraine either except making money off the militarization of Ukrainian society. We do know that when negotiations need to happen, France (and Germany and Italy) are the only countries that haven't disqualified themselves as negotiation partners.

I can appreciate his consistency and calm (and that of the French diplomatic corps) in this. It's easy to be angry but we need to keep our eye on the ball - long term peace.

What a pathetic PR stunt by BoJo. Trying to viscerally be a war time prime minister.

My focus is more on how that will play out. The course of the next few centuries is already set. — frank

The way things are going and how the US and Europe are preparing for the next round of bipolar struggle everything might be moot. But Kudos for looking even further, I don't plan beyond my kids' expected death, somewhere around 2100.

because I use NoScript. — SophistiCat

What's that?

from the article:

These types of tests promise to lead to significant amounts of energy in a few decades since nuclear fusion is so vitally important. — Article

How many is a few? At a minimum 20 years then. Much too late. Climate action needs to happen today and considering the rich west is not willing to give up its way of life, they will continue to squabble about how to account for carbondioxide and make sure there are enough loopholes that on paper they reach their target but in reality don't do anything.

Because that's the foreseeable future, agreement on an accounting method in the next 2—3 years and then another 5 years to conclude the rules aren't working (which is false, they will do exactly what they want then to do, allow them to continue to do what they want). It's the biggest greenwashing scam to come.

carbon capture — Marchesk

Another unproven technology. We can certainly hope but it's no replacement for actual policy doing what needs to be done with technologies we currently have and fully understand. If halfway through we are handed a tool that makes it easier, that's great but otherwise it has indeed just been an excuse not to do anything.



Mining uranium is incredibly carbon dioxide intensive. Also another fuel that isn't unlimited as well. Not a definitive solution and avoids the necessity to focus on energy efficiency first and replacing energy generation systems.

Science isn't normative. There's no "rule", there's only classification. There are three visually distinct sexes, there are more based on chromosomes. Not all chromosomal abnormalities are infertile which means there's more to sexual reproduction than XX and XY.

The tech miracle would be commercial fusion. With cheap, abundant energy you can do a lot. Such as large-scale carbon capture and desalinization. — Marchesk

Too late for that. By the time this is effectively available, we will have breezed past the moment we could've avoided 1.5 degrees.

Yes, and then there's xxy, xyy and if I remember correctly xxx and yyy. Also a chimera syndrome possible and even x-reversed men syndrome, so female based on chromosomes but physically expressing as men. So that makes 8. I'm sure there are other naturally occurring chromosomal abnormalities I've not heard of.

That depends on your definition of sex. Chromosomal there's about six although they usually express visually as either female or male. But if you take visual cues as defining sex then you have to account for pseudohermaphrodism, so then there are three sexes.

Take your pick, 3 or 6. But certainly never 2.

Edmund Adam writes:

Analysis: Ukraine war: The history of conflict shows how elective wars ultimately fail (Mar 29, 2022) — jorndoe

Uh... So all the Roman wars, Alexander the Great, the unification wars by Qin, they were all "necessary"?

I forget: Genghis Khan. Settler colonialism at the point of gun. Etc.

People have had 50 years to awaken. It's not going to happen, mate. As I expected when I told you "same difference".

What you need to do, being aware, is starting on that back up plan. Find land at least 30 meters above sea level, make it energy neutral with enough land to grow enough food and enough water nearby or enough rainfall to capture it. Study some agriculture and teach your kids, if you have them. If you don't have them, don't get them unless you know your backup plan is going to work. Preferably do it with a group of people so you can specialise in various skills.