China's aggression is changing the nature of sovereignty.

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

9 minutes ago, Andrew Neopalimy said:

1. If the US decides to attack Russia, they will be destroyed in preparation for war * during the "threatened period" the US will receive a "preemptive nuclear missile strike" which is guaranteed (98%) to destroy the US / NATO.
(At the same time, systems will be disabled: missile attack warnings, communications, location, navigation, reconnaissance ... and power supply)))
Since 2012, the United States is guaranteed to lose the "Nuclear War with Russia", and from 2025, the percentage of the guarantee of the victory of the Russian Federation will strive for 100, and the degree of damage inflicted on Russia will tend to zero idiots. And the management knows about it !!!
In this version, you will present victory over yourself to Russia and China.
2. If the United States decides to start a war with the PRC, it can only win by inflicting RNW - having spent the entire stock of strategic nuclear weapons (you have almost no tactical nuclear weapons, you cannot produce nuclear weapons, modern ICBMs, BBs, or strategic submarines with bombers - you Russia is ridiculously funny, even the "Papuans" are not afraid of you, clowns who have not won a single war, except for their civil war! You have long lost your competence, technology, resource - as soon as the "von Brauns" run out).
In this version, you will present the world domination of the Russian Empire, since you will be left with nothing.

Andrew the above is all irrelevant and hearsay

NOBODY "Wins" a nuclear war!

Edited January 11, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

8 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Андрей все вышесказанное не относится к делу и слухи

НИКТО не "выигрывает" ядерную войну!

By this, you betrayed yourself as an amateur in this topic))) these are fairy tales for the profane, as well as the fact that after the JA the whole world will plunge into darkness, etc.
Ask your MO - they know perfectly well since 2012 that only Russia is guaranteed to win, while incurring insignificant damage. And the rest are definitely not.

For specialized questions, contact the specialists, professionals (of which you have less and less every day)

 

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

4 minutes ago, Andrew Neopalimy said:

By this, you betrayed yourself as an amateur in this topic))) these are fairy tales for the profane, as well as the fact that after the JA the whole world will plunge into darkness, etc.
Ask your MO - they know perfectly well since 2012 that only Russia is guaranteed to win, while incurring insignificant damage. And the rest are definitely not.

For specialized questions, contact the specialists, professionals (of which you have less and less every day)

 

Personally I think destroying at least half the planet (you yourself said it would destroy US /NATO countries) means NOBODY "wins"

To think otherwise I believe is crazy! Do you want to live in that world??

All this BS posturing (my nuc is better than your nuc) gets neither side anywhere.

To say we will "win" 98% guaranteed is also a very uninformed thing to say. Are you part of the latest NATO strategy? Are you advised of the latest military tech from both Russia and NATO and can make informed decisions on who will "win"?? I doubt it!

Im pretty sure the latest tech on both sides isnt available to download and view!

Edited January 11, 2022 by Rob Plant

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Personally I think destroying at least half the planet (you yourself said it would destroy US /NATO countries) means NOBODY "wins"

To think otherwise I believe is crazy! Do you want to live in that world??

All this BS posturing (my nuc is better than your nuc) gets neither side anywhere.

To say we will "win" 98% guaranteed is also a very uninformed thing to say. Are you part of the latest NATO strategy? Are you advised of the latest military tech from both Russia and NATO and can make informed decisions on who will "win"?? I doubt it!

Im pretty sure the latest tech on both sides isnt available to download and view!

Hypothetical scenario. What if there was a way to take out all US/NATO carriers and nuclear subs with a single surgical strike. No need to attack the actual countries. Wouldn't that be a clear win, in theory?

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

1 minute ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Hypothetical scenario. What if there was a way to take out all US/NATO carriers and nuclear subs with a single surgical strike. No need to attack the actual countries. Wouldn't that be a clear win, in theory?

Yes potentially it would if it were possible. What would Russia do then if they could? Start a land invasion? what would that achieve?

What has Russia to gain from a nuclear war or a demonstration that they could take out all of NATO's nuclear armamament? All it will do is escalate new tech / military strategy to avoid that scenario.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

51 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yes potentially it would if it were possible. What would Russia do then if they could? Start a land invasion? what would that achieve?

What has Russia to gain from a nuclear war or a demonstration that they could take out all of NATO's nuclear armamament? All it will do is escalate new tech / military strategy to avoid that scenario.

Yes, it is possible. I know because I started out by designing such a "perfect win" strategy as a hypothetical scenario only to find out that it obviously already exists for real. I think Mr. Andrew has done the same, judging by him using the 2012 date. (which is the latest date the deal was sealed for good)

Russia could than casually drive to occupy Newport Beach, to make sure nobody ever tries to "rule the seas" again? Which obviously requires massive fleets you cannot simply  rebuild overnight. Russia has neither desire nor means to do so itself and no concept of "power projection" Without the ability to project power, is US hegemony done and over with. Just note that US, like the British Empire before it, is predominantly a sea power depending on their navies as cornerstone of their military doctrine. They have no real means to properly engage Russia on land using conventional forces, at least as far as core Eurasia is concerned. As far as actually starting an invasion themselves? Why? Neither Russia, nor USSR actually ever had any invasion plans for anybody West. Extrapolating unfortunate ethnic conflicts left in the wake of Soviet Union's disintegration to general Russian aggressiveness is generally dishonest and serves the needs of military industrial complex / NATO apparatchiks only. The real Russia is actually a deeply pacifistic culture. Orders to execute a conventional nuclear first strike targeting civilians would invariably be refused outright.

So, the plan is a categorical disarmament of the West, followed by doing mostly nothing? You gonna look very stupid spending many consecutive decades trying to re-arm against a hypothetical Russian aggression which already was. It is not a conventional nuclear war the way you understand it, but only targets those who harbor nuclear weapons themselves. Think Cinderella scenario, where all the nukes turn into pumpkins come midnight.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

https://news.yahoo.com/un-slams-kazakhstan-soldiers-seen-224129945.html

UN slams Kazakhstan after soldiers seen wearing UN helmets amid unrest

 

Kazakh soldiers are seen patrolling the streets in Almaty on January 10, 2022 (AFP/Alexandr BOGDANOV)

•  

   

   

   

•  

 

Mon, January 10, 2022, 4:41 PM·1 min read

 

 

In this article:

•  

   

   

   

• Stéphane Dujarric

  UN official

 

 

 

The United Nations on Monday criticized Kazakhstan after government soldiers there were seen wearing the UN peacekeepers' blue helmets during last week's violent unrest.

"We have conveyed our concern to the Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan directly on this issue, and we've received assurances from them that this issue had been addressed," UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters.

He added: "Any UN troop and police-contributing countries are to use UN insignia only when they are performing their mandated tasks as UN peacekeepers in the context of their deployment within a UN peacekeeping operation, as mandated by the UN Security Council."

 

Photos posted on social media showed several soldiers in Kazakhstan's main city of Almaty dressed in military fatigues and wearing blue helmets with UN insignia.

Kazakhstan issued an awkward statement in response, saying the helmets were the only part of UN gear worn by its soldiers.

"During the violent riots in Almaty, the Peacekeeping Unit of the Ministry of Defense of Kazakhstan (Kazbat) was put on high alert to assist and protect strategic infrastructure facilities of the city from the terrorists and extremists," Kazakhstan's mission to the UN said in a statement on Twitter.

"Except for the helmets that were worn as part of the official gear of local peacekeepers during the high threat, no 'UN' marked equipment was used."

Dozens of people were killed in clashes between protesters and government forces during historic violence in the Central Asian state last week in what authorities described as an attempted coup d'etat inspired by foreign forces.

Thousands were detained for questioning.

prh/md/crs/jh

 

Information on all of these countries and recent news. RCW

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17mqP16qchaFQusxLExpY1EtKpkEMe6gkM-Vjv-Q636c/edit

                  Central Asia, The Stans

 

It takes years to set up a proper UN-backed peacekeeping mission.

Not every blue helmet qualifies as UN insignia. Don't think they enjoy any actually protected status anchored in any treaty, though confusions are naturally to be avoided.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

3 hours ago, Andrew Neopalimy said:

SPFS + CIPS (or SPFS + CUP) = BRICS Pay

You will not disable SWIFT, because incur huge losses and reduce confidence in the "main reserve currency of the world" to 0. You are tormented by driving planes with cash to Russia to pay for contracts on hydrocarbons, metals, wheat ...
In addition, Russia has had an analogue of SWIFT since 2014.
The SPFS (Financial Message Transfer System) of the Bank of Russia appeared in 2014. It was originally conceived as an alternative channel of interbank interaction in case the country is disconnected from SWIFT. Now SPFS accounts for about 20% of the total number of financial transactions within the Russian Federation.
And NSPK Mir is an analogue of Visa and Mastercard payment systems.
China since 2002 has its own national payment system in China UnionPay (CUP) and China International Payments System (CIPS) plus digital yuan ....

And before the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing, we will probably))) sign an agreement on the unification of the national payment systems SPFS-CIPS (or SPFS-CUP) into one. Subsequently, we will connect India and create BRICS Pay "

Russia's liquid FX reserves are in the form of IMF Special Drawing Rights. Those can conceivably only be blocked at the cost of destroying the dollar-based "Bretton Woods" monetary system as we know it. The less liquid reserves are in the form of physical gold, so the immediate side effect of the action would be a margin call on all kind of "paper gold" which is very much not in the interest of US/UK, who are significantly oversubscribed, to say the least. Think the infamous GAMESTOP stock. You need to understand why is that thing still around.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 1/8/2022 at 11:28 AM, Wombat One said:

Don't confuse "communist India" with "democratic India"? I am no expert in Indian politics, but the little I have learned recently points in the direction I have indicated.

There is no difference, for as long as it is "sovereign India" There is both a history of zero conflict in the past and near zero opportunity for conflict in the future with Russia. What would be the potential area of conflict between the two? The Indian establishment level of distrust in the British borders on paranoia. For example, do they think that "Amnesty International" was created for sole purpose of Indian Reconquista. (Don't know if that is true, but it shows how far the British are gonna get using their traditional instruments of "soft power")

Indians are not stupid enough to be pulled into additional hostilities with China on behalf of the West. They are simply playing hard to get to score freebies off Uncle Sam. Bought their S-400s with impunity, for example, and buying some more. The usual Western method of buying out the top of indigineous leadership won't work in India, too complicated. It is nothing short of up-and-coming 4th superpower.

Incidentally, Russia has a reputation of a great neutral arbiter throughout the larger Eurasia. (forgetting the American shills in the West) This is how you find India, Pakistan and China simultaneously participating in SCO, a potential military alliance. One outcome of Kazakhstan is CSTO being very real now and effectively containing the Taliban, whatever other Islam-themed BS in Central Asia and/or Erdogan's pan-Turkic delusions of grandeur. Also note how potential Armenian-Azeri war was quashed in the bud, in the time it took the West to bleat out its gravest concerns about the matter.

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

40 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Yes, it is possible. I know because I started out by designing such a "perfect win" strategy as a hypothetical scenario only to find out that it obviously already exists for real. I think Mr. Andrew has done the same, judging by him using the 2012 date. (which is the latest date the deal was sealed for good)

Russia could than casually drive to occupy Newport Beach, to make sure nobody ever tries to "rule the seas" again? Which obviously requires massive fleets you cannot simply  rebuild overnight. Russia has neither desire nor means to do so itself and no concept of "power projection" Without the ability to project power, is US hegemony done and over with. Just note that US, like the British Empire before it, is predominantly a sea power depending on their navies as cornerstone of their military doctrine. They have no real means to properly engage Russia on land using conventional forces, at least as far as core Eurasia is concerned. As far as actually starting an invasion themselves? Why? Neither Russia, nor USSR actually ever had any invasion plans for anybody West. Extrapolating unfortunate ethnic conflicts left in the wake of Soviet Union's disintegration to general Russian aggressiveness is generally dishonest and serves the needs of military industrial complex / NATO apparatchiks only. The real Russia is actually a deeply pacifistic culture. Orders to execute a conventional nuclear first strike targeting civilians would invariably be refused outright.

So, the plan is a categorical disarmament of the West, followed by doing mostly nothing? You gonna look very stupid spending many consecutive decades trying to re-arm against a hypothetical Russian aggression which already was. It is not a conventional nuclear war the way you understand it, but only targets those who harbor nuclear weapons themselves. Think Cinderella scenario, where all the nukes turn into pumpkins come midnight.

If that is so then why does NATO spend many billions each year on continually upgrading their nuclear defence program when apparently it is well known by the average Russian how to render all of this inoperative in 1 strategic strike?

This seems a little far fetched to me, plus whatever it was in 2012 that is 10 years ago and probably out of date.

Anyway Im no military person so I'm sure there are better qualified people on this site who would counter what you say far better than me. I have no desire for any such situation on either side as it serves no long term purpose for any nation.

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

46 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Russia has neither desire nor means to do so itself and no concept of "power projection" Without the ability to project power, is US hegemony done and over with. Just note that US, like the British Empire before it, is predominantly a sea power depending on their navies as cornerstone of their military doctrine.

I disagree hegemony is not who has the strongest navy it is all about who is the wealthiest nation in the world, whose GDP is the biggest. Money generally brings power as does political station. The most powerful man in the world is always going to be the president/prime minister of the hegemony of the time. 

Scary that the current one is Biden!

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

28 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

If that is so then why does NATO spend many billions each year on continually upgrading their nuclear defence program when apparently it is well known by the average Russian how to render all of this inoperative in 1 strategic strike?

This seems a little far fetched to me, plus whatever it was in 2012 that is 10 years ago and probably out of date.

Anyway Im no military person so I'm sure there are better qualified people on this site who would counter what you say far better than me. I have no desire for any such situation on either side as it serves no long term purpose for any nation.

NATO has no "nuclear defense program" only offense. Even the most basic ICBMs remain largely non-interceptable. The Newspeak term for this doctrine is "left of launch missile defense"

https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/alert/3132/ (preemptive attack on enemy launcher positions)

Who says I am average? :) As far as average Russians are concerned, I put the utmost trust in various old Soviet rumors spread through the grapevine. There were always some stories about various government Wunderwaffel that refused to die, without there being any official source. Those are often perverted by passing through so many induhviduals without the background to understand, but true at the core. To give you a simple example, there were always rumors of a supersonic torpedo. How could that be, ought to be BS?  As we know now, all true, in the form of supercavitating "Skval" torpedo. A mighty classified thing during USSR, yet every school child knew. Did the Western analysts? Only to the extent they were capable to suspend their disbelief.

In continuous deployment 1972-2012 to be exact. No, not obsolete. There is nothing to obsolete, it is very simple. Who told you I am even trying to sell anything to you that you need to counter? Believe whatever you want to believe. Most of the Western establishment is oblivious to any of this, but not all, due to it seeing a limited use at least once, in relation to the "Shuttle bombing" incident

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3855/1

which Soviets predicted exactly in the late 60-ties. You do know why the Shuttle was so ridiculously oversized, do you? This has been covered up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/the-man-who-saved-the-world-by-doing-absolutely-nothing/280050/

But this was no false alarm. Senior lieutenant Petrov was simply removed from the decision loop. The idea was that the Soviets would not expect just a single incoming bogie (A "Space Shuttle" carrying an insurmountably large nuke to drop on Moscow) instead of a massive ICBM barrage. The only open question is whether the Shuttle performed a live run, or a realistic test. The scheme allows the Yankees plausible deniability of the intent to the very end, which was also predicted by the Soviet analytics ahead of time. They did know of the weight of the Shuttle's payload, because the solid fuel boosters gave it away even when taking from the Vandenberg airbase, where they could classify every blade of grass. (Soviet "Buran" Shuttle-lookalike did not have that weakness, being a pure liquid hydrogen rocket)

Note that the incident was immediately followed by the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

what got to be the largest NATO "exercise" there ever was. Easily convertible into an actual attack on supposedly decapitated USSR.

I don't know what the name of the Shuttle involved was, but it would be rather fitting for it to be the "Enterprise" Because what happened is that various devices inside starting throwing sparks like on TV show and everybody felt excruciating pain, causing them to call the mission off ASAP. Like I explained before, I have a subprime confidence in the story, because I heard the most of it as a rumor as teenager growing up in USSR. The Soviet rumor even preserved the names of various important parties involved, but was obviously completely confused to the specifics of how it is supposed to work. As usual, the possibilities of actual physical reality vastly exceed what human science fiction came up with so far :)

You can also see the same wretched mentality US military has in TV Start Trek. Have you ever seen Deep Space 9? The situation there is as follows. The Federation of Planets (future Earth obviously based on direct extension of current USA) has a supposedly peer competitor called the Romulans. Who got a secret clocking technology making their space ships entirely stealth. The Federation got nothing like that. They've only got something called "phase shield" which they claim to be officially impenetrable. (This contradicts the observational evidence. Anybody and their mom can drop in onto "Enterprise" any time they see fit) The peace deal with Romulans hangs on one condition - the Federation is not to research the cloaking tech. So, in DS9, they do exactly that. Come on, it's just one ship. What's the big deal, right? The only obvious conclusion is that "Star Trek" future is not to be. Earth is obviously poised for orbital bombardment by massive Romulan fleets appearing out of nowhere.

This is why the Soviet Union never placed that much value on formal treaties with Americans, knowing full well that they will  perpetually nudge at the boundaries of the agreed, eventually turning it into nothing much.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

I disagree hegemony is not who has the strongest navy it is all about who is the wealthiest nation in the world, whose GDP is the biggest. Money generally brings power as does political station. The most powerful man in the world is always going to be the president/prime minister of the hegemony of the time. 

Scary that the current one is Biden!

Self-serving Western propaganda. Look at the EU, for example. It has the collective GDP about equal that of US or more, but geopolitical influence less than DPRK. Generally, they do whatever Uncle Sam tells them to.

GDP is generally an accounting metric that is overused as a measure of wealth. For example, US having by far the most lawyers and for-profit prisons in the world is a tremendous positive contribution to their GDP. So are natural disasters (a driver for much public spending!) GDP PPP is better, but only affects consumer PPP. There should be agreed upon industrial PPP-like metric like PPI US uses internally (as opposed to CPI), but there isn't. Not for international stats.

But, we can have it your way too. At the height of US hegemony, right after WWII, US accounted for some 52% of global GDP. Now - only some 16-18%  Even USSR at its peak was some 25% of the world's GDP. So, obviously, maintaining the same expensive hegemonic habits gets progressively difficult to support, while the appetites grow. All Evil Empires end similarly. The current situation in the US eerily reminds me of a situation inside USSR just before its end.

The way I see it is more like the Hindu caste system. Tradesmen, the 3rd caste from the top, can buy their way up. Forcing your way works better. That's what the warrior caste, 2nd from the top, does. But only the highest  caste, the brahmin, could convince you to see the world their way voluntarily. Translating to politics, does the preeminent US standing arise from its position as the leading cultural and academic nation, and not its wealth. This is being significantly diluted, as the Oscars are being given out for woke achievements and Nobel prizes even in hard sciences like physics are being given for non-achievements, for as long as they come from approved sources.

Hey, we've been had once. In my case, by the "obvious" proposition of Western capitalism being superior to our communism on the account of proving things important to me (jeans and chewing gum. I was young) Retroactively, this whole thing was stupid beyond belief. Outside of Econ 101 textbooks, there is a place for both competition and cooperation in real business, no contradiction between the two. Do you see the Chinese having any difficulty producing crappy consumer goods for the entire world? Seems more like Soviet specialty to me, than principled property of all "communist regimes". What is the current proposition for anybody to revolt at the Western whim. Say in Russia or China? "Democracy and freedom?"  Mostly, fails to find traction. Because a) US own governance system does not give much incentive to imitate of late b) The most basic human right is the right to live, not the right to put a piece of paper into the ballot box just the right way. US is obviously quite confused about that.

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

20 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Self-serving Western propaganda. Look at the EU, for example. It has the collective GDP about equal that of US or more, but geopolitical influence less than DPRK. Generally, they do whatever Uncle Sam tells them to.

GDP is generally an accounting metric that is overused as a measure of wealth. For example, US having by far the most lawyers and for-profit prisons in the world is a tremendous positive contribution to their GDP. So are natural disasters (a driver for much public spending!) GDP PPP is better, but only affects consumer PPP. There should be agreed upon industrial PPP-like metric like PPI US uses internally (as opposed to CPI), but there isn't. Not for international stats.

But, we can have it your way too. At the height of US hegemony, right after WWII, US accounted for some 52% of global GDP. Now - only some 16-18%  Even USSR at its peak was some 25% of the world's GDP. So, obviously, maintaining the same expensive hegemonic habits gets progressively difficult to support, while the appetites grow. All Evil Empires end similarly. The current situation in the US eerily reminds me of a situation inside USSR just before its end.

The way I see it is more like the Hindu caste system. Tradesmen, the 3rd caste from the top, can buy their way up. Forcing your way works better. That's what the warrior caste, 2nd from the top, does. But only the highest  caste, the brahmin, could convince you to see the world their way voluntarily. Translating to politics, does the preeminent US standing arise from its position as the leading cultural and academic nation, and not its wealth. This is being significantly diluted, as the Oscars are being given out for woke achievements and Nobel prizes even in hard sciences like physics are being given for non-achievements, for as long as they come from approved sources.

Hey, we've been had once. In my case, by the "obvious" proposition of Western capitalism being superior to our communism on the account of proving things important to me (jeans and chewing gum. I was young) Retroactively, this whole thing was stupid beyond belief. Outside of Econ 101 textbooks, there is a place for both competition and cooperation in real business, no contradiction between the two. Do you see the Chinese having any difficulty producing crappy consumer goods for the entire world? Seems more like Soviet specialty to me, than principled property of all "communist regimes". What is the current proposition for anybody to revolt at the Western whim. Say in Russia or China? "Democracy and freedom?"  Mostly, fails to find traction. Because a) US own governance system does not give much incentive to imitate of late b) The most basic human right is the right to live, not the right to put a piece of paper into the ballot box just the right way. US is obviously quite confused about that.

You seem to think I'm American, I'm not by the way.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

12 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

You seem to think I'm American, I'm not by the way.

No. I know you are British. For all practical purposes, the American hegemony is retracing into the footsteps of the British one. Also, look at the beautiful table in

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureus

Julius Caesar Aureus	8.18 grams	1.000
Nero Aureus	7.27 grams	0.889
Caracalla Aureus	6.55 grams	0.800
Diocletian Aureus	5.45 grams	0.667
Constantine Solidus	4.55 grams	0.556
British Sovereign	7.32 grams	0.895
USA Eagle 1837–1933	15.05 grams	1.839
USA Gold Dollar 1849–1889	1.51 grams	0.184
USA Gold Eagle 1986–present	31.10 grams	3.802

 

 

 

 

Shows you the value of premier hegemonic gold coin, from Caesar's Rome, through British sovereign an on to US Gold Eagle. You can see how relatively slow they lose their purchasing power. All of those are gold coins to large to circulate for any commoner means. A tool of reigning oligarchy, so to say.

Meanwhile, the UK government just finished to pay off the WWI war debts in 2015

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-30306579

That's somewhat later than Nazis paid off the reparations for WWII. Russia paid off all the outstanding Soviet debts in 2017. This is something the commoner taxpayer gets to participate in very much. Privatize the profits, externalize the losses is an age-old principle of oligarchic capitalism.

 

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

2 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

No. I know you are British. For all practical purposes, the American hegemony is retracing into the footsteps of the British one. Also, look at the beautiful table in

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureus

Julius Caesar Aureus	8.18 grams	1.000
Nero Aureus	7.27 grams	0.889
Caracalla Aureus	6.55 grams	0.800
Diocletian Aureus	5.45 grams	0.667
Constantine Solidus	4.55 grams	0.556
British Sovereign	7.32 grams	0.895
USA Eagle 1837–1933	15.05 grams	1.839
USA Gold Dollar 1849–1889	1.51 grams	0.184
USA Gold Eagle 1986–present	31.10 grams	3.802

 

 

 

 

Shows you the value of premier hegemonic gold coin, from Caesar's Rome, through British sovereign an on to US Gold Eagle. You can see how relatively slow they lose their purchasing power. All of those are gold coins to large to circulate for any commoner means. A tool of reigning oligarchy, so to say.

Meanwhile, the UK government just finished to pay off the WWI war debts in 2015

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-30306579

That's somewhat later than Nazis paid off the reparations for WWII. Russia paid off all the outstanding Soviet debts in 2017. This is something the commoner taxpayer gets to participate in very much. Privatize the profits, externalize the losses is an age-old principle of oligarchic capitalism.

 

I think we have paid off our WW2 debt  back in 2006

On 31 December 2006, Britain made a final payment of about $83m (£45.5m) and thereby discharged the last of its war loans from the US. By the end of World War II Britain had amassed an immense debt of £21 billion.

All we have to do now is pay for Covid! Jeez!

 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 minute ago, Rob Plant said:

I think we have paid off our WW2 debt  back in 2006

On 31 December 2006, Britain made a final payment of about $83m (£45.5m) and thereby discharged the last of its war loans from the US. By the end of World War II Britain had amassed an immense debt of £21 billion.

All we have to do now is pay for Covid! Jeez!

 

I think that was war bonds. Last £1.9bln of them. WWI war bonds being paid off in 2015 strongly suggests some WWII are still out there?

£21 bln is only a lot if specified as "in gold" (however much gold £21 bln would buy at the time of the borrowing) Same amount in future pounds isn't worth much, as a national government can always ensure an effective negative interest on its own currency.

Actually, not really sure what your government did for WWII. It looks like they wisened up and started selling worthless stamps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Savings_Movement

just like the Nazis did. Apparently, even shared a swastika logo initially. In that case, you are off the hook.

If I were in UK, I would entrust all my money to an organization with most evocative name like the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Widows

of course. Until Nessie herself opens up shop, obviously nothing better around

[SUZNV + 1,197]

 

5 hours ago, Andrew Neopalimy said:

1. If the US decides to attack Russia, they will be destroyed in preparation for war * during the "threatened period" the US will receive a "preemptive nuclear missile strike" which is guaranteed (98%) to destroy the US / NATO.
(At the same time, systems will be disabled: missile attack warnings, communications, location, navigation, reconnaissance ... and power supply)))
Since 2012, the United States is guaranteed to lose the "Nuclear War with Russia", and from 2025, the percentage of the guarantee of the victory of the Russian Federation will strive for 100, and the degree of damage inflicted on Russia will tend to zero idiots. And the management knows about it !!!
In this version, you will present victory over yourself to Russia and China.
2. If the United States decides to start a war with the PRC, it can only win by inflicting RNW - having spent the entire stock of strategic nuclear weapons (you have almost no tactical nuclear weapons, you cannot produce nuclear weapons, modern ICBMs, BBs, or strategic submarines with bombers - you Russia is ridiculously funny, even the "Papuans" are not afraid of you, clowns who have not won a single war, except for their civil war! You have long lost your competence, technology, resource - as soon as the "von Brauns" run out).
In this version, you will present the world domination of the Russian Empire, since you will be left with nothing.

When we got to massive nuclear missile strike level, there would be no concern about war crimes. US don't really need strategic weapon but can strike on China's massive dams which will have much much more effect than nuclear war heads.

US is large and cities decentralize out in 50 states compare to Europe including Russia so there was no single strategic choke point. Large parts of US don't have a cruel winter and can regenerate fast post apocalypses scenario as it self contains all the resources it has. And the US military was around the world as well which is a moving target.

Besides that  no one know the US missile defense system effectiveness are over bluffing or really under estimated.  

Do you really think US EU politicians, Putin, Xi risk their lives and powers for a nuclear apocalypse scenario?  All men are created equal, in the reverse we are all equal in death, they have much to lose. 

------------------

IMHO, Putin simply utilizes the Afghan refugee situation to remove China's influence in  Kazakhstan ( with the previous long term president was a key part in China's belt and Road and the new one surely in pro Russia faction, so the coup was more likely a China's attempt and that is how it was so quiet). Most of the bitcoin Chinese miners ran to Kazakhstan . The CSTO prevents any foreign army can interfere in without all members' permission so nothing US or EU can do.

I don't  think Kazakh ethnic consider themselves Slavic.

Ukraine was spitted just like Germany, Korea or Vietnam in the past. Besides Russia wants the access to Black Sea just like China wants to get the strategic point in Tibetan (head of many big rivers) and south China Sea. The Western did nothing back then and would 

The Western media and politicians was busying with the "booming" economy post Covid19. Western Europe people blame their degrading living standard not only at the US people but to the Eastern Europe people and to accept Ukraine and economic consequence will guarantee losing votes for  incumbent parties. People may choose ideology over interest but careered politicians always choose interest over ideology. Putin knows this.

------------------

@ronwagn I am flattered. I guess I was brainwashed when I was young with prioritize my ideologies over my interest (for example: my name means loyalty in Vietnamese and now I have 3 citizenships). And when I realized I was brainwashed and the old ideologies removed, I was struggling with a choice between ignore any ideology completely and move on with interest or seek for new ideologies to fill the void and still prioritize them over my interest. I think life is about balancing these.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

15 hours ago, ronwagn said:

A very deceitful take on the situation IMO. This is just a Ukraine like excuse to save a dictatorial puppet regime by Russia. They did the same in Byelorussia recently. They people had huge demonstrations then Russia sent in support for their dictator. Then they encouraged him to fly in immigrants and encourage them to break into Poland. Poland is still resisting the attempts to forcefully invade its land. The neighboring Muslim countries will join together and assist each other in the long run. They are stuck between China and Russia but there are many Muslim countries that have been watching what China is doing to its Uighur Muslim people. Mongolia has just been told to stop using its native language in school also. 

Russia and China are biting off  more than they can chew in the long run. Meanwhile they are showing their imperialist goals very clearly. The world is far larger and greater than the sum of Russia and China which are dubious allies anyway. Both will eventually fall either from without or within. The people of both countries see the stupidity of taking on the whole world for the glory of the leaders for life, when peace would be much more beneficial to the people of China and Russia. 

https://news.yahoo.com/un-slams-kazakhstan-soldiers-seen-224129945.html

VOICES

 

JAN. 10, 2022 / 8:02 AM

In Kazakhstan, Russia follows a playbook it developed in Ukraine

By Lena Surzhko Harned, Penn State

   

Riot police officers block a street during a protest rally over a hike in energy prices in Almaty, Kazakhstan, on Wednesday. Protesters stormed the mayor's office in Almaty, as Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev declared a state of emergency in the capital. Photo by EPA-EFE

 

Jan. 10 (UPI) -- Add Kazakhstan to the list of former Soviet republics whose independence is being threatened by Russia. Russian leader Vladimir Putin is using a similar playbook in Kazakhstan to one that he has used over almost a decade to threaten the sovereignty of Ukraine.

What began as protests over rising fuel prices on Jan. 2, quickly escalated into violent clashes on the streets of Kazakhstan. On Wednesday, Kazakhstan President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, a firm ally of Putin's, requested support from the Collective Security Treaty Organization, of which Putin's Russian Federation is the leading member. Russia has responded decisively by sending paratroopers, special operations troops and equipment as part of a nearly 3,000-strong force to Kazakhstan.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

Tokayev explained his request by claiming that protesters are really "a band of terrorists" trained abroad. On Friday, Tokayev escalated the conflict: "I have given the order to law enforcement and the army to shoot to kill without warning," Tokayev said.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

As a scholar of post-Soviet Ukraine, Russia's involvement in Kazakhstan looks very familiar to me. It's similar to what happened in Ukraine beginning in 2014, when peaceful protesters were met with violence by the government and a protest grew into a revolution that ultimately overthrew the Russian-backed leadership of the country.

RELATEDRussian troops flood Kazakhstan with forces amid protests

 

Dangerous neighborhood

Seizing on that moment of domestic unrest in 2014, Putin gave direct orders to annex Crimea, a Ukrainian territory home to a key Russian naval base. Shortly afterward, he supported a war mounted by so-called Russian-speaking separatists in Ukraine's eastern regions.

For more than eight years now, the Russian Federation has continued to support that conflict in Ukraine and has recently threatened Ukraine with a full invasion. This most recent version of Putin's aggression toward Ukraine came in November, when he staged 175,000 troops along the Ukraine border. His goal: to use a potential invasion as leverage to stop Ukraine from joining the alliance of Western countries known as NATO.

RELATEDKazakhstan: Authorities arrest ex-intelligence chief on accusations of treason

 

In Kazakhstan, as in Ukraine in 2014, the Russian government explains its military presence as appropriate and requested by a legitimate government. As in Ukraine, the Russian government emphasizes that external forces are responsible for unrest in the former Soviet republic. As in Ukraine, the Russian Federation has pointed out the need to protect a Russian-speaking population.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

These tendencies of the Russian government to assert dominion over former territories that it lost during the breakup of the Soviet empire demonstrate that Russia is willing to act quickly and do anything to keep control of its neighborhood. I see this as an important message about what the Western leaders can expect from a meeting with Russian officials in Geneva on Monday to discuss the conflict building again along Ukraine's border and Russia's demands that NATO not expand to Ukraine.

Soviet and Russian legacies

RELATEDKazakhstan president tells police to open fire with lethal force on protesters

 

Russia has long seen Kazakhstan as within its sphere of influence. In a press conference on Dec. 23, Putin called Kazakhstan a "Russian-speaking country in every sense of the word."

Earlier Putin claimed that before the collapse of the Soviet Union, "Kazakhs never had a state of their own." In December 2020, two members of Russia's parliament claimed that territories of northern Kazakhstan were "a big gift" from Russia to Kazakhstan.

Such claims are reminiscent of the language that Putin has applied to Ukraine. He has often claimed that Ukraine was not a real country, including in an article published by the Kremlin in July, in which he claimed that "modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era."

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

The use of the same terminology does not bode well for Kazakhstan.

Putin's references to a Russian-speaking population in Kazakhstan are reminiscent of the experience of Ukraine's Crimea region. In April 2014, Russian soldiers appeared on the streets of Crimea, forced Ukrainian soldiers to leave their posts, and oversaw a so-called referendum that allowed for Crimea to be integrated into the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation said then, and continues to claim, that its interest in Ukraine is a continued concern for the welfare of the Russian speakers in Ukraine, which in Russia's view is being oppressed.

Controversial Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovski claimed on Jan. 6, 2021, that Russian speakers in Kazakhstan are similarly oppressed by Kazakh language requirements. Zhirinovski is a radical figure in Russian politics, but it is usually assumed that he voices the more extreme claims of the Russian government.

Protecting from foreign invaders

Tokayev claimed that the protests in his country were fueled by the "free press" and foreign forces who were sponsoring terrorist activity in his country. The Russian government willingly accepted this terminology. Tokayev did not specify which external forces he meant.

Putin has long claimed that the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine in 2014, which ousted his ally, President Viktor Yanukovich, was really a coup sponsored and coordinated by the United States.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

Similar arguments about outside influences were made by the embattled Belarusian dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, about the anti-government protesters in Russia-aligned Belarus in 2020.

The spokeswoman for the Russia Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said on Thursday that there is a need to stop extremism in Kazakhstan. Her words came in response to European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell's concerns over the Russian troop deployment.

This consistent message supports Putin's narrative about the need to protect Russia and the countries in its neighborhood against what he regards as destabilizing influences like the United States and NATO, which, according to Putin, support and promote anti-government extremists and revolutions in the region.

Show of strength

Putin continues to cultivate an image as a decisive leader who responded to a call from a neighboring country to "help Kazakhstan overcome this terrorist threat."

His actions in Kazakhstan, I believe, are aimed at both internal and foreign audiences.

Domestically, Russian media see Russian troops as a part of a multilateral peacekeeping response, which includes troops from Belarus and Armenia. Deployment of so-called peacekeeping forces in Kazakhstan in the middle of instability and violence will be portrayed in Russia as a huge achievement for Putin.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

This is also a message to Ukraine and the West. Putin will not hesitate to show strength to achieve Russia's goals. Russia now has nearly 100,000 troops along the Ukrainian border. And while there was a reported withdrawal of 10,000 soldiers in late December in a de-escalation effort, most of the troops and military equipment remain.

Geneva outlook

Negotiations in diplomacy require compromise. However, Russia is entering the talks in Geneva with an ultimatum toward NATO and the United States.

Russia's demands, according to Reuters, include a "halt to NATO enlargement, no deployment of its weapons systems in Ukraine and an end to provocative military exercises" in the region.

Russian action in Kazakhstan should serve as a sobering reminder to Western countries that Russia is willing to act decisively to protect its interests and retain its influence in the neighboring countries. 

Lena Surzhko Harned is an assistant teaching professor of political science at Penn State.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

• Topics
• Alexander Lukashenko
• Maria Zakharov

 

You are comparing viewpoints of vastly different levels of discourse. A surprisingly deep analysis Tomasz posted with Goebbels propaganda for imbeciles you are spewing here. Can you at least bother to find a rational position, rather than "whatever Russia is doing got to be something bad?"

Who would happen to be the Russian puppet regime in Kazakhstan? The situation has significant components of internal strife between different elites. The old President Nazarbaev (aka elbasy, father of the nation and his clan) and President Tokaev (previously considered his puppet)

Tokaev, is significantly closer to Western sensibilities if you were actually ever following any of the principles you are professing. He has not been involved in any significant corruption scandals. Does not have a whole clan of personal relatives and cronies occupying every position of power in the country and has not obviously enriched himself beyond belief. However, Nazarbayev has bought himself some important friends in the West, like ex-British premier Tony Blair, who he hired to lobby his interests. To make it even more interesting, Nazarbaev has likely been offered an asylum in Russia (or Turkey) in exchange for his goons standing down. So, which one is the Russian puppet there? Some more numbers for you. Kazachstan extracts more oil and gas than Russia on per-capita basis than Russia. Kazachs are poorer than Russians though. Possibly because most of the extraction is in the hand of Western corporations, unlike in Russia? Why is it a Russian puppet regime then and not yours? Ever heard of Chevron? They own the most Kazakh oil. Alas, there is absolutely nobody fighting for democracy in Central Asian -stans. This is simply not a concept the locals believe in, get used to it. You are not exactly setting a great example for the cause.

Ukraine never had a dictatorial puppet regime before, except now that they are your puppets. They've always had extremely competitive elections, for example leading to the very same Yanukovich being deposed in 2004. Arguably, by unconstitutional means. You are unlikely to understand the difference between 'democracy' and 'voting', so I will stop there. Yanukovich was the legitimate elected President of Ukraine and had every right to clamp down on the rioters hard. Instead, being a wuss that he is, he ordered them to stand down. There will never be another Ukraine anywhere near Russia. The vile forces of the rotten West had their luck once. Street riots are not a democratic mechanism unless they represet the will of majority of population. Which was not even remotely the case. All there was a small bunch of pro-Western Astroturf being richly supported while they rioted and most regular Ukrainians had paying jobs to attend.

Lukashenko is a major thorn in Russia's ass also. The assumption that all autocratic governments must be allied together against democratic ones is idiotic beyond belief. Russia had to intervene on his side when they detected the protests turning anti-Russian rather than anti-Lukashenko. Ditto for Kazakhstan. There were already demands that Kazakhstan quit all Russian (and Chinese) economic integration treaties, the Chinese New Silk Road interests were attacked. Why would bonafide Kazakh patriots attack their own major cash cows? Same for Belarus. Lukashenko will croak soon enough, but Belarus will live. No regime change is worth destroying the country over like what happened in Ukraine. It is not really possible for a Slavic guy to establish a hereditary dynasty, no matter how hard he tries. Very well possible in the -stans, which points out another problem Mr. Nazarbayev had. He never had any (official) sons, only daughters and thus no entirely legitimate heir. Otherwise they'd be a Nazarbayev Jr. running the place. Show me a single Jr. or IIIrd anywhere in Soviet or Russian leadership? You can't? I can point out a whole bunch of Jrs running US, without having no obvious distinction of their own. Moreover, I clearly remember one making the President (arguably courtesy of his bro being the governor of swing state of Florida) This makes you one of the stans, not us. Non-convincing usurpers to democratic claim.

The only commonality between Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan is the attempt of their leadership to sit on all the chairs at once (pro-West, pro-Russia, pro-China, etc) while constantly haggling for additional favors. In doing so, they covertly supported the extremely nationalist forces, thinking they could handle them. Till they couldn't. A great idea on the face of it. Nothing more convenient to shift the blame to as rioting Nazi goons for all the parties involved. Nazi-goons-on-cue is a technique perfected in the Ukraine, I suppose.

Here is another document I believe Tomasz also already posted

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html

There, a US options to destabilize and overextend Russia with additional regime changeroo at the Russian periphery are outlined. This documents predates the actual events in Moldova, Belarus and various Central Asian -stans, yet describes them correctly. What else could you possibly need to prove a malicious US/Western intent behind all this? Whatever RAND Corp proposes is as good as actual future policy, indeed.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, SUZNV said:

 

When we got to massive nuclear missile strike level, there would be no concern about war crimes. US don't really need strategic weapon but can strike on China's massive dams which will have much much more effect than nuclear war heads.

US is large and cities decentralize out in 50 states compare to Europe including Russia so there was no single strategic choke point. Large parts of US don't have a cruel winter and can regenerate fast post apocalypses scenario as it self contains all the resources it has. And the US military was around the world as well which is a moving target.

Besides that  no one know the US missile defense system effectiveness are over bluffing or really under estimated.  

Do you really think US EU politicians, Putin, Xi risk their lives and powers for a nuclear apocalypse scenario?  All men are created equal, in the reverse we are all equal in death, they have much to lose. 

------------------

IMHO, Putin simply utilizes the Afghan refugee situation to remove China's influence in  Kazakhstan ( with the previous long term president was a key part in China's belt and Road and the new one surely in pro Russia faction, so the coup was more likely a China's attempt and that is how it was so quiet). Most of the bitcoin Chinese miners ran to Kazakhstan . The CSTO prevents any foreign army can interfere in without all members' permission so nothing US or EU can do.

I don't  think Kazakh ethnic consider themselves Slavic.

Ukraine was spitted just like Germany, Korea or Vietnam in the past. Besides Russia wants the access to Black Sea just like China wants to get the strategic point in Tibetan (head of many big rivers) and south China Sea. The Western did nothing back then and would 

The Western media and politicians was busying with the "booming" economy post Covid19. Western Europe people blame their degrading living standard not only at the US people but to the Eastern Europe people and to accept Ukraine and economic consequence will guarantee losing votes for  incumbent parties. People may choose ideology over interest but careered politicians always choose interest over ideology. Putin knows this.

------------------

@ronwagn I am flattered. I guess I was brainwashed when I was young with prioritize my ideologies over my interest (for example: my name means loyalty in Vietnamese and now I have 3 citizenships). And when I realized I was brainwashed and the old ideologies removed, I was struggling with a choice between ignore any ideology completely and move on with interest or seek for new ideologies to fill the void and still prioritize them over my interest. I think life is about balancing these.

What if it is not a missile strike, but a strike by Status-6/Poseidon torpedo? The vulnerability of a location to a tsunami depends largely on a single factor - elevation off the ground. This makes the US Atlantic coast (as well as the rest of the core North Atlantic Treaty region!) significantly vulnerable and US West largely immune.

The core of US military-industrial and intelligence establishment in Maryland, Virginia and DC over the Potomac can certainly be taken out by a single hit. It is flat as pancake. There is no recovering after that. The overwhelming majority of US population and industrial capacity is located on either coast. The square-shaped states in the middle are rather sparse.

The US missile defense effectiveness is known to be non-existent, because most of it is offloaded to Aegis ships. Which have to use standard Mk.41 VLS launchers. Which are simply too small to house serious space going missiles. A proper ICBM mid-course interceptor ought to be at least the same size.

The more appropriately sized

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Interceptor

only aspired to intercept Kim's wares.

Why would Putin remove the Chinese road works? Given that they terminate in Russia, anyway?

In 1991, was majority of Kazakh population Russian/Slavic. Now it is only about a third, seeing some soft discrimination / inability to participate in local governance structures / big business.

The current President of Kazakhstan is the same as the previous one. Arguably, for real now. (Previously considered just a puppet of the old President Nazarbaev and his clan)

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 1/1/2022 at 7:54 PM, SUZNV said:

That is precisely my point. US is a weird combination between 1 and 2 which is very hard to understand especially with Europe or Asia cultures. US wasn't directly influenced by French Revolution, Marxism, proletarian international and socialism in Europe. Recent movements are just came from the seeds  of the Cold War Era. No one understand more about the US than the Soviet Union.

I don't really understand how the Founding fathers can lead a bunch of selfish "mob", everyone for himself, to fight for freedom and  then designed a very decentralized system aka individualism. I bet even the founders would amaze how things turned out.

Yes, in history there are slavery, peasants or proletariats revolutions/rebels but they were from desperate survival situations or when the aristocrats class has no power of control left and was in downward trend. The closest rebel may be the Spartacus.

If we consider every country is a big organization and look at organizational and human behavior aspect, then most of the systems in Europe and Asia countries social  values are more about Mechanistic Model while the US social values are more about Organic Model.  

The handle in Mechanistic Model is quite easy to understand, things are centralized with structure, with lots of regulations/expectation to bound things together, you can stir the wheel and the whole car will go toward desired direction. When the wheel is broken, then good luck in stirring.

To handle in Organic model is much much more decentralized and self healing, with minimal fixed regulations/values/codes and everything else  move freely in chaos and no one knows which shapes and forms and structure it will become to adapt to the surrounding environment.  Anything against the core codes/values will be destroyed.  The end of the slavery in Civil War is just a consequences as it is against the codes. 

 

It is impossible to win against US in  a direct war after WW2. And it is very hard to stir an organic model to the favor a direction, but have to break down the US fundamentals/codes/values first, to turn the code to something else or to add more codes. This is the 45 goals the Soviet planned to decay US gradually from within, written since 1960s.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/naked-communist45-goals-destroy-united-states-america-waghelstein

After the cold war, US people thought they won the Cold War but didn't realize the seeds was planned from within. The codes changed, more codes was added with immigrations and ideologies from other countries as a result of globalization which make the organic model shifting toward mechanic model gradually.

US people are busy with life and media and take the convenient life, and wealth for granted and want to match the welfare standard in Europe without realizing that is why France, Germany cannot keep up in recession time.

The continual shifting toward Mechanistic model give the US politicians got more handler and more powerful as the welfare system was designed for the very unfortunate, not for people to freely choose between "work" and "life". Once a person purposely chooses "life" over "work", he and his family is held hostage by the politicians. 

I don't really know which model US would shift toward to in future and how long would it take to change the direction.

US businesses take incredibly risks on startup with venture capital in organic model as "fortune favors the brave" but they want to turn things into Mechanistic model to manage risks , especially with global corporation public stocks. 

If you are immigrants just keep the US core values expectation, you should be okay. I found US is the most friendly to adapt for immigrants with lots of opportunities. 

I won't get into the debate between pros and cons of each model because of the values/codes of a culture may change. We have success or failure example for both and a success now is not a guarantee for no failures in the future. But I will give example for illustration for now:

Mechanistic Model:

Success: Singapore with Lee Kuan Yew,  Korea with Park Chung Hee, China (for now), arguably Japan and Germany.

Failure: Countless in history, Empire rise and fall. 

Organic Models:

Success: USA , but the trend is shifting toward Mechanistic model.

Failure: Arguably Myanmar,  Afghanistan and many African countries. However these are only decentralized up to tribal levels, not at the individual levels like the US yet it is decentralized  enough so it is incredibly hard to change/improve.

Exception:

India, although lots of hierarchies  in Caste system yet very decentralized. I would guess it is stuck right in the middle without the trend to shift to any direction. I don't know should I count this in success or failure.

 

Everything they told us about USSR turned out to be a lie. Everything they told us about the West turned out to be quite correct

US was very much influenced by the French Revolution.

It is all there, in the Federalist Papers for example. The Founding Fathers very much understood how democracy is the worst form of totalitarianism, no individual despot is capable of, by the virtue of removing all personal responsibility for the actions of the moral majority. The era of French Enlightenment appropriately started with the invention of the guillotine. It is amazing how little familiarity with their own scripture Americans really have, given all the moralizing about democracy and freedom they do on a given day.

Sorry, what about Spartacus? I don't get it.

It is very well possible to win against the US in a direct war, just not in the paradigm of the previous World Wars which involve invading and holding it. Sorry, your 45 points seem entirely invented by some US analyst. He got a few potentially right by a chance, but largely they are alien to Soviet/Russian logic. In general, any source which cites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

as a source is automagically not worthwhile further notice IMHO. It is a known propaganda piece that fails basic arithmetic. According to it, USSR killed something like a half of its citizens. One half was sitting in Gulag, and another half watching them.  I am afraid the 1960-ies USSR was not remotely as slick. Only the early USSR was an equal to the West in propagandist appeal, due to the action of the Comintern

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_International

Which had talented Commie individuals from all over the world working for them. Stalin dissolved this organization to indicate to Allies that USSR is no longer exporting the Revolution. Grave mistake, IMHO. The West does not understand goodwill gestures.

Yes, US is very integrative towards new migrants, but so was/is also USSR/Russia. This is what it takes to run a successful Empire. West Europeans are still terrible at that. Is Russia Mechanistic or Organic? You've got to explain it as a significantly old entity it actually is (over 1000 years) which also tends to naturally regrow the parts that it lost, even without any military conquest.

US businesses take no risks on startups. The primary source of VC funds is a minuscule portion of the funds US pension funds manage. Small enough to be able to loose. All the insider stocks are typically rendered illiquid with options vesting for the first four years after IPO, while VCs and investment bankers jump ship.

Not being able to keep with European welfare standards is also self-serving propaganda from economic liberals. Lets look at that, shall we? I live in Austria, which happens to be a country of near-US standard of living and a taxation schedule that is actually an exact copy of US. Every Austrian has a principal claim to so called Mindestsicherung (minimal security) From here

https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/soziales/armut/3/2/Seite.1693914.html

we get that it equals 949 EUR for a single, 1.424 for a couple plus 171-256 EUR for each underage child. The only difference to real universal income is that you need to be able to wiggle out of really crappy jobs that pay almost as little the government will try to offer to you instead. The way everybody benefits that it is not possible to legally dock anybody's income to below this minimal sum, even with a valid court order. This is significantly better to the German model where you have to laboriously set up specially protected accounts to protect against valid legal claims and keep inventories of stuff you don't want taken away. This also represents some kind of modest, but real living income around here. For example, my rent on a 64 m^2 apartment is 382 EUR, down from 385 last year. (it's not really a rent, but government-subsidized semi-ownership of sorts) I remember paying $850/month in Berkeley, California of late 90-ties for a very similar apartment. (Back when the dollar was larger than euro. These days, the apartment probably costs some 3 grand to rent) The only remotely equatable option for total rejects I see in US is to enlist with the USMC, where you also earn like $1000 a month, enough to survive on a US government base, but nowhere else in US.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, SUZNV said:

 

When we got to massive nuclear missile strike level, there would be no concern about war crimes. US don't really need strategic weapon but can strike on China's massive dams which will have much much more effect than nuclear war heads.

US is large and cities decentralize out in 50 states compare to Europe including Russia so there was no single strategic choke point. Large parts of US don't have a cruel winter and can regenerate fast post apocalypses scenario as it self contains all the resources it has. And the US military was around the world as well which is a moving target.

Besides that  no one know the US missile defense system effectiveness are over bluffing or really under estimated.  

Do you really think US EU politicians, Putin, Xi risk their lives and powers for a nuclear apocalypse scenario?  All men are created equal, in the reverse we are all equal in death, they have much to lose. 

------------------

IMHO, Putin simply utilizes the Afghan refugee situation to remove China's influence in  Kazakhstan ( with the previous long term president was a key part in China's belt and Road and the new one surely in pro Russia faction, so the coup was more likely a China's attempt and that is how it was so quiet). Most of the bitcoin Chinese miners ran to Kazakhstan . The CSTO prevents any foreign army can interfere in without all members' permission so nothing US or EU can do.

I don't  think Kazakh ethnic consider themselves Slavic.

Ukraine was spitted just like Germany, Korea or Vietnam in the past. Besides Russia wants the access to Black Sea just like China wants to get the strategic point in Tibetan (head of many big rivers) and south China Sea. The Western did nothing back then and would 

The Western media and politicians was busying with the "booming" economy post Covid19. Western Europe people blame their degrading living standard not only at the US people but to the Eastern Europe people and to accept Ukraine and economic consequence will guarantee losing votes for  incumbent parties. People may choose ideology over interest but careered politicians always choose interest over ideology. Putin knows this.

------------------

@ronwagn I am flattered. I guess I was brainwashed when I was young with prioritize my ideologies over my interest (for example: my name means loyalty in Vietnamese and now I have 3 citizenships). And when I realized I was brainwashed and the old ideologies removed, I was struggling with a choice between ignore any ideology completely and move on with interest or seek for new ideologies to fill the void and still prioritize them over my interest. I think life is about balancing these.

I was not taught the faults of American history until I took college history. Unfortunately world history is very rarely taught to students and is not required. Socialist professors and new teachers are taught to promote socialism and LGBTQ.  Many disagree of course. I was taught the constitution and how our American government is supposed to work and on which principles. My step father was a communist with a long history back to northern  Minnesota and the labor movement. He was a very secretive man and a bit paranoid. I knew what he wanted for America. What he called democratic socialism is, of course IMO, just a slippery slope into dictatorship of the crony industrialists, party leaders. etc. When I got out of the army, in which I spent 26 months in Germany, he let go with a fluid German. That is the first German I ever heard out of his mouth. He used to let out various communist talking points. Not unlike what our news services and "news" organizations do today. They call it liberal but it all heads toward election fraud, LGBTQ, Covid mandates, strong federal and state control. It would eventually lead to democratic socialism. I want nothing to do with such tyrannical control of people and their thoughts. I loved President Kennedy when I was young. When he was assassinated, I was in Germany. I always questioned who really was behind his death and still do. I believe that , as Eisenhower said, we are at risk from our military industrial complex. Yet I realize its importance. Without it we would be speaking Russian, which my step father was angry was not offered in high school. He was also angry that my elementary school had offered a class in Christianity. It had to be held outside of the school in a trailer anyway. Now it is not offered at all, to my knowledge. 

Our deep state government and most of the higher positions are dominated by liberals. One of the bad things Kennedy did was to get a bill passed to allow government jobs to be unionized. Now teachers have high incomes, in most areas, related to the average person. These teachers are far inferior to the teachers that made less money but were more dedicated. The education of the average American is now influenced most by liberal ideals and not by reading, writing, and arithmetic. Many cannot even read but are given high school diplomas. It has all become politicized and not for the benefit of the student. Americans are finally learning how faithless many of our teachers are. We are spending an exorbitant amount of money for very bad results. 

Our elected politicians, or many of them, become wealthy because of people who they give favors too. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, etc. It is ridiculous to allow our congressmen and congresswomen to receive insider information that is illegal for everyone else. 

I will stop here, sorry for going on. Maybe it will help you understand " where I am coming from."

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I disagree hegemony is not who has the strongest navy it is all about who is the wealthiest nation in the world, whose GDP is the biggest. Money generally brings power as does political station. The most powerful man in the world is always going to be the president/prime minister of the hegemony of the time. 

Scary that the current one is Biden!

How about this definition? The hegemony is the one who projects power best? It does not have to be real power. So, there is significant danger of turning into "soft power superpower." Still vicious, but largely toothless. The best known example of that is late Austria-Hungary. There is also a very opposite result to the impression you are trying to make. For example this

A so-called

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_walk_(aeronautics)

(Though USN also does this with its ships) Are those guys for real? They probably do it on special dates, too, like the 4th of July?

For most of the "age of sail" where Britain was supposedly uncontested ruler of the seas, was it actually quite a paper tiger, due to action of teredo navalis, the naval shipworm. It doesn't like the "brackish waters" like where there is a major river estuary. Out of 5 Royal Navy bases, only one, in Glasgow, got a major river entering the sea. They never figured that one out and spent inordinate resources on trying to squire the copper sheet for "coppering" the ship bottoms. Which goes a long way to explain a good portion of your military lore, for example the necessity of capturing opponents cannons, while losing your own being as dishonorable as losing your flag. Nobody else follows that. Guns were just materiel elsewhere. I reckon the Russians easily captured more of the British cannons in Crimea than your Light Brigade or whatnot. They just don't realize how prestigious it is. (They certainly stole some to study why they are better made then theirs, only to find out that they really weren't. The story of Victoria's crosses being cast from captured Russian cannons also turns out to be BS. They are cast from something cheap. Proper gunmental your government had a use for elsewhere

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I disagree hegemony is not who has the strongest navy it is all about who is the wealthiest nation in the world, whose GDP is the biggest. Money generally brings power as does political station. The most powerful man in the world is always going to be the president/prime minister of the hegemony of the time. 

Scary that the current one is Biden!

In the case of Biden, I think that he is fairly well controlled by the Democratic Party leaders in concert with the deep state. The Democrats are very interested in shelving him in the next election which is three years away. They would love a President Newsom but don't realize how many state populaces would despise the idea. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

53 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

In the case of Biden, I think that he is fairly well controlled by the Democratic Party leaders in concert with the deep state. The Democrats are very interested in shelving him in the next election which is three years away. They would love a President Newsom but don't realize how many state populaces would despise the idea. 

Which "Democratic Party leaders?" The consensus on the Russian side is that they've already tossed the more colorful fringe fractions under the bus and it is business as usual. As in actually picking up most activities just where Trump left them. From this you can possibly infer the general undesirability of a California-derived administration, perhaps?