Closer and closer to major-powers war
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, September 6, 2018 21:50
VIEWED: 21060
PAGE 2 of 2
Well, it occurs to me that there are a couple things I haven't considered.
The first is that Merkel and Hollande may realize that the USA is stirring up a shitstorm and that they are (as one of my former professors used to say) "standing in front of the fan".
The second thing that Hollande and Merkel may possibly realize is that they have absolutely no leverage on anything the USA might do. They can't stop weapons flow from the USA. In addition, Poroshenko and "Yats" owe their careers to the USA. What could the EU do to pressure Poroshenko into accepting a cease fire that didn't please the USA? Kerry visited Kiev to discuss policy with Kiev's leaders (ie stiffen their spine, remind them who they owe their positions to) then Merkel and Hollande trail in afterwards?
So, what can Merkel and Hollande actually do?
Yeah, that's what I thought too.
When Victoria Nuland said "fuck the EU", I don't think anyone in Europe realized exactly how deeply and how hard she was prepared to do exactly that. I think if it means turning Europe into a war-torn wasteland to destroy Russia, she'd be OK with that. EU politicians should have paid more attention, but of course Germany was at the time entranced with its vision of itself as the creditor nation and "powerhouse of the EU", and everyone in NATO owes their vaunted position to the USA.
If Merkel and Hollande really understand the situation, they would have gone to Putin on bended knee, and begged him to accept something that would bring peace and save them from the threat of war.
-----------
Another point is the timing of what Russia might do in response to the USA arming Kiev. Many people already believe that the USA is providing arms and supplies to Kiev, and that the USA would simply be making it official.
But taking the idea of the USA supplying arms to Kiev, all Russia has to do is supply some high-tech weapons to the DPR-LPR. Kiev's army is close to collapse already, the command structure has "shoot to kill" orders for deserters, and - worse- unless Kiev gets a HUGE injection of money RIGHT AWAY, the economy and civil society won't stick together much longer.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G, mostly, you've just said something to say something. There's no evidence to ANYTHING that you wrote, and quite often there's evidence against it.
Quote:I'm confused. Are you saying that Obama is bluffing about sending arms to Kiev, or that the EU is bluffing about making peace?
The first is that Merkel and Hollande may realize that the USA is stirring up a shitstorm and that they are (as one of my former professors used to say) "standing in front of the fan".-SIGNY
Or, it could be they are the carrot and the US is the stick, good cop bad cop, that they are in fact actually working together. It is quite possible they have had actual discussions about all of this. It's more likely a semi-bluff to get Russia to think about it's next move carefully.-MRG
Quote:So, are you saying that the USA is threatening Poroshenko and Yats? If so, why should Russia care?
The second thing that Hollande and Merkel may possibly realize is that they have absolutely no leverage on anything the USA might do. They can't stop weapons flow from the USA. In addition, Poroshenko and "Yats" owe their careers to the USA. What could the EU do to pressure Poroshenko into accepting a cease fire that didn't please the USA? Kerry visited Kiev to discuss policy with Kiev's leaders (ie stiffen their spine, remind them who they owe their positions to) then Merkel and Hollande trail in afterwards?-SIGNY
Sounds like old Soviet style, "threaten them!" Instead of actually using intelligence. No one wants a war, no one - it hurts everyone. I'm not sure Russia cares though.
Quote:In other words, they can yammer at Putin. Like I said, they can't actually DO anything. They're not the decision-makers.In any case, Merkel is making that case- "nothing good to be gained here" - not to Putin, but to Obama.
So, what can Merkel and Hollande actually do? -SIGNY
Try and get Putin to see there's no benefit to this? That there's no good end game for Russia other than support peace? Now?-G
Quote:
The German chancellor, who has acted as the West’s chief interlocutor with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the crisis, bluntly rejected those calls on Saturday. “The problem is I cannot imagine a situation in which an improved arming of the Ukrainian army leads to President Putin being so impressed that he believes he will lose militarily,” Ms. Merkel said at the Munich Security Conference in response to criticism from some U.S. senators. “This cannot be won militarily. That is the bitter truth. The international community must think of something else.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/merkel-expresses-uncertainty-over-ukraine-
peace-deal-1423304102
Quote:Do you even KNOW the context of the conversation? Apparently not, because otherwise you wouldn't have even written this. Please look it up. AFA "giving Nuland power" - she represents a group of neocons in the State Department, is married to a rather infamous neocon herself. She individually doesn't have that much power but she represents a group of people who do. When I refer to Nuland, I'm referring to the collective decision-makers of which she is the most visible member.
When Victoria Nuland said "fuck the EU", I don't think anyone in Europe realized exactly how deeply and how hard she was prepared to do exactly that. I think if it means turning Europe into a war-torn wasteland to destroy Russia, she'd be OK with that. EU politicians should have paid more attention, but of course Germany was at the time entranced with its vision of itself as the creditor nation and "powerhouse of the EU", and everyone in NATO owes their vaunted position to the USA.-SIGNY
Your type never gets tired of that (mostly out of context) quote do you? It's a new twist though giving her that much power, like she's the one deciding the outcome of all of this.
Quote:
If Merkel and Hollande really understNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Summary of Ukraine's recent history, according to my previous posts:
The crisis was brought about by a trade deal. Russia had offered trilateral (Ukraine, EU, Russia) negotiations and a three-way trade bloc, and also offered $15B bond purchase and attractively repriced gas. The EU required an exclusive deal. Yanukovich chose the Russian deal, with the proviso that he would reconsider the EU offer a little bit later.
Maidan becomes more active. In order to stem the tide of violence, the Ukraine and the EU broker a deal in which early elections will be held in March, this deal was agreed to Feb 21.
On Feb 22, unknown snipers take the lives of 100 people. These snipers shoot Berkut and demonstrators alike. The rightwing groups which are spearheading the Maidan violence erupt, threatening and beating members of Yanukovich's Party, and Yanukovich himself flees.
The people that the USA had chosen are (amazingly!) appointed to represent the interim government.
At that point, I start noting that a significant minority- somewhere in the realm of 30-35% of the people- don't support the new government. Trust is not helped along when the new government makes an abortive attempt to outlaw the Russian language, and people are beaten and burned throughout Ukraine by rightwing forces.
IT'S AT THAT POINT THAT I MAKE MY PREDICTION THAT UKRAINE WILL FAIL AS A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT AND AS AN ECONOMY.
Not being a military person, I didn't predict that it would turn into a civil war, nor did I predict the collapse of Kiev's army. I DID however predict the collapse of civil support for the government.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy
Your timeline makes your case. Kerry first and Merkel and Hollande afterwards trying to avert the trainwreck.
The US has another option. Rather than put US-boots and -equipment on the ground (at US expense), the US may try to bring NATO into the picture, not for an acute-phase hot war with the goal of winning, but for an extended slog.
I've been trying to find under what circumstances NATO decides to give itself authority to use force. Apparently not having a UN mandate in Kosovo was a big watershed, in which NATO said to hell with international law, we have a HIGHER mandate!
Now according to this: http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2013_10/20131018_131022
-MediaBackgrounder_NRF_en.pdf The now-permanent NATO Reaction Force (to which member countries contribute rotating personnel) and its deployment into Afghanistan are a "... vehicle to demonstrate operational readiness, as well as a “testbed” for Alliance transformation." Whatever that is.
As for how NATO actually decides to deploy, it says "Any decision to use the NATO Response Force is a consensual political decision, taken on a case-by-case basis by all 28 Allies in the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s principal decision-making body."
Looking further, this document http://www.nato.int/ims/docu/mc0457_en.pdf NATO
UNCLASSIFIED MC 0457/1 NATO MILITARY POLICY ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS fails to load. It might be helpful. Maybe you'll have better luck.
In any case, NATO seems to be under the joint direction of the US and Britain on the topic. Kiev claims, NATO and Britain echo. I've thought all this time that the plan was to bring NATO on the scene. So far it seems like there's been enough ambiguity (ie lack of evidence) about the claims made that NATO's been forced to sit on the sidelines. So this may be an effort to provoke a Russian response so that NATO can be, finally, activated.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're going to have to explain it better, cites, etc., because it sounds like you're saying the IMF lends money to destroy their customer's economies?
Yep. What do they care about economies as long as they drain out their take?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G, mostly my reply to you is "whatever", because if your opinions aren't based on any sort of evidence or logic, they're not worth much. However, I did want to address a couple of points:
Quote:in my sentence, followed by "correct"? So I guess we're both at fault.
So you are pro destroy Ukraine then?-G
You're such as ass. You just can't resist putting words in my mouth, can you?-SIGNY
And you're an illiterate ass - that's a question not a statement - see the question mark? I actually did something you rarely do and asked rather than negatively presume. Your's usually go, "so what you are saying is >fill in negative presumption here."-G
Quote:
The reality is that Ukraine started to destroy itself the minute it rejected the Russian trade/aid offer and signed on to the EU offer. Yanukovich, as corrupt as he may have been, was right about what Kiev could and couldn't afford and Kiev couldn't afford the EU "deal". -SIGNY
Looks like Ukraine felt they couldn't afford Yanukovich either.-G
I guess that's the problem with people and how they budget and what they "feel" they can and can't afford ... people often aren't very realistic about it. The people in the Maidan were disconnected from reality ... they had no idea of their nation's financial situation, or that accepting the EU deal and IMF loans would mean higher prices and lower wages/pensions, and certainly NOT strolling the boulevards drinking coffee at quaint coffee shops. (If they wanted to see what that really meant, they should have looked at Greece, Spain, Ireland, or Portugal ... or even Poland (always presented as such a success story but a constant source of sex trade workers and low-wage emigres), Bulgaria and Romania.
Quote:All I can do to explain my view of the IMF is when I first looked into in detail, at the time when Brazil was transitioning from a military government to a civilian one.
You're going to have to explain it better, cites, etc., because it sounds like you're saying the IMF lends money to destroy their customer's economies?
Basically, Brazil had been under control of the military since 1964. The military rulers ran the economy into the ground, poverty was rampant, development was nil. So they borrowed a crap-ton of money from the IMF, the brother of the junta leader pocketed a fair portion of the loan and other leaders pocketed much of the remainder. (There was a movie which references the corruption and surreal nature of Brazil at that time, it's called "Brazil" with Robert de Niro and Terry Gilliam. If you like surreal movies, this one is for you- but only if you have a strong stomach. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/)
One of the things you need to know about IMF loans is that they always come with one condition: REDUCE GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Usually this means reducing subsidies on necessities, reducing welfare payment and other transfers, reducing infrastructural improvements and so forth. This was "austerity" before the ECB started applying it to EU nations.
So what happened in Brazil was that the junta members made off with a lot of money, and impoverished the people even further. Once the military had made a complete clusterfuck of the economy and could no long wring much $$ out of it, they turned it over to civilians in 1985. And despite proof that much of the IMF's loan had been embezzled, the IMF insisted that the new government pay it all back, on time, under the original conditions, without giving the government time to even try and recover any of the stolen money.
The IMF does this to EVERY nation it loans to. They wind up poorer and less developed than before, and the money usually goes to corrupt leaders.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G
I don't think you understand about the IMF: it quite often gives loans to corrupt governments which have no interest in their population, or in developing the economy.
Why?
Because only corrupt governments would agree to the terms of the loans in the first place, and the IMF prefers it that way because only corrupt governments would be willing to take money out of the mouths of the hungry in order to feed the IMF. In loan after loan, example after example, from Central and South America to Africa to Ukraine, those IMF loans go to a government which inevitably embezzles a fair potion, and recycles the rest back to the IMF's donor nations, leaving the population poorer and the nation less developed than before. You really should look this up for yourself. If you can get past the "I" strain (every second sentence begins with the word "I") try reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". Improbable loans, often made in collusion with corrupt governments, are used by the lending nations to acquire resources at fire-sale prices.
The ECB has taken a similar tack, and you can use Greece as a detailed and timely dissection of what the IMF also does.
But I see you took the discussion off-course, in which I explained how and why I predicted that Ukraine would collapse, about how the EU deal and the IMF loan was a horrible plan and that Yanukovich was right to reject it. Did you at least learn something from THAT? Seriously, son, why do you fight information so hard? When somebody tells you something you violently and viscerally disagree with, can't you at least put it in a kind of emotional quarantine while you evaluate whether it's true, false, or somewhere in-between, instead of immediately going on the offense to "disprove" something that might even be correct?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, G, you made another point which I think deserves an answer:
Quote:Anyone who is a Brzezinski protege. Brzezinski is not dead-and-gone, he's a powerful anti-Russian "full spectrum dominance" advisor who sees the USA in complete control of the entire world. He continues to influence foreign policy today. That includes Nuland, Kagan (her husband), Hillary and Bill Clinton (for that reason, Hillary would be a terrible choice for President, because she believes that such a future is even possible), and Obama (although he's kind of weak-kneed about his support). I'm sure there are others, I just haven't looked it up.
You sure are awfully dismissive of the pull that Europe has, and at the same time you think Nuland runs the show, or her husband does. ... Very interesting - who are the others in this cabal?
I think I'm seeing that there is more than one "flavor" of neocon. There were the dual-citizen American-Israeli Jews who wrote policy papers for Netanyahu (Abrams, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz etc) of the Bush administration, who were intensely focused on destroying Israel's enemies and who prosecuted the pointless war on Iraq.
And then there are the Russian-hating, Brzenzinski proteges who believe that the USA CAN and SHOULD militarily dominate the entire world, and who see that taking Russia out of the picture is necessary in order to "pivot" to Asia. These are in the Obama administration.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is only one way to peace in Ukraine, something which I have already mentioned: real elections in the Donbas, some form of federalization in which the people of the Donbas get to control their local issues (such as language) while still paying into/ participating in the larger programs like pensions, a neutral (non-NATO) Ukraine, Crimea recognized as part of Russia, and huge amounts of reconstruction money which the EU is not likely to pony up.
In exchange, Count Chocula, Yats, and their band of Merrie Nazis get to stay in power in western Ukraine, and good luck to them.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In Thirst For War, Sen. Inhofe Releases Fake Photos Of Russian Troops In "Ukraine"
Right photos, wrong place!
Quote:
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee first viewed the graphic pictures in December. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) then obtained the photos and worked to independently verify and confirm the authenticity of the photos, before providing them exclusively to the Free Beacon.
Inhofe said he hopes the images act as a wake up call to the Obama administration and American people, who largely have been spared from seeing the graphic violence inflicted upon Ukraine by the Russian-backed separatists…
Following publication of this story, serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of some of the photographs provided by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.). Several images of the Russian convoys appear to have been taken in 2008, during Russia’s conflict with Georgia. Given the similarities between the earlier images and those provided by the senator’s office, the Washington Free Beacon is investigating further and will update as necessary.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-13/thirst-war-sen-inhofe-release
s-fake-photos-russian-troops-ukraine
Hey, bring out those vials of laundry soap powder and grainy photos of random buildings in the desert! Those will never convince anyone!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"G"
I want to first address your theoretical opinions with facts.
The IMF has a stellar history of impoverishing the countries that take out loans from it.
"Bolivia regrets IMF experiment".
That discontent may have found its most dramatic incarnation in Bolivia. Protests against market reforms have toppled two presidents since 2003 and given Evo Morales, an Aymara Indianwho has channeled much of the anger of his poverty-stricken countrymen, a slight lead in the polls before the elections Sunday.
Frustrated that the economic restructuring prescribed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund failed to translate into sustained growth and reduced poverty, country after country has either discarded or is questioning much of the conventional wisdom about market reforms, from the privatization of utilities to the slashing of social spending to unfettered trade. The results have varied wildly.
Argentina, throttled by an economic collapse in December 2001, has bounced back by ignoring crucial aspects of the IMF's economic orthodoxy. Ecuador, whose adherence to austerity measures helped fuel an uprising that led to President Lucio Gutiérrez's removal in April, is increasing social spending and rejecting fiscal orthodoxy by dipping into a special oil stabilization fund. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez, bankrolled by a windfall in oil revenue, is leading a push for further socialism by seizing idle mines, factories and land.His huge social spending is popular with the poor, though the government has failed to generate much foreign investment or business not linked to the dominant oil industry.
Bolivia's backtracking on reforms - more a product of roiling protests than government policy - began after the country became one of the first in Latin America to wholeheartedly apply market prescriptions. The IMF asked for far-reaching measures in exchange for loans and other aid, and promised steady growth.Bolivia's economy, though, grew at a dismal pace. Even the IMF, in a 2003 memorandum, noted that a fall in per-capita income and employment contributed to "rising social tensions that erupted recently."
"If you're spending more than you're earning, for a while that's fine," said Caroline Atkinson, deputy director of Western Hemisphere operations for the IMF. "But if you're borrowing gets too huge, then no one wants to fund you anymore, and you have to cut back."
But to Bolivians, the experiment was marked by failure. Privatized companies like the railroads went bust, while the energy industry is generating $100 million less in taxes and royalties than it did when it was state-run, budget officials said. With the standard of living showing little signs of improvement, Bolivians became increasingly angered over tax increases and cuts to social programs.
"They did everything right," said Joseph Stiglitz, an economist at Columbia University who has been critical of the IMF formula. "They liberalized, they privatized and they felt the pain. Now it's 20 years and they're saying, 'When is the gain?"'
But perhaps no other reform so infuriated Bolivians as the decision to hire foreign multinational companies to manage water.
But those are only a few countries impoverished by the IMF. The list is quite a bit longer.
Here are other examples of the IMF process:
During financial crises -- such as with Mexico in 1995 and South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Brazil, and Russia in 1997 -- the IMF stepped in as the lender of last resort. Yet the IMF bailouts in the Asian financial crisis did not stop the financial panic -- rather, the crisis deepen
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There is only one way to peace in Ukraine, something which I have already mentioned: real elections in the Donbas, some form of federalization in which the people of the Donbas get to control their local issues (such as language) while still paying into/ participating in the larger programs like pensions, a neutral (non-NATO) Ukraine, Crimea recognized as part of Russia, and huge amounts of reconstruction money which the EU is not likely to pony up.
In exchange, Count Chocula, Yats, and their band of Merrie Nazis get to stay in power in western Ukraine, and good luck to them.
Amazing timing - Merkel says she's in favor of elections by Ukrainian Law for Donbas, and then you predict it.
Too bad you didn't see my original post. Well, I'm not gonna find it for you. It's your loss, anyway!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ukraine Fighting Shifts To Mariupol Whose Capture Would Grant Russian Land Corridor To Crimea
Quote:
Yesterday, when we reported that the last Ukraine outpost in the rebel-controlled eastern territory, the town of Debaltseve, has fallen into separatist hands, we concluded that "perhaps the only question is whether fighting continues around Mariupol which would enable Russia to have a land corridor all the way to Crimea."
Moments ago we got the answer when Reuters reported that "pro-Russian separatists have launched mortar attacks on government-held positions near the coastal town of Mariupol in southeast Ukraine and are building up their forces there, local military reached by telephone said on Thursday."
"Right now there are mortar attacks on Shyrokine," a local military spokesman said referring to a village about 30 km (19 miles) east of Mariupol, along the coast of the Sea of Azov.
"There is no attempt to seize our positions up to now. The rebels are bringing up reserves," the spokesman said.
Well, since the Minsk ceasefire is officially over before it even started, one can be sure that an attempt will be made. The reason: as the updated map below showing who controls what territory in east Ukraine currently - with Debaltseve firmly in separatist hands - Mariupol is the last remaining outpost before "Novorossiya" will have a land access to Crimea.
As for what happens after Mariupol, too, falls? Well, the broke Ukraine government is just making it too easy. As Reuters also reports, "Ukraine has suspended supplies of gas to its eastern regions because the gas network was damaged by fighting between pro-Russian separatists and government forces, Ukrainian state gas firm Naftogaz said on Thursday. "Due to the extensive damage of the gas transport networks, the supply of gas ... was suspended on Feb. 18. The resumption of gas supplies is not yet possible because of the ongoing hostilities in the region," the company said in a statement."
In other words, with Kiev fully cutting off east Ukraine from its control, it will be up to Putin to swoop in and "save" the territory from its host government which no longer cares about the fate of the people living there.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-19/ukraine-fighting-shifts-mariu
pol-whose-capture-would-grant-russian-land-corridor-cri
Not knowing how the terms of the cease-fire are supposed to be interpreted, I'm not sure how this fighting (if true) would impact the agreement. It seems to me that small-arms fire was never mentioned in the agreement, most of the agreement seemed to be involved with the withdrawal of heavy weapons, which would not preclude heavy infiltration of an area by individuals carrying rifles, close-quarters combat, etc. A very legalistic drawing of fines lines, I"m sure, which would leave the advantage to whoever has the most troops and/or the most popular support.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've been busy and have a lot more to than educate you. Just keep the idea in mind, and bang events against the concept that nations usually wind up WORSE OFF after IMF loans (oh, and ECB loans) than before. There are countervailing examples of nations which did otherwise, such as Iceland and Malaysia, so you can get a compare-and-contrast view.
So are links facts? Are links evidence too then? I keep asking Signym, she keeps ducking.
The IMF and the Asian crisis
http://www.essentialaction.org/imf/asia.htm
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Ukraine Fighting Shifts To Mariupol Whose Capture Would Grant Russian Land Corridor To CrimeaQuote:
Yesterday, when we reported that the last Ukraine outpost in the rebel-controlled eastern territory, the town of Debaltseve, has fallen into separatist hands, we concluded that "perhaps the only question is whether fighting continues around Mariupol which would enable Russia to have a land corridor all the way to Crimea."
Moments ago we got the answer when Reuters reported that "pro-Russian separatists have launched mortar attacks on government-held positions near the coastal town of Mariupol in southeast Ukraine and are building up their forces there, local military reached by telephone said on Thursday."
"Right now there are mortar attacks on Shyrokine," a local military spokesman said referring to a village about 30 km (19 miles) east of Mariupol, along the coast of the Sea of Azov.
"There is no attempt to seize our positions up to now. The rebels are bringing up reserves," the spokesman said.
Well, since the Minsk ceasefire is officially over before it even started, one can be sure that an attempt will be made. The reason: as the updated map below showing who controls what territory in east Ukraine currently - with Debaltseve firmly in separatist hands - Mariupol is the last remaining outpost before "Novorossiya" will have a land access to Crimea.
As for what happens after Mariupol, too, falls? Well, the broke Ukraine government is just making it too easy. As Reuters also reports, "Ukraine has suspended supplies of gas to its eastern regions because the gas network was damaged by fighting between pro-Russian separatists and government forces, Ukrainian state gas firm Naftogaz said on Thursday. "Due to the extensive damage of the gas transport networks, the supply of gas ... was suspended on Feb. 18. The resumption of gas supplies is not yet possible because of the ongoing hostilities in the region," the company said in a statement."
In other words, with Kiev fully cutting off east Ukraine from its control, it will be up to Putin to swoop in and "save" the territory from its host government which no longer cares about the fate of the people living there.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-19/ukraine-fighting-shifts-mariu
pol-whose-capture-would-grant-russian-land-corridor-cri
Not knowing how the terms of the cease-fire are supposed to be interpreted, I'm not sure how this fighting (if true) would impact the agreement. It seems to me that small-arms fire was never mentioned in the agreement, most of the agreement seemed to be involved with the withdrawal of heavy weapons, which would not preclude heavy infiltration of an area by individuals carrying rifles, close-quarters combat, etc. A very legalistic drawing of fines lines, I"m sure, which would leave the advantage to whoever has the most troops and/or the most popular support.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
That zerohedge is a clown. I still say if Putin moves on Mariupol his covert war will start to unravel.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
whoever has the most troops and/or the most popular support.
There is some percentage of the population which has to be actively supporting an insurgency in order for the insurgency to be successful, and a certain percentage of a population which has to be tacitly supporting the insurgency. Also, there has to be a certain percentage of insurgents. Plus, there are other factors like the capabilities of the commanders.
I think the number I remember of active supporters ... people who provide money, hiding places, etc ... is about 15%, and tacit supporters ... people who know what's going on but don't turn in the involved ... is about 40%. There has to be SOME popular support... not 100% but enough people to counterbalance those who are supporting the official organs of state (police, military etc.)
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"They were already impoverished."
And then, they were made even more impoverished. Are you saying it's OK to rob from poor people because they're already poor?
"... the IMF stepped in as the lender of last resort."
There are countries who HAVEN'T done the IMF shuffle and done extremely well.
During the 1997 Asian financial crisis Malaysia reused IMF 'help' and did extremely well: "The principal measure taken were to move the ringgit from a free float to a fixed exchange rate regime. Bank Negara fixed the ringgit at 3.8 to the dollar. Capital controls were imposed while aid offered from the IMF was refused. Various task force agencies were formed. The Corporate Debt Restructuring Committee dealt with corporate loans. Danaharta discounted and bought bad loans from banks to facilitate orderly asset realization. Danamodal recapitalized banks.
Growth then settled at a slower but more sustainable pace. The massive current account deficit became a fairly substantial surplus. Banks were better capitalized and NPLs were realised in an orderly way. Small banks were bought out by strong ones.'
There was a country that didn't get an IMF loan after 2007-2008, but I need to get to bed.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No. You. Can't.
No matter how many guns and soldiers you throw at a population, if they're not with your program
It. Won't. Work.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep, the west. Ever-vigilant for violations of human rights (except when THEY'RE the ones doing the killing and bombing, of course!)
The EU will prepare possible new sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine conflict that could be imposed quickly if the Minsk ceasefire agreement is broken, Britain’s foreign minister said on Friday. “The EU will remain united on the question of sanctions, sanctions must remain in place until there is full compliance [with the Minsk agreement],” Reuters quoted Philip Hammond as saying in Warsaw. Hammond added that Britain does not have plans to supply Kiev with weapons. However, it is “not ruling anything out for the future” as the situation in east Ukraine is “dynamic,” the minister said.
What this means is that the UK would like Kiev to start something, so that the DPR and/or LPR respond, so that the UK can claim that "Russia" is not meeting its Minsk obligations, so that the UK can send actual combat troops into Ukraine, instead of their panty-waist trainers.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Yep, the west. How dare they want a cease fire to stick! Outrageous!
Ever-vigilant for violations of human rights (except when THEY'RE the ones doing the killing and bombing, of course!)
thank god for our press and people like Snowden and our citizen journalists for their freedom to cite our transgressions. Unlike Russia of course. -GSTRING
Who wind up IN JAIL OR RUSSIA for their transgressions! Thank god for Russia, protecting the wellbeing of our whistleblowers!
Quote:
What this means is that the UK would like Kiev to start something-SIGNY
you mean defend itself?-GSTRING
No, I mean start something. Like shelling, again. -SIGNY
Quote:So. You mean they're defending themselves?
so that the DPR and/or LPR respond- SIGNY
they already have-GSTRING
Quote:
so that the UK can claim that "Russia" is not meeting its Minsk obligations- SIGNY
they already aren't -GSTRING
Because the UK/USA-backed mercs in Ukraine are an indication of western good faith?
Quote:Fixed for you.
so that the UK can send actual combat troops into Ukraine, instead of their panty-waist trainers.-SIGNY
GSTRING is dreaming of a bigger conflict with more deaths. But mostly he's covering his bets so if the conflict escalates he can say, "I predicted it!"
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
While Russia's envoy to NATO notes that statements by the deputy head of NATO testify to the fact that the leaders of the bloc want to intervene in Russia’s internal politics, and are "dreaming of Russian Maidan," Washington has a bigger problem... Germany. As Der Spiegel reports, while US President Obama 'supports' Chancellor Merkel's efforts at finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, hawks in Washington seem determined to torpedo Berlin's approach. And NATO's top commander in Europe hasn't been helping either with sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda."
This is the view of Russia’s permanent envoy to NATO:
“The speech in Riga demonstrates the concern about Russia’s democracy and internal policy. At last, now we know that NATO has a dream, and this dream is a Maidan in Russia,” Aleksandr Grushko said in comment that was tweeted through the Russian representation office in the alliance.
Grushko referred to the words of NATO's deputy secretary general, Alexander Vershbow, who had told a conference in the Latvian capital Riga that President Vladimir Putin's "aim seems to be to turn Ukraine into a failed state and to suppress and discredit alternative voices in Russia, so as to prevent a Russian 'Maidan.'" Both officials used the Ukrainian word ‘Maidan’ to describe a string of protest actions that eventually turned into mass unrest and the ousting of the legally elected president and parliament.
And as Der Spiegel reports, The Germans are not happy.
Breedlove's Bellicosity: Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine
US President Obama supports Chancellor Merkel's efforts at finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis. But hawks in Washington seem determined to torpedo Berlin's approach. And NATO's top commander in Europe hasn't been helping either.
It was quiet in eastern Ukraine last Wednesday. Indeed, it was another quiet day in an extended stretch of relative calm. The battles between the Ukrainian army and the pro-Russian separatists had largely stopped and heavy weaponry was being withdrawn. The Minsk cease-fire wasn't holding perfectly, but it was holding.
On that same day, General Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe, stepped before the press in Washington. Putin, the 59-year-old said, had once again "upped the ante" in eastern Ukraine -- with "well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery" having been sent to the Donbass. "What is clear," Breedlove said, "is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day."
German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn't understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn't the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).
The pattern has become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.
The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.
The 'SupeNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One analysis
The future Russian-European war: balance of power and prospects of the American "Northern Fist"
April 10, 2015
@Dima Piterski
Translated by Kristina Rus
Quote:
After the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, the stream of anti-Russian propaganda in the world has reached the scale of the times of the Soviet Union. But if the majority of EU countries have relatively neutral forces, calling for reconciliation, in Scandinavia and the Baltics the line towards Russia is most radical and destructive. It is in these countries, where the US influence is constantly growing: in the Baltics there are no longer any independent states, and in Scandinavia the process is actively moving in the same direction. Interestingly, of the four Scandinavian countries (including Finland - it's not always included in this geographical concept), only Norway and Denmark are a part of NATO, and Sweden and Finland so far have a non-aligned status, at least on words. Nevertheless, the wave of anti-Russian hysteria and militarization is sweeping through these two states.
The tools are misinformation and lies at the highest level: just remember the story about the Russian nuclear submarine, supposedly entering the territorial waters of Sweden. Only what was the reason and how such an object could be missed, no one answered - irresponsibility in big politics is now in fashion.
Norway constantly sheds "crocodile tears" - drawing attention to the flights of Russian strategic aviation (which, incidentally, never violated anyone's borders), and most recently voicing ridiculous assumption that the Russian research vessels are "spying" on them, located at the former submarine base Olavson. The base was sold a few years ago by Norwegian authorities themselves, as the cost of its operation was huge, but there was no real military purpose -in the war with Russia it will not help, though, it really is a powerful refuge for submarines, and in the global conflict the underwater forces of the Norwegian Navy are miniscule - only 6 diesel-electric submarines of "Ula" class.
The rhetoric in Denmark and Finland is not as harsh, and the amount of too obvious misinformation, voiced by officials, is much smaller. But this are just words. But actions are no different - Denmark has already agreed to participate in the formation of the system of European missile defense, and Finland is actively establishing the cooperation of their armed forces with the armies of other Scandinavian and Baltic countries (especially Sweden), and, of course, with the U.S. forces.
Military tandem Sweden-Finland
The most active is the formation of a military tandem Sweden-Finland and, although the intention to create a military bloc with the participation of these countries was officially refuted, in fact, the opposite is happening. The countries expressed their readiness to create joint land and naval brigades, and at the end of March held joint Air Force exercises. They were also joined by the U.S. Air Force, landing at the Estonian airfield "Amari". Moreover, the integration of Air Forces of those two countries will continue to grow - instead of 62 aging American fighters F/A-18, Finland is going to buy either the Swedish SAAB JAS-39 Gripen of new modification or French Dassault Rafale, and most likely the choice will fall on the Swedes. In both cases, the interaction of the Air Forces of the countries will grow significantly, and in the case of the purchase of JAS-39 it will reach the maximum - even the weapons and spare parts will be standardized.
Now a key objective for the U.S. in this area is pulling these countries into NATO. The population is actively prepped - in the event of a further escalation of the Ukrainian conflict, the accession of Sweden and Finland into NATO may be a matter of time.
Baltic Foothold
Active placement of U.S. troops on the territory of Latvia, Lithuania and EsNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is all that need be said. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Which would be meaningful if Putin was actually- yanno- "there" (wherever "there" is). Since Putin IS home .... it's the USA military that isn't ... I find the message ironic rather than meaningful.
One of the things I wonder - and I see this all the time in demonstrations around the world, and wonder about it every time I see it- is, if the messages are meant for the "home audience", why are they written in English?
-------------------
This indicates the Swedish military's view of things:
Quote:
"We see Russian intelligence operations in Sweden - we can't interpret this in any other way - as preparation for military operations against Sweden," security police chief analyst Wilhelm Unge told a news conference.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/18/us-sweden-espionnage-russia-
idUSKBN0ME1H620150318
I think they're just whipping up hysteria. If Russian WERE planning actual military operations against Sweden, you would see massed troops and (mostly) ships and aircraft, poised for invasion. Unlike the blathering that seems to be going on in the "Russia invades Ukraine" thread, there's never been such thing as a "stealth" invasion. (Just as there's never been such as thing as a "stealth" WMD program.) That's just paranoia talking.
Personally, what I think the whole thing is about - and I know my more plugged-in contacts disagree with me - is to prepare the population for (1) accession into NATO (for those nations not already in NATO. Sweden and Finland are not NATO members.) and (2) acceptance of the extension of the "missile shield" - which breaks the ABM treaty - into the Baltic sea area.
The purpose of the "missile shield" is NOT to defend the EU against a first strike, but to defend the USA against retaliatory missile strikes. In other words, to allow the USA to plan a "successful" FIRST strike against Russia. Every EU anti-missile emplacement so far has been under such thin excuses (eg to protect southern Europe against strikes from Iran???) that it barely passes muster. Only the great unwitting public would ever swallow such tripe.
And it's not like the USA and NATO are beyond lying to the public about serious matters - Germany and France have begun pushing back against General Breedlove's (NATO commander) increasingly irrational statements about Ukraine. Here is a machine-translated version of Der Spiegel
Quote:
Hamburg - statements by the NATO commander in Europe Ukraine-conflict initiated with several allies, including Germany, on criticism. General Philip Breedlove, after MIRROR accused information from capitals to have the military role of Russia in eastern Ukraine exaggerated since the crisis began. In the Chancellery is even "dangerous propaganda" is mentioned. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier therefore intervened personally NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. (Read the whole story in the new MIRROR.)
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/nato-oberbefehlshaber-philip-bre
edlove-irritiert-allierte-a-1022242.html
Hollande has said that Breedlove puts NATO credibility at risk.
And if we need further examples of officials lying us into war, all we need to do is look at Bush II. "Si, se puede". I'm sure the Swedish military (and government) is fully capable of behaving in an equally nefarious and irrational manner, especially if money and/or power await them.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, the role of NATO is about what I thought it was from pretty early on. Ukraine claims, NATO echoes. The only thing that may have been lost is the interposing British press megaphone. (I haven't checked with British online media lately, but I'm under the impression they got tired of endlessly and loudly repeating Kiev's utterly ridiculous tripe.)
So, as I mentioned earlier, NATO no longer considers itself the north Atlantic arm of the UN. They can and have engaged in action in support of their own agenda, and turned down action in support of the UN's. Since I was completely unable to find out what and who constitutes NATO's decision-making body, and find a procedure by which NATO decides to go to war - and since this seems like an opportune piece of information - anyone have any info?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This indicates the Swedish military's view of things:
Quote:
"We see Russian intelligence operations in Sweden - we can't interpret this in any other way - as preparation for military operations against Sweden," security police chief analyst Wilhelm Unge told a news conference.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/18/us-sweden-espionnage-russia-
idUSKBN0ME1H620150318
I think they're just whipping up hysteria. If Russian WERE planning actual military operations against Sweden
That's right, the whole world is lying - not just NATO but also non-NATO countries like Sweden and Finland. To demonise Russia. Poor, victimised Russia.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sure you track British news. How's the press doing lately with Kiev's claims? Still credulously repeating them? Or did that drop off a while ago?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Still going with this 'Kiev's claims' talking point, huh?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kiki: Ukraine claims, NATO echoes. The only thing that may have been lost is the interposing British press megaphone. (I haven't checked with British online media lately, but I'm under the impression they got tired of endlessly and loudly repeating Kiev's utterly ridiculous tripe.)
kiki: (kpo) I'm sure you track British news. How's the press doing lately with Kiev's claims? Still credulously repeating them? Or did that drop off a while ago?
kpo: Still going with this 'Kiev's claims' talking point, huh?
So, nothing objective to discuss?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Still going with this 'Kiev's claims' talking point, huh?
It's not personal. It's just war.
Not only are 1kiki and SIG Russian trolls, they're not any good at it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway kpo - since you were too something-or-other to answer, I looked it up:
NOPE - no current news on Russia's Ukraine 'invasion' in sky news, the mirror, the daily mail, the guardian, the independent, the bbc, and the telegraph.
Amazing how thoroughly all those breathless regurgitations of Kiev's claims disappeared.
So, considering how much you believed the stuff you were reading (despite lack of any evidence), it's consistent that you're now unable to admit the media has changed course.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did I say "the whole world" was lying? Brazil? Indonesia? Liberia?
That's right, the whole world is lying
Nope, that would be YOU ... doing that rightwing thing that you do so well: putting words in people's mouths.
You're not reasonable, KPO. You don't even make good pretense of it. In fact, you suck. But I'm sure you think you're just swell.
Back to the real world.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This was sent to me by email. The source is FortRuss, a blog in which some authors (this one included) claim to have inside (Russian) information. "Inside" info or not, it's an interesting analysis.
Here's the thing that makes this analysis really stick in my mind: I watched part of the Victory Day parade in Moscow. It was impressive in so many ways, particularly the parts of the parade where thousands of people (if not more) carried pictures of their relatives who had been killed in WWII, the few remaining vets who were honored, the honor guards from China and India marching with Russian soldiers.
But the thing that really really stuck in my mind was how Xi Jingping and Putin related to each other on the reviewing stand. I think I'm pretty attuned to body language, and those two seemed EXTREMELY comfortable in each other's presence, leaning towards each other from time to time to chat (thru a mutual interpreter) about the parade, or whatever it is that world leaders chat about. There was a sense of ease that I have not ever seen before. And, although I couldn't point to a single frame where this was explicit, a sense of confidence. The word "smugness" leaps to mind.
It's as if Xi Xingping and Vladimir Putin had not only reached some kind of long-term agreement, it's as if they had counted up ... whatever world leaders count up ... and said to each other: We've reached a threshold, and we're secure, we're OK.
I've been puzzling ever since WHAT they may have counted up. Tons of gold? Anti-aircraft missiles? Internal support? If I could figure it out, it would give me an idea of what the Russian-Chinese axis will do next.
I know this is just an impression, very subjective, so make of it what you will, but I've been interpreting everything since in light of that impression.
Quote:
Once again, probably for a hundredth time we hear that Putin will betray someone. They said, he will betray Novorossia, but this has not happened, then the same tune was heard about Syria. Generally speaking, it's not news about Syria at all. These talks hasn't stopped, but each time nothing happens.
It's time to once and for all clarify whether he will or will not betray them and if the Americans will start bombing Syria. So far we have said that bombing Assad is impossible, now, we're ready to say more and reveal the cards of what we believe will happen in Syria.
Syria
Firstly, I want to say to those who want to hear the answer to this question once and for all, that there is no such answer, because there are different circumstances. What if Assad will be gone tomorrow and one of his officials will head the fight, and then it turns out that he himself, killed Assad. Will the Russian President support his fight? The point is - the situation is fluid, and we should go from facts on the ground. But let's break this down. We can define three more or less distinguished parties in the Syrian conflict: Assad, ISIS and the Syrian opposition, supported by the US.
As you know, a fight always involves two sides, and the third tries to incite them, so that they, God forbid, don't reconcile and charge together against the third party. In this case, each side wants to be the third party, which is not involved in the fight. In our present story, there are only two such parties — Assad and the Syrian opposition. ISIS is not content with sitting on the sidelines. ISIS wants to conquer territory, it can't wait, and while things are not great, ISIS wants to capture as much as possible in this situation. But the opposition would love the Islamists to break Assad's neck and then the United States could mercilessly bomb these Islamists, and only when everything is prepared, invite the Syrian opposition to rule over Syria. Those who plan such operations should realize that those who win with foreign bayonets, will not hold on to power. Assad would also like the main fighting to be between the Islamists and the opposition.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, despite all the blah-blah-blah about Kerry and Putin, the world is polarizing fairly rapidly. Nations are choosing sides: the USA/UK/EU axis, or the Russia/China axis?
In the USA side is the
UK (of course)
Ireland
New Zealand
Canada
Germany
France (unhappy about is treatment by Germany)
Belgium (Brussels)
Most (but not all) of the Baltic States
Austria
Saudi Arabia
Israel
Japan (?) (just signed a visa-free agreement with Russia)
Albania
Russia-China
Cyprus
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan (most are in "pipelineistan)
Brazil
Cuba
India (?)
Egypt
Iran
Macedonia
Turkey (?)
Up for grabs
Georgia
Greece
Spain (depends on what happens to Greece)
Portugal (depends on what happens to Greece)
Transnistra, Georgia, and Macedonia appear to be edging closer to Russia.
Kiev is desperately trying to claw its way into the EU, but it's such an economic, political, and military clusterfuck that I suspect that the EU WANTS Russia to invade and take over!
Iraq (currently getting weapons from Russia to fight ISIS)
Syria (currently getting weapons from Russia to fight ISIS)
Interesting times.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Kiev is desperately trying to claw its way into the EU, but it's such an economic, political, and military clusterfuck that I suspect that the EU WANTS Russia to invade and take over!
Epic detachment from reality- G
Well, it's a funny point to think of!
Anyway, I invite you all to add to the list of which nation you think belongs in which category (USA | Russia-China | Up for Grabs) and ... especially ... why.
Thank you!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Epic detachment from reality
I can't explain to you have comforting it is to know that some, not all who post on this site are nuts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wanted to point out THUGR'S habit of lying about what I've said.
Here is some more of what you call freedom SIGNYM.
Eyes on Ukraine, Putin Tightens Curbs on Protesters
I didn't call it freedom, you nitwit. Never have. Once again, you're either deliberately lying about what I said, or you're arguing with the voices in your head. You're certainly not responding to anything I've written.
Quote:
I can't explain to you have comforting it is to know that some, not all who post on this site are nuts.
Unfortunately (for you) you've garbled that sentence terribly.
So, do you have anything to add ON TOPIC? Any ideas as to what nations should belong in what categories?
*crickets*
Yeah, I thought not.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, in the polarizing world, does anyone have any thoughts at all on the topic of which nations belong in which column, and - especially- why you think so?
It's an interesting exercise.
For example, after all that Mubarak- Morsi- Sisi kerfuffle in Egypt, in which Obama was remarkably muted on who he supported, it turns out that the USA was on Mubarak's side (until he was overthrown) and then Morsi's side (who was getting aid from the Muslim Brotherhood, supported by Qatar, which is part of the USA-Saudi pact).
Gosh, I have to remember to keep in mind that all-important Saudi-Iran conflict (USA/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Sunni/al Qaida/al Nusra/ISIS etc versus Russia-China/Iran/(Syria?)/Shia/Hamas etc) It wasn't until Morsi was overthrown that a real change in power took effect, because at that point Egypt quietly slipped into the Russia-China column.
I'm sure there are a lot of subtle changes in which way nations are "facing" and where they think their interests will eventually lie. For example, a LOT of the USA allies jumped in to join the AIIB (Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank) set up by China, despite the USA fruitlessly urging them not to. Does that mean that these nations are now suddenly in the Russia-China column? No, of course not. What it DOES mean is that many banks now have one toe in the other column, in case the western financial system goes completely tits-up again. OTOH, if circumstances conspire to make staying in one column very very difficult if not impossible (eg Greece) then these nations now have another option.
It's a fluid situation, and one that takes a lot of eyes and minds to keep track of.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I thought I'd drag up this old chestnut again, seeing as its becoming more and more (and more and more) relevant.
If anyone believes that we are NOT at war, at this point, you might want to catch up on the news once in a while. The only thing missing is Russian and American troops physically shooting at each other, and with both Russian and American troops in Syria, that too may come to pass.
The sad commentary is how naturally most of us just seem to slip into war-thought. We're distracted by Trump and ISIL and the refuge crisis. Nobody seems to notice how "the liberals" - who used to spend their time taking about Arab Spring and R2P and the "democratic yearnings" of the people on the Maidan, are now spending all of their time and bile bitching and hissing endlessly about Russia- as if Russia was the problem! Wow, what happened to all of those dreams just of a few short months ago? They've been entirely drowned by fear and war-fever. And nobody noticed that the direction of emotion and thought has been completely turned around.
So, the war is being fought on economic grounds .... an oil price war, and (of course) sanctions against Russia. Highly destabilizing to MANY economies, including Canada, USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela (which looks to veer into hyperinflation).
If course, the western monetary policy was guaranteed to NOT lift the world economy, so between the two influences (plus the continuing efforts of China and Russia to de-dollarize) almost every nation on the globe is staring at an economic recession or outright collapse, and most western nations are staring at another potential financial collapse. THIS IS A WAR OF ATTRITION.
Many more observations, but will close this post for now.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Back again.
I'd say that most economies around the world are pretty shaky right now, all due to the same cause: no customers.
Greece is in extremis, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and even Finland (fiscally-prudent Finland!) are experiencing high unemployment. Exacerbated by the recent influx of migrants. Draghi promised another quantitative easing, but if he does it the same way he did the last two, no money will wind up in consumers' hands, it will all go to the banks.
Commodity-exporting nations are taking a beating. Australia's iron ore exports tanked. Argentina defaulted. The Canadian dollar went from $1.20 to $0.65, thanks to depressed oil prices crossing up the (VERY expensive) tar sands. Puerto Rico is an eyelash from sovereign default. Venezuela, as I said, is facing hyperinflation (and Maduro is an idiot) and is just one step behind Puerto Rico. Brazil's bonds are flirting with junk status, since their oil is priced low and China isn't buying beef and soy like it used to. South Africa's currency took a huge wobble. The Russian ruble is at historic lows. India is trying very hard not to import manufactured goods, they're trying to create jobs- just like everybody else- so they have a "make in India" campaign. Japan ... sigh. The best news is that China is expected to grow at about 6% - not the blazing decades-long 12% of yesteryear, but still solid. But most people probably don't realize how many nations are staring at something of a cliff right now.
And, I believe, this is halfway about Russia, although why Saudi Arabia launched an oil-price war against .... well, everybody ... is beyond me. Russia's Security Council seems to be taking a different tack than before. When the sanctions first arrived, Russia threw out a lot of silk-lines, making trade deals here, there, and elsewhere. But with the oil price war, the disruption of so many economies, and the delay or implosion of so many deals, Russia seems to be adopting a different approach: Fortress Russia. Fill the moat, pull up the drawbridge, and wait until the trampling and panic elsewhere subsides. The plan seems to be to become self-sufficient in food, pharmaceutics, autos, and some other necessities and just wait out the disruptions.
The major USA export is money. Literally. But since the USD-denominated debt is something like 6-10 TIMES the world GDP, it's hard to see the USA delaying too much longer the day when those debts come due.
So, maybe it's a race to the finish.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I watched the speech that Obama made at Hiroshima. And while he stuck his nose up in the air (as he is wont to do while speechifying) and cried crocodile tears about the use of deadly nuclear force, he's planning to spend a trillion dollars on nuclear weapons, https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/ArmsControlNow/2016-02-09/Last-Obama-
Budget-Goes-for-Broke-on-Nuclear-Weapons and advancing (nuclear tipped) missiles to the Russian border.
NEVER believe what a politicians says.
ALWAYS watch what they do. Pretend that you're watching them with the sound turned off.
Apropos, this article was sent to me about the deliberate invisibility of the United States' drive for war:
Quote:
Returning to the United States in an election year, I am struck by the silence. I have covered four presidential campaigns, starting with 1968; I was with Robert Kennedy when he was shot and I saw his assassin, preparing to kill him. It was a baptism in the American way, along with the salivating violence of the Chicago police at the Democratic Party’s rigged convention. The great counter revolution had begun.
The first to be assassinated that year, Martin Luther King, had dared link the suffering of African-Americans and the people of Vietnam. When Janis Joplin sang, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”, she spoke perhaps unconsciously for millions of America’s victims in faraway places.
“We lost 58,000 young soldiers in Vietnam, and they died defending your freedom. Now don’t you forget it.” So said a National Parks Service guide as I filmed last week at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. He was addressing a school party of young teenagers in bright orange T-shirts. As if by rote, he inverted the truth about Vietnam into an unchallenged lie.
The millions of Vietnamese who died and were maimed and poisoned and dispossessed by the American invasion have no historical place in young minds, not to mention the estimated 60,000 veterans who took their own lives. A friend of mine, a marine who became a paraplegic in Vietnam, was often asked, “Which side did you fight on?”
A few years ago, I attended a popular exhibition called “The Price of Freedom” at the venerable Smithsonian Institution in Washington. The lines of ordinary people, mostly children shuffling through a Santa’s grotto of revisionism, were dispensed a variety of lies: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved “a million lives”; Iraq was “liberated [by] air strikes of unprecedented precision”. The theme was unerringly heroic: only Americans pay the price of freedom.
The 2016 election campaign is remarkable not only for the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders but also for the resilience of an enduring silence about a murderous self-bestowed divinity. A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington’s boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.
The breathtaking record of perfidy is so mutated in the public mind, wrote the late Harold Pinter, that it “never happened …Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. It didn’t matter … “. Pinter expressed a mock admiration for what he called “a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”
Take Obama. As he prepares to leave office, the fawning has begun all over again. He is “cool”. One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone.
In 2009, Obama promised to help “rid the world of nuclear weapons” and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No ANOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not Alex Jone's biggest fan, but he has something important to pass on
From ZeroHedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-16/war-coming-and-global-financi
al-situation-lot-worse-you-may-think
Quote:And Pokemon Go
On the surface, things seem pretty quiet in mid-July 2016. The biggest news stories were about the speculation surrounding Donald Trump’s choice of running mate (no we know), the stock market in the U.S. keeps setting new all-time record highs, and the media seems completely obsessed with Taylor Swift’s love life.
Quote:
But underneath the surface, it is a very different story. As you will see below, the conditions for a “perfect storm” are coming together very rapidly, and the rest of 2016 promises to be much more chaotic than what we have seen so far.
Let’s start with China. On Tuesday, an international tribunal in the Hague ruled against China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea. The Chinese government announced ahead of time that they do not recognize the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and they have absolutely no intention of abiding by the ruling. In fact, China is becoming even more defiant in the aftermath of this ruling. We aren’t hearing much about it in the U.S. media, but according to international news reports Chinese president Xi Jinping has ordered the People’s Liberation Army “to prepare for combat” with the United States if the Obama administration presses China to abandon the islands that they are currently occupying in the South China Sea…
“Chinese president Xi Jinping has reportedly ordered the People’s Liberation Army to prepare for combat,” reports Arirang.com. “U.S.-based Boxun News said Tuesday that the instruction was given in case the United States takes provocative action in the waters once the ruling is made.”
A U.S. aircraft carrier and fighter jets were already sent to the region in anticipation of the ruling, with the Chinese Navy also carrying out exercises near the disputed Paracel islands.
Last October, China said it was “not frightened” to fight a war with the U.S. following an incident where the guided-missile destroyer USS Lassen violated the 12-nautical mile zone China claims around Subi and Mischief reefs in the Spratly archipelago.
Meanwhile, the relationship between the United States and Russia continues to go from bad to worse. The installation of a missile defense system in Romania is just the latest incident that has the Russians absolutely steaming, and during a public appearance on June 17th Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to get western reporters to understand that the world is being pulled toward war…
“We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know. It’s only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger – this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore.”
And of course the Russians have been feverishly updating and modernizing their military in preparation for a potential future conflict with the United States. Just today we learned that the Russians are working to develop a hypersonic strategic bomber that is going to have the capability of striking targets with nuclear warheads from outer space.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration does not feel a similar sense of urgency. The size of our strategic nuclear arsenal has declined by about 95 percent since the peak of the Cold War, and many of our installations are still actually using rotary phones and the kind of 8 inch floppy disks for computers that were widely used back in the 1970s.
But I don’t expect war with China or Russia to erupt by the end of 2016. Of much more immediate concern is what is going on in the Middle East. The situation in Syria continues to deteriorate, but it is Israel that coNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile, in Syria ....
Russia Bombed Base in Syria Used by U.S.
Quote:
When Russian aircraft bombed a remote garrison in southeastern Syria last month, alarm bells sounded at the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense in London.
The Russians weren’t bombarding a run-of-the-mill rebel outpost, according to U.S. officials. Their target was a secret base of operations for elite American and British forces. In fact, a contingent of about 20 British special forces had pulled out of the garrison 24 hours earlier. British officials declined to comment.
U.S. military and intelligence officials say the previously unreported close call for Western forces on June 16, and a subsequent Russian strike on a site linked to the Central Intelligence Agency, were part of a campaign by Moscow to pressure the Obama administration to agree to closer cooperation in the skies over Syria.
The risk that U.S. and British forces could have been killed at the border garrison hardened opposition at the Pentagon and the CIA to accommodating the Russians. But White House and State Department officials, wary of an escalation in U.S. military involvement in Syria, decided to pursue a compromise.
Yury Melnik, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Washington, referred questions about the incidents to the Russian Defense Ministry, which didn't respond to a request for comment.
A provisional agreement reached by Secretary of State John Kerry in Moscow last week—over Pentagon and CIA objections—calls for the former Cold War adversaries to join forces in strikes against the Nusra Front, Syria’s al Qaeda affiliate. In exchange for the U.S. easing Moscow’s international isolation, Russia would halt airstrikes on the U.S.-backed rebels and restrain the Syrian air force.
Talks are still under way between U.S. and Russian experts over the designated areas where the Russians would have to get Washington’s approval before conducting strikes.
The story goes that after the first airstrike, some American commander in Qatar called the Russian military and informed them that the base was USA-controlled. I guess just to make the message clear, the Russians bombed it again 30 minutes after the call.
The situation has moved from a proxy war in Syria to a hot one.
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HOTTER AND HOTTER
UK- OPEN INFORMATIONAL WARFARE
Last week, Boris Johnson said that the UK should bomb Russia in Syria. His bold statement was overruled by Theresa May, who has apparently decided on information warfare instead:
Wikileaks connection to the internet cut by state-sponsored actor.
RT's (English-language Russian broadcaster) accounts at RBS frozen. (For no legal reason).
UNITED STATES, SYRIA, AND...
Russia will not admit that the USA killed some of their military, and the USA can't admit that the Russians destroyed an (illegal) intelligence command post in eastern Syria and killed Israeli, French, and USA spooks. But hot, if covert, warfare is "on" in Syria.
On Friday, Obama had a meeting to discuss the military options in Syria. Finding that there were none, and facing inevitable military defeat in Syria, with the Saudi and Qatari-backed jihadists on the run, Obama decided to shift the war front.
As announced by Biden, Obama's new focus is "cyberwarfare". That could mean crippling each other's banks, electrical grid and so forth. If Obama truly means no-holds-barred cyberwarfare, then I guess we get to see whose system if more hardened. But speculatively, I think this might give TPTB a reason to annul the election of Trump wins, by claiming "hacking".
UKRAINE
Donbas soldiers shot down a military helicopter which flew over their territory. (Illegal under Minsk). There was a NATO trainer abroad.
In an act of retaliation, a popular military leader "Motorola" was assassinated by an IED in his apartment building's elevator.
PHILIPPINES
Duterte has told the USA in colorful language "go to hell", "I don't give a shit" etc. He is also making nice with both Russia and China. All of this has earned him popularity at home. I hope he has an excellent bodyguard!
Warfare is ongoing in all modes and on many fronts.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Has nobody else noticed the accelerating tempo of confrontation???
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, with Trump as President-elect, the prospect of full-on nuclear war with Russia has receded somewhat. Trump is trying to do what he SHOULD do: back off military confrontation with Russia and try to split Russia from Iran and China by treating them disparately instead of monolithically (which just forced them into each other's arms).
Nonetheless, with USA hegemony falling apart; nations are falling into different and unexpected camps.
Among other things, nationalism is reasserting itself. Trump, Farage, le Pen (who will probably win France in 2017), Duterte (Philippines), Bulgaria, Egypt, and Turkey all appear to be attempting to get out from under the USA's ass, while Merkel seems to want to snuggle under it. Nationalist Geert Wilder (Party for Freedom, Netherlands) also seems to be on-track for a win in 2017. And if Matteo Renzi's Constitutional reform vote fails, he will be out of office; and the five Italian banks which need these reforms to survive will probably fail.
Some people blame this all on "Putin", but I think the reality is that many nations were unhappy with their place in the international order of things, and unhappy with their inability to craft independent solutions to their individual problems.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, they still want war and they're still angling for it ASAP.
Quote:http://cindysheehanssoapbox.blogspot.com/
In this case, the resolution calls for evaluating and developing plans for a“No Fly Zone” which is an act of war. This is obviously controversial and it seems clear the resolution should have been debated and discussed under normal rules with a normal amount of Congressional presence and debate.
The motivation for bypassing normal rules and rushing the bill through without debate was articulated by the bill’s author and ranking Democrat Eliot Engel, who said:
“We cannot delay action on Syria any further…. if we don’t get this legislation across the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back to square one.”
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The PEOPLE of Russia and the US do not want war.
It's actually REALLY sad to think that it's possible that the people of Russia are more informed than the average person in America about how close we were to WWIII.
Was it the Trump Election that saved us from WWIII, or was it the 200 Billion Barrels of Oil we discovered under Texas?
It sounds like a lot, but we do go through nearly 10 billion a year in America alone.
It's a stop gap between Green Energy.
Solar Power per Watt is more than 100 times cheaper than it was when first introduced in 1976. Almost 25% of that decline was over the last 4 years.
If Trump were to come out and say "FUCK GREEN ENERGY, WE GOT OIL!!!" I'll be the first person to call him on bullshit.
Let's keep buying limited quantities from OPEC while supplementing it with what we have stateside while also working with advanced nations like Japan to seriously improve Solar and Wind Power while working to make it cheaper and planning a way to mass distribute it.
If we just oiled the shit out of our own reserves for the next 4 years, gas could be 50 cents a gallon until we run out. Green energy wasn't advanced. We run out of oil. Now Opec can charge us 10 times as much for what we don't have anymore.
It's a stop gap, people.
We ARE still the leader of Nations, worldwide.
China might actually be more powerful than us, at least financially speaking at least, but they in no way have the moral high ground on us.
America might not be perfect, but we pay for the downtrodden, even the ones that we illegally let in. (let's stop letting illegals in so Mexico can deal with their own sick and poor, huh?)
Cheap and efficient Solar Power is on the horizon.
For about $6,000, I could buy a top of the line roof system, installed, that would take care of all of my single-man needs in my house. That means that I would be able to not only light up my home and play video games, but I would be able to do most of my heating and air conditioning as well as long as I kept the temps moderate.
Those cells are supposed to last at least 25-30 years. I'll be 67 to 72 years old by then, and I can't imagine if I'm still alive that I'll give too much a fuck about anything at that age.
The reality is, this tech has been out there for a LONG time. They just don't want you to know about FREE.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
T 
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Well, of course it's happening now. The only thing missing is that the media hasn't called it one.
How is that not happening now?Quote:What has Russia done lately? It seems to me that all of the recent aggressive actions (removing eastern Ukraine from international law, forward positioning troops, sanctioning the vote organizers, stopping banking and other services, vowing to make Ukrainian the sole language), and actively seeking help from the West and admission into NATO, have been precipitated by Kiev and the west.
Nothing says antiquated dictator trying to steal another nation's land by use of force like Russia's latest action.
Nothing says "punishable offense" like Russia's latest action.
Nothing says "breaking international law" like Russia's latest action.
How do you not notice these things? These are real events fully reported by Kiev's media and backed up by Western media. Why do you keep pointing to ephemeral "Russian" events which may not even be happening - or happening to the extent that you fear - while ignoring provocations by Kiev and the west? I told you when it happened that Kiev announced its forward troop movements. I showed you that Kiev withdrew that announcement because they wanted to save it for the time when they could play innocent and claim it was "in response to" the responding troop movements on the other side of the border. I tell you again that the activities by Kiev (sanctions, banking and other services cutoffs) are a set-piece, precipitated by the west and designed to provoke even further action by Russia and the Donbass. When alternate banking services are provided by Russia, are you going to go all ballistic and blame Russia - again?
You seem to think that you "really want to know what's going on". Well, maybe it's time you started finding out.
G, is it possible to have a discussion and not a grudge match? How can we get back on-track?
------------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME