The Economist summed it up pretty well: Russia had to get a deal done, and the Chinese got a favorable terms as a result. They’re hardly staunch allies, just global powers that share some, but not all agendas. I’m happy for the Chinese people that the country will burn less coal as a result.
Russia escalates things
-
We in Europe are in a constant risk of raising tensions with Russia just because one power from the other side of the world is playing it`s game here. We in Europe suck. EU sucks. We do not have a foreign policy of our own. In diplomatic questions we are more or less a satellite of Washington even in situations where we go against our own interests. That is sad
Someting I’m wondering: is there any element of nostalgia here for the good old days in which Europe controlled most of the world and the U.S. was in the international minor leagues? Back in the 19th century (let’s say prior to the Spanish-American War, which resulted in the U.S. picking up some significant overseas possessions from Spain), the U.S. wasn’t the kind of international player it became as a result of WWI and (especially) WWII. For most of the 19th century the major powers were all European countries, with their respective colonial empires (of various sizes) and with their own foreign policies. Despite all that, things still sucked in those days too. They sucked differently from today but they sucked nevertheless, since the European powers could do a perfectly satisfactory job on their own of creating problems for each other, without any need for the U.S. to prime the pump. The beginning of the 19th century was dominated by the Napoleonic Wars, in which (if I’m not mistaken) all the major powers were involved at one time or another. Napoleon’s defeat in 1915 ushered in a lengthy period of comparative peace (when measured against the Napoleonic Wars), but throughout this “long peace” just about every major power fought at least one other major power at some point (sometimes in combination with other powers) – three examples being the Austro-Italian War, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War. So I imagine that the European powers were saying pretty much the same things about each other in the 19th century as are being said about the U.S. today.
-
@rjpeters70:
@peters
Then off course after USA withdrew from ABM Treaty, Russia withdrew from START II.
Wrong:� Russia never ratified START II, which is why the Treaty of Moscow, which cut both US and Russian arsenals, was necessary in the first place.
It was signed in 1993. Yeltsin signed it. What happened later?
@rjpeters70:
@peters
Yes, USA under George Bush jr. withdrew from this treaty. USA destroyed a bunch of old nukes and started to build a handfull of new ones, much greater in destruction capabilities, much precise and much better.
Wrong.� We have not built a new nuclear weapon since 1991.
Ok imperfection of the old ones. It is more or less the same.
@rjpeters70:
USA withdrew this shield idea with Obama. Bush was eager to pull it out to the end. Obama decided to pull back.
Wrong, we never withdrew the missile shield.� We moved the European based system from a ground-based interceptor to an at sea interceptor.� West Coast ground based interceptors are still there, augmented by sea-based BMD-capable Aegis cruisers, since they give us more operational flexibility.�
Seriously, try to get your facts straight.� This is all in the open source.
Man there was hot line between Moscow and some other states because of this. USA was pushing it constantly. It was a defeat of USA foreign policy, since even Obama was when elected at the stand that the facilities in Poland and Czech Republic will be built. Not to mention the boy Bush.
@rjpeters70:
@peters
Yes, that famous shield (if it had been implemented) would not be there for intercepting Iranian or North Korenian ballistic missiles but Russian ones.
Incorrect, since both ground and sea-based interceptors don’t have the envelope, thrust, range, and most importantly, speed, to take down ICBMs.� They’re only good for IRBMs and SRBMs.� Hence, they’d be useless against Russian or Chinese ICBM or SLBMs, because those systems are too advanced.
Of course the shield in Poland would not be designed for taking down SRBMs. But it could take down the other ones. The shield was not there for Iran. Or U believe in this story?
Also, this ground facility would be great to target Russia in a limited preemptive nuclear strike. Otherwise I do not see it purpose and so much dollars spent on it.
@rjpeters70:
@peters
So U do not have to destroy entire town, U destroy an industrial complex or a part of some military base.That’s been a capability since the 1950s, with the development of squad and platoon sized tactical nuclear weapons.� That’s not a new development… Russia, US, UK, France all have that.�
Ok, I will not counter U here, since I see U re an expert. I was listening to some analyses by Frank William Engdahl. I remember that he mentioned that USA has perfected the nuclear arsenal to strike a very small area, not damaging the surroundings. I do not know why would he mention it if others can pull it out to. Maybe U in the States have moved the most here.
@rjpeters70:
@peters
USA is developing a technology of nuclear bombs of new generation that can destroy anything in a very small radius.
If only that were true.� Congress killed the RNEP when George W. Bush was president, which is why we’re left doing LEPs on B-61s and 88’s.
I ll try to find an interview with Frank William Engdahl in which I read it. Maybe I get something wrong, but I think I did not as for this issue. We agree that USA is a nuclear superpower and that it has amazing nuclear capacities.
Cheers :)
-
@rjpeters70:
What is conpirational in the fact that revolution in Libya was not spontanious, and that entire Arab Spring + Orange Revolution in Ukraine, then Georgia, Kyrgistan, Syria etc. were orcestrated by CIA to destabilize Eurasia and kick Russia and China out of the game?
That’s incredibly conspiratorial. Do you have any evidence of this, at all?
The chances for spontanious revolution in Libya is like 0.0001 %.
Khalifa Hifter ( I do not know the spelling ) one of the leading guys there was on the CIA payroll. The thing was the same in every country. A giant crowd is going out on the streets protesting non-violently for days, paralising the country. And then what in some little mess somebody is injured or even killed and the crowd is calling for the revolution.
George Soros and his NGO-s have manuscripts, trainers and training on how to do a revolution. It all started in Serbia in 2000. whit the ˝cleanched fist logo˝ and the revolution there against the bloody dictator Milo�ević.
In Egypt U have the same logo, the same way it is done. After the country is swarmed with the protesters than the new government is turning their back to Russia and China. Sakashvili wanted to bring Georgia to EU and NATO. Milo�ević was overthrown beacuse he refused to do so.
Arab countries now almost do not have any trade with China and Russia. They are now once again the colonies of the West. France was owing Libya billions of dollars. It seems not it is all just ok since they helped them ˝liberate˝.
This revolution in Ukraine is not spontanious crowd gathering. USA can not take Ukraine to NATO by force of arms, so it tries in another way.
@rjpeters70:
@rjpeters70:
What is conpirational in the fact that Libya and Iraq are pulled back to stone age with ˝liberal democracy˝ imported on USA figthers? Those two countries are in ruins, and will not recover for 500 years.
500 years? Not 600? Not 400? How can you be so sure?
Come on, you’re making ���� up now, and you know it…
Well, Libya, Iraq and Syria were ok before this revolutions. Now, they are in stone age again. Who knows if they ll ever recover. The situation is terrible. Especially in Libya.
@rjpeters70:
That is full spectrum dominance, air, land, water, space, intelligence, cyber domination of the USA military with no rival on the horizont. This doctrine is very known, a lot of material is public, so U can read.
Full spectrum dominance is an operational concept, not a strategy, and is not focused on Russia.
I know a thing or two about it…
Full spectrum dominance is about (global ) military dominance. Russia is the only power that stands on the path of FSD.
@rjpeters70:
@rjpeters70:
S
This country has death penalties for christians, women wear ninya costumes, and u can be killedl for something they think it is an insult of prophet Muhammad. But no USA did not make a revolution in SA. SA is their ally. They need it`s oil and their bases there.We export more oil than Saudi Arabia does, and have no bases there. At all. Keep up.
So, you’d support an American war on Saudi Arabia then?
U export more oil then Iraq, but U wanted to took theirs too. I understand :)
Ok U were there, are no more, but are now present in other Gulf states. U re in the Gulf. Ready to take on Iran after Syria falls.
I would not support any war. Only the intervention against those regimes that brutally destroy their civilians. I would not call it a war. Why did USA not intervented in Ruanda? And it has in the Gulf against Sadam 20+ years ago? Because it had not had any interests there. Simple as that.
-
@CWO:
We in Europe are in a constant risk of raising tensions with Russia just because one power from the other side of the world is playing it`s game here. We in Europe suck. EU sucks. We do not have a foreign policy of our own. In diplomatic questions we are more or less a satellite of Washington even in situations where we go against our own interests. That is sad
Someting I’m wondering: is there any element of nostalgia here for the good old days in which Europe controlled most of the world and the U.S. was in the international minor leagues? Back in the 19th century (let’s say prior to the Spanish-American War, which resulted in the U.S. picking up some significant overseas possessions from Spain), the U.S. wasn’t the kind of international player it became as a result of WWI and (especially) WWII. For most of the 19th century the major powers were all European countries, with their respective colonial empires (of various sizes) and with their own foreign policies. Despite all that, things still sucked in those days too. They sucked differently from today but they sucked nevertheless, since the European powers could do a perfectly satisfactory job on their own of creating problems for each other, without any need for the U.S. to prime the pump. The beginning of the 19th century was dominated by the Napoleonic Wars, in which (if I’m not mistaken) all the major powers were involved at one time or another. Napoleon’s defeat in 1915 ushered in a lengthy period of comparative peace (when measured against the Napoleonic Wars), but throughout this “long peace” just about every major power fought at least one other major power at some point (sometimes in combination with other powers) – three examples being the Austro-Italian War, the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War. So I imagine that the European powers were saying pretty much the same things about each other in the 19th century as are being said about the U.S. today.
1815
Ok, well Europe was never united, yes. There were some big powers which were behaving to small states like the world powers behave today.
But we saw so many wars and stuff and now we have a unified Europe. EU. And we just want to be one of the players in a multi-polar world. Not on the throne, but one of the few world super-powers.
And all tough we have 500+ million people, such a big territory, a good position and everything we are not able to form our own military alliance, foreign policy and reputation. We are just following what Washington says. We are risking tensions with Russia because Washington is pushing us to do so. Russia said it will place Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad if the shield project in Poland takes place. So we are risking getting some rockets in the ass all because of the imperialist desires of our great friends, the USA. It is time we get rid of this adiction to Washington in terms of foreign policy, but I am not so optimistic about it.
-
What is flip?
I believe he meant “flippant”. As in: cheeky, sarcastic, irreverent, retaliatory…
Why doesn`t USA criticize SA for human rights? No, they do not care for women in SA. They only care for human rights in China, Russia and Iran. How sweet.
You are correct. Many people here, certain groups in particular, thrive on exposing social injustices and pointing out those flaws here and abroad. It is primarily a political tool. Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia don’t fit the current agenda.
-
Re neo-nazi in Kiev
@rjpeters70:
Not a Nazi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serhiy_Arbuzov
Not a Nazi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseniy_Yatsenyuk
Are there some Nazis in the streets? Maybe a handful. But that doesn’t make the movement a Nazi one.You missed a point. Yatsenyuk (Prime Minister) and 50% of his Government, including Minister of Defense, are either from Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) or Svoboda party. Both parties are in coalition since 2012. Svoboda is a Ukrainian nationalist political party. All of this is in Wikipedia you refer. Klichko who is planning to take the president chair is from UDAR (Punch) that in the coalition too btw.
Also, you forgot to mention Right Sector - a radical nationalist group. According to the same site , it is one of the main actors in the January 2014 riots in their later and more violent stages. The group leader Yarosh said that Right Sector and Svoboda “have a lot of common positions when it comes to ideological questions”. He was offered, but did not accept a minister case.
I can write more incl what and where they did already, but you see the picture. -
One more thing to everybody, not to just “patriots”. Please don’t watch only CNN and have your own opinion. The latter is a part of the real patriotizm from my view.
-
What is flip?
I believe he meant “flippant”. As in: cheeky, sarcastic, irreverent, retaliatory…
Why doesn`t USA criticize SA for human rights? No, they do not care for women in SA. They only care for human rights in China, Russia and Iran. How sweet.
You are correct. Many people here, certain groups in particular, thrive on exposing social injustices and pointing out those flaws here and abroad. It is primarily a political tool. Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia don’t fit the current agenda.
Thanks for explanation.
Saudi Arabia and North Korea are the two most totalitarian countries in the world. Hell on earth it is.
I am not anti-American. I just try to be fair and honest. Double standards are what bothers me.
-
@rjpeters70:
Wrong.� We have not built a new nuclear weapon since 1991.
Ok imperfection of the old ones. It is more or less the same.
@rjpeters70:
I honestly don’t know what you mean by this.
U say that USA did not build and is not building new nukes since 1991. But the missiles that carry it are getting better and better, and I think that the nukes itself are improved, all though they are not new models. It is logical for me that after 23 years, they have greater precision, destruction power and speed.
@rjpeters70:
Man there was hot line between Moscow and some other states because of this. USA was pushing it constantly. It was a defeat of USA foreign policy, since even Obama was when elected at the stand that the facilities in Poland and Czech Republic will be built. Not to mention the boy Bush.
I honestly don’t comprehend what you’re trying to say here.
I am trying to say that putting a shield in Poland is putting a finger in the eye to Russia and that Russia was planing to put Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, stack EUropean borders with nukes, and nullify the treaties that reduce conventional army and weapons limit in Europe.
If that is not something (for EUrope) to be worried about, than I do not know what is.
USA did not withdrew the Poland shield project because of nothing, Russian pressure forced them to withdraw this bad idea.
. U have any right to counter my views and thoughts with Urs in a civilized way. I do not have problem with that. And i appreciate for all the information here U gave me.
We both agreed that the power which is able to have nukes with limited radius (and U say that many have it) and which would be able to build a anti balistic missile system that could destroy other powers offensive BM capacities, could indeed start a preemptive nuclear strike with limited wideness without worrying about getting a few nukes in the ass.
That how it is more or less irrelevant does USA has 1000 nukes or 3000. The same thing for Russia.
The thing is that if any power (in this case USA) develops technology that can take other powers BM-s down, then it is a strategic offensive advantage for that power either it has more or less then 500 or 1000 nukes.
So the withdrawal from the anti-BM treaty in 2002 is far severe then anything else, and that is my opinion and not just mine.
Building better nukes for USA means nothing, if Russia has so many powerful nukes which can strike. USA nukes can be 3 times better, but the thing is that Russian ones are so good that can destroy life on Earth without problems.
But if U develop a defensive system against enemy BM-s, then it is a totally different story. And that is what I am thinking that USA is doing. And as I said, not just me.
Well, Mossad is the best secret service in the world. CIA is the widest in range, it operates almost everywhere and CIA has so much exp in Iran, Asia, Latin America etc. CIA plans for years and decades in front. So does the Pentagon and the State Department. Just read Brzezinski for example.
USA is the world super power so dominant, that nobody since the time of the Roman Empire had such dominance.
U re n.1 in politics, economy, diplomatics, sport, U have the best universities, best hospitals, engineers, research and development centers, navy, air force, think thanks, lobbies, cinema, music.
U simply dominate. China will surpass USA in the economy field, but who knows when.
Russia is the only country, together with China that can compete U in military and sport.
And as for NGOs. Why do U think Putin has put them on strict check, to give information about money they receive, their donors, place of origin, connections with other states etc. Because they are often spies who seek their own agenda which is not in the interests of the country in which they act. USA spends billions of dollars funding various NGO-s all over the globe. So does Saudi Arabia and Turkey. This 2 countries are financing islamic radicals via this NGO-s.
We are in a time when wars are done by cyber ways, by media, by propaganda and not just by fists and swords like in good old days. Far from it that other countries do not have their NGO-s and their agenda which they are trying to spread globally. But USA, as the only world super power, is n.1 here without a competition.
-
I am not anti-American. I just try to be fair and honest. Double standards are what bothers me.
I can tell… and that is great. Then we agree on more than it seems.
Truth has no agenda.
-
-
@Nozdormu:
I am not anti-American. I just try to be fair and honest. Double standards are what bothers me.
I can tell… and that is great. Then we agree on more than it seems.
Truth has no agenda.
But politicians
almostalways doFixed that for you. That’s the entire point of politics.
-
@Nozdormu:
I am not anti-American. I just try to be fair and honest. Double standards are what bothers me.
I can tell… and that is great. Then we agree on more than it seems.
Truth has no agenda.
But politicians almost always do
Sure. But I don’t see what that has to do with my exchange with Amon-Sul.
-
vv
-
_Sorry guys bad news, NOTHING is going to happen!!
You still have to wait for the big bang, it is not time yet!_
-
@wittmann:
Things are hotting up in the Ukraine. Does not look good.
Nothing we cant fix with my m1
-
@wittmann:
Things are hotting� up in the Ukraine. Does not look good.
Nothing we cant fix with my m1
“Russia knows what it wants. World domination. And she is laying her plans accordingly. We, on the other hand, and England, and France to a lesser extent, don’t know what we want and get less than nothing as the result.”
- G. S. Patton, Jr
Incredibly relevant, even 70 years later.
-
Russia takes what belonged her for 250 years. And it’s completely different to, say, UK trying back India. What world domination you are talking about?
Do I agree with everything they do? No. Politicks is a durty business. There are good, bad, and so so people - not a scale in politicks. There are only big and small predators. -
Russia takes what belonged her for 250 years.
Be that as that may, there certainly is a better time and method of doing so. Thankfully it’s been relatively civil for what is possible.
-
Suggested Topics
