China's aggression is changing the nature of sovereignty.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Your ignorance on the subject is very telling

Football also a British colonial sport (which Russia is rubbish at) has this

In the last global census undertaken by the sports governing body FIFA, it was estimated that there are 265 million people who play the sport along with more than 5 million referees, which equates to 4% of the world's population, thus cementing its place atop the list of the world's most played sports.

25 Jan 2017 — 1. Entire human population is about 7.1 billion · 2. Population of 10-test playing countries is about 1.7 Billion ·

So cricket a "has been" sport that is played by 1.7 billion  which is a hell of a lot more than baseball!

Go to India and see what a has been sport cricket is! Its practically a religion over there

Tell me other than ice hockey (a Canadian invention based on hockey) what sport are Russians good at? And what sports have global appeal that they invented?

I love soccer myself but don't have much chance to have a team to go watching and cheer for in NZ and USA. My dad loves watching Premier league than Bundesliga although he reveres "Germany way".

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

6 minutes ago, SUZNV said:

I love soccer myself but don't have much chance to have a team to go watching and cheer for in NZ and USA. My dad loves watching Premier league than Bundesliga although he reveres "Germany way".

Chelsea Chukotka?

[SUZNV + 1,197]

2 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Chelsea Chukotka?

Yes when Mourinho was there. He isn't loyal to any particular team, but following the stories and watch every match he can. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

40 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Chelsea Chukotka?

You mean Chelski

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Trade between Russia and China in 2021 increased by 35.8% to a record USD 146.887 billion, according to data published on Friday by China's General Customs Administration.

 Chinese exports to Russia in the reporting period increased by 33.8% y / y and amounted to USD 67.565 billion, deliveries from Russia to China increased by 37.5% to USD 79.322 billion.

In December 2021, trade between Russia and China reached $ 16.44 billion. Russia imported goods from China worth $ 8.136 billion, China from the Russian Federation - $ 8.306 billion.

At the end of 2020, trade between Russia and China decreased by 2.9% and amounted to USD 107.76 billion.

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

On 11.01.2022 at 11:42, Rob Plant said:

Андрей все вышесказанное не относится к делу и слухи

НИКТО не "выигрывает" ядерную войну!

This Cold War maxim had the right to life until 2012, now Russia is guaranteed to win any military conflict with the US/NATO (inflict "unacceptable damage" on the aggressor, which will force the US to capitulate). At the same time, own damage will be negligible.

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

On 11.01.2022 at 12:01, Rob Plant said:

Лично я считаю, что уничтожение хотя бы половины планеты (вы сами сказали, что это уничтожит страны США/НАТО) означает, что НИКТО не "победит"

Думать иначе я считаю безумием! Хочешь жить в этом мире??

Вся эта поза BS (мой nuc лучше, чем ваш nuc) ни к чему не приводит.

Говорить, что мы «выиграем» с гарантией 98%, тоже очень неосведомленно. Вы участвуете в последней стратегии НАТО? Вы осведомлены о новейших военных технологиях как России, так и НАТО и можете принимать обоснованные решения о том, кто «победит»?? Я сомневаюсь!

Я почти уверен, что новейшие технологии с обеих сторон недоступны для скачивания и просмотра!

"Knowledge of the mind does not add")))
Where does this nonsense about half of humanity come from? - it could only come up with marauding cowards who did not win a single war, except for their civil North-South.
We, Russians, not only want to live in this world, but the main thing is to live with dignity after death! At least in the bright proud memory of descendants - you do not understand.
Yes, I had access ... and incl. to the documents of the folder marked "Special Importance".
It is necessary to doubt always and in everything - this is a sign of a reasonable person.
You are right - classified materials do not exist in the public domain. But more than 80 percent of classified information comes from open sources. You just need to know the subject at the level of a professional - a specialist of the highest category ... and correctly analyze and interpret the information.

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

On 1/11/2022 at 11:04 AM, 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 "

Why should we turn it off? - You yourself will do it, After all, every day you threaten.
The following “sanctions” will probably be imposed on Russia for “For delaying hostilities….” or “For renunciation of military expansion…”. )))
But in essence, this is zugzwang - any US / NATO move leads to a deterioration in the position of the Shining City on Mount Sinai - Russia wins in any scenario.

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

On 1/11/2022 at 11:40 AM, Rob Plant said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/08/dont-forget-how-the-soviet-union-saved-the-world-from-hitler/

Andrei in the West and history taught at schools in the West, the part the USSR had to play in the defeat of Hitler and the Nazi's is very rarely told. This I believe comes from nationalistic pride on the part of each respective country and the role each played in WW2 but it is not the reality or the truth and only tells a fraction of the story.

As this article (from the Washington Post) highlights is the incredible heroism and stoicism of the people from the USSR to be so determined to play a major part in winning a truly horrific war. 80 USSR soldiers to every Allied 1 tells its owwn story but the truly gruesome fact that 60% of nuclear families lost 1 member and the level of civilian casualties is the real tradegy.

Why the West and USSR became so divided so quickly to me is very sad. Respect to your nation for the losses they suffered!

 

80% of the Wehrmacht were destroyed by Russia, 7-10% fled, and the rest surrendered to you and Britain without a fight.
You didn’t even disarm these “prisoners”,))) you regrouped them to attack us - the USSR. But having calculated that you would immediately lose the whole world of the Great Army of the planet with Europe, they crap one's pants and began negotiations on the division. To which you just arrived in time - more people died from diseases in that war, for us the Great, than from injuries (due to careless handling of weapons, drunken duels, self-explosions, etc.. You didn’t see the war, didn’t knew - Hollywood heroes! Who took Berlin, who left the signatures on the Reichstag, which you cowardly painted over?))) You are still occupiers (by the way, General Drozdov himself told me about the Chancellor Act at a friendly table, they say, he personally saw him! I believe, I believed - because the general died).

Without the Russian Empire, there would be no USA, as a sign of gratitude, you staged the First Orange / Red Revolution-1917 for us and stole the gold reserve, but you staged another Orange Revolution-1991 and again stole the gold reserve ...
It's nothing personal, it's just business?
Do you think we will forgive 100 million compatriots who died from your revolutions and the wars you provoked? - yes, never, we sleep and pray - oh, to take revenge as soon as possible
But never mind, it won't be long to wait... three more years to stretch and our superiority in combat military power will become absolute, in all domains/spheres. Although we have been for a long time (since 2012) on computer war games in the NCUO of the RF Armed Forces, we are guaranteed (98%) to defeat you, as well as in strategic maneuvers (we play nuclear wars). The US DoD knows about this, on your computers the result is the same. But the main thing is that our damage tends to a minimum every year...

[frankfurter + 562]

13 hours ago, SUZNV said:

Fun facts about US congress politicians make insider trading before their votes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMP80uEGavA

All happen while they are busying to fight covid19.

The full report 2021, hall of shame:

https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate/full?fbclid=IwAR3KeB6GUmOpcQt-isf4zZkYfx2JFu-GV3VkTSauibhRjvD4BWZbrMVj3IU

Some teasers:

-Most of them beat the SP500 last year. They is a detail description on which they buy and then vote later. 

-Nancy Pelosi beat all famous investors, including Warren Buffet. 

-They only need to disclose 30 days after (45 days for spouse trade). With 200usd fine for late fees.

 -Obama signed a Stop Trading on Congress Knowledge Act in April 2012 (must be for the re-election). He silently neutralized it 1 year later (after the re-election).

All in broad day light, the people pay for them less than their profit on insider trading, including campaign funds corporations donate to them. Is they lifetime careers politicians are all the options we have? We depend on them to regulate Corporations  in the people benefit but in is in the reverse. And we believe in their spending for ESG, maintaining peace, pull the country out of recession and fair social programs? Where is the real journalisms mainstream are bragging?

People got high students loan to have high paying jobs like doctors, engineers, scientists and work hard to pay tax  while these got salary from tax payers, received donation for campaign to benefit family member, insider trading and then vote for regulations. 

Like I always say, in democracy country, the politicians  quality reflect the  people quality. While the people are busy defending their champions and hate other people, the politicians silently pocket the money. People should never be proud of their current politicians, only time will tell. Government is in the  opposite side of the people by design. Don't take democracy for granted, fella.

You, like about 320 million others in the USSA, seem unaware of the distinctions between a democracy and a republic. Fact, the USSA is a republic, not a democracy. As is now proven by the USSA... In a democracy, the majority rule the country... in a republic, the minority rule the country. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 1/12/2022 at 9:54 PM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Just offered the bases again

https://thediplomat.com/2021/09/report-putin-suggested-us-use-russian-bases-in-central-asia/

Big deal. There was never any substance behind Obama's or Hillary's reset plans. Putin and Xi are the childish ones? You are weird.

I have actually been wondering if our deep state wanted to leave our Afghanistan air base and all the weapons to the Taliban so they could move the Jihad into the Stans. That would create a buffer between Russia and China festering for a long time. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I have actually been wondering if our deep state wanted to leave our Afghanistan air base and all the weapons to the Taliban so they could move the Jihad into the Stans. That would create a buffer between Russia and China festering for a long time. 

There is already sorta a jihad in the stans, except Kazakhstan. What are you gonna do if one party wins and forms a superstan? That would be quite a force, especially if Turkey or Iran get to drive.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

6 hours ago, Wombat One said:

Thank you. I am glad you acknowledge that like everything else, democracy is even better at fascism than your failed and miserable attempts. We do fascism with a smile

 

I think this discovery goes to Aristotle. I prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants

[SUZNV + 1,197]

11 hours ago, frankfurter said:

You, like about 320 million others in the USSA, seem unaware of the distinctions between a democracy and a republic. Fact, the USSA is a republic, not a democracy. As is now proven by the USSA... In a democracy, the majority rule the country... in a republic, the minority rule the country. 

USA has never been a democracy country but republic since birth until now at federal level with electorate system. There is no doubt about that. , "democracy" is somewhat at state level. Theoretically the super delegator can vote faithless casting for the opposite party which majority of  people in his state votes for, but have consequences.

Only Swiss has some form of direct democracy in taking public opinions, or Brexit is another example, or any system with vote to join or leave the EU. But for governing countries, there is no country in really democracy in governing in the modern world, but representatives. Congress is the legislative branch. However US is more republic and less democracy than other countries because they have many states and the electorate system. Why would you assume US people don't understand this? 

What you really mean in "democracy" must be the differences between populous voting system in EU countries and electorate voting system in US.

I don't favor populous voting system as in the age of urbanization until pre Covid19, people concentrate in big cities, where the gap between the rich (landlords and entrepreneurs) and the poor (tenants and workers) are high with lots of social conflicts. A populous voting system simply means socialism with high welfare, high taxes, minimum wages and harder to filter out unproductive unionized employees  which put constraints on small middle big businesses investors up to the point they don't want to take risk anymore and all the financial capital chasing real estates or move oversea to maintain their wealth, which lead to less tax revenues.

Less entrepreneurship and competition leads to less opportunities for smart youngsters, kill their initiate to work hard  yet no wealth accumulating and depends on government for retirement. This along less tax revenues and high welfare will lead to more vulnerable economy, especially in the baby boomers retirement era.  Populous voted politicians have no way to change as they would no longer be populous if they want to untie the heavy regulated economy with lower tax or   less welfare standard, so the fiscal policy is locked up. One more constraint in EU is common ECB  make monetary policy for each individual country is not an option as well.

Nothing EU populous politicians can do but blame other politicians in across the Atlantic and hope trade with China will come to the rescue which make matter worst because their luxury goods have to compete with cheap products in China in global recession time (China has similar population, cheap wholesale of raw material suppliers and cheap labor). This make both EU and China build the tariff wall much higher to defend their manufacturing industries. US tariff is relatively low because the main export is innovations and USD and global corporation can just open a branch inside the countries to avoid the tariff. 

In US the populous voting system won't work as the global concentrate trading states like NY with Wall Street and Cali with Silicon Valley will shift all the benefit toward their states and the people in other states will have to move to Cali and NY which worsen the problems while US need farmers, oil workers and manufacturing for strategic national securities as well. However people can vote with ballots or with their feet and move to their favorite states for opportunities or life style or welfare. This is where the freedom of choices came from. 

Only people who under mainstream's spell thinking their country has democracy governing system and I saw lots of people in EU still confuse about this, at least in the surface I can read off because they keep lecturing US people about their "democracy".

It is kind of impossible for US electoral voting system to have a dictator while the populous voting system did create dictatorship around the world with Hitler was the best example. You can have modern example in Zimbabwe or South Africa. Dictatorship some times work for small countries like Singapore or South Korea  to increase People's Wisdom pre Internet era. 

I have a feeling EU suffer from Stockholm syndrome with their politicians as they defense their political system and blame the faults of their choices to foreign countries .I know I don't have this syndrome because I posted the congress's insider trading you quoted. US or EU politicians all have problems but I would prefer US political system and try to raise awareness to fella US citizens to improve it, not blaming China or EU for US's problems.

IMHO, many features of the EU bloc borrowing from US model. It would be more appropriate comparison. Otherwise should be a state in US compares to a specific EU country is more appropriate, both are too diversified.

 

Edited January 15, 2022 by SUZNV

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

On 1/15/2022 at 5:36 AM, frankfurter said:

Вы, как и около 320 миллионов других жителей США, похоже, не понимаете различий между демократией и республикой. Дело в том, что США - это республика, а не демократия. Как теперь доказано USSA... При демократии большинство правит страной... в республике меньшинство правит страной. 

Democracy - (gr. demokratia - the power of the people, from demos - people and kratos - power) - democracy.
"Democracy", as "the power of the people", in the absolute sense, has never been implemented anywhere! did not exist and cannot exist. Democracy is a method of ruling elites!
The Athenian and Roman democracies prohibited women, foreigners born in the state, freedmen and slaves from voting.
Today, the term "democracy", introduced by the Anglo-Saxons, means only the mechanism of external control!
"Democracy" is an alternative to the state - the direct distribution of power, as long as possible! Democracy has historically been a form of sovereignty, roughly speaking, a form of collective selfishness.
Under modern (Western) "democracy" the state is a representative of private interests - a machine for the forced restriction of the interests of all in favor of the interests of all. And the common interests of all “free citizens” of the country, identified with the interests of the state, are allegedly able to realize and legally formalize only the [quasi]elite of society! As if they were elected in a "free" "democratic" way, established by the elected themselves. )))
Western Westernizers can afford to apply the entire range of modern sophisticated management methods. They also provide the citizens of these countries with an almost complete illusion of their direct and immediate participation in the development of fateful decisions. Elites are out of the risk zone.
The elites of Western countries can afford it, because they have a full guarantee of their stable irremovability. Any choice of fellow citizens, any answer to any of the questions submitted to a national referendum cannot shake their highest social status. This provision is based on an intra-elite consensus, tested by time and fixed by custom, and is reflected in the technology of democratic procedures...
Sovereign democracy, in the foreseeable future, is unattainable.
Preserving sovereignty without compromising democracy and openness without losing one's identity is an impossible task.
Parliamentary, direct, agonal and other types of democracy are also considered as utopia.

Nevertheless, democracy as a form of socio-political structure today has no real alternative... Only antagonistic authoritarianism. 🤫

REFERENCE
PS See Arrow's theorem "On the impossibility of democracy" as a "collective choice" / "On the inevitability of a dictator

Edited January 16, 2022 by Andrew Neopalimy

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

13 hours ago, ronwagn said:

На самом деле мне было интересно, хочет ли наше глубинное государство оставить нашу авиабазу в Афганистане и все оружие талибам, чтобы они могли переместить джихад в штаты. Это создало бы буфер между Россией и Китаем, гноящийся на долгое время. 

The US wants to, but can't. As in the Central Asian region as a whole, the United States tried to place air bases with intelligence centers in the states of Central Asia. But they were unanimously sent to hell, and in some places they conventionally received diapers from the Russian military beret and ran to impose sanctions.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Andrew Neopalimy

[Boat + 1,324]

Maybe a better way to discuss the US system is that a very rich oligarch may do well in Texas but poor in California. It’s best to aline your politics with the beliefs in an area. Oligarchs have stiff competition and many need government help. The path to government money is control of your state. That’s why the voter still has some power. When we swap out a politician sometimes that can mean swapping out an oligarch.

 

[frankfurter + 562]

30 minutes ago, Boat said:

Maybe a better way to discuss the US system is that a very rich oligarch may do well in Texas but poor in California. It’s best to aline your politics with the beliefs in an area. Oligarchs have stiff competition and many need government help. The path to government money is control of your state. That’s why the voter still has some power. When we swap out a politician sometimes that can mean swapping out an oligarch.

 

Uh, maybe a better way to describe the USSA system is to disclose and accept the honest facts?  

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Russia is right: The West promised not to enlarge NATO & these promises were broken

Quote

 

The events of three decades ago are haunting the politics of the present

By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany at Koç University in Istanbul working on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory. He tweets at @tarikcyrilamar.

With Russia challenging Western unilateralism in a way not seen since the end of the Soviet Union, two major issues keep coming to the fore. Both, it seems, are centered on America's flagship military bloc, NATO.

First, there is Moscow’s claim that there was a Western promise not to expand NATO beyond its Cold War area. Second, there is a Western claim that NATO cannot, let alone will not, put an end to admitting new member states. 

This is no mere rhetoric; these are crucial points. Russia’s insistence on a thorough review and comprehensive, bindingly codified reset of post-Cold War security relations with the West hinges on its claim that prior Western assurances were broken. Talk and informal promises, the Kremlin says, are not enough anymore because they have turned out to be unreliable. On the other side of the quarrel, the West is rejecting a Russian key demand – to stop NATO expansion – by entrenching itself behind its claim that NATO simply must keep the door open to new members. 

Both claims can be verified. Let’s take a look at the facts. Moscow is right in its assertion that the West has broken its promises.

Such pledges were made twice to Russia, as a matter of fact. In 1990, during the negotiations over the unification of West and East Germany, and then, again, in 1993, when NATO was extending its Partnership for Peace policy eastward. In both cases, the assurances were given by US secretaries of state, James Baker and Warren Christopher, respectively. And in both cases, they took it upon themselves to speak, in effect, for NATO as a whole.

READ MORE: Russia-NATO relations at critical level, Moscow warns

Despite clear evidence, there are still Western publicists and even active politicians who deny or relativize these facts, such as, for instance, Cold War Re-Enactor and former American ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. Let’s address their objections.

Regarding the 1993 promises, the case is extremely simple. As Angela Stent – a widely recognized American foreign policy expert and practitioner with no bias in Russia’s favor – has summarized it in 2019, two “US ambassadors… later admitted that Washington reneged on its promises” – of 1993, that is – “by subsequently offering membership to Central Europe.” Then-Russian president Boris “Yeltsin was correct in believing that explicit promises made… about NATO not enlarging for the foreseeable future were broken when the Clinton administration decided to offer membership,” – and not merely partnership, as Christopher had assured Yeltsin – “to Central Europe.”   

The 1990 case is a little more complicated, but not much. There, too, the evidence for an explicit promise is clear. Here is the foremost American expert, Joshua Shifrinson – like Stent beyond any suspicion of favoring Russia – on the issue, writing in 2016:  

“In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer… Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, [the] U.S. could make ‘iron-clad guarantees’ that NATO would not expand ‘one inch eastward.’… Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.”

To be clear, Shifrinson, a careful scholar, has also explained that American negotiators and leaders started going back on this promise very quickly. But that makes zero difference to two facts: First, the promise was made, and timing suggests strongly that it mattered to Russia’s acquiescence to German unification on entirely Western terms. In other words: Moscow kept its part of the deal, the West did not. Second, even while rapidly backpedaling internally, American politicians continued to give Russia the – false – impression that its security interests would be considered. Put differently, the initial – and consequential – promise was not only broken; the deception was followed up with even more deception.

Those representatives of the West still in denial of what happened in 1990, such as Mark Kramer, for instance, also often quote former Soviet president Gorbachev: He has stated, after all, that the infamous “not-one-inch” promise referred strictly to East Germany only. Hence, the West’s defenders argue, it wasn’t about NATO beyond East Germany at all. 

READ MORE: Can Russia do a deal with the West?

Frankly, though popular, that is an extraordinarily silly argument: First, Gorbachev has an understandable interest in not being held responsible for the security-policy fiasco of letting NATO expand as it liked. Secondly, even if the 1990 negotiations were strictly about East Germany, please remember their real context: The Soviet Union was still there and so was the Warsaw Pact. Thus, two things are obvious – as long as we all argue in good faith: First, in specific terms, the 1990 promise could only be about East Germany. And, second, it of course clearly implied that anything east of East Germany would be, if anything, even more – not less – off-limits to NATO.

Another line of Western defense can only be described as fundamentally dishonest: NATO itself – and apparently the current American secretary of state Antony Blinken as well – now quite suddenly remember that “NATO Allies take decisions by consensus and these are recorded. There is no record of any such decision taken by NATO. Personal assurances from individual leaders cannot replace Alliance consensus and do not constitute formal NATO agreement.” 

That sounds great! If only James Baker and Christopher Warren had known about it when making their promises about NATO to Gorbachev and then Yeltsin!

Seriously? Two US secretaries of state address Moscow as if they had the right to speak for and shape NATO. Moscow, very plausibly – given the way NATO really works – assumes that they can. And when these promises are then broken, that is Russia’s problem? News flash: If you really follow that twisted logic, you would have justified the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as “fraternal help” as well. Because formally that’s what it “was.”

What about the West’s contention that NATO must maintain an “open door” policy, or, put differently, cannot possibly agree with Russia to stop expanding? That claim, unlike Moscow’s about NATO promises, is incorrect. Here’s why:

NATO argues that its inability to ever close its doors is based on the NATO treaty, its constitution, as it were. Here is NATO’s argument in the original:

“NATO's ‘Open Door Policy’ is based on Article 10 of the Alliance's founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty,” which “states that NATO membership is open to any ‘European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area’.” And that “any decision on enlargement must be made ‘by unanimous agreement.’… Over the past 72 years, 30 countries have chosen freely, and in accordance with their domestic democratic processes, to join NATO. This is their sovereign choice.” 

If all of the above were correct, it would still be a stretch to believe that such things can never be changed – as if they were a natural force akin to gravity – but, at least, we could understand why it is a challenge to make such changes.

Yet, in reality, in this case there is no reason to accept NATO’s surprisingly far-fetched and inconsistent interpretation of its own founding document. Because what Article 10 actually says is that the door is open to every European state that can “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area” and that the admission of any such state to the bloc can only happen by the “unanimous consent” of all current NATO members. 

None of this, actually, contradicts the possibility of NATO one day stating that for the future (unlimited or with precise dates) no further states can possibly help “contribute” to its security and therefore no further states can be admitted. NATO would be entirely within its rights doing so; and Article 10 would be perfectly fine. 

Regarding NATO’s statement that it is every European state’s sovereign right to “join,” it does not withstand elementary scrutiny: If that were so, then both the “unanimous consent” of all current members and the distinction between applying and joining would be meaningless. That is an obviously absurd position. In reality, states have a right to apply, not to join – by NATO’s own rules, which someone at NATO seems to very badly misunderstand. 

Put differently: NATO’s “Open Door Policy” is exactly that: a policy. It is not a natural law or even something that NATO is obliged to do by its own founding document (which would still not bind anyone else, actually). A policy, however, is, of course, open to revision. NATO’s claims that it “cannot” stop admitting is, therefore, strictly nonsensical. In reality, it chooses not to want to stop admitting, unfortunately.

In sum, Russia is right: The West promised not to enlarge NATO, and these promises were broken. NATO is wrong: It can, actually, shut the door; it just doesn’t feel like it.

These things are, actually, not hard to grasp. Hence, what is perhaps most worrying about the currently dominant Western narratives on these issues is not even that they are incorrect but that, apparently, parts of the Western elites, intellectual and political, really believe their own nonsense. But let’s hope they are deliberately distorting the truth. Because otherwise they have started buying into their own propaganda. And if that is the case, it is very hard to see how negotiations will ever succeed.

 

 

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

8 hours ago, Tomasz said:

https://ria.ru/20220116/kitay-1767999890.html

 

 

5G and 6G + Digital Yuan CNY

China central bank launches digital yuan wallet apps for Android, iOS https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/china-cbank-launches-digital-yuan-wallet-apps-android-ios-2022-01-04/ taid=61d40cb1b7327100014b999d
The People's Bank of China has released a mobile crypto wallet to use the digital yuan, Reuters reports. The e-CNY app became available on Chinese marketplaces on January 4. The wallet can be used by owners of devices based on Android and iOS operating systems.

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

 

“... You demand some kind of guarantees from me. You must give us guarantees - you!And immediately, now!”, - Putin

 Путин

Ежегодная пресс-конференция В.В. Путина 23 декабря 2021 г.

V.V. Putin: Regarding guarantees and whether anything will depend on the progress of the negotiations. Our actions will depend not on the course of negotiations, but on the unconditional provision of Russia's security today and in the historical future.
 
In this regard, we have made it clear and clear that NATO's further eastward movement is unacceptable. What is not clear here? Are we putting missiles near the borders of the United States? No. It is the United States with its rockets that have come to our house, they are already on the threshold of our house.
Is it some kind of redundant requirement not to put any more shock systems at our house? What is unusual here?
How would the Americans react if we took and put our missiles on the border between Canada and the USA or on the border of Mexico and the USA? And what, didn't Mexico and the USA ever have territorial issues? And who owned California before? And Texas? Forgotten, right?
Okay, everything has calmed down, no one remembers about it - the way they remember about Crimea today. Wonderful.
But we also try not to remember how Ukraine was formed. Who created it? Lenin Vladimir Ilyich, when he created the Soviet Union: the Treaty of 1922, the union, and 1924 - the Constitution. True, after his death, but according to his principles it was created.
 
But the question of security now - God bless her, with history - the question is to ensure security. Therefore, it is not the course of negotiations that is important to us - the results are important to us. Don't we know, I've already said this many times, and you probably know well: not a single inch to the east, we were told in the 90s. So what? - cheated!
They just brazenly deceived me: five waves of NATO expansion, and now, please, in Romania, now corresponding systems are appearing in Poland. That's what it's about, you understand, in the end.
 
We are not threatening anyone. We, perhaps, came there, to the borders of the United States? Or to the borders of Great Britain, or somewhere? They came to us and now they are still saying: no, now Ukraine will also be in NATO. This means that there will also be systems (US/NATO missile systems). Or, God bless him, not in NATO - there will be bases and strike weapons systems on a bilateral basis. That's what we're talking about.
 
And you demand some guarantees from me. You must give us guarantees - you! And immediately, now. Instead of talking about it for decades and under such mild talk about the need to ensure security for everyone, do what they plan. That's what it's about. Well, are we a threat to someone?
… They said: we will not expand. And they are expanding.
They said: there will be equal guarantees for everyone under a number of international agreements. But this equal security does not happening..
 
Look, back in 1918, one of the assistants to Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States, said: "The whole world will be calmer if a state in Siberia and four more states in the European part appear in the place of today's huge Russia."
 
In 1991, we divided ourselves into 12, in my opinion, parts, right? But it seems that this is not enough for our partners: Russia, in their opinion, is too big today, because the European countries themselves have turned into small states - not great empires, but small states, 60-80 million people. But even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where we have only 146 million left, and this is too much. It seems to me that this is the only explanation for such constant pressure.
 
Here are the 1990s: the Soviet Union did everything to build normal relations with the West and with the United States. I said it and I will repeat it again, let your listeners and viewers see there - I don’t remember what media you are from, but it doesn’t matter - at our facilities of the nuclear cycle, the military cycle, there were representatives of the American services of the relevant, went there to work - at the facilities of Russia's nuclear weapons complex - every day, they lived there. Numerous advisers worked in the Russian Government, including CIA personnel.
 
What else did you need more? Why was it necessary to support terrorists in the North Caucasus and use obviously terrorist organizations to try to break up the Russian Federation? But they did the same, and as a former director of the FSB I know this for sure: we worked with double agents, they reported to us what tasks the Western special services set for them. But why did it have to be done? On the contrary, it was necessary to treat Russia as a possible ally, to strengthen it. No, the opposite is true: an attempt to further collapse.
 
And then they began to expand NATO to the east. Naturally, we said: don't do this, you promised us not to do it. And they say to us: “Where is it written on a piece of paper? There is not? Well, that’s all, you go away, we didn’t care about your concerns.” And so from year to year. Each time we snapped, tried to prevent something, expressed concerns. No - you go with your concerns, we will do what we consider necessary.

One, two, three, four, five - five expansion waves. So why don't they understand us? I do not know. You ask what is not clear here. It seems to me that everything is clear:we want to ensure our safety.

Big press conference of Vladimir Putin
Annual press conference of the head of state of Russia December 23, 2021
Transcript http://kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/67438

Edited January 16, 2022 by Andrew Neopalimy

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

8 hours ago, Tomasz said:

Russia is right: The West promised not to enlarge NATO & these promises were broken

 

January 13, 2022
Interview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov to the Big Game program on Channel One, Moscow
https://www.mid.ru/tv/?id=1794264&lang=ru

S.V. Lavrov: ...The position of Russia was no less firmly stated. We had arguments that the West does not have. They concerned the principle of the indivisibility of security. During the talks, the United States and its colleagues in the North Atlantic Alliance referred to the fact that our main demand to provide legal guarantees for NATO's non-expansion to the East could not be fulfilled. They say that there is order in NATO: only the member countries themselves decide who to accept and who not, if an appeal is received.
But we persistently returned them not to the NATO order, but to the agreements worked out within the framework of the entire Euro-Atlantic community and within the framework of the OSCE. Indeed, they decipher the indivisibility of security as the freedom of each country to choose its allies.
The same sentence, without any dots or commas, says: on the understanding that the participating states in this context "will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states."
No country or union of countries has the right to claim dominant positions in the Euro-Atlantic region.
All this was agreed upon in a package, finally confirmed in 1999 in Istanbul at the OSCE summit with the adoption of the European Security Charter.
The West takes only what is beneficial to it.
We proceed from the fact that the freedom to choose alliances is an integral part of the inadmissibility of steps that will undermine the security of Russia and any other state.

REFERENCE
CHARTER FOR EUROPEAN SECURITY
Istanbul, November 1999
8. Each participating State has an equal right to security. We reaffirm the inherent right of each participating State to freely choose or change the means of ensuring its security, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve. Each state also has the right to neutrality. Each participating State will respect the rights of all others in this regard. They will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states. Within the OSCE, no state, group of states or organization can be given primary responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or consider any part of the OSCE area as its sphere of influence.
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/russian/osce/basics/Reurosecharter.html

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

On 1/15/2022 at 7:48 AM, SUZNV said:

USA has never been a democracy country but republic since birth until now at federal level with electorate system. There is no doubt about that. , "democracy" is somewhat at state level. Theoretically the super delegator can vote faithless casting for the opposite party which majority of  people in his state votes for, but have consequences.

Only Swiss has some form of direct democracy in taking public opinions, or Brexit is another example, or any system with vote to join or leave the EU. But for governing countries, there is no country in really democracy in governing in the modern world, but representatives. Congress is the legislative branch. However US is more republic and less democracy than other countries because they have many states and the electorate system. Why would you assume US people don't understand this? 

What you really mean in "democracy" must be the differences between populous voting system in EU countries and electorate voting system in US.

I don't favor populous voting system as in the age of urbanization until pre Covid19, people concentrate in big cities, where the gap between the rich (landlords and entrepreneurs) and the poor (tenants and workers) are high with lots of social conflicts. A populous voting system simply means socialism with high welfare, high taxes, minimum wages and harder to filter out unproductive unionized employees  which put constraints on small middle big businesses investors up to the point they don't want to take risk anymore and all the financial capital chasing real estates or move oversea to maintain their wealth, which lead to less tax revenues.

Less entrepreneurship and competition leads to less opportunities for smart youngsters, kill their initiate to work hard  yet no wealth accumulating and depends on government for retirement. This along less tax revenues and high welfare will lead to more vulnerable economy, especially in the baby boomers retirement era.  Populous voted politicians have no way to change as they would no longer be populous if they want to untie the heavy regulated economy with lower tax or   less welfare standard, so the fiscal policy is locked up. One more constraint in EU is common ECB  make monetary policy for each individual country is not an option as well.

Nothing EU populous politicians can do but blame other politicians in across the Atlantic and hope trade with China will come to the rescue which make matter worst because their luxury goods have to compete with cheap products in China in global recession time (China has similar population, cheap wholesale of raw material suppliers and cheap labor). This make both EU and China build the tariff wall much higher to defend their manufacturing industries. US tariff is relatively low because the main export is innovations and USD and global corporation can just open a branch inside the countries to avoid the tariff. 

In US the populous voting system won't work as the global concentrate trading states like NY with Wall Street and Cali with Silicon Valley will shift all the benefit toward their states and the people in other states will have to move to Cali and NY which worsen the problems while US need farmers, oil workers and manufacturing for strategic national securities as well. However people can vote with ballots or with their feet and move to their favorite states for opportunities or life style or welfare. This is where the freedom of choices came from. 

Only people who under mainstream's spell thinking their country has democracy governing system and I saw lots of people in EU still confuse about this, at least in the surface I can read off because they keep lecturing US people about their "democracy".

It is kind of impossible for US electoral voting system to have a dictator while the populous voting system did create dictatorship around the world with Hitler was the best example. You can have modern example in Zimbabwe or South Africa. Dictatorship some times work for small countries like Singapore or South Korea  to increase People's Wisdom pre Internet era. 

I have a feeling EU suffer from Stockholm syndrome with their politicians as they defense their political system and blame the faults of their choices to foreign countries .I know I don't have this syndrome because I posted the congress's insider trading you quoted. US or EU politicians all have problems but I would prefer US political system and try to raise awareness to fella US citizens to improve it, not blaming China or EU for US's problems.

IMHO, many features of the EU bloc borrowing from US model. It would be more appropriate comparison. Otherwise should be a state in US compares to a specific EU country is more appropriate, both are too diversified.

 

I can say it's truly refreshing to see your articulation and perceptions of the US I find them to be a honest portrayal. Actually there are many portrayals of the US as of late.

Perhaps I might give some fundamentals that have been glossed over. The US exists under two basic types of governing.

1. The state level, which is a true Democratic form of governance. Meaning the citizens elect their officials. The popular vote wins the day. 

These 50 states form a union...A country of one. A cohesive body of 50 states. All guided by one constitution yet at the same time these states have their own unique constitution's and yet all of these seperate constitution's are bound by one constitution.

It is these checks and balances that moves the US forward, frustrating for many yet binding for the main body of citizens.

A bit messy at times yes, yet humanity is a messy affair is it not? Checks and balances are needed, and there are times they are pushed back hard on. Soon that test will be over and unity will once again be restored. Survival is a very strong motivator...

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

Moscow can no longer tolerate a NATO invasion of Ukraine, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview with CNN.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2022/01/16/exp-0116-russia-ukraine-dmitry-peskov-kremlin.cnn
"We are witnessing a gradual NATO invasion of the territory of Ukraine with its infrastructure, its instructors, stocks of defensive and offensive weapons, training of the Ukrainian military, and the like.
This development of events brought relations between Moscow and the alliance to a "red line". The Russian side "cannot tolerate this situation any longer."
And that was the main reason why President Putin said, "Guys, this is a real threat to us." And this is a real threat to stability and security in Europe and the European security architecture.
Russia considers it necessary to leave its troops near the border with Ukraine - this is a precautionary measure and a reaction to the tension in the region, to the unfriendly atmosphere created by various NATO exercises, NATO fighters and spy planes, the advancement of NATO infrastructure "to the borders of the country.
NATO, in our understanding, is an organization that was created for confrontation, not defense. And NATO is not a dove of peace, stability and prosperity. And this weapon of confrontation moved closer and closer to our borders every day.
Moscow does not threaten anyone with a military operation, but will be forced to take countermeasures in the event of further expansion of the alliance.
… The Russian side insists on receiving a direct response to proposals for security guarantees. The tension around Ukraine is now too high, and this is "extremely dangerous for our continent."
As Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted earlier, NATO is increasing arms supplies to Ukraine, where the number of Western instructors has increased - this could provoke the Ukrainian authorities into "military adventures," which poses a direct threat to Russia's security.
Moscow is concerned that the West is trying to create a group of troops near the Russian borders.
Vladimir Putin also stressed earlier that the further expansion of NATO to the east and the deployment of offensive weapons on Ukrainian territory and in neighboring countries are “red lines” for Moscow.
In this vein, the Ukrainian issue was raised, among other things, at a series of consultations with the United States and NATO that took place this week. The Kremlin insisted on ending the alliance's military cooperation with the post-Soviet countries, refusing to create bases on their territory, limiting the deployment of strike weapons near the Russian border, removing American nuclear weapons from Europe, and guaranteeing NATO's non-expansion to the east.
As Lavrov said, Moscow insists that the guarantees of the alliance's non-progress to the east be legally fixed, and is waiting for a clear response from Washington to the Russian proposals.

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

2 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I can say it's truly refreshing to see your articulation and perceptions of the US I find them to be a honest portrayal. Actually there are many portrayals of the US as of late.

Perhaps I might give some fundamentals that have been glossed over. The US exists under two basic types of governing.

1. The state level, which is a true Democratic form of governance. Meaning the citizens elect their officials. The popular vote wins the day. 

These 50 states form a union...A country of one. A cohesive body of 50 states. All guided by one constitution yet at the same time these states have their own unique constitution's and yet all of these seperate constitution's are bound by one constitution.

It is these checks and balances that moves the US forward, frustrating for many yet binding for the main body of citizens.

A bit messy at times yes, yet humanity is a messy affair is it not? Checks and balances are needed, and there are times they are pushed back hard on. Soon that test will be over and unity will once again be restored. Survival is a very strong motivator...

Democracy - (gr. demokratia - the power of the people, from demos - people and kratos - power) - democracy.
"Democracy", as "the power of the people", in the absolute sense, has never been implemented anywhere! did not exist and cannot exist. Democracy is a method of ruling elites!
The Athenian and Roman democracies prohibited women, foreigners born in the state, freedmen and slaves from voting.
Today, the term "democracy", introduced by the Anglo-Saxons, means only the mechanism of external control!
"Democracy" is an alternative to the state - the direct distribution of power, as long as possible! Democracy has historically been a form of sovereignty, roughly speaking, a form of collective selfishness.
Under modern (Western) "democracy" the state is a representative of private interests - a machine for the forced restriction of the interests of all in favor of the interests of all. And the common interests of all “free citizens” of the country, identified with the interests of the state, are allegedly able to realize and legally formalize only the [quasi]elite of society! As if they were elected in a "free" "democratic" way, established by the elected themselves. )))
Western Westernizers can afford to apply the entire range of modern sophisticated management methods. They also provide the citizens of these countries with an almost complete illusion of their direct and immediate participation in the development of fateful decisions. Elites are out of the risk zone.
The elites of Western countries can afford it, because they have a full guarantee of their stable irremovability. Any choice of fellow citizens, any answer to any of the questions submitted to a national referendum cannot shake their highest social status. This provision is based on an intra-elite consensus, tested by time and fixed by custom, and is reflected in the technology of democratic procedures...
Sovereign democracy, in the foreseeable future, is unattainable.
Preserving sovereignty without compromising democracy and openness without losing one's identity is an impossible task.
Parliamentary, direct, agonal and other types of democracy are also considered as utopia.

Nevertheless, democracy as a form of socio-political structure today has no real alternative... Only antagonistic authoritarianism. 🤫

REFERENCE
PS See Arrow's theorem "On the impossibility of democracy" as a "collective choice" / "On the inevitability of a dictator