Europe and U.S. are unlikely to find their worthy place in the new world order

[VodohodNews + 3]

It has long been known that the United States rules Europe, actively using it as a tool for realizing its foreign policy expansionist ambitions. As long as the United States has not officially lost its status as the world hegemon, it still believes it possible to manipulate the countries of the European Union, which, while nominally sovereign, are in fact highly dependent on a more powerful partner. With the US globalist hierarchy in power, which seeks to maintain a status quo in which Washington is the leader and creator of a unipolar world, this becomes particularly evident.

 Both the U.S. and Europe are among the most authoritative players on the geopolitical scene. However, even in this relatively equal friendly alliance (although its quality has long been questioned), U.S. dominance is clearly visible. The transatlantic partnership is moving into the realm of transatlantic vassalage - for a number of critical reasons. Firstly, Europe is dependent on the dollar as the global transaction currency of trade, including that with the U.S. itself, its largest trading partner (the U.S.-European trade volume is as high as 50%). This also includes the enormous profits that European business and industry generate from U.S. markets. Secondly, the issue of European defense and security, which is predominantly provided by NATO, is crucial. NATO's main formative power is the United States, covering 72% of military expenditure, thereby cementing its primacy in providing European security. The EU countries are therefore de facto ruled by Washington and forced to follow a political agenda determined by it. However, the US first ensures this security and then threatens it: by supporting Kiev financially and technically in the continuation of the Ukrainian conflict, along with strengthening its military presence in Eastern Europe, Washington undermines the stability of the European continent. In this case it is also about the artificially fuelled ideology of confrontation between Europe and Russia. In the allegedly growing threat of invasion by the latter, Europe sees its overseas friend as the only savior.

This dependence explains Europe's de facto incapacity to decide independently on anti-Russian sanctions: here too, the EU member states are only part of the geopolitical balance of power, the tone of whose actions is set by the U.S. Neither in 2014, nor today, could European countries veto economic restrictions against Russia because of too much foreign policy dependence on the U.S. The mechanism is already in place – the sanctions have been imposed, but the fruits of this restrictive policy will now be reaped by their initiators and their puppets.

The U.S. political expert Clint Ehrlich said on Fox News that anti-Russian sanctions not only do no harm, but they help Vladimir Putin by simultaneously forming a new 'iron curtain' between the U.S. and Russia and by encouraging the Russian economy to seek new ways to develop and strengthen it, including – which the U.S. finds particularly scary – working with China by actively shifting the global manufacturing centre eastward. Analysts continue to state the fact of an energy, economic and consumer disaster in the U.S.: the American political commentator Sean Hannity, for example, periodically denounces the utter failure of Biden's foreign and domestic policies, which are disastrous for all Americans without exception. Instead of implementing a strategy of engagement with Russia based on mutual respect and agreements, Biden bans Russian energy imports and prioritizes a transition to green energy, which inevitably leads to extremely high prices for gas, gasoline, electricity, food and the overall cost of living for Americans.

The result of Biden's failed actions for the U.S. is truly deplorable. The inflation rate has reached a record high in the last 40 years, exceeding 10%. The cost of living has risen by 6.4%. Bloomberg estimates that the average American family is spending $5,200 more this year than last. One in five workers in the U.S. runs out of money before they get paid. Gas and fuel prices in the U.S. have predictably broken historic records, rising steadily every month since Biden became president. Most of all, of course, this crisis is hitting the American middle class. Americans are very well aware of who is ruining their lives and it is not Vladimir Putin. It is his overseas counterpart.

Europe is continuing the U.S. sanctions policy against Russia. This is particularly beneficial to the latter in the light of the economic dividends and the opportunity to "promote" American liquefied natural gas to European markets – as an alternative to Russian gas. But by submitting to the interests and demands of the hegemon, European countries are faced with the inability to provide their population with basic goods satisfying its needs. The need to sever trade and financial relations with Russia and to deliberately deprive itself of Russian energy supplies poses an imminent threat of a food, economic and energy crisis in Europe.

According to London's ICE exchange, the cost of gas in Europe has risen to $1,200 per 1 cubic meter; in parallel, the cost of services to the end consumer has risen by about 60%. Like in the USA, in the EU countries there is a sharp rise in prices for petrol, energy, raw materials and foodstuffs; inflation is increasing; experts predict inevitable stagflation. In Germany, inflation accelerated to 7.6% in March, reaching a record high for the past 40 years. In Denmark, the figure is 5,4%, which is a maximum for the last 37 years. The outlook for the UK is bleak as well: economists estimate that average household earnings will fall by at least 2.2% in 2022. It should be noted that rank-and-file employees have already felt the effects of the crisis, as evidenced by the wave of mass strikes across Europe. Compounding the situation is the economic and social impact of the influx of Ukrainian refugees, who have now exceeded 4.5 million, according to the United Nations.

A particular problem for Europe is the potential imposition of an embargo on energy imports from Russia, which will inevitably bring production chains to a standstill and lead to massive company bankruptcies. Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Hungary and Slovakia understand this and so far are categorically against a ban on Russian energy supplies. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, if the embargo goes ahead, Germany may face its biggest economic crisis since 1945, with Deutsche Bank chief executive Christian Suing claiming that economic recession in Germany under these conditions will be inevitable.

The reformatting of the world order is logical – a change of the economic structure with its socio-political and technological component occurs approximately every 50 years. This period clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of the historical experience accumulated by a state. The transatlantic partnership does not show itself to be effective. The fate of the countries of the collective West will depend on the nature of decisions made by their leadership in accordance with the new multipolar geopolitical balance of power.

https://theduran.com/europe-and-u-s-are-unlikely-to-find-their-worthy-place-in-the-new-world-order/

[surrept33 + 609]

51 minutes ago, VodohodNews said:

However, the US first ensures this security and then threatens it: by supporting Kiev financially and technically in the continuation of the Ukrainian conflict, along with strengthening its military presence in Eastern Europe, Washington undermines the stability of the European continent. In this case it is also about the artificially fuelled ideology of confrontation between Europe and Russia.

The only person to blame for instability is Putin himself. He has paranoid delusions of Hitler or Napoleon attacking Moscow, but his attack in Ukraine (and other places like Georgia) vindicates East Europe's fear of Russian domination and a return of the Russian empire of old. 

 

Op-ed by Bill Clinton:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/bill-clinton-nato-expansion-ukraine/629499/

I Tried to Put Russia on Another Path

My policy was to work for the best, while expanding NATO to prepare for the worst.

By Bill Clinton

 

About the author: Bill Clinton was the 42nd president of the United States.

When I first became president, I said that I would support Russian President Boris Yeltsin in his efforts to build a good economy and a functioning democracy after the dissolution of the Soviet Union—but I would also support an expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact members and post-Soviet states. My policy was to work for the best while preparing for the worst.

I was worried not about a Russian return to communism, but about a return to ultranationalism, replacing democracy and cooperation with aspirations to empire, like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. I didn’t believe Yeltsin would do that, but who knew what would come after him?

If Russia stayed on a path toward democracy and cooperation, we would all be together in meeting the security challenges of our time: terrorism; ethnic, religious, and other tribal conflicts; and the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. If Russia chose to revert to ultranationalist imperialism, an enlarged NATO and a growing European Union would bolster the continent’s security. Near the end of my second term, in 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined NATO despite Russian opposition. The alliance gained 11 more members under subsequent administrations, again over Russian objections.

Lately, NATO expansion has been criticized in some quarters for provoking Russia and even laying the groundwork for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The expansion certainly was a consequential decision, one that I continue to believe was correct.

I understood that renewed conflict was a possibility. But in my view, whether it happened depended less on NATO and more on whether Russia remained a democracy and how it defined its greatness in the 21st century. Would it build a modern economy based on its human talent in science, technology, and the arts, or seek to re-create a version of its 18th-century empire fueled by natural resources and characterized by a strong authoritarian government with a powerful military?

I did everything I could to help Russia make the right choice and become a great 21st-century democracy. My first trip outside the United States as president was to Vancouver to meet with Yeltsin and guarantee $1.6 billion for Russia so it could afford to bring its soldiers home from the Baltic states and provide for their housing. In 1994, Russia became the first country to join the Partnership for Peace, a program for practical bilateral cooperation, including joint training exercises between NATO and non-NATO European countries.

That same year, the U.S. signed the Budapest Memorandum, along with Russia and the United Kingdom, which guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in return for Ukraine’s agreement to give up what was then the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Beginning in 1995, after the Dayton Accords ended the Bosnian War, we made an agreement to add Russian troops to the peacekeeping forces that NATO had on the ground in Bosnia. In 1997, we supported the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which gave Russia a voice but not a veto in NATO affairs, and supported Russia’s entry to the G7, making it the G8. In 1999, at the end of the Kosovo conflict, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen reached an agreement with the Russian defense minister under which Russian troops could join UN-sanctioned NATO peacekeeping forces. Throughout it all, we left the door open for Russia’s eventual membership in NATO, something I made clear to Yeltsin and later confirmed to his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In addition to all these efforts to involve Russia in NATO’s post–Cold War missions, Albright and our entire national-security team worked hard to promote positive bilateral relations. Vice President Al Gore co-chaired a commission with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin to address issues of mutual interest. We agreed to destroy 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium each. We also agreed to pull Russian, European, and NATO conventional forces back from borders, though Putin declined to go ahead with the plan when he assumed the Russian presidency in 2000.

All told, I met with Yeltsin 18 times and Putin five times—twice when he was Yeltsin’s prime minister and three times in the 10-plus months that our terms as president overlapped. That’s just three short of all the U.S.-U.S.S.R. leaders’ meetings from 1943 through 1991. The idea that we ignored, disrespected, or tried to isolate Russia is false. Yes, NATO expanded despite Russia’s objections, but expansion was about more than the U.S. relationship with Russia.

When my administration started, in 1993, no one felt certain that a post–Cold War Europe would remain peaceful, stable, and democratic. Big questions remained about East Germany’s integration with West Germany, whether old conflicts would explode across the continent as they did in the Balkans, and how former Warsaw Pact nations and newly independent Soviet republics would seek security, not just against the threat of Russian invasion, but from one another and from conflicts within their borders. The possibility of EU and NATO membership provided the greatest incentives for Central and Eastern European states to invest in political and economic reforms and abandon a go-it-alone strategy of militarization.

Neither the EU nor NATO could stay within the borders Stalin had imposed in 1945. Many countries that had been behind the Iron Curtain were seeking greater freedom, prosperity, and security with the EU and NATO, under inspiring leaders such as Václav Havel in the Czech Republic, Lech Wałęsa in Poland, and, yes, a young pro-democracy Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Thousands of everyday citizens crowded the squares of Prague, Warsaw, Budapest, Bucharest, Sofia, and beyond whenever I spoke there.

As Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister and foreign minister, tweeted in December 2021, “It wasn’t NATO seeking to go East, it was former Soviet satellites and republics wishing to go West.”

Or as Havel said in 2008: “Europe is no longer, and must never again be, divided over the heads of its people and against their will into any spheres of interest or influence.” To reject Central and Eastern European countries’ membership into NATO simply because of Russian objections would have been doing just that.

Enlarging NATO required unanimous consent of the alliance’s then-16 members; two-thirds consent of a sometimes skeptical U.S. Senate; close consultation with prospective members to ensure that their military, economic, and political reforms met NATO’s high standards; and near-constant reassurance to Russia.

Madeleine Albright excelled at every step. Indeed, few diplomats have ever been so perfectly suited for the times they served as Madeleine. As a child in war-torn Europe, Madeleine and her family were twice forced to flee their home—first by Hitler, then by Stalin. She understood that the end of the Cold War provided the chance to build a Europe free, united, prosperous, and secure for the first time since nation-states arose on the continent. As UN ambassador and secretary of state, she worked to realize that vision and to beat back the religious, ethnic, and other tribal divisions that threatened it. She used every item in her famed diplomat’s toolkit and her domestic political savvy to help clear the way for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland to join NATO in 1999.

The result has been more than two decades of peace and prosperity for an ever-larger portion of Europe and a strengthening of our collective security. Per capita GDPs have more than tripled in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. All three countries have participated in a variety of NATO missions since joining, including the peacekeeping force in Kosovo. To date, no member state of our defensive alliance has been invaded. Indeed, even in the early years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the mere prospect of NATO membership helped cool long-simmering disputes between Poland and Lithuania, Hungary and Romania, and others.

Now Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine, far from casting the wisdom of NATO expansion into doubt, proves that this policy was necessary. Russia under Putin clearly would not have been a content status quo power in the absence of expansion. It wasn’t an immediate likelihood of Ukraine joining NATO that led Putin to invade Ukraine twice—in 2014 and in February—but rather the country’s shift toward democracy that threatened his autocratic power at home, and a desire to control the valuable assets beneath the Ukrainian soil.

And it is the strength of the NATO alliance, and its credible threat of defensive force, that has prevented Putin from menacing members from the Baltics to Eastern Europe. As The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum said recently, “The expansion of NATO was the most successful, if not the only truly successful, piece of American foreign policy of the last 30 years … We would be having this fight in East Germany right now if we hadn’t done it.”

The failure of Russian democracy, and its turn to revanchism, was not catalyzed in Brussels at NATO headquarters. It was decided in Moscow by Putin. He could have used Russia’s prodigious skills in information technology to create a competitor for Silicon Valley and build a strong, diversified economy. Instead he decided to monopolize and weaponize those abilities to promote authoritarianism at home and wreak havoc abroad, including by interfering in the politics of Europe and the U.S. Only a strong NATO stands between Putin and even further aggression. We should therefore support President Joe Biden and our NATO allies in giving as much assistance to Ukraine, both military and humanitarian, as possible.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by surrept33

[Boat + 1,315]

Lol. I hope this article dosent get you demoted to Russian tank commander. One thing Putin has done for the world is increase the pace away from Russian fossil fuels. What’s will be interesting is to see just how isolated Russia becomes. The world will keep track of trade with Russia and make proclamations of loyality and helping an enemy. I have no crystal ball but suspect Russia won’t fair well maintaining trade levels for decades. 
Go Finland on opening another front and decision on freedom. Go Sweden, the Baltic states and Ukraine including Crimea. PS Japan. You know those couple of islands you lost in WWII? Might as well grab them. The global mastermind is struggling. 

[Boat + 1,315]

I believe Putin launched the big pivot in world politics where corporations lose some of their power. Putin says all that business is irrelevant and nationalism comes first. Countries will not just look for trade opportunities, now they will more than ever have to pick an ideology to follow. Or they may have to explain a trade choice with a particular ideology. Corporations were encouraged to scour the world looking for trade opportunities. Not for power but wealth to the stock holder. That was the mandate that has mostly ruled since WWII. Trade unleashed human kind potential and the Corporation gained tremendous influence. 
A corporation may do bad things, may pollute, may influence legislation, may do good things, but a Corporation is not a country and a corporation has to be aware of who they work with. 900 corporations have left or suspended business in Russia? In a way power has been returned to countries and a new set of rules put in place for countries and corporations. Russia is not Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan. Russia is a world trade changer. 

[GCMS Guy + 5]

I read somewhere that the best victory is when there is no combat.  Not one NATO soldier has been ordered to fight in Ukraine.  By that standard, the costs and perceived hazards of supplying Ukraine have so far been cheap.

If the US provides Ukraine adequately and promptly with the war materials they need, the Russian invasion will be defeated & humiliated.  NATO, having won a war without losing a single soldier, will have a reinforced place in Europe.  And President XI of China may well put off his invasion of Taiwan. 

Western Europe and the USA will have a firmer place in the global community than before. 

On the other hand, if our supplies to Ukraine are too stingy or too late, the situation will not be so rosy.

 

[nsdp + 449]

16 hours ago, VodohodNews said:

It has long been known that the United States rules Europe, actively using it as a tool for realizing its foreign policy expansionist ambitions. As long as the United States has not officially lost its status as the world hegemon, it still believes it possible to manipulate the countries of the European Union, which, while nominally sovereign, are in fact highly dependent on a more powerful partner. With the US globalist hierarchy in power, which seeks to maintain a status quo in which Washington is the leader and creator of a unipolar world, this becomes particularly evident.

 Both the U.S. and Europe are among the most authoritative players on the geopolitical scene. However, even in this relatively equal friendly alliance (although its quality has long been questioned), U.S. dominance is clearly visible. The transatlantic partnership is moving into the realm of transatlantic vassalage - for a number of critical reasons. Firstly, Europe is dependent on the dollar as the global transaction currency of trade, including that with the U.S. itself, its largest trading partner (the U.S.-European trade volume is as high as 50%). This also includes the enormous profits that European business and industry generate from U.S. markets. Secondly, the issue of European defense and security, which is predominantly provided by NATO, is crucial. NATO's main formative power is the United States, covering 72% of military expenditure, thereby cementing its primacy in providing European security. The EU countries are therefore de facto ruled by Washington and forced to follow a political agenda determined by it. However, the US first ensures this security and then threatens it: by supporting Kiev financially and technically in the continuation of the Ukrainian conflict, along with strengthening its military presence in Eastern Europe, Washington undermines the stability of the European continent. In this case it is also about the artificially fuelled ideology of confrontation between Europe and Russia. In the allegedly growing threat of invasion by the latter, Europe sees its overseas friend as the only savior.

This dependence explains Europe's de facto incapacity to decide independently on anti-Russian sanctions: here too, the EU member states are only part of the geopolitical balance of power, the tone of whose actions is set by the U.S. Neither in 2014, nor today, could European countries veto economic restrictions against Russia because of too much foreign policy dependence on the U.S. The mechanism is already in place – the sanctions have been imposed, but the fruits of this restrictive policy will now be reaped by their initiators and their puppets.

The U.S. political expert Clint Ehrlich said on Fox News that anti-Russian sanctions not only do no harm, but they help Vladimir Putin by simultaneously forming a new 'iron curtain' between the U.S. and Russia and by encouraging the Russian economy to seek new ways to develop and strengthen it, including – which the U.S. finds particularly scary – working with China by actively shifting the global manufacturing centre eastward. Analysts continue to state the fact of an energy, economic and consumer disaster in the U.S.: the American political commentator Sean Hannity, for example, periodically denounces the utter failure of Biden's foreign and domestic policies, which are disastrous for all Americans without exception. Instead of implementing a strategy of engagement with Russia based on mutual respect and agreements, Biden bans Russian energy imports and prioritizes a transition to green energy, which inevitably leads to extremely high prices for gas, gasoline, electricity, food and the overall cost of living for Americans.

The result of Biden's failed actions for the U.S. is truly deplorable. The inflation rate has reached a record high in the last 40 years, exceeding 10%. The cost of living has risen by 6.4%. Bloomberg estimates that the average American family is spending $5,200 more this year than last. One in five workers in the U.S. runs out of money before they get paid. Gas and fuel prices in the U.S. have predictably broken historic records, rising steadily every month since Biden became president. Most of all, of course, this crisis is hitting the American middle class. Americans are very well aware of who is ruining their lives and it is not Vladimir Putin. It is his overseas counterpart.

Europe is continuing the U.S. sanctions policy against Russia. This is particularly beneficial to the latter in the light of the economic dividends and the opportunity to "promote" American liquefied natural gas to European markets – as an alternative to Russian gas. But by submitting to the interests and demands of the hegemon, European countries are faced with the inability to provide their population with basic goods satisfying its needs. The need to sever trade and financial relations with Russia and to deliberately deprive itself of Russian energy supplies poses an imminent threat of a food, economic and energy crisis in Europe.

According to London's ICE exchange, the cost of gas in Europe has risen to $1,200 per 1 cubic meter; in parallel, the cost of services to the end consumer has risen by about 60%. Like in the USA, in the EU countries there is a sharp rise in prices for petrol, energy, raw materials and foodstuffs; inflation is increasing; experts predict inevitable stagflation. In Germany, inflation accelerated to 7.6% in March, reaching a record high for the past 40 years. In Denmark, the figure is 5,4%, which is a maximum for the last 37 years. The outlook for the UK is bleak as well: economists estimate that average household earnings will fall by at least 2.2% in 2022. It should be noted that rank-and-file employees have already felt the effects of the crisis, as evidenced by the wave of mass strikes across Europe. Compounding the situation is the economic and social impact of the influx of Ukrainian refugees, who have now exceeded 4.5 million, according to the United Nations.

A particular problem for Europe is the potential imposition of an embargo on energy imports from Russia, which will inevitably bring production chains to a standstill and lead to massive company bankruptcies. Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Hungary and Slovakia understand this and so far are categorically against a ban on Russian energy supplies. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, if the embargo goes ahead, Germany may face its biggest economic crisis since 1945, with Deutsche Bank chief executive Christian Suing claiming that economic recession in Germany under these conditions will be inevitable.

The reformatting of the world order is logical – a change of the economic structure with its socio-political and technological component occurs approximately every 50 years. This period clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of the historical experience accumulated by a state. The transatlantic partnership does not show itself to be effective. The fate of the countries of the collective West will depend on the nature of decisions made by their leadership in accordance with the new multipolar geopolitical balance of power.

https://theduran.com/europe-and-u-s-are-unlikely-to-find-their-worthy-place-in-the-new-world-order/

Sure  we rule Europe. they go their own way when it suits them.  Other than the Brits who sent troops to Kuwait and Iraq and none to Vietnam . We did not participate with them in Libya, Afghanistan was Article 5 of the Nato treaty. Turkey and GB were the only two to send troops to Korea.  Exclude Korea and there are exactly 2 times we acted in concert with Europe Afghanistan .  the other was the Balkans.

Your reference to Hannity in this matter is like some one citing Joseph Goebbels.   You should close with a Seig Heil.

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

On 4/13/2022 at 8:44 AM, VodohodNews said:

the new multipolar geopolitical balance of power

Most people don't see it coming.

In fact, I am surprised by all the War-mongers who are helping to destroy their own economies in their own countries.   Good piece you wrote Vodo.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

Frankly I question how Russia will be divided up amoungest this new world order. By now it would seem either Putin bows out of this conflict peacefully or is removed hastily. Either way the damage that has occurred at the hands of Russia must be addressed. There still is a scorched earth possibility true, no matter how it falls Russia as a country can no longer be tolerated.

Just who will benefit from Russian miscalculation that is the question.

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

48 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Just who will benefit from Russian miscalculation that is the question.

Take out the word "miscalculation", because NATO and the US and European countires were well aware of how they were pushing the encroachment of NATO.

A better phrase is

Just who will benefit from the Russian-Ukraine conflict... that is the question.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

4 minutes ago, Tom Nolan said:

Take out the word "miscalculation", because NATO and the US and European countires were well aware of how they were pushing the encroachment of NATO.

A better phrase is

Just who will benefit from the Russian-Ukraine conflict... that is the question.

Well let's see, Putin's right back in the game. For now his game is consistent, as pitiful as it is. Goading Putin into a conflict would be as disastrous as his war on Ukraine.

Russia makes nuclear threat to Sweden, Finland over NATO consideration

Medvedev's warning came as Sweden and Finland seem closer than ever before to joining the Western alliance

https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-nuclear-threat-sweden-finland-nato

Edited April 14, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

31 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Well let's see, Putin's right back in the game. For now his game is consistent, as pitiful as it is. Goading Putin into a conflict would be as disastrous as his war on Ukraine.

Russia makes nuclear threat to Sweden, Finland over NATO consideration

Medvedev's warning came as Sweden and Finland seem closer than ever before to joining the Western alliance

https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-nuclear-threat-sweden-finland-nato

EyesWideOpen, I want to be clear.  I am not pro-Russia's leader nor pro-"Ukraine's leader". - Tom Nolan

...There's nothing more satisfying than a good guy/bad guy narrative. We have so internalized this form of storytelling that for many it is almost impossible not to see the world in these terms. Two people are fighting. One of them is a bad guy. Therefore, the other one is a good guy...

...The uncomfortable truth, as always, is that the war has not just begun. It's been going on for generations. And it's not a war of nation against nation, or even valiant "anti-globalist crusaders" like WEF-connected, biosecurity-promoting, false flag-perpetrating, political opponent-assassinating Vladimir Putin against the global control structure.

It is a global war against you.

To the extent that wars are being waged between the elitists, they are only being waged to determine which group of elitists get to rule over you and in what way.... - James Corbett

Edited April 14, 2022 by Tom Nolan

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

“A choice between the two wings of the same bird of prey is no choice at all.  Or, to put it in a more familiar way: "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."” – James Corbett

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

Are you the type of person who believes that preemptive invasions of foreign countries are good when they're done by the good guys for good reasons and that the people who die in such operations are just collateral damage (who probably deserved to die anyway)?

I don't know about you, but I'm not that type of person. The sad truth for those who are still waiting for the White Hat on the White Horse to deliver them their fix of Hopium is that Putin is an "anti-globalist crusader" in the exact same way as Donald "Fill the Swamp" Trump is an "anti-globalist crusader," which is to say, not at all. Because if you are still waiting on the sealed indictments and the watermarked ballots and Vladimir the Great to upset the globalist apple cart, you have yet to understand the nature of the globalist system. - James Corbett

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/25902-russian-myths-vs-russian-reality-with-edward-slavsquat-who-lives-in-russia-interview-by-james-corbett/

 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 4/13/2022 at 10:12 AM, Boat said:

I believe Putin launched the big pivot in world politics where corporations lose some of their power. Putin says all that business is irrelevant and nationalism comes first. Countries will not just look for trade opportunities, now they will more than ever have to pick an ideology to follow. Or they may have to explain a trade choice with a particular ideology. Corporations were encouraged to scour the world looking for trade opportunities. Not for power but wealth to the stock holder. That was the mandate that has mostly ruled since WWII. Trade unleashed human kind potential and the Corporation gained tremendous influence. 
A corporation may do bad things, may pollute, may influence legislation, may do good things, but a Corporation is not a country and a corporation has to be aware of who they work with. 900 corporations have left or suspended business in Russia? In a way power has been returned to countries and a new set of rules put in place for countries and corporations. Russia is not Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan. Russia is a world trade changer. 

The Ukraine vs. Russia conflict sets a much higher standard for war than the barbarism we have seen in the Middle East and prior wars. The strong threat on oligarchs fortunes, Russia's wealth and future economy is game changing. Then there is the threat of Justice through European courts, which forces many to avoid any country with extradition. 

[El Gato + 251]

Everybody is putting the cart ahead of the horse on this. Too many variables to predict much. the only sure thing I see is the direction will be hashed out in the next 2 weeks in the battle for SE Ukraine. IF Russia wins, Sues for peace on their terms, game set match, Ukraine losses a strategic portion of their country . That;s the possible short game.  The long game, Ukraine holds out, grinds Russia down for the next 3-6 months, and possibly provokes  Putin to use tactical Nukes to win. The Response to that would be?????????

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

2 hours ago, El Gato said:

The long game, Ukraine holds out, grinds Russia down for the next 3-6 months, and possibly provokes  Putin to use tactical Nukes to win. The Response to that would be?????????

Due to the incredible amount of weapons technology and gorilla warfare the Ukrainian army is using I believe Putin will have a moment within a week. 

The Ukraine army was quite effective and not to well armed in the beginning. They are now well armed,seasoned and winning a defensive war. 

A second embarrassing loss would be a bit much.

[Boat + 1,315]

6 hours ago, El Gato said:

Everybody is putting the cart ahead of the horse on this. Too many variables to predict much. the only sure thing I see is the direction will be hashed out in the next 2 weeks in the battle for SE Ukraine. IF Russia wins, Sues for peace on their terms, game set match, Ukraine losses a strategic portion of their country . That;s the possible short game.  The long game, Ukraine holds out, grinds Russia down for the next 3-6 months, and possibly provokes  Putin to use tactical Nukes to win. The Response to that would be?????????

Probably NATO gets involved and we all die. Or, I predict Crimea and Donbass gets returned to Ukraine as payment for screwing up while Russia takes care of Putin on its own. Maybe the billions frozen go to a Ukraine rebuild. Russia can’t outlast the Ukraine. You can’t destroy rubble and there are hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians left. 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Boat

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 4/13/2022 at 1:19 PM, GCMS Guy said:

I read somewhere that the best victory is when there is no combat.  Not one NATO soldier has been ordered to fight in Ukraine.  By that standard, the costs and perceived hazards of supplying Ukraine have so far been cheap.

If the US provides Ukraine adequately and promptly with the war materials they need, the Russian invasion will be defeated & humiliated.  NATO, having won a war without losing a single soldier, will have a reinforced place in Europe.  And President XI of China may well put off his invasion of Taiwan. 

Western Europe and the USA will have a firmer place in the global community than before. 

On the other hand, if our supplies to Ukraine are too stingy or too late, the situation will not be so rosy.

 

We need to keep in mind that Putin could continue to send missiles anywhere in Ukraine as long as he could afford to build them. He would not need to lose more soldiers that way. It would be stupid to do so, but it would also be stupid for Ukraine to insist on taking the initial parts of the Donbas that were taken or Crimea that was also stolen from Ukraine. 

[TailingsPond + 460]

"Worthy place" sounds like entitlement.

You get what you deserve.

[TailingsPond + 460]

44 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

 As long as he could afford to build them.

They were made long ago.

Sanctions do not work against a stockpile of weapons and a large nation that can effectively produce more without money.

Edited April 16, 2022 by TailingsPond

[specinho + 439]

On 4/14/2022 at 2:19 AM, GCMS Guy said:

I read somewhere that the best victory is when there is no combat.  Not one NATO soldier has been ordered to fight in Ukraine.  By that standard, the costs and perceived hazards of supplying Ukraine have so far been cheap.

If the US provides Ukraine adequately and promptly with the war materials they need, the Russian invasion will be defeated & humiliated.  NATO, having won a war without losing a single soldier, will have a reinforced place in Europe.  And President XI of China may well put off his invasion of Taiwan. 

Western Europe and the USA will have a firmer place in the global community than before. 

On the other hand, if our supplies to Ukraine are too stingy or too late, the situation will not be so rosy.

 

really love the description on ~ USD 5 to 10B worth of supplies or more is considered CHEAP....... Simple minds would believe it whole heartedly and asking for more..........

real scenario might be: the more you supply to Ukraine, the more civilians get hurt, more buildings get destroyed. Russia is not interested in Ukraine as mentioned in an article, just to secure the border by setting them free. It is fine if Ukraine wants to join EU and NATO. This war ends easily if

1. Ukraine gets what it wants by joining EU and NATO; Russia gets what it wants securing the bordering states by setting them free. 

Shall Ze insist on attacking the eastern states, it would be an offense itself to attack on independent states. He must step down for a change or get sanctioned to be fair.

 

2. No more supply to Ukraine.

Russia has pulled out with aims achieved.

If Ukraine is not well equipped, then it will not be able to fire more and hurt innocents. This war ends with Ukraine waiting out to do more destruction, if chooses to and expecting to be punished by the world, or start anew with aids to rebuild after changing hands.

 

3.Europe might still be at the front of all things. USA might be the only sacrifice out of choices made by elected leaders. USA is losing both reputation and capital money, may be plagued by many troublesome internal issues to be handled with..........

Edited April 16, 2022 by specinho

[surrept33 + 609]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

They were made long ago.

Sanctions do not work against a stockpile of weapons and a large nation that can effectively produce more without money.

there is a reason why Russia doesn't have much of their more modern stuff in the field, for example, the T-14, and it is because of the effect of the 2014 sanctions.

 

[surrept33 + 609]

Speaking of 'new world order', it looks like India/China are about to have another border skirmish in the himalayas. I guess the RIC (Russia/India/China) is dead once again.

 

Intelligence inputs suggest Chinese army planning fresh incursions on India.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/intelligence-inputs-suggest-chinese-army-planning-fresh-incursions/cid/1860710