ronwagn

China's aggression is changing the nature of sovereignty.

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

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 by SUZNV
  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

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 by Andrew Neopalimy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

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 by Andrew Neopalimy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?  

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tomasz said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

 


“... 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 by Andrew Neopalimy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andrew Neopalimy said:

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

There is no need to delve into such topics, it has little to do with this republic of 50 states. Nothing more than a distraction. Quite a bit of that as of late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

23 minutes ago, Andrew Neopalimy said:

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!

Above case in point. Each US state would be a DEMOCRACY. All states officials are elected by the popular vote.

Your example is merely a well written piece  of fiction.

Edited by Eyes Wide Open

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Above case in point. Each US state would be a DEMOCRACY. All states officials are elected by the popular vote.

Your example is merely a well written piece  of fiction.

That is still not a true direct democracy, it is representative democracy. 

Representative democracies do tend to elect the rich / famous / elite.

Also many officials are appointed.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Above case in point. Each US state would be a DEMOCRACY. All states officials are elected by the popular vote.

Your example is merely a well written piece  of fiction.

Representative democracy really isn't. In a direct democracy, there are no "state officials" and the popular vote is for specific policy issues. It is somewhat implemented in Switzerland. In US, the popular opinion has been demonstrated to have near zero influence on policy.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

In US, the popular opinion has been demonstrated to have near zero influence on policy.

Agreed, the US is a Country guided by a constitution. Popular opinions would be a loose construct of teenagers generally found in high school settings. Ohh my bad I am demonstrating my age. In today's society they also are quite prelavant on Facebook,Twitter etc etc.

Affectionately known as Teeny Boppers. 

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Above case in point. Each US state would be a DEMOCRACY. All states officials are elected by the popular vote.

Your example is merely a well written piece  of fiction.

EWO, you know what I find most funny about the Russian trolls on this site? The fact they are so convinced on one hand that their military and economic prowess is far superior to that of the West, and on the other hand, their extreme paranoia about NATO expansion? If they are not the slightest bit afraid of NATO (which they should not be), then why the heck do they keep saying it is "a threat to their security"? 

The Ukrainian soldiers and officers of the Ukrainian Belbek Airbase, which was seized by Russian special forces on March 22, 2014 near Belbek, Crimea. OLEG KLIMOV / EPSILON / GETTY IMAGES

Sponsor Message

Get all our news and commentary in your inbox at 6 a.m. ET.

email

Sponsor Message

THREATS

Here’s What DOD’s International Security Nominee Learned from Russia’s 2014 Seizure of Crimea

Send weapons faster, and prepare to boost U.S. forces in the region, Celeste Wallander told lawmakers.

BY JACQUELINE FELDSCHER

SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT

JANUARY 13, 2022

RUSSIA

PENTAGON

WHITE HOUSE

NATO

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The Biden administration must learn lessons from the slow U.S. response to Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea: it must be prepared to send weapons to Kiev faster and, potentially, to boost NATO troop presence in the region if Russia attacks, the nominee to lead the Pentagon’s international security office told Congress on Thursday. 

Celeste Wallander, who served as the National Security Council’s Russia director in 2014, said any further incursion by Moscow into Ukraine should prompt the Pentagon to reevaluate its presence in the region and its contributions to NATO, including potentially expanding the alliance’s Enhanced Forward Presence brigades in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. 

“In principle, I would support an increased American at least rotational presence in that region,” Wallander told Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who asked about sending more EFP brigades further south in Eastern Europe. 

The Enhanced Forward Presence brigades were established in 2016 in response to Russia’s seizure of the Crimean peninsula. Each country’s brigade includes troops from multiple NATO nations. American troops lead the brigade in Poland. 

A senior administration official told reporters in December that the government is working with allies on a plan to respond to a potential Russian invasion, which could include boosting the number of troops in countries on NATO’s eastern flank. 

Related articles

The US Must Prepare for War Against Russia Over Ukraine

US 'Unequivocal’ to Russia on Right of Ukraine, Others, to Join NATO

Although she served on the NSC during the crisis, Wallander criticized the Obama administration’s response as “too slow and too incremental.” Asked by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., if it was a mistake not to give Ukraine Javelin anti-tank missiles more quickly after Russia annexed Crimea, Wallander said it was.

“One of the lessons I learned is that it would have been appropriate and necessary to provide Ukraine with what it needed to defend its territory, including the weapons you suggest,” said Wallander, who also served as the deputy assistant defense secretary for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia from 2009 to 2012.

There has been much debate about whether to give offensive weapons to Ukraine. While the capabilities would allow Ukraine to better protect itself, Russian President Vladimir Putin has called it a “red line” that could spark military retaliation from Moscow. 

Wallander said she would “not rule them out,” but added that she would not make any firm commitments until she had been confirmed and fully briefed on the classified assessment of Russia’s capabilities and Ukraine’s requirements. 

She also said she’s looking for European allies to do more to protect the continent and go beyond the promise made in 2014 to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense by 2024. But she said she’s not prepared to recommend that the United States cut its military presence in Europe to encourage allies to spend more themselves to fill that gap and free up American dollars to counter China.

“As we face a heightened threat from Russia, this would not be the moment to put a reduction in American commitment to NATO on the table, but what I would favor, if confirmed, is looking at how the United States can provide some of its advantages in enablers, in weapons systems, in security cooperation with allies to ensure that we are properly resourcing the requirements in the Indo-Pacific…and yet sustaining defensive deterrence against Russia,” she said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Agreed, the US is a Country guided by a constitution. Popular opinions would be a loose construct of teenagers generally found in high school settings. Ohh my bad I am demonstrating my age. In today's society they also are quite prelavant on Facebook,Twitter etc etc.

Affectionately known as Teeny Boppers. 

Guided by a constitution?  Really? Since when?  Where in your constitution is stated the State has the power to redefine what is a man or a woman? Why is Assange and others persecuted for their writings, the right of free speech?  Where is stated all government actions shall be kept hidden and secret from the people? etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 10:18 PM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Fan fact - Russia is a democracy. What you think about it is irrelevant, on the account of not having any voting rights there short of some number of known agents of influence directly in your employ.

Personally, I find the so called democracy a concept forever discredited by its affiliation with a few Evil Empires already dead or well on their way to the cementary. The future of governance and legislating and court system is automated. This is what the serious AI research is about - automating the formal logic required to prove math theorems. Any valid law system is also a collection of formal logic that ought to at least be consistent with its own axiomatic base. Which yours are not at all at will come down crushing at the first attempt at formal validation. You don't allow the Big Bro to drive? You are obsolete. The Big Bro can legislate and judge in nanoseconds, resolving issues that criminal elements you call politicians cannot for years to everybody' s satisfaction.

Last I hear the Chinese already have an automated prosecutor in petty claims court. For now. Prepare to be sued into oblivion, fuckers, for all the evil you committed against the rest of humanity The Judgement Day is cometh. Any day when there is real rule of law will do.

My big bro is bigger than your big bro, and appears to be changing tack to the detriment of Russia, whilst putting China on the backburner. Personally, I would prefer to see the USA focus on the bigger threat, which is China, but the Pentagon believes that containing Russia is key to preventing the disintegration of the world order. I believe that Biden is a bigger China Hawk than Russia Hawk, and rightly so. Trump was too. There is a fundamental disagreement between the WH and the Pentagon because the Pentagon is listening to Kissinger who is pro-China (created the Dragon actually), and the WH is listening to it's allies. Covid changed everything, and the WH is much more forward-thinking than the Pentagon. Indeed, Kissinger and the Pentagon might be willing to throw Taiwan under a bus, but the WH understands that Taiwan is much more important to maintaining global order than the Ukraine is. Hence, Biden is being firm with Putin, but is not being aggressive. I suspect that some kind of deal will be reached, not in Putin's favour regarding NATO membership, but some sort of agreement to reduce US involvement in Europe if Russia pulls back it's troops. That is my hope anyway, that Biden can engineer a cease-fire between the Ukraine and Russia on the basis that NATO and Russia both withdraw missiles by 1000km. I am probably dreaming, but clearly this is what Biden is hoping to achieve and I wish him luck. I am aware that Eastern Ukraine is Russian territory (given to the Ukraine by a Ukranian president of the USSR), and that Russia will fight for at least a small buffer between Moscow and the West. Understood. But Putin's ambit claim to a former empire is heading in the wrong direction for all concerned. Taking advantage of the US-China cold war is not in Russia's interest IMHO. All it has done is accelerate and expand the number of NATO membership requests. Heck, even Sweden wants "in" now. 

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/01/russias-aggression-against-ukraine-backfiring/360269/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it appears that the world order disappeared when China released covid. To the best of my knowledge, Russia has never released biological weapons and I hope that Biden will not listen to any fool that thinks China will not do so again. Pretending that Russia is the main threat to international security whilst letting China off the hook is an incredible misunderstanding of the global predicament. Indeed, pretending that war with China can be prevented is extraordinarily naive. I am much more concerned with China than Russia. Indeed, China wins again if Russia invades the Ukraine. Only Russia will be the big loser.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2022 at 3:51 PM, 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. 

Indeed Ron, the Pentagon did not want to leave Afghanistan, but the deep state are wiser. China will have 1000 nuclear weapons by 2030 if left unchecked, and they will become a heck of a lot more "bossy" than the Russians have ever been. However, Putin knows that the moment his forces step into Ukraine, the Chinese will begin preparing to invade Taiwan. He thinks this would be fantastic for Russia, as he believes that a co-ordinated Sino-Russian attack will disable the USA and all allies. It appears that he has already miscalculated. Seems to forget that the West defeated the Nazis before tackling the Japanese. But the West could defeat Russia with just 1/4 of our combined forces whilst using the remaining 3/4 to defeat the CCP simultaneously. There would be "regime change" in both countries. It used to be that we were staring down a conflict on 4 major fronts, China, Russia, and Iran, plus the war on terror. But the "forever war" against terrorism is over, and Iran is essentially out of the picture now. The pact between Israel, the Saudis, and the UAE has neutered them, and the only reason the USA is in the Mid-East is to deter Iran from blocking the Persian Gulf. A bit silly really, who cares if 25% of global oil production is cut off? The country that will hurt the most is China, whilst India will keep their fair share. Indeed, India will help blockade the straights of Malacca so that no oil can reach China. That means more oil for India. Also, India will enjoy vast volumes of LNG from Australia, as they will no longer go to China. Japan and South Korea and Taiwan will also be big winners. But the biggest winner of all will be the USA, for obvious reasons :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.