Jump to content

Kiev Is Burning


X-Files

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    14451

  • Stuart Galbraith

    9942

  • glenn239

    4654

  • Josh

    3422

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

20 hours ago, Rick said:

Would you elaborate on the bold, underlined part of that sentence please?

They are almost certainly hinting that reserve currency status is what allows the U.S. to engage in loose monetary policy without suffering strong devaluation.

There are a few English language works making this point, have a look at the link below for example.  The counterpoint is that even countries which are not hegemonic have been able to engage in large monetary expansions without suffering devaluation or rampant inflation, for example Japan and the EU. The standard explanation is that inflation at least in the traded sector is kept under control because of the underlying weakness of the economy which means there is typically persistent excess capacity, and to some extent because labour was defeated soundly from the 1980's onward. 

https://mronline.org/2021/10/27/super-imperialism-the-economic-strategy-of-american-empire-with-economist-michael-hudson/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont honestly think anyone knows whats going to happen yet. We content ourselves with believing Putin is normal, that he behaves vaguely like a normal leader, and continually confounds that understanding every chance he gets.

Do I know he is going to invade Ukraine? Of course not. The Delorean time machine has broken down and im not in any kind of place to verify it. I just reflect, most of the weird, off the wall stuff he has done already. Why do we keep ascribing to him reason when we know, pretty clearly, he just doesnt think like us. If he feels the need to finish off Zelensky, he will do it, no matter how we feel about it.

Really? You seem to have known everything that was going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Josh said:

Any confirmation of that report? Is there any word on logistical deployments or North Fleet deployment?

If one assumed that the Pacific fleet boomers capable of deployment all put to sea, it would be quite a development. It would also point to a go date of a week or two so that any crisis you fermented was over by the time the boats we’re having problems sustaining their patrols.

It’s Pravda, so could be anything. But a report worth following up.

The guy who posted it is usually reliable. However looking at it, the ONLY report I could find online was a Pravda report.

https://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/149739-russian_submarine/

Claiming 2 Borey's and an Antey (Oscar II) put to sea. However, it cites this website where my spidey sense starts tingling.

https://avia-pro.translate.goog/news/vse-rossiyskie-atomnye-podlodki-razmeshchyonnye-na-kamchatke-ekstrenno-otpravleny-v-more-vsyo?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui

It claims the photograph 'proves' they put to sea, whereas its pretty clear there are Submarines still present. Even worse, it cites 'Western Sources' which through a quick trawl seem to be non existent.

So apologies for sourcing that, Ill be more careful in future. Ill call this one bullshit until I can find some confirmation.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

Maybe you're right, but I still think he'll think very carefully about making any move that could cause him to lose favor with the general public. As your article mentions, the man is still widely supported, and if it's true that he wants to go down in history as one of the great Russians, that must be pretty important to him.

(It might also be short sighted, however. The thing about history is that each generation that comes along are bound to assess it through their own lens, so it might very well be that Putin the bridge builder would have been better regarded by future generations of Russians than Putin the conqueror will be. Only time will tell.)

The problem is, we cant know how widely supported he is, because all the sources that say he is widely supported are owned by the Kremlin. Its an echo chamber. The best we can know is that if he is so secure, why is he increasingly authoritarian to those whom protest against him? It could be his hardline upbrining coming to the fore, or he really is worried. Perhaps both.

The only Bridge Putin has ever built has been the Crimean bridge, which wouldnt not exist except for Putin the conqueror. After 21 years in power in either President or Prime Minister jobs (the latter largely a puppetmaster seat) it seems less than likely to me he is ever going to change. The past 20 years have been like a march through the colour chart towards ever darker colours. He is beyond striding back I think.

BTW, like hearing your views. Dont let Glenn put you off, we need all the new posters we can get here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ex2cav said:

Really? You seem to have known everything that was going to happen. 

No. I flag up possiblities of what might happen, usually very unpopular ones. I dont KNOW that Russia is going to invade Ukraine (though in fact it already has, twice). Im just saying if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and shits like a duck, it just might be a duck. Or at the very least, duck aligned.

As far as Putin, yes, ive the impression of the kind of man he is. And yes, that why im distinctly concerned. Not worried, I leave that for continentals to throw their toys out the pram. Concerned.

I have to say, I find the inability of many on here to believe he could do it somewhat disconcerting. He used WMD in a sleepy Wiltshire city. He used radioactive material in central London. He had someone publically executed in a Berlin Park. He blew up a Czech ammunition facility FFS. The Green Men, Crimea, MH17. The Navalny poisoning. The herculean kill list of Russian Journalists. Has anyone actually had their eyes open for the past 15 years here?

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

A major part of it is because Russia's actions disturbed the status-quo, that being the image of a peaceful and increasingly integrated Europe where warring over borders was supposed to be a thing of the past. 

This is right, but it is not that easy. It all started with the Euomaidan protests and the ousting of Yanukovych as president. Yanukovych had strong support in the Crimea and the eastern parts of the Ukraine. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea in form of the governing Presidium of the Supreme Council considered holding a referendum on the peninsula's status before the little Green Men arrived and Yanikovych was ousted.  I am not going to call the following referendum valid, as it was done under Russian control, but one can also not deny the fact that Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine had been constantly voting for pro-Russian parties before 2014.

So if we could accept Jugoslavia breaking up, we should be willing to discuss the option of the Ukraine breaking-up. It is completely crazy to try to defend NATO in the Crimea.

And in the end I personally think it would be the best option. Let Donbass and Crimea go to Russia, in return for Russia accepting the new borders of the Ukraine. If Russia refuses, you at least have a clear legitimation for supporting the Ukraine against Russia, as Russia would then have admitted that it wants to take the whole country.

9 hours ago, glenn239 said:

253 posts guy asking if longstanding member Seahawk is a troll?  How about shut the fuck up first and earn the right to talk smack around here about members later?

I do not mind if you call it trolling or not, but sometimes I think it is important to look at the actions of the West through the eyes of people that are not part of the West. In the end it is a fact that for the West striving for independence is good, only if the new government is pro West and the old is not.

 

Edited by seahawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, seahawk said:

This is right, but it is not that easy. It all started with the Euomaidan protests and the ousting of Yanukovych as president. Yanukovych had strong support in the Crimea and the eastern parts of the Ukraine. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea in form of the governing Presidium of the Supreme Council considered holding a referendum on the peninsula's status before the little Green Men arrived and Yanikovych was ousted.  I am not going to call the following referendum valid, as it was done under Russian control, but one can also not deny the fact that Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine had been constantly voting for pro-Russian parties before 2014.

So if we could accept Jugoslavia breaking up, we should be willing to discuss the option of the Ukraine breaking-up. It is completely crazy to try to defend NATO in the Crimea.

And in the end I personally think it would be the best option. Let Donbass and Crimea go to Russia, in return for Russia accepting the new borders of the Ukraine. If Russia refuses, you at least have a clear legitimation for supporting the Ukraine against Russia, as Russia would then have admitted that it wants to take the whole country.

 

You are basically saying 'its invalid, but its still valid'. :)

If Russia wants Crimea so bad, it should make a cash offer for the territory, with water access rights from Ukraine. Ukraine gets the money it wants to modernize, Russia gets a place for its filthy oligarchs to sun their toes. Everyone is happy. But that cant happen, because Putin denies that it was ever really a Ukrainian territory (when it was) and is as tight as a ducks ass.

Donbass Is Ukrainian. If they really want Ukrainian coal that much they should pay for it, rather than steal it like a gang of thugs. Imagine if China ever did that to Russia's siberian oilfields, do you really think they would ever give it up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im just saying if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and shits like a duck,

Wood floats on water, too!

And witches!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

He used WMD in a sleepy Wiltshire city. He used radioactive material in central London. He had someone publically executed in a Berlin Park. He blew up a Czech ammunition facility FFS. The Green Men, Crimea, MH17. The Navalny poisoning. The herculean kill list of Russian Journalists.

Those Russian apartment buildings should be #1 on the list. If you're willing to blow up your own population so you can become caliph in place of the caliph, everything after that is but a footnote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If they really want Ukrainian coal that much they should pay for it, rather than steal it like a gang of thugs.

But that's what they are, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You are basically saying 'its invalid, but its still valid'. :)

 

No, it is not valid, but there is also no indication that the population is or was strongly anti-Russian and pro-Western.

Maybe your idea for the Crimea is worth exploring. Russia gets to officially keep it. Ukraine gets to use the water ways and Russia pays the Ukraine with natural gas as a compensation. It could solve many problems, but would require a chance in policy by the Ukraine and the West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

No, it is not valid, but there is also no indication that the population is or was strongly anti-Russian and pro-Western.

Maybe your idea for the Crimea is worth exploring. Russia gets to officially keep it. Ukraine gets to use the water ways and Russia pays the Ukraine with natural gas as a compensation. It could solve many problems, but would require a chance in policy by the Ukraine and the West.

I seem to recall there was a debate about the future identity of one of Frances border regions. Alsace I think? They put it up to a vote. Nobody had to invade anyone first to insure that they got the right result though.

Im less interested in what the region wants, than that people came in an enforced it. Bojan keeps busting my balls over Kosovo, and he has a point, it did suck if you were a Serb. But I learned long ago in the playground that two wrongs dont make a right. If Kosovo is wrong, then Crimea is no compensation.

Yes, financial compensation is the only way out of this mess (assuming either side actually want a way out, which I doubt). At the very least Russia should still be paying rent on Sevastopol. Just because you are squatter doesnt mean you dont owe rent. :D

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, KV7 said:

They are almost certainly hinting that reserve currency status is what allows the U.S. to engage in loose monetary policy without suffering strong devaluation.

There are a few English language works making this point, have a look at the link below for example.  The counterpoint is that even countries which are not hegemonic have been able to engage in large monetary expansions without suffering devaluation or rampant inflation, for example Japan and the EU. The standard explanation is that inflation at least in the traded sector is kept under control because of the underlying weakness of the economy which means there is typically persistent excess capacity, and to some extent because labour was defeated soundly from the 1980's onward. 

https://mronline.org/2021/10/27/super-imperialism-the-economic-strategy-of-american-empire-with-economist-michael-hudson/

Nothing in this book is news. Proverbs 13:11 and Proverbs 22:7 covers most of it. 

Good link though, thanks for posting it. Just another reason why economics is described as a dismal science.  About the link though, a look at the sidebar in it tells you which way it goes, but about that book, let's take a look.

"So America essentially has painted itself into a corner as a result of its military spending." No, economically, as this book appears to focus on, it is the lack of intelligence and morality of debt financing on social spending.

The United States decided it was going to de-industrialize, because its corporations could essentially hire cheaper labor abroad than they could hire in the United States. Which is a consumer choice to buy said non-U.S. produced products and results in lower prices for U.S. consumers. 

The United States has got so debt-oriented and so privatized. Since the Reagan( The best President of the 20th century) Revolution, the American economy was Thatcher-ized, and that made it a high-cost economy. The cost of housing has gone way up. The cost of medical insurance has gone way up. The debt burden has gone way up. And America has now priced itself out of the market. Other than debt, It does't take an economist to read this is bull-sh##. The reason there is government debt is due to government spending, not lack of taxation! A large part of his complaint of increased costs are due to government regulation.

So China and Russia look at America as an object lesson, as how do we avoid here having the dynamic that occurred in the United States. It doesn’t have anything to do with capitalism versus socialism or other isms. It has to do with the basic dynamics of debt. No comrade it has, almost, everything to do with Capitalism vs socialism. The dynamics of U.S. debt is spending more than you take in.

And the mode of control, obviously, is not military anymore; it’s financial. NOPE, it's government fiat via the courts and the barrel of a (law-enforcement) gun.

Russia is now the largest agricultural exporter in the world. A cursory search shows this is false.

Well when you say technology, what you really mean economically is economic rent, monopoly rent. No, I'm pretty sure technology is technology. I admit I'm not seeing a correlation here unless one is really stretching definitions here. 

 But now Biden’s worst problem, the greatest problem Biden faces now, is inflation, high food prices; gas prices are going up It is the idiots who voted for Biden and the media/academic sluts who keep this disease going that is the problem.

The one thing that corporations in America are willing to fight to the death for is to prevent socialized medicine, to prevent public health. One can argue the amount of "socialized medicine" but economic reality prevents what he is talking about from happening. 

where your landlord is your boss and you’re treated like a serf. BULL %^IT! I have much expertise in this area, and if a tenant doesn't like you or your product they will not rent from you in the first place. Sidenote -- there are more slumtenants than slumlords. Most complaints of what the author is talking about occur in liberal, ie, Democratic Party areas. 


Europe is not a democracy; it’s an oligarchy. But it’s also a militarized oligarchy controlled by the United States. The socialist parties and left-wing parties of Europe are all pro-American. Waiting to hear form our European posters on this. I think he is as wrong as wrong can be. 

There are only two kinds of governments possible in the world. One... a mixed economy, with the government providing basic services, and the public private sector doing the trade and the innovation. The other is something that you had briefly in Rome before it collapsed, and you’re now idealizing in the United States: it’s an economy with no government at all. You get rid of all government power to regulate or tax business. To be fair to the author, I don't know his definition of governmental basic services. The problem of the economy and government in the U.S. is the opposite of what he is describing. 

You want all of the planning–you want a centrally planned economy...But the central planner is going to be Wall Street,... and comrade, you want government central planning? Are you frickin blind to areas past and present were this has failed! And will always fail!

So I’m all for land taxation. That is a socialist policy. Finally, something he knows about and much worse, believes in.

That’s the policy of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, the whole 19th-century political economy aimed at getting rid of the landlord class and getting rid of economic rent as unearned income. It is? I could be losing a few memory brain cells, but I don't remember reading this.

America got rich by being a mixed economy, where the government took an active role in subsidizing basic infrastructure. There is some truth to this, but I don't believe in a way he believes. The best reason why "America got rich" is, imo, best described by Alexis de Tocqueville's book Democracy in America.

 





 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

@seahawk has been posting inflammatory nonsense for some time now, so I was genuinely curious it these are sincerely held beliefs and/or just trolling. Since he pretty much confirmed that the latter is the case, there is no need for me to take him seriously anymore when he writes stupid stuff like Russia's borders should match those of the Russian Empire in the easly 20th century. As for his post count, I suppose it’s possible that he wasn’t always like this, but here we are...

Basically there are two schools of thought here for the last decade on NATO's eastern frontier.  The one is that the West is still sufficiently dominant economically and militarily that we can advance into difficult to access areas like Ukraine (or Taiwan) and successfully exert effective deterrence against a power like Russia, that currently threatens the territorial integrity of Ukraine.  The other viewpoint is that the West has long since peaked globally and its failure in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simply confirm that we're in a state of relative decline, and that attempting to support Ukraine in a war with Russia will result in the loss of that war because the overall geographic and military situation in this region is much worse for us than in Iraq, and we did not win in Iraq.

You write that Seahawk is being "stupid" when he suggests that Russia's future borders could more closely match its past borders.  Yet Russian history says that Russian fortunes run in cycles of expansion and contraction, both economically and territorially.   Ukraine has become independent before, only to be reannexed at a later date.  The question for NATO is, how much risk should we take to do something about it?  Neocons seem even unable to grasp that there are grave risks for us involved.   They also don't seem to get that, for these risks, there seems  to be nothing in the way of a payoff, in that for the United States its no better off in terms of national economy and interests  if Ukraine is annexed than if it is independent.

My personal opinion since about 2004 is that the West needs to focus on its core territories and not entertain crusades into places like Ukraine, where victory seems impossible.  That if we try to protect Ukraine, the most likely result will be the partition of Ukraine, where that country will suffer far more than if we had done nothing at all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rick said:

Europe is not a democracy; it’s an oligarchy. But it’s also a militarized oligarchy controlled by the United States. The socialist parties and left-wing parties of Europe are all pro-American.

Waiting to hear form our European posters on this. I think he is as wrong as wrong can be.

Yeah, it's not even false anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

At Gomel pointing towards Kiev?

No, somewhere with significantly less sun. :D

You know, this is nicer than the FFZ. We can all take the piss out of each other but its never personal. Well, maybe it is im too slow on the uptake. Its always possible.  :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, somewhere with significantly less sun. :D

You know, this is nicer than the FFZ. We can all take the piss out of each other but its never personal. Well, maybe it is im too slow on the uptake. Its always possible.  :)

 

Less sun?  Maybe Gomel pointed north then?  :^) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...