ink Posted January 31 Posted January 31 It's lovely to see that you guys have internalised my interpretations of the roots of the conflict 😎 If it's the case that a Ukraine that can reform enough to be admitted to the EU is the threat the Russians fear, then they can now rest easy. Ukraine is currently decades away from being another Poland. Even with a Marshall-style plan, they're probably at least 20 years away from any kind of recovery.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 31 Posted January 31 Well Ukraine was not on the brink of joining NATO, but in the Elites minds apparently it was in prospect. Tbf, it's hard to disentangle what they realy believed, and proported to believe to justify their actions. Which is very Soviet when you stop to think about it.
glenn239 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 (edited) 8 hours ago, ink said: The EU cannot admit Ukraine to the club in anything approaching the short term Who said anything about short vs. long term? I said that if the Russians are dumb enough to suppose that they can allow any of Ukraine to enter the EU without NATO following that this is on them. The EU has no interest in allowing another country the right to bomb EU territory with no response. This was why the Swedish and Finnish incorporation into NATO was a bit of a joke - there was no way NATO was ever going to allow war against EU territory anyways. Quote If the Ukraine would successfully reform to join the EU, it would look really bad for the government in Moscow, because it would show that you can overcome corruption. I assume that the EU has engaged so much of its prestige engaged in Ukraine, has so much of its credibility at stake IFO increasingly skeptical European voters, that they'll be willing to burn the rulebook in order to eek out some sort of victory in their Ukrainian fiasco. If that means Ukraine in EU while skirting corruption requirements, so be it. Edited January 31 by glenn239
glenn239 Posted January 31 Posted January 31 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Well Ukraine was not on the brink of joining NATO, but in the Elites minds apparently it was in prospect. What they were doing from maybe 2013 onwards was increasing all forms of Ukraine-NATO cooperation and compatibility, mixiing more and more NATO forces into Ukraine (and vice versa), looking to provide more and more equipment. A systematic, gradual, unstoppable integration of Ukraine at all levels of NATO command and control, done informally over the course of years and decades. All the while lying through their teeth as to the eventual goal - American and European military bases, squadrons, and formation in Ukraine. Had nothing happened I'm sure the pony act would have continued until maybe 2030 or so before the mask was finally removed and the NATO bases in Ukraine brought to full strength. Edited January 31 by glenn239
Roman Alymov Posted January 31 Posted January 31 7 hours ago, ink said: Well, harm comes in many forms and can be interpreted in various ways. I meant harm in the sense that, in order to admit Ukraine, the EU would have to either (a) burn thousands of processes and check placed on accession countries to ensure they adhere to European principles and values regarding everything from the rule of law and the separation of powers down to what ingredients you can put in chocolate bars, or (b) ignore them for the special case of Ukraine - which would amount to much the same thing as chucking the whole acquis into a furnace. What that all would mean for existing EU structures or for other prospective member states is anyone's guess. And what benefit would Ukraine reap from joining in name only and without having to reform anything? In short, I don't think it's possible - except in the event of a massive and hugely damaging political push that would have to destroy in its path numerous bureaucratic and legal pillars that make the EU what it is. Please excuse me, Russian survivor of all this "market reforms" etc. for being cynical - as for me, EU is not some sort of of ideal mechanism of "thousands of processes and checks" but the tool used by corrupt Europeans elites to prosper and loot funds while staying safe of voter's voice and law. Ukraine, most corrupt state on European subcontinent (and the biggest one in terms of territory) is ideal washing machine to syphon off the funds. I see nio reasons why EU can't allow Ukraine in, of course with all sorts of "special conditions" etc. on paper.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 31 Posted January 31 They hardly needed Ukraine for that, they had London.
Roman Alymov Posted January 31 Posted January 31 2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: They hardly needed Ukraine for that, they had London. London was busy processing looted Russian funds.
Roman Alymov Posted January 31 Posted January 31 Video of cluster strike (by M864 DPICM shells) on city hospital of Gorlovka (Donetsk suburb) earlier today https://t.me/milinfolive/140976 https://t.me/infomil_live/14556
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 31 Posted January 31 1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said: London was busy processing looted Russian funds. If you think they turn money down, you dont know them.
Roman Alymov Posted January 31 Posted January 31 FiberFPV vs. CV-90 IFV abandoned on the road some time ago (note intact fresh snow). Seems like no single round was fired by this IFV, as gin muzzle is covered https://t.me/boris_rozhin/153186
Roman Alymov Posted January 31 Posted January 31 Another Bradley abandoned to pro-Russians off Pokrovsk https://t.me/vysokygovorit/18723
Roman Alymov Posted February 1 Posted February 1 FPVs vs. Hagglunds Bv 206 transporter, Donetsk area https://t.me/infomil_live/14597
Roman Alymov Posted February 1 Posted February 1 FPVs vs. Leopard 1A5 with Kontact ERA in Konstantinopol (village West of Kurakhovo, named after ancient Greek city) https://t.me/milinfolive/141045
Roman Alymov Posted February 1 Posted February 1 (edited) Strange case in Poltava region https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-emergencies/3955356-magnitude-367-earthquake-strikes-poltava-region.html The problem is it is extremely non-seismic region, so quite possibly it is artificial earthquake. There is a lot of theories on what was the reason - from some sort of secondary detonation following RusAF striles on NG infrastructure and weapons stocks earlier today to nuclear test. Edited February 1 by Roman Alymov
Roman Alymov Posted February 1 Posted February 1 More crazy news: pro-Ukraininas have covered roadside sign on entrance to Donetsk region from Dnepropetrovsk region with anti-drone nets
Roman Alymov Posted February 1 Posted February 1 "Thank you, Senator, for the algorithm. Ukraine did not build Kharkov, Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhia, Lugansk and Sevastopol. Russia built it. Ukraine did not pay for Kiev. Russia did it. Ukraine did not give thousands of lives building DneproGES, Azovstal and DMZ. Russia did it. It is absolutely fair that Russia raises questions about the territory of modern Ukraine." ( https://t.me/c/1688853451/282533 )
Roman Alymov Posted February 2 Posted February 2 On 1/30/2025 at 5:38 PM, glenn239 said: So the Russians are calling Zelensky illegitimate as a negotiator in order to facilitate Russia's surrender? You know that makes no sense, right? P.S. Another interpretation of legal debate around Zelensky legal status. Also note the "Ukrainian media" story https://youtu.be/1z7HHKeHyBA?feature=shared
Stuart Galbraith Posted February 2 Posted February 2 11 hours ago, Roman Alymov said: "Thank you, Senator, for the algorithm. Ukraine did not build Kharkov, Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhia, Lugansk and Sevastopol. Russia built it. Ukraine did not pay for Kiev. Russia did it. Ukraine did not give thousands of lives building DneproGES, Azovstal and DMZ. Russia did it. It is absolutely fair that Russia raises questions about the territory of modern Ukraine." ( https://t.me/c/1688853451/282533 ) Funny how all these arguments never mattered when it was the Suez Canal, either for the USSR, or America. If they commit themselves to the idea fighting for someone elses canal is wrong, they cannot plausibly insist 70 years later its suddenly right.
ink Posted February 2 Posted February 2 On 1/31/2025 at 6:25 PM, Roman Alymov said: Please excuse me, Russian survivor of all this "market reforms" etc. for being cynical - as for me, EU is not some sort of of ideal mechanism of "thousands of processes and checks" but the tool used by corrupt Europeans elites to prosper and loot funds while staying safe of voter's voice and law. Ukraine, most corrupt state on European subcontinent (and the biggest one in terms of territory) is ideal washing machine to syphon off the funds. I see nio reasons why EU can't allow Ukraine in, of course with all sorts of "special conditions" etc. on paper. Needless to say, that's a gross oversimplification. I imagine you know that. Of course there is a great deal of corruption at the heart of the EU, and indeed quite a lot of colonialism towards the "weaker" member states (and now, very much more obviously, towards countries that want to join), but if that's all the EU was, it would have collapsed long ago, and would never have been able to rejuvenate or develop countries like the Baltics and Poland, or even Romania. Sure, the centre got rich doing this, but not to see it as a win-win situation for both parties is blinkered. If this EU (as described above) is now dead, then maybe Ukraine can join. But it will be just another nail in the coffin. On 1/31/2025 at 6:27 PM, Stuart Galbraith said: They hardly needed Ukraine for that, they had London. It seems to me that any reasonable interpretation of Brexit leads to the City getting on at least helping the UK to leave precisely because they feared EU curbs on their corrupt activities.
seahawk Posted February 2 Posted February 2 I wonder for what the Elite in the EU would need the Ukraine - when you have trade deals with nearly every corner of the earth, you do not need a Ukraine in the EU to launder your money.
Stuart Galbraith Posted February 2 Posted February 2 12 minutes ago, ink said: Needless to say, that's a gross oversimplification. I imagine you know that. Of course there is a great deal of corruption at the heart of the EU, and indeed quite a lot of colonialism towards the "weaker" member states (and now, very much more obviously, towards countries that want to join), but if that's all the EU was, it would have collapsed long ago, and would never have been able to rejuvenate or develop countries like the Baltics and Poland, or even Romania. Sure, the centre got rich doing this, but not to see it as a win-win situation for both parties is blinkered. If this EU (as described above) is now dead, then maybe Ukraine can join. But it will be just another nail in the coffin. It seems to me that any reasonable interpretation of Brexit leads to the City getting on at least helping the UK to leave precisely because they feared EU curbs on their corrupt activities. Jesus Ink, you are on a roll this week. Yes, I think that is precisely what they were up to. That and there were long standing policies by the far reaches of the Conservative party to build 'Singapore on Thames'. That was an actual policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore-on-Thames
ink Posted February 2 Posted February 2 19 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Jesus Ink, you are on a roll this week. Since I can't promise a repeat of this any time soon, I recommend enjoying it while it lasts. 19 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Yes, I think that is precisely what they were up to. That and there were long standing policies by the far reaches of the Conservative party to build 'Singapore on Thames'. That was an actual policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore-on-Thames What a pain it must be for those City folks to have the rest of the UK attached. No wonder they keep trying to offload their* cash to random islands. *It's not really theirs but hey-ho.
urbanoid Posted February 2 Posted February 2 27 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Jesus Ink, you are on a roll this week. Yes, I think that is precisely what they were up to. That and there were long standing policies by the far reaches of the Conservative party to build 'Singapore on Thames'. That was an actual policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore-on-Thames That's retarded even in theory. I'm sure that a strategically positioned country of 6 million can do great relying mostly on financial services and being a trade hub, a somewhat less well positioned country of 60 million should aim at a diversified economy, with plenty of manufacturing of all kinds, agriculture (including more or less self-sufficiency as an ideal outcome) etc.
Stuart Galbraith Posted February 2 Posted February 2 (edited) 55 minutes ago, urbanoid said: That's retarded even in theory. I'm sure that a strategically positioned country of 6 million can do great relying mostly on financial services and being a trade hub, a somewhat less well positioned country of 60 million should aim at a diversified economy, with plenty of manufacturing of all kinds, agriculture (including more or less self-sufficiency as an ideal outcome) etc. Yep, you are getting it. It was the late PM Margaret Thatchers plan to turn the UK into another Switzerland. That Switzerland has bugger all in the way of population but lots of banks, illustrates the huge flaw in the thinking. Basically, the pound soars from being a trading currency, and we cant export and the rest of the country remains in the dolldrums. We can only hope for more stupid PM's like Liz Truss so the pound collapses and we can export again. Labour for all their flaws, see the way forward as a back to a more balanced economy. Ive zero confidence they can make this happen, but as far as identifying the problem, they are right and always have been. Edited February 2 by Stuart Galbraith
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now