Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[Catfish]

I believe it, but even if that mattered, this video could have been taken anywhere - like the coordinates at the lower left can be applied from anywhere, too.

I take it some secret services should know - question is what they want us to believe :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

But Putin has assured the world that there are no Russian troops in the area :06:

[Skybird]

another video showing Russian troops near the Lugansk pocket south of Donetsk, sept. 3rd.

You can see T72B3 tanks, Strela 10 SP SAMs, 6-7 towed 2B16 NONA-K 120 mm mortars. The vehicles are all painted in the standard green used by the Russian Army.

Playing devil's advocate here, it could be anyone, anywhere. The green is used by Ukrainian forces as well, like some other greenish colour schemes , too. ;) An identification of the T-72 model I would find difficult due to the low resolution of the video.

Could be anyone, anywhere. Only the structure, unit spacing and composition of the column gives a hint that it probably is no militia or separtist volunteers, but a unit with military structure and disciplined training background.

[kranz]

But Putin has assured the world that there are no Russian troops in the area :06:
ikalugin is already writing a post on how much you misunderstood Putin.

[kranz]

this video could have been taken anywhere
it could be anyone, anywhere.
Could be anyone, anywhere.
LMAO:har::har::har::har::har::har:

[Bilge_Rat]

Oooooooh, tough crowd. :ping:

I just post the videos, you guys can tear them apart. :O:

I get a lot of them from the militaryphotos site. They have a very active discussion on the Ukraine crisis, lots of BS, lots of pro-Russians, but once in a while you get a nugget like the last two videos I posted. When even the pro-Russians can't shoot it down, you know it is probably genuine.

I doubted for a long time that Russian troops were in Ukraine and personally I think they have only been in country for a few weeks, but it is now pretty obvious they are there. These videos will pop up more and more now.

[ikalugin]

"Defensive green" is the regulational vehicle colour since USSR.

While videos of vehicles do prove that Russia supplies arms (as T72B3 for example was not exported), they in general do not show who operates them. Thus it is not correct to conclude that they are definetely operated by the Russian Armed Forces, especially considering the scale of local efforts of searching for people with relevant military skills.

[Jimbuna]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[kranz]

Oooooooh, tough crowd. :ping:

while the idiom you used is very applicable to the situation in this thread, I'd rather say: 'thick ppl' :)

[Skybird]

"Defensive green" is the regulational vehicle colour since USSR.

While videos of vehicles do prove that Russia supplies arms (as T72B3 for example was not exported), they in general do not show who operates them. Thus it is not correct to conclude that they are definetely operated by the Russian Armed Forces, especially considering the scale of local efforts of searching for people with relevant military skills.

"I don't pull the cat's tail, I just hold it tight."

Russian TV I read showed in a coordinated effort on its channels documentations about Russian "volunteers" who were buried in Russia. Their number is high enough that Moscow cannot hide them anymore, and so searched to regain the initiative after that mother's organisation became loud.

Yes, they all volunteered, and they all took leaves from the military to battle the Ukrainians in their holiday time.

Wake up, ikalugin. You get lulled by your own attempt to be reasonable. You help to cover, whether you are aware of it or not, this new military doctrine that Russia has prepared since several years, calling it I think non-linear warfare. It bases on KGB operation plans from the cold war and modified and widen their scope. It was the Kremlin's reaction to the way the recent American wars and their inability to really defeat the insurgents went along, and the Arab Spring's toppling of regimes and the way Islamic hardliners tried to grab power by disguising themselves as democrats. Not to have your troops fighting under your nation's colours and emblems, is part of that doctrine. So that there may guys like you claiming "We do not participate in the fight, so do not hold us responsible".

It's just a formality - used to set up a distraction maneuver. Russia i party in thios conflict. Who operates those vehicles and aims the weapons, is not really important, separatists and the Kremlin work together.

[CCIP]

Setting aside the identity of little green men and their little green tanks for a moment, there's one thing in this that doesn't seem to add up for me: why and how is this drive to Mariupol happening if not for Russia? It's a completely isolated pocket from the Donetsk and Lugansk militias. It wasn't, as I recall, one of the major hotbeds of separatist unrest after the Maidan happened. And there seems to be rather little obvious strategic value to this drive for the cause of DNR and LNR.

On the other hand, its strategic value to Russia is more than obvious (as a land corridor to the Crimea). That, more than anything, makes me wonder.

[MH]

On the other hand, its strategic value to Russia is more than obvious (as a land corridor to the Crimea). That, more than anything, makes me wonder.

It is quite self evident.
Also the quality and effectiveness of the fight the separatist put on is something to recon with.
There is a lot of propaganda shrouding this conflict yet there is also a lot of claims by Ukrainian solders about benign in fight Russian forces.
It is something to consider since training relatively effective professionals takes time and it shows... yet this conflict is not old enough.
Could be also Russian well trained volunteers.:haha:

[CCIP]

Well as I mentioned elsewhere, that part is not a surprise, because the Ukrainian military is not in good position to fight, both materially and in terms of training and leadership, and morale. The age of this conflict has nothing to do with it- that's only a consideration if you don't know anything about the history of the region. There might not have been a war in the Ukraine, but there's plenty of violence in the region where that experience might come from. This goes for both sides, by the way. Not incidentally, many of the pro-government militias that have done the bulk of the fighting so far have just the same combat experience, often fighting the same guys they're fighting now, whether in Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova, former Yugoslavia, or elsewhere.

Otherwise, the Ukrainian military is in a poor position now partly because during the Yuschenko years the officer corps was thoroughly purged of the "old guard", I.e. officers raised by the Soviet experience and thus seen as politically unreliable. Doesn't take a genius to figure out what side that "old guard" might be taking after being forced out of their positions in the Ukrainian army.

[MH]

Otherwise, the Ukrainian military is in a poor position now partly because during the Yuschenko years the officer corps was thoroughly purged of the "old guard", I.e. officers raised by the Soviet experience and thus seen as politically unreliable. Doesn't take a genius to figure out what side that "old guard" might be taking after being forced out of their positions in the Ukrainian army I sort of considered the option that Ukrainian army is not really well organized and motivated.
Yet when I hear about Ukrainian planes shot down , rebels causing heavy casualties with coordination with artillery using AT weapons , relatively fast territorial gains after some setbacks it makes me a bit wonder what is going on there.
Besides , it would be ridiculous if Russia wasn't deep in this...
Strangely the more the Ukrainians try to mobilize and push the more effective balanced resistance they face.
Looks odd...after all it all should be hastily organized militia Ukrainians are fighting.

[Skybird]

Putin probably had underestimated the Ukrainian army a bit, hoping that he would be able to stay out with his own troops, and have his proxy doing the fighting all alone. But then came the Ukrainian push into rebel-held territory, and the separatists were retreating on all fronts, and had to do so quickly, the land they held shrinking fast, Luhansk in danger of beeing completely encircled. Kiev started to announce that Donezk would fall in a short time, so would Luhansk. And all of a sudden - the winds of war changed, and the rebels retaliated with such a ferocity and superior firepower that the Ukrainian army had surviving soldiers returning from the battlefield saying that they got mauled and that they lost three brigades in extremely short time, while commanders at the front desperately called for help over public TV and radio...? Now the rebels no longer retreating, but reconquering lost territory - and all by their own strength?

Extremely unlikely.

[ikalugin]

"Soldier's Mothers" were obviously worried that the Russian troops would be sent to the Ukraine and so began their complaints straight away. However I have not seen any actual evidence that their claims are correct.

The issue here is that sometimes one makes decisive judgements on partial and spinned information, something I would try to avoid, as I am under a substantial informational pressure (though I gladly do not own a TV set :) ).

As to the Russian troops in general - while there is a degree of Russian volonteers, their decisefullness decreases as the time goes and more militiamen are trained locally. Now, it is a fair to assume that they are trained by Russians, maybe even active duty Russian Armed Forces instructors, as we know that a lot of initial militiamen came from Russian (especially the now Russian Crimea). Those included the Strelkov, Babai and others, who led and trained the separatist forces early on.

Now, however Russia appears to help more by sending equipment and logistical supplies to the separatist's leaders that listen to Moscow, as a measure of control.

About Mariopol - I wrote about it a while ago. The attack there was completely logical for the separatists as to bind the loyalist's forces on a new front (which would preclude them from massing a decisive blow against Lugansk/Donetsk). Plus there is (apparently) a lot of grain in Mariopol port, as well as other usefull supplies.

p.s.
It's just a formality - used to set up a distraction maneuver. Russia i party in thios conflict. Who operates those vehicles and aims the weapons, is not really important, separatists and the Kremlin work together.
Everything matters. Even though Russia is de facto a party in this war (by supplying separatists with arms and quite likely allowing some party to shoot from Russian soil onto the loyalists), it tries not to become a party to it de jure. This leads to a lot of important things - such as the Russia not negotiating directly, but requesting Ukraine to negotiate with the Separatists instead.

As to the whole thing - it is not a conspiracy, but an improvisation. While Crimean operation was conducted well, the policy in the Eastern Ukraine is not so well executed.

[Jimbuna]

http://s8.postimg.org/54yp7aeg1/adminwatch_2.gif (http://postimage.org/)

[Skybird]

What's the problem, Jim?

[Skybird]

A Naval exercise of units from the Ukraine, the US, Turkey and Italy has started in the Black Sea, close to the Ukraine.

What comes next?

"A Russian-Cuban military exercise off the coast of Florida!"



http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/manoever_ts/10671502/4-format35.jpg

Meanwhile it got reported that the US plans to deliver helicopters to the former Pariah of the Caucasus, the great Führer of Georgia, and that they want to bring Georgia into NATO.

Some people in Washington are so full of themselves that they just cannot learn anything.

[August]

"A Russian-Cuban military exercise off the coast of Florida!"

Already happening more or less. Russian naval vessels put into Havana harbor just today on their way to joint exercises with Venezuela, the third annual I believe. Then there are the almost constant Russian nuke bombers flying along the edge of our airspace.

But yeah it's all us... :roll:

[Onkel Neal]

I was watching a Frontline special about the conflict in Ukraine (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/battle-for-ukraine/), and it struck me: when we hear reports about things like this, we always hear the media, or our politicians speak. But not very often do we see clips of the other figures speak, with subtitles. In this special, Putin is explaining the rationale for seizing Crimea, opposing Right Sector, etc. in his own voice, without Wolf Blitzer to explain everything. Putin may be a dictator, but it is a lot more enlightening to hear the story from all sides, instead of just Obama and Anderson Cooper.

[Oberon]

I'll have a rummage and post some links to an enlightening documentary the BBC put out a few years ago, it's definitely worth a watch if you want to try to understand current Russian politics a bit more:

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/putin-russia-and-the-west-episode-01-taking-control-video_b98c585c2.html

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/putin-russia-and-the-west-episode-02-democracy-threatens-video_be2ae89c1.html

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/putin-russia-and-the-west-episode-03-war-video_63e05827c.html

http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/putin-russia-and-the-west-episode-04-new-start-video_17b36b034.html

Obviously watch yourself on places like that, noscript and that helps.
Whilst the person who made the documentary (who also made 'Death of Yugoslavia' which Betonov linked me to the other day and I must carry on watching) was sadly unable to get access to the Siloviki, she did manage to get access to a lot of top ranking officials, including Foreign Secretary Sergei Ivanov, and Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Mikhail Kasyanov. It's worth a look. :yep:

[Oberon]

An update on the captured Estonian:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29115865

A bit dicey really. :hmmm:

[Catfish]

[...] reported that the US plans to deliver helicopters to the former Pariah of the Caucasus, the great Führer of Georgia, and that they want to bring Georgia into NATO.

Some people in Washington are so full of themselves that they just cannot learn anything.

Ah.

So Putin was right all along, and we do now know what the NATO wanted all the time.

Putin may be anything, but nothing beats the western media desinformation. Nice. :/\\!!

[Skybird]

Ah.

So Putin was right all along, and we do now know what the NATO wanted all the time.

Putin may be anything, but nothing beats the western media desinformation. Nice. :/\\!!

That the US wants to have Georgia in NATO, is not really new. It's just that since Saakashvili betrayed us all and his own people on that war that he triggered and that he set up so many lies and staged events over, the US had become a bit silent about it. Probably hoping for regime change, and then...

To march onto Russia's borders and to encircle it more and more is a US strategy since - since always, and it never stopped after 1989. Same regarding China, the parole was and is "base building". A nice, long trip-wired string of pearls around them.

This strategy was planned already in the 70s. Zbigniew Brzezinski is the name to watch out for. His books are available in German, too. He called the chain of states France-Germany-Poland-Ukraine the "speer against Russia". Look at a map and it is easy to see, why.

For European histoy alone, the tlak would be of the Weimarer Triangle: France-Germany-Poland.

Peter Scholl-Latour objected and said that there are only two truly European pillars: France and Germany.

Considering the pitiful state France is in financially and economically, I would say that the French pillar is no more, and their military adventures in Libya only are distraction for the masses. France wants to be the big player regarding Western culture and civilisation, but it cannot fulfill that wanted role anymopre, it is to messed up, two weak.

Leaves Germany alone. Germany pays, but not for too long anymore, i fear. Germany bends under too many false assumptions about its own economic situation and financial maneuvering spaces. The economy stutters, the Euro bites more and more menacing, and infrastructre and demography with all their follow-on consequences point downwards. Pillars of Europe? There are none. Just the cleptomanic EUcracy with a political self-underdtandsing that is no no way different than that of feudal lords owning their peasants in the medieval. A Kindergarten, and the more members there were added, the weaker and more meaningless it became on the stage of global politics.

No wonder that Putin refuses this model as a rolemodel for Russia to follow. If I refuse this EU while living, why shouldn't he? The democratic model of the West is - to use Hoppe'S words - a god that failed. We get expropriated, we get owned, and we cannot get rid of our masters. The general living standard is higher, but that is no merit of democracy, but capitalism and mass production. And capitalism blossomed not because of democracy - but despite democracy that socialistically tries to plunder it as best as its political actors and populating parasites can. And lets be honest: in our democracies, the overwhelming majority of people are socialists for sure, thinking the redistribution game runs forever and at their advantage. There is no political middle or conservative right in Germany. The AfD is a joke, a protest phenomenon playing kindergarten. And they soon will end up ion the political mainstream.

But I stray off. Sorry. Its all to illustrate that Russia has little reason to follow Wetsern exmaples. A better eocnomy it could build by deregulating its market by itself - to take over the poltrical order of the West is no precondition for that. It is sometimes said that the best exmaple for a steep industrial climb would be Germany after the war. That is noit true, the steepest industrial climb - steeper than is healthy for it - in history was shown not by the US, and not by Germany, but China. And that without having had a war with a Marshall plan next, and without having a democratic basic order.

Capitalist and economic success is not vitally depending on "democracy", but on law and order, and the trust that treaties are kept. Predictability of the legal situation, and hopefull a free market.

Look at the EU and the hyperregulated market it has formed, with bureaucrats sanctuoning all and evrything and perosnal relations or obeidnce with bureaucrtic orders are the precondition for the success of an entrepreneur, not free entrepreneurship. Look at that suffocating market monster and the financial mess we are in and then tell me that our political model is precondition for blossoming economies! :) That - although aching and fighting for air - business still keeps running is not a sign for how democracy has regulated things for the better and the positive, but it shows how strong the capitalistic mechanism really is - even when being bogged down and driven against the wall by socialist democracies and economic central planners.

Russia must change some things with its economy, it cannot base forever on its export of gas and oil and minerals, and it best does so by not leaning to the West, but the East, for the West will always demand copying of the democratic model as the price for business. It better refuses that and stays with regimes that are more leaning to its own nature, namely China. However, China tries to get its bites out of Russia, too, so the cooperation is complicated and not without risks.

Russia's game is not the easiest game to play at the global table. Its biggest advantage maybe is that its "Leidensfähigkeit" (=ability to suffer) easily can outlast that of Europe or North America.

[Betonov]

Already happening more or less. Russian naval vessels put into Havana harbor just today on their way to joint exercises with Venezuela, the third annual I believe

Russia
http://photo.foto-planeta.com/view/4/0/1/9/arhangelsk-401989.jpg


CUBA
http://repeatingislands.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/varadero-beach-panaromic-photo-wide-screen-cuba.jpg



Can you really blame them ???

[kranz]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398
http://x3.cdn03.imgwykop.pl/c3201142/comment_JiyV9voMJThbwQHR3mKQ5uWDXr2S6MLZ.gif

[Jimbuna]

What's the problem, Jim?

No problem Sky...simply keeping a watchful eye on proceedings.

[TarJak]

Russia
http://en.ria.ru/images/17781/74/177817491.jpg


CUBA
http://raihaneh.com/assets/7fdc1448/a1c2a2630bf278a72c588b5173afd4c6.jpg



Can you really blame them ???

Fixed. :03:

[Betonov]

Fixed. :03:

Women don't like me. When I think travel I only think scenery :O:

[TarJak]

Women don't like me. When I think travel I only think scenery :O:

Yes but I think about what a Russian sailor might be thinking...:D

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/27/article-2179917-002EB4DF00000258-608_468x286.jpg

[Skybird]

According to the Financial Times, Russia threatens the EU openly with reducing gas exports, to a degree that the planned gas re-exports by the EU to the Ukraine could no longer be done.

I am curious whether that includes their deals with Germany to whom Russia still maintains very special relations. Germany's gas reserves would hold out for 5-6 months. I think that Putin still holds his contracts and deals with Germany in slightl yhigher esteem, than his deals with the EU in general or other EU countries. Also he maintains quite some close and personal ties with some German key figures, namely former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, but also others. If he is willing to let all this collapse and to destroy the trust expressded int hese special relations, then this at the latest really should serve as the last, final and loudest warning call for the West that times have irreversibly changed.

The latest delay of several days for the new EU sanctions could be linked to these threats.

Moscow has cancelled the superbargain price for gas to the ukraine already some time ago, and no longer accepts Kiev's demands for price rabates of 65% and more, but insists on market prices being paid that are in the usual range of gas prices.

Russia also threaten to close its airspace for Western airline's overflights. While using transit fees that way, the damage done to Western airlines is greater than the Russian losses.

A chief correspondent quite well known in Germany, Fritz Pleitgen for the ARD, who was former chief of the ARD's Moscow studio for many years, said that it was a big mistake to provoke Russia over the Ukraine that much, and that the Russian reaction was fully forseeable and not differently to be expected.

Personally I wonder if maybe in Washington one knew very well what one was doing when starting to move over the Ukraine and pushing the EU again last year. I have started to doubt that one was really surprised by the Russian reaction - it was so very obvious to be expected - , but that the Russian reaction was exactly what one was aiming for: calculating that the longer the conflict lasts, the greater the final geostrategic gain would be for Washington.

That could have been a miscalculation, then.

And Herrfried Münkler, a politologist and historian whom I appreciate and whose books I have read, writes in this GERMAN essay

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/eine-betrachtung-von-herfried-muenkler-warum-sich-kriege-heute-wieder-lohnen_id_4096994.html?drucken=1

that wars are paying off again and that this is the alarming message to be learned from IS's terror and the Ukrainian conflict, becasue the peace order of the past decades only lasted because the costs of war were higher than their gains. Iraq and afghanistan showed that clearly. IS and Russia today show how to move borders and rewrite maps with far more money-efficient tools and tactics. Münkler predicted such a shift in the international order between peace and war already in his book on the new wars 13 years ago.

[Betonov]

Yes but I think about what a Russian sailor might be thinking...:D

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/27/article-2179917-002EB4DF00000258-608_468x286.jpg

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/347138/images/putin.jpg

[Oberon]

http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/3552967.jpg

[TarJak]

http://notsportscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/putin.png

[Jimbuna]

http://s10.postimg.org/c01nqfkd5/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

[TarJak]

So are the sanctions starting to bite on the Russian economy yet?

http://www.mni-indicators.com/index.php?article_id=50

Consumer confidence indicates possibly. I'd be interested to hear from our Russian's whether they are seeing anything different economically since sanctions started?

[Jimbuna]

I'm wondering if and when the gas supply to Germany for example will be turned off....or can they afford to do so?

[Betonov]

So are the sanctions starting to bite on the Russian economy yet?



More like biting back
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sl&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sl&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtvslo.si%2Fgospodarstvo%2Fgosp odarska-cena-ukrajinsko-ruske-krize-bo-na-koncu-se-visja%2F345570&edit-text=&act=url

:nope:

[Skybird]

I'm wondering if and when the gas supply to Germany for example will be turned off....or can they afford to do so?
They probably will not cut it completely, and that also is not what they threatened. They threatened to limit gas exports into the EU to a degree where the EU can no longer afford to re-export them to the Ukraine. They want to prevent the EU to ease the pressure they try to concentrate on the Ukraine. The Ukraine until recently paid only a third of globally used market prices for Russian gas, Moscow has scratched all those special benefits and rabates, and demands them to pay the same like everyone else. If there will be rabates in the future, Kiev will have to pay for that by... cooperating...

In the medium turn, I expect them to shift focusses towards Asia, especially China. Several large callibre partnerships just had been signed, including gas and oil. The building of the needed infrastructure also has been started. Once it is in place, Europe better has its homework done somehow and be less dependent on Russian gas.

The charm of delivering China not goods and knowhow like Europe does, but resources, is that China cannot just change the deal and expropriate the foreign partner, like they now use to do so openly with several business branches, for example cars. If they try that with Russian gas, there simply will be no gas flowing anymore, period. The Western way of doing business in and with China, is extremely shortsighted, and strategically disadvantageous.

[ikalugin]

The food prices have increased, but this is about it for your average consumer. For industrial people it is more complex, but it is too early to say, especially considering the state programs and the shift to buying stuff from Asia.

The party who were hit the worst are the financial dudes, but then they are the only major pro western group we have, so maybe it was not the best choice to weaken them.

As to the popular opinion stuff - we have more or less mobilised the population for a war, or so it would appear to me. While this precludes popular unrest should Russia continue supporting the separatists it also precludes Russia from giving up.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/eon-deutschland-und-polen-erhalten-weniger-gas-aus-russland-a-990894.html

Poland and Germany report that the gas delivery reduction seems to have begun. While German energy provider E.On just says that they get less gas per day now then would be usual, Polish PGNiG marks the decline at 20-24% since Monday, compared to the delivery volumes fixed in the contracts.

Due to well-filled reserve tanks in Germany (70-80% full, I think I read some days ago), the issue is said to be no issue currently. How it is with Poland, I don't know. The German reserves are said to be sufficient to last for 5-6 months, if all gas import breaks down.

---

If it is no intentional reduction by the Russians, then it must be a "loss" during the transfer through Ukraine. Kiev had threatened to do so, if it sees the need to do so, means if it cannot get the gas it wants form Russia at the demanded special low prices. Stealing gas from the transfer pipelines to the EU is nothing new in the Ukraine, it has happened repeatedly in past years.

Also, there also was a sanction law passed by the Ukrainian Parliament in mid-August that gives the premier the power to block 65 Russian companies linked to the gas sector in a retaliatory step of sanctions against Russia, if the premier wants that. Parliament however refused to pass an addendum to that law that would have blocked all national and foreign media to research and report about that.

[Oberon]

You poor sods get E.on too? :/\\!!

Isn't this about the point that the US said it will step in with its gas supplies?

Tick tock... :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

E.ON is a major investor-owned energy supplier. At facilities across Europe, Russia, and North America,

http://www.eon.com/en/about-us/profile/facts-and-figures.html

[Onkel Neal]

Leaves Germany alone. Germany pays, but not for too long anymore, i fear. Germany bends under too many false assumptions about its own economic situation and financial maneuvering spaces. The economy stutters, the Euro bites more and more menacing, and infrastructre and demography with all their follow-on consequences point downwards. Pillars of Europe? There are none. Just the cleptomanic EUcracy with a political self-underdtandsing that is no no way different than that of feudal lords owning their peasants in the medieval. A Kindergarten, and the more members there were added, the weaker and more meaningless it became on the stage of global politics...

Leave Germany alone? Leave America out of this too. We really need to go back to being isolationist. If a 2016 presidential candidate says he will pull our troops out of the Middle East Europe and Asia, that's my man, be he democrat, Republican or libertarian. it's time for America to stop trying to fix the worlds problems

[Oberon]

If America does go isolationist, then Europe needs to either coalesce into a superstate, or side with Russia.

However what Europe probably will do is go to war with each other.

Because that's what we do...

[Skybird]

Leave Germany alone? Leave America out of this too. We really need to go back to being isolationist. If a 2016 presidential candidate says he will pull our troops out of the Middle East Europe and Asia, that's my man, be he democrat, Republican or libertarian. it's time for America to stop trying to fix the worlds problems
Though I can understand the sentiment behind this, it is not really realistic, but surreal. A world from which you run away, nevertheless can and will reach you, even overtake you - globalised economy and all that, the world good-willingly believing the illusion of papermoney as a precondition of your dollar so that you still can be able to buy at least something with it for some time. You think your government will kleave the world alone? Militarikly, maybe. Financially, US spasms will become bigger and interventions, at least attempts to intervene, more frequent, and more intense. Delayed filing of insolvency - it brings out some of the worst in politics, and nations. ;)

All that is part of the price for allowing to overstretch in the first - what got pumped up artifically , must deflate necessarily sooner or later. And that will be painful. Thats why I do not like nor believe in this utopia of "unlimited growth". A balance representing a dynamic stability is much more to be preferred, at best a slow, evolutionary slow increase (although that already is problematic if not being countered by phases of decline) - not an explosive expansion to always newer, wider boundaries. General rule of physics: in a system of limited proportions, infinite expansion is impossible.

[Catfish]

Isn't this about the point that the US said it will step in with its gas supplies?
Tick tock... :hmmm:

When someone posted here almost two years ago, that the US will be Nr. 1 hydrocarbon exporter due to fracking technology soon, i said "seeing is believing".

Now that the petrol and gas prices have gone down to almost nothing in the US, i take it it all has been very successful.
Harrumph.
:O:

[Skybird]

If America does go isolationist, then Europe needs to either coalesce into a superstate, or side with Russia.

However what Europe probably will do is go to war with each other.

Because that's what we do...

So far since ten years or so we see growing tensions over the attempt to forcefully unite what does not match, must not match, and will never match.

Why is it that always a more of that what has caused the crisis, is demanded as the assumed solution? Bad habit? It is no coincidence that the antipathy against the EU and the hate against the Euro are constantly rising. Both do not bring people together - they split them, more and more. And if the price for enforcing peace - sort of a prison's peace - is to poassively accepot Europe being cokjpleted to turn into a new Soviet union model, I prfeer the rebellion, the revolt, the fight. Even if that means grim stories to be told about that era, once the conflict is over.

Freedom is more precious and important, and without it anything else is nothing.

But hey, the holy Apple mass yesterday celebrated the Apple Watch like a divine revelation, and all the world wnet Oh! and Ah! and sent prayers to the Golden Apple. As long as people fall for such infantile hypes, and think their life revolves around such Kinderkram, all hope is lost anyway. If such gimmicks are the idols the crowds dance around, I wonder whether we really deserve it any better than being fed infantile Kinderkram and slogans by our leaders, and not being taken serious by our enemies and rivals.

Or has Apple anounced a cure for cancer, or did they found an antidot to Alzheimer? Consider for a moment what profanity it is that dominated today's headlines and had all TV channels assisting in spreading the hype, and you may see what I mean and why it angers me so.

[Skybird]

When someone posted here almost two years ago, that the US will be Nr. 1 hydrocarbon exporter due to fracking technology soon, i said "seeing is believing".

Now that the petrol and gas prices have gone down to almost nothing in the US, i take it it all has been very successful.
Harrumph.
:O:

And for some time I fell for that story, too, I have to admit. Indeed I could have been that poster, or one of them. But my doubts on that from the time before that hype, have returned since quite a while now, starting when I saw several key investors and business heavyweights in the oil business refusing to invest the needed capital into boosting it. The volume of gas won by fracking, in many projects already is declining again: last time I read about that, was sometime in Spring this year.

There will be a spike in fracking and US oil production from that, possibly making the US the biggest oil producer indeed - but it will not last long, but burn out soon. After that, the great sobering...

It reminds me a bit of the illusions that get desparately maintained regarding the dollar and the ability to just endlessly print money and increase debts forever. Admitting that it is an illusion, would mean the beginning of the end, so the desperate stubborness to cling to it is even understandable. But the crash at the end will only become worse.

[Catfish]

Thoughts about Ukraine, Putin and the western media.

Only in german - or is there a translation, or a version with text under it ?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=209742&page=100

Yes i know he is controversial and one-sided, but he does have some good points. The NATO is not defensive anymore, if it ever was.
American politicians have said (loudly), that " ... asian resources are too valuable, to leave them to the russians". Can it be any more obvious?

Regarding the spiritual general mobilisation done by the media, it is so easy to see through, that it is almost ridiculous.

Especially when i look at the german "ZDF", with an anchorman who is a member of the US-German "Transatlantikbruecke".
I would not believe one word he says, not even "Good evening" :shifty:

[Oberon]

So far since ten years or so we see growing tensions over the attempt to forcefully unite what does not match, must not match, and will never match.

Why is it that always a more of that what has caused the crisis, is demanded as the assumed solution? Bad habit? It is no coincidence that the antipathy against the EU and the hate against the Euro are constantly rising. Both do not bring people together - they split them, more and more. And if the price for enforcing peace - sort of a prison's peace - is to poassively accepot Europe being cokjpleted to turn into a new Soviet union model, I prfeer the rebellion, the revolt, the fight. Even if that means grim stories to be told about that era, once the conflict is over.

Freedom is more precious and important, and without it anything else is nothing.

Then we must accept the fact that Europe no longer means anything. We have been overtaken, obsoleted, made redundent by the big three, America, Russia and China. If America collapses inward then whither now Europe? There is no single European nation which can challenge Russia either militarily or financially, if there's something the past two centuries have taught Europe it should be this. Only as a single unified force can Europe hope to keep its independence, but sadly I think that petty nationalistic squabbles are going to ruin any chance of this.
Europe can work together, but only if it drags its collective arses out of the last century and into this one, but I might as well wish for the moon while I'm at it. :nope: It's shameful how easily people fall for the same cheap nationalistic rubbish that has been spewed out in justification for hatred and wars over the last two centuries.

[Catfish]

^ And why should we "challenge Russia" ? :hmm2:

[Oberon]

^ And why should we "challenge Russia" ? :hmm2:

It's not so much us challenging Russia, it's if Russia decides to challenge us. It's about retaining European independence in a Russian dominated market.
Unless of course the preferred option is to move towards intergrating with Russia, but I don't know how well that would work out this soon after the end of the Cold War. :hmmm: Besides I think a unified Eurasian Union would be too big an entity to manage, especially considering how much we're struggling with just a European Union. :hmmm:

[ikalugin]

The sad fact is that while 30 years ago USSR (and by extension Russia in the form of the RSFSR) was a super power, Russia is no longer a super power and probably would never quite recover.

Thus the two super power players are the US and the rising China. So if europeans had the ambition to grow out of their great power status into the collective super power status they had to either integrate with each other (didn't happen due to internal conflicts) or have a strong partner that would kick down doors for the EU.

Now it just so happened that this partner is US (no surprise there), but does the US trully have best interests of the EU in mind?

[Dread Knot]

or have a strong partner that would kick down doors for the EU.



Therein lies the problem for the US. Bashing in doors is one thing. Everyone is always gung-ho at that point. It's managing what goes on that room or house for years after that has become tedious and wearisome and no one wants a part of anymore. Usually there's only an endless game of whack-a-mole going on in the front parlor.

[Skybird]

Oberon, if you mean that as a serious reply to me, then you have not understood a single argument that either me or liberalism ever made on these issues - and you do not realise to what degree the EU already is copying the mechanisms of political power in the former Sovjet system in its own system, including the corruption.

You want the EUDSSR then. I want a Europe of liberty and diversity, without the neofeudal caste enslavjng us again.

That the EU and the Euro have not decreased but increased tensions between the people, should be a warning.

I just saw on TV the names announced for the key posts jn the new central committee of the EU. Frightening, and hair-raising names. More debts are already guaranteed.

On russia, we had our chances for closer cooperation and coexisting. Washjngton, NATO and the EU messed it up, carelessly and quite arrogantly.

[Catfish]

It's not so much us challenging Russia, it's if Russia decides to challenge us. It's about retaining European independence in a Russian dominated market.
Unless of course the preferred option is to move towards intergrating with Russia, but I don't know how well that would work out this soon after the end of the Cold War. :hmmm: Besides I think a unified Eurasian Union would be too big an entity to manage, especially considering how much we're struggling with just a European Union. :hmmm:

European independence ? Are you kidding ? In this age of worthless paper money, any nation riding the capitalist horse is depending on all the others. E.g. England has not so much industry anymore, rather than depending on its financial market in London. This is not about Aston-Martin selling a hundred cars a year, anymore.
Russia is a capitalistic country, too. Germany has some 500 big companies as partners of russian companies, as it has with the USA, China, and among others, England.

I do not see Russia dominating anytime soon. They have had 7 decades of starving, and are urging to trade, but they won't let them.
What is true is that the future of trade lies in the East, and some do not like this.


"Russia challenging 'us' " ?

Hmm. Let's think, for a short moment ?
The NATO had tightened its ring of members around Russia since 1989.
I can understand Poland, but did it really ever think that Russsia would invade now, or in the next 100 years ? Really ??
Then the CIA wanted Kiev to become a member of the NATO, like they wanted Georgia (the original) to become one. The CIA's chief was in Kiev, and a ukrainian jet shoots down a civilian plane, trying to blame it on Russia. WHerever the GCHQ and the MIxx were, all that time.
And now we "stand together" and have sanctions, against Russia. Sanctions are a kind of war, if w/o official declaration.
All over this time, western media spread hate and fear about the evil russians, and practising spiritual general mobilisation.
It is about resources, and hegemony.

How many Guantanamos has Russia, right now ? How much civilians did Russia kill lately, with drones ?

I can clearly see how Russia challenges and threatens the West :shucks:

Putin thinks nationally, of course. But if he backed away from the Ukraine, after this affront over decades, no one in the West and anywhere else would take him seriously.

[ikalugin]

By "bashing doors" I meant the muscle in the EU, ie a party that could execute relevant aggressive foreign policy when need be. The issue here is that the central EU members appear to be reluctant defense spending wise and would prefer not to send their servicemen I to the places of danger.

Currently this role (within the EU) could be taken by the Eastern Europeans, but they are too close to the US and are too pre occupied with counter Russia policy to be used else where.

[Skybird]

The new commission's names are a declaration of war against austerity, budget discipline, economic reasonability and especially Germany. Exactly what I expected of that #%?%$!" named Juncker. To hell with this gangster, author of so unforgettable confession like: "Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?", and: "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." You have to give it to the man: he has completely internalised what the EU is about.

The whole gang stinks. Jun cker always wanted to milk Germany as much as could be arranged. With that crew, he will make rich prey, and Germany will find it difficult to set up resistance anymore. Add to that that with Latvia joining the Euro next year the rfotaiton principle in the controlling board will be activ ated and every five months Germany will have no voting in the ECB for one month, it is not difficult to forsee what will happen next. Just project Draghis recent preparatory steps a bit into the future, and you can see it easily.

Poor Germany, one could say. But Germans do no revolt against their masters, and instead submissively obey and let it happen, so they do deserve their fate for sure. So: no compassion or sympathy from me. Germans will get what they have asked for. Bon Appetit.

[Oberon]

I meant in the future, if the US retreats from Europe then there will be a void of power which Europe itself will not fill because it will be too busy attacking and bickering at each other.

I'm not trying to kick up some kind of Red Scare, although to be honest if you think that Eastern Europe and the Baltics don't suspect Russia of trying to regain its control over them...then I think you should probably talk to some more Eastern Europeans. We've already had one make his views clear in this thread. Rational or not, that is a real fear that they have and no-one is going to tell them otherwise, especially after the Ukrainian debacle.
It would be even worse if the EU and NATO fell apart, because they would see us as having abandoned them...again.

No, Skybird, I probably haven't understood what you've said, and I doubt I'm in the minority here on that, I want a Europe that will stand together, not the Europe of the 19th century which ended up in World War One and World War Two, and you can't tell me that the European Union or America was responsible for that. We've had 2000 years of bloodshed, war, destruction and famine, and I'm not exactly keen on any of them, I rather like peace, I rather like it when members of my family don't die, and I'd much rather that we didn't wind up at war with Germany...again.

[ikalugin]

Well external enemy and reasonable amounts of nationalism is about the most simple to acquire base for state building and is used commonly in the post Socialist Block space.

As to the EU - it could always arm the Eastern (and not so European) Europeans (Poland, Turkey being the two obvious choices), as they appear to be willing to militarise heavily. The issue here is that those parties are influenced heavily by the US and other external sources and thus would not always act in EU interests I think.

The other one would be to befriend Russia, and this would lift most if not all external military threats from EU area proper (as well as making Russian Navy people very happy) but this train is gone now I think.

[Oberon]

By "bashing doors" I meant the muscle in the EU, ie a party that could execute relevant aggressive foreign policy when need be. The issue here is that the central EU members appear to be reluctant defense spending wise and would prefer not to send their servicemen I to the places of danger.

Currently this role (within the EU) could be taken by the Eastern Europeans, but they are too close to the US and are too pre occupied with counter Russia policy to be used else where.

Agreed, I would not like the EU to take an anti-Russian policy, but just a policy of an independent European entity, so, like as Russia has done, if Europe was pushed it could push back, without having to rely on America to do the pushing.
It's time that Europe as a whole stepped up, stopped being such a petulant child and stood on its own two feet when it comes to its military. It's not as if we don't spend that much on it, the EU military budget is the second largest in the world, and our armed forces are the second largest in the world, with more active personnel than the US.
However, on its own, Germany is the 7th largest spending of money on the military with the 27th largest army. The UK 6th and 25th respectively.

Well external enemy and reasonable amounts of nationalism is about the most simple to acquire base for state building and is used commonly in the post Socialist Block space.
Aye, sadly so, and it's a shame that this external enemy has fallen back to Russia again in the medias eyes, but if it wasn't Russia it'd be the Middle East and if it wasn't the middle east it'd be China. A sad fact of life that large groups of people need some sort of enemy figure to direct their fear and hate towards.

As to the EU - it could always arm the Eastern (and not so European) Europeans (Poland, Turkey being the two obvious choices), as they appear to be willing to militarise heavily. The issue here is that those parties are influenced heavily by the US and other external sources and thus would not always act in EU interests I think.

Also agreed, I have the greatest respect for Poland and the Eastern European nations, but they are still rather hot-headed, fantastic in a fight, but would they be willing to hold fast in the face of provocation? Not sure they could, and that's the sort of problems that start wars in the middle of deliberate careful sabre rattling.

The other one would be to befriend Russia, and this would lift most if not all external military threats from EU area proper (as well as making Russian Navy people very happy) but this train is gone now I think. That train left the platform at least a decade ago, sadly, we had our chance and we blew it and now both sides have dug in for round two of the Cold War. The key question is what the US is going to do.
All that I have written above has been written from the viewpoint of a possibility of US ducking back into its shell and going into isolationist mode, which as Skybird has already point out, is a rather naive viewpoint of 'if I don't look at it, it doesn't exist', however in the American mindset this is a very tempting view, and to be honest I can't say I blame them, it's not as if they are showered with praise from their 'allies' any more. In fact, I don't think they have been showered in praise since May 1945...but that's how it goes.
Of course, if the US continues to prop up the EU then we may continue our internal bickering at leisure, knowing that the US will be there to bail us out if it all goes wrong (again), but if it doesn't...then things will have to change.

[Skybird]

I meant in the future, if the US retreats from Europe then there will be a void of power which Europe itself will not fill because it will be too busy attacking and bickering at each other.

I'm not trying to kick up some kind of Red Scare, although to be honest if you think that Eastern Europe and the Baltics don't suspect Russia of trying to regain its control over them...then I think you should probably talk to some more Eastern Europeans. We've already had one make his views clear in this thread. Rational or not, that is a real fear that they have and no-one is going to tell them otherwise, especially after the Ukrainian debacle.
It would be even worse if the EU and NATO fell apart, because they would see us as having abandoned them...again.

No, Skybird, I probably haven't understood what you've said, and I doubt I'm in the minority here on that, I want a Europe that will stand together, not the Europe of the 19th century which ended up in World War One and World War Two, and you can't tell me that the European Union or America was responsible for that. We've had 2000 years of bloodshed, war, destruction and famine, and I'm not exactly keen on any of them, I rather like peace, I rather like it when members of my family don't die, and I'd much rather that we didn't wind up at war with Germany...again.

Long live the strong central state then - the great evil that has caused all that you fear so much.

Im preaching like that since years. If you have not understood me in all that time,l then you also will not understand it in the future. Nor will you understand the rational behind liberalism, capitalism, the two thinoling school to which the histoy of your own country and its culture has contributed so incredibly much, and maybe more than any other country.

And the wars even of the recent ten years that broke lose due to people and cultures forced together that did not match and enver should have been forced together - forget it all then,.r efuse to learn a lesson from that.

You actively help by your thinking to achieve right what you want to prevent. And the price will be not different from that that was paid by the people living under such regimes before.

[MH]

Well external enemy and reasonable amounts of nationalism is about the most simple to acquire base for state building and is used commonly in the post Socialist Block space
It definitely is.
Russia is very busy in nation building actually.

[Onkel Neal]

Though I can understand the sentiment behind this, it is not really realistic, but surreal. A world from which you run away, nevertheless can and will reach you, even overtake you - globalised economy and all that, the world good-willingly believing the illusion of papermoney as a precondition of your dollar so that you still can be able to buy at least something with it for some time. You think your government will kleave the world alone? Militarikly, maybe. Financially, US spasms will become bigger and interventions, at least attempts to intervene, more frequent, and more intense. Delayed filing of insolvency - it brings out some of the worst in politics, and nations. ;)



Who said anything about running away? We can still do trade, and our economy would benefit greatly if we cut our defense budget down to the levels of European countries. Heck, I bet that would solve our debt problem in about 10 years.

As for defense, if the US would stop messing around in the ME, and seek an alliance with China, we would be safe with our oceans and nuclear deterrent. Let the Syrians, Russians and Ukrainians work their issues out without us.




Then we must accept the fact that Europe no longer means anything. We have been overtaken, obsoleted, made redundent by the big three, America, Russia and China. If America collapses inward then whither now Europe? There is no single European nation which can challenge Russia either militarily or financially, if there's something the past two centuries have taught Europe it should be this. Only as a single unified force can Europe hope to keep its independence, but sadly I think that petty nationalistic squabbles are going to ruin any chance of this.
Europe can work together, but only if it drags its collective arses out of the last century and into this one, but I might as well wish for the moon while I'm at it. :nope: It's shameful how easily people fall for the same cheap nationalistic rubbish that has been spewed out in justification for hatred and wars over the last two centuries.

Ehm, don't worry, the US going back to its roots is just wishful thinking on my part. Our politicians will keep us in every hot spot until we are bankrupt. Then I'm moving to Denmark as a refugee.

[TarJak]

More that the military equipment industry will keep the US politicians on the teat, keeping policy focused on meddling in the ME and anywhere else the can peddle weapons.

[Onkel Neal]

yeah, well, there's that too

[ikalugin]

It definitely is.
Russia is very busy in nation building actually.
Russia at least has a historic tradition of being a sovereign country and was (and still is) suppressing nationalists via various means. Some of the other ex Soviet members had to start from the scratch, for example the Ukraine and Belorussia.

Belorussia just tried to maintain the Soviet tradition of centralised economy and did pretty well actually, especially in the agricultural and industrial sectors. In fact they have better GDP per capita than a far more fortunate (resources, land and Soviet heritage wise) Ukraine.

Ukraine (and other countries such as Kazahstan) on the other hand tried to create an essentially new nation-state, abusing the rights if the minorities, feeding the local nationalists (for example promoting the NAZI helper organisations, who actively participated in Holocaust and other such NAZI crimes), abusing the rights of local minorities, attempting to create a historical myth of the independence, an independent culture basis.

This process of Soviet dissolution and subsequent state building lead to a number of frozen conflicts, some of which went through their hot phase in the 90s and 00s. Now we see yet another fault line opening and going through the hot phase.

[Oberon]

Ehm, don't worry, the US going back to its roots is just wishful thinking on my part. Our politicians will keep us in every hot spot until we are bankrupt. Then I'm moving to Denmark as a refugee.

:03: Move to Scotland as a refugee, that's what I'm going to do. :yep:

In all seriousness though, isolationism as a whole generally doesn't work out in the long term, something somewhere along the line will slip under the radar and catch you out.
Disengagement and refocusing of priorities is perhaps a better idea, certainly getting out of the Middle East would be a good idea, although getting off the oil teat is perhaps the first biggest step to doing that, unfortunately doing such things requires a level of nationalised industry that I don't think the US would fly for due to its viewpoint on the free market...and the free market is going to go where the money is, which means that anyone disengaging from the Middle East and risking their money is going to see their capital take wings and fly off. :dead:
So really a very slow, very long term process is what is needed, and I think that such a thing is taking place, but it's going to take at least half a century to do, providing that it isn't reversed by future presidents. In the meantime though, the US is stuck babysitting the Middle East, we in Europe will do what we can to assist, but our voice is fragmenting and unity is dropping so there will come a point in the future where we may be too busy cleaning up an explosion of nationalist tendencies in Europe to be able to help...in fact we may well require your help again to return peace to Europe or what's left of it. :O:

Working with China rather than against it is a good idea, but one that comes with some pretty big pitfalls. It requires drawing back from American interests in the western pacific, places such as Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and South Korea. There would be two choices in regards to Japan, either abandon it or help it to ditch Article Nine and re-militarise, either which way if the US draws back from the western Pacific then Japan will re-militarise. It's already slowly heading that way, and that's with the US still around. If you start to work with China, then you face losing Japan, and probably South Korea as friends, the two are just not compatible, which means that eventually somewhere down the line you're going to probably wind up in another war in the Pacific, either fighting with or against Japan.

Like it or not, the US is a bit like the superglue of the world at the moment, it's keeping a lot of things together, the EU, the western Pacific, and when that glue is removed, then there's going to be a lot of shaking up which will probably involve or end in a lot of conflict. It's not the first time this has happened, when Rome fell, Europe spent the next couple of centuries in conflict until states were able to coalesce out of the ruins.

[ikalugin]

This assumes that the conflict of interest is sufficiently big in Europe to lead to an all out European war. Sure some borders may be redrawn (Balkans and ex Soviet states), but I don't see how this would lead to a mass war without the US.

[Oberon]

This assumes that the conflict of interest is sufficiently big in Europe to lead to an all out European war. Sure some borders may be redrawn (Balkans and ex Soviet states), but I don't see how this would lead to a mass war without the US.

I guess it depends on how the nationalistic propaganda which is being stirred up against the EU develops if the EU collapses, whether it fades out or whether it grows into the ugly sort of fashion that developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. It's easy to create a war against someone if you degrade them into an entity which is considered inferior or a threat.
I could be wrong, the borders of the major European powers may remain static in a post-US post-EU world, it would be nice to think that we have gotten to the point where as nationstates we can actually co-operate enough to avoid such things...but I am doubtful.

[Skybird]

The EU is what makes nationaloiusts and radicals strong with its arrogant and intransparent behavior, its nepotist policies and corrupt lobbies.

It strikes me how one can complain about states and that they would go to war immediately again - and then wanting to install an even bigger, greater, more tyrannic superstate. The states have been at the root of past wars, especially the really big ones. States are monopolists in violating rules and creating these rules afterwards to legalise their doing.

More regulation by those who already messed up until here. Sure, that must be the solution!

My reply is different: not miore but less statehood. Not more but less paternalism. Not more but less regulation. Not bigger, but smaller states. Not more obedience byx citizens towards the feudal elites hijacking states, but states and its administrative leader needing to fear citizens. Less taxing, much less taxing. More taxes staying where they have been risen instead of moviong them to a centralised controlling instance. Well, the classical canon of arguments from the Austrian school and classical libertarianism.

I am not a nationalist. I am a zero-state-agent. And I certainly wnat today'S political caste being line dup against the wall, that is true. Since these antisocial parasites enjoy their ever increasing priveleges by protecting the system that feeds them, they will not let go voluntarily, we see that all the time - but we still must get rid of these. Do not vote for somebody anymore, vote him out of office, and he gets patronaged by his party and pops up somewhere else. The election principle fails in our voter-bribing-democracy (Christoph Braunschweig). Party-dynasties and a cast5e of feudal self-understanding have been installed. Laws and vlaue system have been tailored by these since decades to proptect thjeir interests and their influence and power. Play by their rules - and you are guaranteed to be dominated by them. Faces may come and go and change seats in various offices - the family of theirs, this deeply rotten, corrupted breed, always prevails.

Europe - means plural, not singular. The diversity led to competition and innovation, this is what made Europe unique amongst world culture's place in history, influencing the human global civilsation more than any other. Foster the diversity and allow regional differences to balance themselves out against each other all by private interaction of free private people. Deny a new feudal caste to diactate half a billion people how they have to live, how they have to decide, and how they have to think. The EU has caused havoc with its growing cedntrelaism and increaisng powers. The Euro, forcing incompatible economie sinto the sdame frsamework, has destroyed social peace, has fostered nationbal ressentiments, and mutual abuse. Egoism spikes high again in the EU's European directorate. Old nationalistic trenches are opening up again due to its presumption. Economic lobbies as well as ideological lobbies have become more powerful than ever before under its protection. Bureaucracy is constantly increasing. The market is more heavily overregulated by planned than ever before, maybe with the exception of the planned economies in the USSR'S former sphere of influence. Europe is openly submitting to arch-socialist principles of power and erosion of economic key principles, even the most essential minimum of economic reason.

And btw, the peace in Europe has not been brought and not been protected by the EU or its predecessor, but by the threat from the Sovjet Union, and NATO.

And the citizen'S sympathy for and approval of the eU is declining since years, and is at an all-time low.

More of that, please! More centrlasied power! More monopoly for one state! More planned economy! More regulation! More pltical Führer of thje like we have already and that already cost us dearly! Long live the European superstate! Long live the EUSSR! Do swidanja, liberty! We do not need the Sovjets to repeat their model!

[ikalugin]

Well, how do you deal with market failure and risk seeking behaviour of financial institutions?

What about depressive regions (with high structural unemployement), how do you deal with those?

[HunterICX]

It's not so much us challenging Russia, it's if Russia decides to challenge us. It's about retaining European independence in a Russian dominated market.

Well we never really gave them a chance to challenge us as we usually beat them in that by a punch of some European bastard that decided to kick their door in and comes to the nasty conclussion that it was a bad idea.

It's easy to create a war against someone if you degrade them into an entity which is considered inferior or a threat

It's not just easy, it's all that is needed.
Just goes to show how uncivilized we actually are apart from that we no longer take a crap in the streets (but even that's not the case when people are staggering home after clubbing :rotfl2: )

I could be wrong, the borders of the major European powers may remain static in a post-US post-EU world, it would be nice to think that we have gotten to the point where as nationstates we can actually co-operate enough to avoid such things...but I am doubtful.

Well one thing we can be sure of when you read our history is that nothing will last down to our mere existence.

[Oberon]

The EU is what makes nationaloiusts and radicals strong with its arrogant and intransparent behavior, its nepotist policies and corrupt lobbies.

Not disagreeing.

It strikes me how one can complain about states and that they would go to war immediately again - and then wanting to install an even bigger, greater, more tyrannic superstate. The states have been at the root of past wars, especially the really big ones. States are monopolists in violating rules and creating these rules afterwards to legalise their doing.

This is true, but it's trying to install a series of checks and balances to keep the states in line with each other so that none of them can find themselves in a position where war is the only option.

More regulation by those who already messed up until here. Sure, that must be the solution!

"We must all hang together or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

My reply is different: not miore but less statehood. Not more but less paternalism. Not more but less regulation. Not bigger, but smaller states. Not more obedience byx citizens towards the feudal elites hijacking states, but states and its administrative leader needing to fear citizens. Less taxing, much less taxing. More taxes staying where they have been risen instead of moviong them to a centralised controlling instance. Well, the classical canon of arguments from the Austrian school and classical libertarianism.

We've been down this road before, over many many many conversations and the gaping flaws of your theories and the likelihood of this micronation experiment folding back into a larger state has been put forward.
Tell me, when and where in history has such a place existed? And how long did it exist for?

I am not a nationalist. I am a zero-state-agent. And I certainly wnat today'S political caste being line dup against the wall, that is true. Since these antisocial parasites enjoy their ever increasing priveleges by protecting the system that feeds them, they will not let go voluntarily, we see that all the time - but we still must get rid of these. Do not vote for somebody anymore, vote him out of office, and he gets patronaged by his party and pops up somewhere else. The election principle fails in our voter-bribing-democracy (Christoph Braunschweig). Party-dynasties and a cast5e of feudal self-understanding have been installed. Laws and vlaue system have been tailored by these since decades to proptect thjeir interests and their influence and power. Play by their rules - and you are guaranteed to be dominated by them. Faces may come and go and change seats in various offices - the family of theirs, this deeply rotten, corrupted breed, always prevails.

Show me a system in history where it has not been this way? From Monarchy, to Democracy, to Fascism and Communism, the elite have always prayed upon the poor in every. single. political. system.

Europe - means plural, not singular. The diversity led to competition and innovation, this is what made Europe unique amongst world culture's place in history, influencing the human global civilsation more than any other.

It also lead to two world wars

Foster the diversity and allow regional differences to balance themselves out against each other all by private interaction of free private people.

Divide and conquer

Deny a new feudal caste to diactate half a billion people how they have to live, how they have to decide, and how they have to think. The EU has caused havoc with its growing cedntrelaism and increaisng powers.

Not disagreeing, there should definitely be an overhaul of how the EU works.

The Euro, forcing incompatible economie sinto the sdame frsamework, has destroyed social peace, has fostered nationbal ressentiments, and mutual abuse.

The Euro was definitely a mistake, not disagreeing there either.

Egoism spikes high again in the EU's European directorate. Old nationalistic trenches are opening up again due to its presumption. Economic lobbies as well as ideological lobbies have become more powerful than ever before under its protection. Bureaucracy is constantly increasing.

Bureaucracy increases in any political system the longer it exists.

The market is more heavily overregulated by planned than ever before, maybe with the exception of the planned economies in the USSR'S former sphere of influence. Europe is openly submitting to arch-socialist principles of power and erosion of economic key principles, even the most essential minimum of economic reason.

Not arguing either

And btw, the peace in Europe has not been brought and not been protected by the EU or its predecessor, but by the threat from the Sovjet Union, and NATO.

And what happens if the biggest member of NATO leaves Europe?

And the citizen'S sympathy for and approval of the eU is declining since years, and is at an all-time low.

The media hasn't helped with that much, they have smelt a good story and ran with it, but yes, the EU hasn't exactly helped either.

More of that, please! More centrlasied power! More monopoly for one state! More planned economy! More regulation! More pltical Führer of thje like we have already and that already cost us dearly! Long live the European superstate! Long live the EUSSR! Do swidanja, liberty! We do not need the Sovjets to repeat their model!

Would you like a cup of tea? You appear to be becoming hysterical again.

Europe as a collection of individual nations cannot compete with Russia, America or China. This is a fact, Germany on its own cannot compete with any of them, it does not have the industrial, economic or military power, not now, not even if it began a crash course of re-industrialisation. European nations have not recovered from the Second World War in terms of industry, admittedly this is not helped in Germany by the fact that it spent the best part of fifty years split in two.
This is a fact, look at the figures and look at history. Russia is not the Soviet Union nor is it Tsarist Russia, America is not the Wild West any more and China is not a peasant land of serfs (well...not entirely). They have all moved on and grown stronger, they are all bigger than we are in all ways. They have bigger armies than individual European nations, they have bigger economies and they have bigger industries.

Now, the scenario put forward by Neal invisions that America leaves Europe to its own devices, as has been dreamed about by many anti-Americans in Europe for decades. The EU has supposedly been propped up by America so it's also imagine that that collapses and everyone goes back to how things were pre-EEC and NATO falls apart. Everyone has their own economy, army and industry and co-operation is between individual states rather than as an entity.
Now what? How does Germany plan to remain relevant in a market where it is outperformed by everyone? How would defence work? If Russia did decide to rearrange Eastern Europe by force, who would defend them? Is appeasement the answer?
Lots of supposition, and as you have already pointed out, the likelihood of America going isolationist is very slim and a very bad idea, but surely you must understand that by facts and figures alone, the only way that Europe can remain a global power is through a unified entity such as the EU?
I'm not denying that the EU needs reform, however as a group of individual nations, Europe cannot compete with any of the major powers of the world. This is a fact.

[Betonov]

It will go down as it has always been in European history.

If a major outside threat emerges we will stop killing each other, kill the enemy and then start killing each other again.


But then again. You think it would be easy to get the population fired up for a war against another european country. With all the young people mingling and travelling with other nationalities ??? Most of us have more friends abroad than at home.
You give a mortar and tell me to shell England and I'll hit you with it. You tell me to shell the neighboring village and I'll pay for the ammo myself.

[Oberon]

It will go down as it has always been in European history.

If a major outside threat emerges we will stop killing each other, kill the enemy and then start killing each other again.


But then again. You think it would be easy to get the population fired up for a war against another european country. With all the young people mingling and travelling with other nationalities ??? Most of us have more friends abroad than at home.
You give a mortar and tell me to shell England and I'll hit you with it. You tell me to shell the neighboring village and I'll pay for the ammo myself.

:haha: You have a valid point, it's just the rise of parties like UKIP, and Frances Front Nationale that have me concerned, a wave of xenophobia across Europe is not something that is needed, in my opinion anyway. Obviously certain elements will disagree with this.

[ikalugin]

Russia at moment (sadly) lacks power to rearrange the Eastern Europe by force, at least provided that we do it have Far East completely covered. What we need is another industrialisation, which may happen due to the western trade restrictions.

As to the xenophobia and nationalism - they appear to be a natural dialectic response to the EU issues of cultural creep (remove kebab) and postmodernistic revolution (ban gay people).

[Onkel Neal]

Russia at moment (sadly) lacks power to rearrange the Eastern Europe by force, at least provided that we do it have Far East completely covered. What we need is another industrialisation, which may happen due to the western trade restrictions.


That's actually very good, for Russia, for Europe, and for the US. Do Russians actually fear invasion from Germany or France any more?

I feel the same way about the US, why do we keep hearing "the rise of China" as any kind of threat? I don't know, but that's the way the media and politicians paint the picture.


isolationism as a whole generally doesn't work out in the long term, something somewhere along the line will slip under the radar and catch you out.


What does that mean?:doh:

I understood all you followed with. Don't necessarily agree, as far as internationalizing of the oil industry. But anyway, all it will take is a new Reagan with vision, who knows how to frame the objective: pull the military out of foreign entanglements, mothball 3/4 of the military andcut the defense budget by 90%, secure the borders, evict all illegal aliens, revamp the welfare state around jobs this will open up, and move to nuclear power plants to free up oil production for autos.

Anyway, why Scotland? Other than the gorgeous women and manly men, that is.

[Oberon]

Well, things like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, of course it depends on what you term as isolationism and how far you want to take it.

Oh, and Scotland because it's nearer to me than Denmark, although Denmark is a pretty nice place...and redheads, of course. ;)

[ikalugin]

It appears that majority of our population do view NATO as a military threat to Russia, if this is what you are asking.

[Dread Knot]

I think the term isolationism always presents a false dichotomy. That either the US dominates the world, or it pulls up the oceanic drawbridge and withdraws from it completely. The US is part of an international community either way. We have to learn to live in that ambiguous region in-between.

Yeah, I know, ambiguity is scary.

http://listentomissritz.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/am2.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

Hmm... they don't realize that NATO exists because of the USSR's takeover of Eastern Europe after WWII?

Oh, well, I can understand that. When I was in Moscow in 1995, I visited the freshly built Great Patriotic War Museum. There was nothing in it about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet invasion of Poland and Finland... so I guess, yeah, the average Russian probably thinks the US and NATO are bent on militarily attacking Russia. I hope we win, so we get your rockets. We don't have any way to get our astronauts into space any more.

[kranz]

Russia at moment (sadly) lacks power to rearrange the Eastern Europe by force
orly?
where would you stop? in Paris? or New York?
what would you do with the people? 50% to Siberia, 50% a bullet in the head?

cultural creep
speaking of which...what is this creep still doing here? I've already sent two reports (severe trolling etc etc) and the guy feels as free as a bird with his BS.
People got brigged for lesser trolling. Are mods sleeping? Don't you see hes playing with you? He keeps repeating over and over the same dumb phrases without referring relevant posts, account made August 2014 (really?) and you let this game going on? I bet if I made my own '9/11 was a big lie' thread, I would leave the brig until Christmas or Easter.
Wake the .... up.

[ikalugin]

This is about the post Soviet history.

Ie NATO is viewed as a threat because it is a military alliance that we are not part of, that only has to confront us in it's area of responsibility (as everyone else is either in it, on the way to joining it, or is friendly/neutral to it, with exception of Belorussia ofc), that was expanding towards us with a clear intent of enroaching on all our western frontiers and members of which were conducting numerous wars for dubious reasons.

I mean what not to feel threatened about, especially after the losses of the GPW (and general Russian historical paranoia of being invaded by -nationstatename-) ?

[Tribesman]

We've been down this road before, over many many many conversations and the gaping flaws of your theories and the likelihood of this micronation experiment folding back into a larger state has been put forward.
Tell me, when and where in history has such a place existed? And how long did it exist for?

You know the answer to that Oberon.
Take all of his previous historical examples which he uses to support his utopian ideal and measure their time line to becoming either a failed corrupt mini state or a failed corrupt mega state.
The outcome is always the same, bureaucracy, corruption, nepotism, despotism, tyranny.

Show me a system in history where it has not been this way? From Monarchy, to Democracy, to Fascism and Communism, the elite have always prayed upon the poor in every. single. political. system.

See above, all his examples of the "cure" to the problem end up with the same sickness they claim to get rid of.

[MH]

Russia at least has a historic tradition of being a sovereign country and was (and still is) suppressing nationalists via various means. Some of the other ex Soviet members had to start from the scratch, for example the Ukraine and Belorussia.

Belorussia just tried to maintain the Soviet tradition of centralised economy and did pretty well actually, especially in the agricultural and industrial sectors. In fact they have better GDP per capita than a far more fortunate (resources, land and Soviet heritage wise) Ukraine.

Ukraine (and other countries such as Kazahstan) on the other hand tried to create an essentially new nation-state, abusing the rights if the minorities, feeding the local nationalists (for example promoting the NAZI helper organisations, who actively participated in Holocaust and other such NAZI crimes), abusing the rights of local minorities, attempting to create a historical myth of the independence, an independent culture basis.

This process of Soviet dissolution and subsequent state building lead to a number of frozen conflicts, some of which went through their hot phase in the 90s and 00s. Now we see yet another fault line opening and going through the hot phase.

Lets be fair...Russia itself is dancing with nationalism and fascism regarding freedom of speech and manipulating the people using the good old days rhetoric.
Regarding Ukraine I would be glad to see it independent.
Seems it is the will of the people there. I don't care weather the Ukrainian identity is a myth created by stupid starved to death victimized peasants :doh:or Kiev's deported intelligencia.

[Alex]

And pretty much at the same time, people living in Europe - who can't stand any more to live in that lobbies&banking dictatorship the European Union is - massively voted against the European Union, and for a return to sovereign nations, contradicting one more time the media - disinformation - as a whole, ridiculing that ultra-european stage work the Maidan was...

Return of the real ?

[ikalugin]

Lets be fair...Russia itself is dancing with nationalism and fascism regarding freedom of speech and manipulating the people using the good old days rhetoric.
Regarding Ukraine I would be glad to see it independent.
Seems it is the will of the people there. I don't care weather the Ukrainian identity is a myth created by stupid starved to death victimized peasants :doh:or Kiev's deported intelligencia.
How is the policy towards freedom of speech is related to nationalism? Also, there is freedom of speech in Russia, unless Echo of Moscow and RBK were closed while I was looking the other way.

As to the nationalism/fascism - it's radical forms are prosecuted (people get real prison terms), it's (nationalism) moderate forms (which are accepted as permisive by global comunity) are ridiculed (there is no decent right wing party in Russia, LDPR is regarded as a joke by the majority).

Contrary to that sensible policy Ukraine (and certain EU members) support NAZI organisations (including those responsible for participating in Holocaust), their veterans and so on. The historic myth I was talking about in relation to Ukraine is that Ukranian people are a superior, older and more respectable slavic nation, in comparison to evil asian-mongolic Russian horde.

[Onkel Neal]

I mean what not to feel threatened about, especially after the losses of the GPW (and general Russian historical paranoia of being invaded by -nationstatename-) ?

Perhaps, but there have been similar losses from within: the Communist party and dictators dealing out purges and massive collectivization that cost Russia millions of lives. Which is why I cannot see how Russians allow Putin to remain "President" for life. If only Russia had grown a George Washington or Thomas Jefferson instead of Stalin and Lenin.

Btw, ikalugin, I am glad you are here and expressing your views. Even if we disagree, you better believe you are welcome here. :salute:

[CCIP]

Perhaps, but there have been similar losses from within: the Communist party and dictators dealing out purges and massive collectivization that cost Russia millions of lives. Which is why I cannot see how Russians allow Putin to remain "President" for life. If only Russia had grown a George Washington or Thomas Jefferson instead of Stalin and Lenin.


Ah, but my favourite point to remind people out of - Stalin was not grown by Russia, but was born, raised, educated and took up his pattern of activity first in Georgia. Lenin was raised in Russia, but I think it's important not to forget that his ideas of socialism were a purely Western product and, like many, he was radicalized in response to a heavy-handed conservative Tsarist response to social unrest - which in turn was made conservative by Alexander III, who reversed political course after seeing his reformist father Alexander II assassinated by radicals. Russia's history is one of incredible cycles of violence on scales that are hard to make sense of elsewhere in the world. Where did it all start? Was it the Mongol invasion? Was it Ivan the Terrible? Was it Peter The Great? Hard to say. But then look at the kinds of people Russia did raise, and you'll see that they are no less remarkable than Washington or Jefferson. The trouble is what they had to work with.

I'm in no way belittling US history, which I'm a student and an admirer of, but I don't think it's even possible to make the parallel you're making. America has never had to go through even the tiny fraction of the monumental, cyclic, systematic violence that Russia went through, often fed by external sources, which turned it into a place where others' ideologies went for "live fire exercises". There's not even a remote parallel here. And Lenin and Stalin are merely the tip of the iceberg in Russian totalitarianism. The seeds and the prototypes of how they acted go centuries back. And Tsarism which they were a response to was itself, arguably, merely a response to centuries of incredible violence. Russia was grappling with all these same social and historical forces centuries before Jefferson's and Washington's ancestors even set foot in America.

So it's not really that simple. There were always right people. Russia's recent history is full of them too. But, like always, they were swept up by yet another cycle of violence, poverty and injustice. One that, by the way, the West largely ignored when it went through its worst phase during the 1990s.

[MH]

How is the policy towards freedom of speech is related to nationalism? Also, there is freedom of speech in Russia, unless Echo of Moscow and RBK were closed while I was looking the other way.

As to the nationalism/fascism - it's radical forms are prosecuted (people get real prison terms), it's (nationalism) moderate forms (which are accepted as permisive by global comunity) are ridiculed (there is no decent right wing party in Russia, LDPR is regarded as a joke by the majority).

Contrary to that sensible policy Ukraine (and certain EU members) support NAZI organisations (including those responsible for participating in Holocaust), their veterans and so on. The historic myth I was talking about in relation to Ukraine is that Ukranian people are a superior, older and more respectable slavic nation, in comparison to evil asian-mongolic Russian horde.

Ok it is your place , you like it the way it is so im not going bug you about it , yet don't you find this disturbing that Russia must use violence and dirty tricks too cling to what ever has been left of the eastern block.
Essentially no European ex - soviet republic or eastern European country want any sort of ties with Russia...besides the usual business.
They all run away voluntarily to the west...seems a lot of people see brighter future there in terms of personal freedoms or economical possibilities.

[Skybird]

And pretty much at the same time, people living in Europe - who can't stand any more to live in that lobbies&banking dictatorship the European Union is - massively voted against the European Union, and for a return to sovereign nations, contradicting one more time the media - disinformation - as a whole, ridiculing that ultra-european stage work the Maidan was...

Return of the real ?

de Gaulle put it well, talking of a Europe of cooperating fatherlands. More than moderating trade relations and doing a bit of coordination of economies that did not mean. For the security things, there was NATO. If that would be all the EU today wopuld be about, I would have a much less hostile stand towards it.

All the powers that Brussel now tries to grab over this half a billion people on this continent, originally nobody has wanted. At least not until politicians realised how much easier their parasites' life would become if they accumulate more of their powers in one central office where the population cannot really annoy them anymore.

"Zero-State" sympathiser that I am, I do not like the national states. But they are better than just having one even more dictatorial superstate. So, deconstructing the supranational hierarchy, is a first step. Then deconstructing the national states in favour of independent subnational regions, should be the next. And then local communities and cities. The smaller the size, the less room there is for administrative parasites to hide in, and the more direct work and participation by concerned citizens is possible and even makes sense. A deregulation of the market as well.

[Skybird]

Ah, but my favourite point to remind people out of - Stalin was not grown by Russia, but was born, raised, educated and took up his pattern of activity first in Georgia. Lenin was raised in Russia, but I think it's important not to forget that his ideas of socialism were a purely Western product and, like many, he was radicalized in response to a heavy-handed conservative Tsarist response to social unrest - which in turn was made conservative by Alexander III, who reversed political course after seeing his reformist father Alexander II assassinated by radicals. Russia's history is one of incredible cycles of violence on scales that are hard to make sense of elsewhere in the world. Where did it all start? Was it the Mongol invasion? Was it Ivan the Terrible? Was it Peter The Great? Hard to say. But then look at the kinds of people Russia did raise, and you'll see that they are no less remarkable than Washington or Jefferson. The trouble is what they had to work with.



Also, just a reminder once again that the Crimean was part of the Ottoman empire before Russia conquered it during its ongoing quarrels with the pressing Turks, and made it Russian under Katharina the Great. Not before a certain Sovjet ruler named Chrushchev - who ironically happened to have been Ukrainian :) - the Crimean peninsula was attached as a present to the Ukrainian Sovjet republic during some territorial jubilee, 50 years or so of something, I forgot the exact details.

Sentimental man he was, it seems. :)

[August]

...a present to the Ukrainian Sovjet republic during some territorial jubilee, 50 years or so of something, I forgot the exact details.

Probably 50 years of Soviet tyranny. If so small enough payment says I.

[Alex]

For the security things, there was NATO. If that would be all the EU today wopuld be about, I would have a much less hostile stand towards it.

http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/302245151.gif (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/03/nato-peace-threat-ukraine-military-conflict)


And here (http://www.voltairenet.org/article185257.html) too, and here (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/09/03/377523/us-uses-nato-for-new-world-order/) too, eventually. :)

All the powers that Brussel now tries to grab over this half a billion people on this continent, originally nobody has wanted. At least not until politicians realised how much easier their parasites' life would become if they accumulate more of their powers in one central office where the population cannot really annoy them anymore.

"Zero-State" sympathiser that I am, I do not like the national states. But they are better than just having one even more dictatorial superstate. So, deconstructing the supranational hierarchy, is a first step. Then deconstructing the national states in favour of independent subnational regions, should be the next. And then local communities and cities. The smaller the size, the less room there is for administrative parasites to hide in, and the more direct work and participation by concerned citizens is possible and even makes sense. A deregulation of the market as well.
And elites do their best to make all people end up thinking the way you do.
The age-old question to ask yourself now is "who's working for that same zero-state project of yours in the world these days, that's going to end up making us live in Euro-regions, why, and in whose interest (http://youtu.be/ycCDcND61t8)".

You should get yourself familiar a bit with that subject - that will turn you (undoubtedly !) into a super-duper nationalist militating for the crush of the Schengen agreement and the renewed control of national borders -, the problem is I currently do not know of any german author related to the subject, so I don't know of a lucid german book to recommend to you that would be worth reading. I'll just wish you good luck there, this matter is going to be an increasingly important one over the years. There's just way to hate atlanticist imperialism.

[Skybird]

Not sure I got understood correctly, Alex. What I meant is that if the EU only would be about economic cooperation exclusively, I would have less hostile sentiments against hit. The "NATO protecting Europe" remark only is to illustrate that the EU has no cause to claim that it would secure peace in Europe.

The elites hate zero-state theory, btw. It would strip them off their potlical power and influence. Mind you: zero state, that means Hoppe, that means libertarianism, and the like: all the things I take Flak for in this forum. The EU HATES these things, so do practically all political parties. It would render them useless, meaningless, powerless. I mean they actually already are all that, but they are still allowed to pose as if it were not true.

I must admit your reply makes no sense to me.

On German libertarian authors, I can help you out. Read Roland Baader, he is the best there is on the German book market. Recommended titles are
- Totgedacht. Warum Intellektuelle unsere Welt zerstören
- Kreide für den Wolf. Die Illusion vom besigeten Sozialismus (currently a new edition gets prepared)
- Geldsozialismus
- Die belogene Generation. Politisch manipuliert statt zukunftsfähig informiert

Very good books. I left out the older iones from the nineties.

He died in 2012.

You can also find him on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=roland+baader

And of course there are some of Hoppe'S books that he originally wrote in English, but who got translated into German as well, namely "Democracy -The god that failed", but also some others.

Finally there is Christoph Braunschweig from whom I have lend the term "voter bribing-democracy" (Wählerbestechungsdemokratie), he is professor for economics teaching at the university for economics in Jekaterienburg:
- Die demokratische Krankheit. Der fatale Teufelskreis aus Politikerversprechen und Wähleranspruch
- Wohlfahrtsstaat leb wohl - Der wirtschaftliche und moralische Zerfall des Wohlfahrtsstaates.

The general work of Ludwig von Mises of course, because he was so much more than just an economist. It is hard to overestimate his importance and relevance, even and especially for the sociological and economic and fiscal drama unfolding today.

Of course there are more, but these books I could recommend blindly at any opportunity. Others I also have on mind are focussing too strictly on just the economic and fiscal aspects of what is going on today, as if they would be a good return to your above paragraph.

[ikalugin]

On discussion in general - I do not mind sensible replies and even reasonable amounts of burning emotion. After all we are all humans and have limited rationality, as well as access to information and ability to process it.

About the historical past - there is no strict historical consensus in Russia even though there are ongoing efforts by the state to provide educational system with "correct" history (there already are educational standards in place which do affect the historic views of school students but not in the major fashion at the moment, as they govern the general stuff like hours allocated to the subject, general topics and so on).

An example of this would be Strelkov (aka Girkin - one of the former separatists leaders), he is a monarchist, ie denounces the Soviet experiment as a mistake and so on (his favorite pass time was reconstructing Whites taking back Ukraine out of all things). However in general (ie apart from relatively minor groups of monarchists, nationalists and liberals) population (and the State) appears to view Soviet history fairly favorably, most population groups for example do not accent the repression, but rather a victory over the Fascism.

This is one of the reasons why liberals (who denounce past and present goverment and are viewed as responsible for the difficult 90s) do not have en mass support. Internal politics wise Putin does have popular support and this is why he is so confident about what he is doing.

And finally about Ukraine - as I have said Russia does it for very sensible real politic reasons being:
- Security. If Ukraine joins NATO then the only non NATO state that we would border in the west would be Belorussia and they are sadly not all that reliable.
- Economics. Ukraine currently has a free trade zone with Russia, which is incompatable with the EU for obvious reasons.

Of course there is also the further point of ideology/internal policy, which leads to that whole altitude of Ukraine being our little brother that we must provide guidance, ect.

That said, in my humble opinion, what happened in Ukraine was that people where fooled by the internal promises of the Utopia after joining the EU (which we know won't happen), very similar promises to the Soviet ones of attaining communism for that matter. Afterwards, when Ukrainian leadership realised that they would no longer be able to profit from Ukraine (due to the death of industry that would happen should Ukraine join EU), they tried to make a 180 degree turn and got the (more or less, as most population is very passive) popular unrest (maidan) assisted with external powers, which lead to the known events.

Ie the party that I would see as the root of the issue is the former Ukrainian leadership and only then the Western and Russian parties.

[ikalugin]

On the zero state stuff:
- how do you fight market failures?
- how do you limit the power of capital?

[Betonov]

If only Russia had grown a George Washington or Thomas Jefferson instead of Stalin and Lenin.


Russia needs someone more like Josip Broz Tito. Managed to keep a multiethnic state together with minimal terror (you cant run russia without banging some heads together), rapid infrastructure development and industrial growth, and when he died the world mourned. Sophia Loren made him pasta, if that doesn't prove something.

[Oberon]

Khrushchev wasn't that bad, better than Brezhnev. Andropov didn't last two seconds, neither did Chernenko, and Gorbachev, as good as he was in the eyes of the west, is often seen in Russia as not a particularly good leader...and then there's Yeltsin...the less said about that, the better. :nope:

[STEED]

Yeltsin...the less said about that, the better. :nope:

Your only upset because your were not invited to one of his great piss ups when he was in the UK. :O:

I still got a hang over from that night years ago, old Boris knew how to throw a party in a pub. :yeah:

I think jim and BossMark went to them as well. :hmmm: :)

[Dread Knot]

Khrushchev wasn't that bad, better than Brezhnev. Andropov didn't last two seconds, neither did Chernenko, and Gorbachev, as good as he was in the eyes of the west, is often seen in Russia as not a particularly good leader...and then there's Yeltsin...the less said about that, the better. :nope:


Yeah. Vlad is the man now. Future versions of Sid Meier's Civilization game will probably include him as the default leader for the Russian civ.
　
Funny, you never hear much about Dmitriy Medvedev's qualities as a Russian leader. I wonder why. :D


(http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/medvedev_puppet.jpg?w=460&h=323)http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/medvedev_puppet.jpg
(http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/medvedev_puppet.jpg?w=460&h=323)

[Jimbuna]

Dmitriy who?

[Oberon]

Yeah. Vlad is the man now. Future versions of Sid Meier's Civilization game will probably include him as the default leader for the Russian civ.
　
Funny, you never hear much about Dmitriy Medvedev's qualities as a Russian leader. I wonder why. :D


(http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/medvedev_puppet.jpg?w=460&h=323)
(http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/medvedev_puppet.jpg?w=460&h=323)

You'd be surprised, Medvedev and Putin had a number of rather public disagreements on policy, he was certainly no real puppet, not intentionally anyway, but Putin has a long reach and a lot of power so it's a case of fall in line or fall out.

[Dread Knot]

You'd be surprised, Medvedev and Putin had a number of rather public disagreements on policy, he was certainly no real puppet, not intentionally anyway, but Putin has a long reach and a lot of power so it's a case of fall in line or fall out.

Ooo. Don't say fallout.


They have come along way over there in leadership personality. I do recall that even with détente, all that Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko were good for was a 5 minute review on May Day, featuring some limp hand waving followed by months of speculation as to whether they were dead yet.

[August]

On the zero state stuff:
- how do you fight market failures?
- how do you limit the power of capital?

Or for that matter how to keep town A from invading town B, or Town C and D banding together to attack and divide up town E between them.

Zero state is another way of saying "Defenseless communities ripe for invasion"

[Onkel Neal]

Khrushchev wasn't that bad, better than Brezhnev. Andropov didn't last two seconds, neither did Chernenko, and Gorbachev, as good as he was in the eyes of the west, is often seen in Russia as not a particularly good leader...and then there's Yeltsin...the less said about that, the better. :nope:

Yeah, Kruschvev was the closest thing the Soviet Union had to a statesman. He had the courage to renounce the past atrocities on the Soviet people by Stalin. He also rejected being the next cult of personality leader, at least at Stalin's level.

George, I read your post, I agree with you, the histories of the USA and Russia are too different, due to geography mainly. Russia was peopled since the stone age, and had a continual history through feudalism and the industrial age, while the US was peopled in the last few hundred years (not counting the native Americans with all due respect) by hardy explorers and people who had the initiative to cross the Atlantic, and were able to reinvent themselves and generate a new form of government.

I think in the 1990s you need to give the US more credit, we did assist Russia. We supported the new government with aid and loans, we met them halfway with military agreements... and most of all, we did not attack Russia when they were weak. I'm always hearing about Russia's fear of invasion--the West certainly did not seize the chance to march to Moscow when it was there. That's because the US and Europe have zero interest in a military confrontation with Russia. :hmm2:

[ikalugin]

Or for that matter how to keep town A from invading town B, or Town C and D banding together to attack and divide up town E between them.

Zero state is another way of saying "Defenseless communities ripe for invasion"
I did mention ''market failure'', didn't I?

[ikalugin]

Yeah, Kruschvev was the closest thing the Soviet Union had to a statesman. He had the courage to renounce the past atrocities on the Soviet people by Stalin. He also rejected being the next cult of personality leader, at least at Stalin's level.

George, I read your post, I agree with you, the histories of the USA and Russia are too different, due to geography mainly. Russia was peopled since the stone age, and had a continual history through feudalism and the industrial age, while the US was peopled in the last few hundred years (not counting the native Americans with all due respect) by hardy explorers and people who had the initiative to cross the Atlantic, and were able to reinvent themselves and generate a new form of government.

I think in the 1990s you need to give the US more credit, we did assist Russia. We supported the new government with aid and loans, we met them halfway with military agreements... and most of all, we did not attack Russia when they were weak. I'm always hearing about Russia's fear of invasion--the West certainly did not seize the chance to march to Moscow when it was there. That's because the US and Europe have zero interest in a military confrontation with Russia. :hmm2:
You forget all the bad policies that were conducted under him.

Russia never got rid off it's nuclear weapons in 90s, this is a factor one should consider as well as "launch on warning" stance back then.

p.s. "Do not march on Moscow" - rule one on page on in the book of War.

[Skybird]

On the zero state stuff:
- how do you fight market failures?
- how do you limit the power of capital?

A free market doe snot need regulation of the kind oyu hint at. What you are after, is how to prevent monopolism, which is the pervertion of capitlaism though a pervertion that it unavoidably has a tendency to move at. That needs to be c0puntered by a healöthy competition- for hwich a free market again is precondition.

How could you expect the biggest and most abusive monopolist there is - the sfate - to fight against monopolism taking over the market!? You out the fox in control of the henhouse.

Read one or two of the books I recommended above, Hoppe for example is available in English as well. I think your knowledge of zero state theory and free market and capitalism is lacking quite a bit. Nor offence meant, juts my observation basing on your two demands.

I must remind you that it were political decisions that destroyed free and overregulated functioning markets and caused financial policies that finally necessarily lead to the outbreak of symptoms (not the crisis itself, that was looming on for decades already before) in the credit crunch early this century, leading to the financial crisis of 2007-present. Today, states have still accumulated debts so that their current debts are over 40% beyond those levels they had in 2007 when the show started. ;)

BTW, a more entertaining though more time-consuming way to read about all this would be Ayn Rand's famous novel Atlas Shrugged. Ignore all the debate about here, and what else she wrote. I do not recommend all of Any Rand, I do know here other works not good enough and I also simply do not care - I only recommend this one single novel.

Or start reading the authors and the monumental ots of frees tuff at the websites of the German or the American Ludwig von Mises Institute: Austrian economics and zero state and libertari8anism - all that is very close to each other.

http://mises.org/ --> use the "literature"-tab

One life is not enough to read all what they have - for free. A treasure chest. In parts they legally post complete whole books by famous authors.

[Skybird]

Or for that matter how to keep town A from invading town B, or Town C and D banding together to attack and divide up town E between them.

Zero state is another way of saying "Defenseless communities ripe for invasion"
Haven't we been there before? I know - so do many other authors - that it is hard to realise. Still, their are historic precedences. A certain amount of international synchronicity is being needed, no doubt. Once a basic size of this new model is reached, defence, law enforcement, jurisdiction, all can become services offered by companies like now the state is offering them. Just that the state, monopolist that he is, offers the worst possible service at the worst possible price. Such contractors already exist - it was your country opening them the business once again, after the 17th century. The problem with them is the same - if such companies have not other sources of income as well to exist by, they will put priority on war over peace. this can only be helped by once again avoiding monopolist structure - by competition, so that in case of dissatisfaction the service provider can be changed, like you change your telephone company.

Nobody said - not even Hoppe -, that it is easy to reach. But the current status, the current model, ruins us all, guaranteed. If you do not realise that by now, then you have not heard just one shot, but many shots.

It is modern politics that have created the situation where big international monopolists can blossom and accumulate their power - by which they erode your beloved state and its rules and framework from within. By wanting to keep the states, you help the destruction of them, and their replacing by corporational monopolists - that then will not be kept in check by a free market mechanism and competition.

the many nuacnes of de facto ownerhsip of people by the state and injustice and increasing expropriation by the state I leave out here - as well as the dubious, semi-criminal or openly criminal nature of those antisocial parasites representing the political "elites" today, and the cancer of ever-grpowi8ng bureaucratic despotism.

[August]

I did mention ''market failure'', didn't I?

:) It's never had to be for pure necessity.

[ikalugin]

I was not only talking about the monopolies. I was talking about market failure in general.

The issue is that you assume (in market competition amongst other things) that:
- humans are perfectly rational in deciding what is best for them (they are not).
- you have perfect access to information (you do not, as even with the advance of the Internet humans lack the capability and time to process all relevant information)

This leads to the situations where people:
- do not assign correct values to a number of products and thus either over consume them (drugs, tobacco, alcohol, ect), or under consume them (community services, other stuff).

As to the monopolies - there are a number of industries where monopolies occur via natural selection, ie free market does not protect you from it.

Thus "free market" without regulation is worse than reasonably regulated market.

P.s. considering that I am a student of economics (amongst other things), that both of my parents worked in the relevant institutions at some point (father in a bank and investment fund, mother at the central bank), that I my next door neighbour is the head of Russian Direct Investment fund, I think that it is a bad idea to say that I am ignorant how economies or economical institutions operate.

[Buddahaid]

Haven't we been there before? I know - so do many other authors - that it is hard to realise. Still, their are historic precedences. A certain amount of international synchronicity is being needed, no doubt. Once a basic size of this new model is reached, defence, law enforcement, jurisdiction, all can become services offered by companies like now the state is offering them. Just that the state, monopolist that he is, offers the worst possible service at the worst possible price. Such contractors already exist - it was your country opening them the business once again, after the 17th century. The problem with them is the same - if such companies have not other sources of income as well to exist by, they will put priority on war over peace. this can only be helped by once again avoiding monopolist structure - by competition, so that in case of dissatisfaction the service provider can be changed, like you change your telephone company.

Nobody said - not even Hoppe -, that it is easy to reach. But the current status, the current model, ruins us all, guaranteed. If you do not realise that by now, then you have not heard just one shot, but many shots.

It is modern politics that have created the situation where big international monopolists can blossom and accumulate their power - by which they erode your beloved state and its rules and framework from within. By wanting to keep the states, you help the destruction of them, and their replacing by corporational monopolists - that then will not be kept in check by a free market mechanism and competition.

the many nuacnes of de facto ownerhsip of people by the state and injustice and increasing expropriation by the state I leave out here - as well as the dubious, semi-criminal or openly criminal nature of those antisocial parasites representing the political "elites" today, and the cancer of ever-grpowi8ng bureaucratic despotism.

I think the whole zero state business falls on it's face after stepping on itself for one reason. It's contrary to human nature and pretty much all nature as far as I can see. There is simply too much drive to flourish at the expense of all else ingrained in the beast.

[ikalugin]

But let's go back the topic:

It appears that the leaders of Novorussia are not going with the Minsk protocol/declaration even after all the pressure that Russian pro western faction has applied.

[Skybird]

I was not only talking about the monopolies. I was talking about market failure in general.

The issue is that you assume (in market competition amongst other things) that:
- humans are perfectly rational in deciding what is best for them (they are not).
- you have perfect access to information (you do not, as even with the advance of the Internet humans lack the capability and time to process all relevant information)

This leads to the situations where people:
- do not assign correct values to a number of products and thus either over consume them (drugs, tobacco, alcohol, ect), or under consume them (community services, other stuff).

As to the monopolies - there are a number of industries where monopolies occur via natural selection, ie free market does not protect you from it.

Thus "free market" without regulation is worse than reasonably regulated market.

P.s. considering that I am a student of economics (amongst other things), that both of my parents worked in the relevant institutions at some point (father in a bank and investment fund, mother at the central bank), that I my next door neighbour is the head of Russian Direct Investment fund, I think that it is a bad idea to say that I am ignorant how economies or economical institutions operate.
Your background I do not really care for, ikalugin. I judge you by your words, and your words imply a regulation of markets through external powers, which is the basis of planned economies and socialism. That you study it means that you get taught the views that are currently en vogue in the mainstream of your country and that university. Stiglitz also studied economics, even got a Nobel prize for it - still I can only shake my head about much of what he has to say.

You said I assume that humans make rational decisions. Neither do I do that, nor did I imply that (I once was a psychologist, I really know it better as if I would assume humans are rational all the time) - nor would the school of Austrian economics claim that, quite the opposite: it would oppose your claim. The point is that humans make decisions, and they form their individual decisions, their subjective decisions, and these are what they enter market interaction with: they do so by attributing their own subjective values to things and services (or their own working power), which is the basis for their personal individual consideration whether they trade this for that - or refuse the deal. The market interaction forms the price between two parties that run the negotiating of a deal. Both sides will pay for something what that something if worth to them.

One of the most profound books by Ludwig von Mises was published in German under the academically sounding title "Nationalökonomie". But in English it was published under the more psychologically sounding title "Human Action". Indeed that whole school pays less tribute to formulas and number stuff, and sees that as distracting, almost, but focusses on individual decision making and subjective views of individuals.

Your remark on me assuming that I have access to perfect information, seems unlinked and irrelevant for me. I do not assume that, and I just explained that the market interaction of people on a free market is a highly subjective thing. What I think is that the rules and laws of logic have their own charm, however, and that thinking is best done with the head, not with the heart. The heart should be left to "feeling". And I have a certain mistrust against "intuition", for psychological arguments. Intuition only works with situations that are similar with situations you have empirical expercience with. For deciding new situations, intuition is the worst thing you can trust in. Intuition is nothing else but running an empirical comparison with past precedences.

Revealing is your complaint that this all that you said leads to a situation where not the correct value gets attributed to things and service. The "correct" value? Who is to decide and mark the absilute "correct" value, eh? You? Me? The government? The king? Leave it to the two sides negotiating a possible deal. The value of a thing is what I attribute to it, and I may attribute more or less value to it for a myriad of reasons. No foreign instance needs to tell me what this or that thing has in total and absolute "value", no thing has such a label - that foreign instance telling me about a "value" by that only tells me that what it subjectively thinks it has in value, or what value it wants me to believe it has. Best example is paper money, money - an item that should be a trading good just like any other, so that the markets freely negotiate the value of a given currency - but now we have central banks (=politicians) telling us what value I am commanded to attribute to it. The gold price also gets massively manipulated, keeping it low, so that the bluff about the paper money gets not revealed by exploding gold prices. The value of money is - in a free market - an index for the state of health of the economy.

Monopolies are an inbuild trend in free entrepreneurship. The less rivals you have, the more needed your items are, the more the customer depends on you, the more he needs to accept any price you fix for it. The only remedy is: competition, rivaling companies. Thats why states have antitrust divisions (cartel offices), even states have understood this. However, the state is the biggest monopolist of all, and many problems with economic monopolists derive from states having decided on deformed market environment in which they had helped these monopolies to form up, even more state intervention, subsidies, market taxes, market protection, penalty taxes, and a legislation regulating two third if not three quarters of the market today (so much for free market today) hinder all that. When states decide that this or that corporation is system relevant for their power, or their politician's chances to get reelected (its about jobs), then unreasonable structures get supported that one should have let die, companies get saved that one should have let going out of business, incompetitive industries get subsidies and are allowed to form economic structures of a deeply rotten, sick nature that cause more costs than benefits. A free market would not allow that. The offers that meet the people's wishes and desires, make it through, incompetitive offers are sorted out.

Let me quote from one book by Roland Baader, "Kreide für den Wolf" , I translate it myself.

"What often gets attacked in capitalism is this: that it does not raise illusions in people about an earthly, solidaric paradise of the "new people". But it accepts people like they are: egoist and ready to help, devious and open/honest, stupid and clever, lazy and assiduous, sober and dreaming. What should be humane in socialism, is just the illusion, the error, and the delusion. Beyond the delusion, there only is the inhumane and cold face of tyranny, the banded collar of snitchers, the famine edema of misery, and the boots of the prison guards."

We must not - and we CANNOT!!! - understand every single detailed decision event and transaction of the free market. What Adam Smith meant is that the system all in all nevertheless balances itself. Like you cannot clear the water by trying to achieve that result with a spoon in the glass, instead you just let it rest, you just let it run by its natural processes, and the waters comes to rest and cleans itself, so does the market level out ion a dynamically fluctuating balance. Those having much to offer, will achieve more, those who have less to offer, will achieve less. People are different, and they are anything but equal. But it is this inequality (may it be coming from different family conditions you get born into, may it be due to different personal ability levels) that adds the needed dynamic energy to competition, innovation, developement, incentive - and as we have seen in the West beyond doubt: a general increase in living standards for all.

As I have argued many times before, the only way I see that monopolies can be prevented, is by transparency, and transparency can only be had where the size of the communal system in which the company is embedded does not exceed a certain size. One of the reasons why I argue against supranational structures, national states, and argue for independent small regional communities administring themselves.

Or this example (there are others as well)
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2227317&postcount=14

The problem with democracies is that the leadership that you want to regulate the market, is not the best but the worst personnel you can get for the job. That is because they only get elected and can come to power, if they promise the people heaven on earth and to keep all unwanted things away. And that costs money, more money than the community can afford, but money that the politician himself must not pay for by his own private property: the money of other people is so much easier spend than your own money, isn't it like that? People in return demand politicians to bring them heaven on earth. And so people vote for those candidates who are the most unscrupulous, the most immoral, the most irresponsible, the most criminal, in raising expectations and making promises. Evidence for qualification is not needed, the shine, the surface is more important than competence. The system makes sure that characters which are the most unsuited for the responsibility, come to power, always supported by a network of vassals and accomplices in political parties and economic lobbies that all have on thing in common: to secure power.

And then there is the problem with the dilemma of the commons.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2230650&postcount=42

Different to a king who owns land and people, and thus has a higher chance to show an interest to keep his things in order and to keep the property in good shape so that he can give it in a healthy condition to his offsprings, politicians in democracies know they are having access to the resources of their country only for limited time. And in this time they so abuse these resources as much as they can, knowing that they cannot be held responsible, and to maximise the profit from it. That way, a constant erosion of the community's resources takes place. Where do you think the ever growing debts of states have come from...? Putin just has moved money from Russian pension fonds to a new fond that is meant to save Russian banks. Prime example!

What's more, in a monarchy you have a significantly higher chance that the next leaders at the top will be prepared for the job over years and years, over all their life. Princes get trained, educated and prepared for their future duties. But in democracies, competence plays as little a role as does character. And it shows. Narcissists and big-mouths, imposters and posers dominate the political scene. They all imply that the people owns them liability, not the other way around. They openly behave like a new feudal elite, as if they were kings and noble men of past times. Politicians jump through the offices like frogs over meadows. They get voted out of office - no problem, the political networks take care of them, giving them office somewhere else, something totally new, and always tailoring legislation so that it protecs and defends these underhanded ways of doing in politics. Totally new in a ministry ? No problem, supermen that they are they can master all and everything. and two year slater, new job, and new display of omnipotence and universal skill and ability. Superman was an amateur, compared to these masters of the universe!

There is a name for it, for people who think their mere claim already is evidence for their competence: we call them dilettantes.

And this is the pool of decision makers and leaders that you want to know the market events, decyphering them, knowing the future demands of people in advance, and "regulate" all that!? :D Sorry, you have not understood what Adam Smith meant by the invisible hand if you mean that serious. Took me a while myself, I admit, it can easily be misunderstood.

All in all, by the implication of your understanding of "market failure" as you reveal to see it, and your demand for regulating them, I can only conclude that you are coming from a strict socialist planned economy camp, and that really is the last thing mankind needs. Unfortunately that is the kind of political order that is marching forward everywhere in the West, in the US as well as in the EU. The belief in a strong authoritarian state certainly is very popular in Russia, Stalin cult inclusive, also in state-obedient Germany, and centralist France. In the mediterranean area, people have less sense of slavish obligation towards the state. But socialism has always failed, and miserably, and it always will fail, necessarily, because it ignores human nature too much, if not violates it, and allows corrupted elites as a easily as in democracies to come to powers and hijack the state to abuse it parasitically.

I just remind of that even the Ancient Greek warned of the abuse of democracy, and that their conception of democracies therefore was a very different one (one with far more inhibitions and commands) than what today is being sold to the crowd as "democracy. I explained it in more detail before, in earlier threads.

So if I do not like democracies, and do not like socialist collectives, and say that monarchies still are the confrontation between rulers and people being ruled/owned, I therefore must necessarily end up with the demand to reject all three of them. I am certain that the biggest immunity to corruption and monopolism is a community that in size is not bigger than what can be overseen and overlooked and understood by all its members. Which hardly allows for community sizes bigger than a big city. Many historic examples of communities complying with or violating that principle and in consequence increasing or reducing their chances for survival, can be found in Jared Diamond: "Collapse". Because a functioning communal order is the basis for so many more consequences linked to that.

Also, what we should stop to tolerate is that decision makers are allowed to regulate themselves, to give themselves the freedom to escape the consequences of the decisions thy enforce onto others, and that they are fully liable with their personal and private property for anything that the make rule and law. Instead people allow to get fed off with this naive show event named "elections" every four of five years. Pathetic, those elecitons are dersiogned to change lipstick and mascara, but not the face wearing them. As the German saying does: "Die dümmsten Kälber wählen sich ihre Metzger selber" (the most stupid calves chose their slaughterers themselves). If full liability of decision makers would come into effect, the number of interested politicians filing their candidacy, and the number of incompetent decisions being made, and money-wasting follies being started, would see an immediate and very harsh decline, I'm certain.

[ikalugin]

You said I assume that humans make rational decisions. Neither do I do that, nor did I imply that (I once was a psychologist, I really know it better as if I would assume humans are rational all the time) - nor would the school of Austrian economics claim that, quite the opposite: it would oppose your claim. The point is that humans make decisions, and they form their individual decisions, their subjective decisions, and these are what they enter market interaction with: they do so by attributing their own subjective values to things and services (or their own working power), which is the basis for their personal individual consideration whether they trade this for that - or refuse the deal. The market interaction forms the price between two parties that run the negotiating of a deal. Both sides will pay for something what that something if worth to them.
Your remark on me assuming that I have access to perfect information, seems unlinked and irrelevant for me. I do not assume that, and I just explained that the market interaction of people on a free market is a highly subjective thing. What I think is that the rules and laws of logic have their own charm, however, and that thinking is best done wiht the head, not with the heart. The heart should be left to "feeling". And I have a certain mistrust against "intuition", for psychological arguments. Intuition only works with situations that are similiar with situations you have empirical expercience with. For deciding new situations, intuition is the worst thing you can trust in.


So the people (being irrational) set the wrong value to a good (or service) thus setting wrong demand for it, thus market does not lead to an effective distribution of resources to achieve optimal result, thus market fails.

Ie only if all market players are perfectly rational (ie know what is best for themselves) and if there is perfect information (so players can make right decisions) does non regulated market work.

To avoid this market failure does the regulation of market exist.

Revealing is your complaint that this all that you said leads top a situation where not the correct value gets attributed to things ansd service. The "correct" value? The value of a thing is what I attribute to it, and I may ttrubvute more or less value to it for a myriad of reasons. No foreign instance needs to tell me what this or that thing has in "value" - that foreign instance by that only tells my by that what value it subjectively thinks it has, or what value it wants me to beleive it has. Best example is paper money, an item that shoulöd be a trading good just like any other, so that the markets freely negotiate the value of a given currency - but now we have central banks (=polticians) telling us what vlaue that money I am commanded to attribute to it. The gold price also gets massively manipulated, keeping it low, so that the bluff about the paper money gets not revealed by exploding gold prices.
You can discern object value of a good. For example we know that certain substances such as Heroin are bad. However drug addicts cannot rationally assighn value to this good and thus would demand too much of it, thus too much Heroin would be consumed in the economy.

While Heroin is an extreme example of market regulation (where the good is outright banned) others exist such as Alcohol, Tobacco and so on.

We mjst not - and we CANNOT!!! - understand every single detailed decision event and tranbsaction of the free amerket. What Adam Smithz m eant is that the system all in all nevertheless balances itself.
Funny thing is that market (in absolute majority of cases) does not regulate itself properly. This is why the very basis of completely unregulated market fans is flawed.

As I have argued many times before, the only way I see that monopolies cna be prevented, is by transparency, and transpatrency cna only be had where the size of the commuanls ystem in which the compoany is embedded does not exceed a certain size. One of the reasons why I argue against supranational structures, national states, and argue for independent small regional communities administring themselves.
Transparency doesnt do anything if there is no enforcement. And without a strong state noone could enforce any sort of laws on large capital holders.

All in all, by the implication of your understanding of "market failure" as you reveal to see it, and your demand for regulating them, I can only conclude that you are coming from a strict socialist planned economy camp, and that really is the last thing mankind needs. Maybe that is the mainstream thinking in Russia, still. The belief in a strong authoritarian state certainly is very popular in Russia, Stalin cult inclusive. But socialism has always failed, and miserably, and it always will fail, necessarily, because it ignores human nature too much, if not violates it, and allows corrupted elites as a easily as in democracies to come to powers and hijack the state to abuse it parasitically.
On the contrary, I am all for the market economy. I just have the first hand knowledge as to what happenes in the country that goes -zero state-.

p.s. it was TLDR, so I do appologize in the advance.

[Skybird]

So the people (being irrational) set the wrong value to a good (or service) thus setting wrong demand for it, thus market does not lead to an effective distribution of resources to achieve optimal result, thus market fails.

And who decides what is the right and the wrong price? when I am hungry, I am willing to pay more for a loaf of bread than when I have three loafs of bread in my backpack. There you already start regarding price and value. It is my subjective and rational attribution at the same time.

the baker does not get up at 1 a.m. in the morning to break that bread only for reasons of loving people and to please me. He does it because he wants something from me. My money. While I want some bread. Well, that's a start to get a deal.


Ie only if all market players are perfectly rational (ie know what is best for themselves) and if there is perfect information (so players can make right decisions) does non regulated market work.
People always live by the illusion of being rational, nobody will ever boast with claiming "I am irrational and I like it". Sometimes they are more rational indeed, sometimes less. But what counts is whether or not they are happy with the decision they made. What that books is worth to me, it may not be worth to you. I may like that book for sentimental reasons, because the smell of the paper and it is a special ediiton I wanted, you may like it for the content, cont caring for the ediiton it comes in. We both attri8bute different values to it, and for different reasons. Again, why your obsession that some foreign, external entitiy has to fix an absolute, a total, a penultimate price for something, as a divine expression of its deep insight and profound wisdom? There is no right price that is valid for all people. There is only the price somebody is willing to pay for something, or not.


To avoid this market failure does the regulation of market exist.

And now I start to think of dogs chasing their tails. What you call market failure, I would call, intended market distortions. Wanted by monopolists, headed by the biggest monopolist of all: the state. The state is a law-making law-breaker and a robber that claims to guarantee private property where he constantly expropriates people in fact. Ave regulator! Morituri te salutant!


You can discern object value of a good. For example we know that certain substances such as Heroin are bad. However drug addicts cannot rationally assign value to this good and thus would demand too much of it, thus too much Heroin would be consumed in the economy.

You are kidding me, do you? I start to stop taking you serious.


While Heroin is an extreme example of market regulation (where the good is outright banned) others exist such as Alcohol, Tobacco and so on.
But people are free to drinbk or to smoke, if they want. What I demand is that the possible negative conseqeunces of their deciison and taste do not get socialised - for diseases that come as a consequences from their conusmmation habits, they should pay for themsleves, not the community payiong into a social insurance. self-responsibility is both a key precondition and a consequences of freedom.


Funny thing is that market (in absolute majority of cases) does not regulate itself properly. This is why the very basis of completely unregulated market fans is flawed.

Funny?= the funny thing is that I see the free market working and blossoming where ever people are left the freedom to make their own decisions, to go to the market and sell their fishes and meat and vegetables without the government telling them how to do it, and the general wealth increasing as a consequence of raising individual work, and widening trade. Or the internet, there are many ideas linked to the digital revolution ow to start your kit, business models that previously has not been imagined by anyone, and that in no way have been forseen by "regulators". Not before the community size becomes so big that it becomes intransparent, or a state starting to regulate things and prices, the problems begin. Until then , everybody becoming strong enough to form a monopoly, usually sees a rival copying his model, and improving it, and then offering something slightly better, or the same at a better price - monopoly broken. Competition must exist. But by market mechanisms, please, not by external regulations. Who regulates the regulators? Why should regulators have the oversight over all the market that no sane human understanding the task would ever reasonably argue to be understandable? History holds legions of examples where such megalomania by regulators spelled disasters in consequences.

Sure, responsibility means not only freedom, but also risks. You are free to fail, if you mess it up, or simply are struck badly by fate. For that, there can be insurances, or social networks: friends, family. People better be up to the level of responsibility and competence needed, and if they are not, they better scale down to something that they can manage. we cannot all be moguls and captains on the bridge. It also needs the navigators, the rudderman, the machinist, the sailors. And if they feel they get fair return for their contribution, many of these people can be happy in and with their lives, too. there is not just one total and absolute standard for all by which to judge "worth it or not", or by which to judge satisfaction or happiness. I have repeatedly worked for free -because at that time it was okay for me, and I could afford it ,and it was okay for me. When it was no more, I stopped.

Again, no external regulation needed. And I am totally against protecting people form themselves.

I say again: the political interventionism has pushed the markets off the dynamically fluctuating balance I mentioned earlier. A capitalist knows the value of money, and whether it is good money or not. If it is good money, he will not spend it on foolish causes. But politicians love to run foolish causes, either to erect themselves monuments, or to please the sensation-hungry crowds they demand to vote for them. The credit crunch in the Us started because politicians ordered banks to do what is against all economic reason and what the banks never would have done by themselves: they demanded that banks give credits to people for houses who could not afford these credits and houses. That is insanity. But not by the market, but enforced by external regulation! In Germany, we have this insanely designed Energiewende-project, which as a result has led to the perverse situation that the more alternative energy gets produced, the more it costs the final consumer, although the prices at the energymarkets slightly drop - that is a total and complete perverting of elemental market logic! Thanks to regulation. Regulating the markets and the vlaue of money and amount of money inc ciruclation has given us expolodi8ng deficits and debts. And... end... and... Every project the state runs, costs more and is done in worse quality, it seems. And that you want as a regulator? No, thanks. The economies by the Soviet allied states and the USSR, were heavily regulated, planned economies that they were. They were ruined in the early 70s already, competitive they never had been anyway, and the diversity and quality of products was messy, compared to Western standards The Kibuzz in Israel - all died due to inability to economically fund themselves with their communal socialist ideals, one Kibbuz is kept alive with heavy state subsidies, as a tourist attraction - its a living museum.

The government's external regulation tried to regulate the abuse on the financial markets that got all gates and doors opened for abuse by - external regulators, by the politicians. The central banks - are an idea of politicians, they were the ones enforcing the paper money regime, and they are the ones keeping the money printers running in a bid to distort the market even more (to keep illusions floatng a bit longer and to redistribute wealth to the very top of the food chain). There is the forming of economical lobbies hijacking politics so that politics and legislation get formed to prefer monopolism and to prevent free capitalism (which would bring competition sorting out those making incompetitive offers). The ever growing size of communal systems and the ever growing demand of politicians for power and spheres of influence.

What you demand - is the reason why the problems you criticise even exist on the scale they do exist today. You want more of what has brought us to our present problems. Planned economy. Socialism. Strong state. About nothing else you are talking, whether you are aware of it or not.

Transparency doesnt do anything if there is no enforcement. And without a strong state noone could enforce any sort of laws on large capital holders.
The enforcement takes place through competition existing. But you again only can imagine to call for the strong state regulating it from the outside. We have that in Europe and America since decades. It has given us exploding deficits, exploding state regulation, a huge corruption and dependency of politicians from monopolist economic employers that represent their voter basis, there is in principle exploding socialist demands both by population and polticians, and massive socialist redistribution - countered only by a reverse redistribution established by the mechanism of inflation that also has been decided for by the state, and it is not one bit less corrupt.


On the contrary, I am all for the market economy. I just have the first hand knowledge as to what happenes in the country that goes -zero state-.

Russia did not go "zero state" under Yeltzin. Russia did go "criminal" and "oligarchy", trying to enforce structures that have nothing to do with zero state. Even zero state means" structures of community". Yeltzin'S Russia was on the road to no structures like that, but Mafia structures taking control. But neither is the Mafia libertarian, nor is zero state "structure-less".

Again, zero state means lack of state structures. It does not mean lack of any structures at all. All services provided by the state today, can be provided by companies as well. Bad deals are gotten when the polilical scene is allowed to negotiate with private contractors behind locked doors. Better deals are gotten when more direct representatives of a community at location negotiate openly and directly, giving feedback on content - this transparency already will sort out many black sheep amongst those companies wanting a job. Keep the taxes in the immediate region where they are being risen. This will lead to competition for talents and living conditions between local regions, a much wanted ciondition that is, I say. Keep taxes very low, have citizens owning the land and places, not a "state" who before has stolen it from people. Have people decide what they financially support and what not, and base their legal clkaims for free services on what that have supported and what not. Have trade and business and salesman caring for the infrastructure they need - and have them adding the costs to the product prices instead of paying taxes to a central government that knows little and cares s### for your local infrastructure. And so on and on. There is little that must be financed via general taxes, and that must mandatorily being paid for by everyone. And the citizen of course can mke claims only for those services to which he has contributed before, logicallly. That way people can decide by their wallets which policies they support and which not. So their choice actually means something, and makes an difference. Different to general elections every four years that do not change one detail in the genewral system'S ruleset. And of course: a total ban on a profesisonal caste of career politicians. that is a must. Whatz we de facto have today, is a varianc eof the old feudal, monarchic system. The kings may come and go, but their dictatorship - which a monarchy in principle is - stay, and the people always get owned, no matter by who is sitting on the thrown.

But doing so would cost many fat cats their jobs and privileges and their parasitical lifestyle, and that is why they are so bitterly determined to prevent this at all cost and to demonise it to the max.

[Buddahaid]

People do not behave in rational ways even when it's for their own good. Look at something as simple as car traffic and how many will block intersections in the attempt to get ahead when all it accomplishes is the exact opposite. Then mix in the herd mentality and it all goes flying apart. Like it or not people are not nearly ready to go without structure.

[ikalugin]

So should we or shouldn't we regulate the market for heavy drugs?

p.s. lets go back on topic.

[Skybird]

People do not behave in rational ways even when it's for their own good. Look at something as simple as car traffic and how many will block intersections in the attempt to get ahead when all it accomplishes is the exact opposite. Then mix in the herd mentality and it all goes flying apart. Like it or not people are not nearly ready to go without structure.
Many small business companies, craftsman running their own small family business, medium-sized businesses and smaller, prove you wrong. They still form the backbone of our societies. And they survive only by doing their calculations cool and rational. Those who mess it up and allow themselves drowning in debts when investing too optimistically or for example maintaining more employees than they can afford, go out of business.

The latter also being a nice example how regulation from the outside has counterproductive effects. The laws hindering too excessively hire and fire only prevent these employers seeking new employees. When you know that from 12 employees on you will be subject too much tighter legal regulation and will have much bigger problems to fire people when your business faces a stall or a crisis time where your incomes decline, so that you must pick up debts beyond reasonable amounts to pay your employees' fees because you cannot fire them, then you will hesitate very long before you move beyond the red mark of employing only 11 workers. And that way, while you try to balance risks versus chances, you maybe fold over risks that maybe never would have become real and by that miss chances that would have materialised for sure.

Not so good for the "labour market", isn't it. Also not good for the business. And since joibs still do not grow ion trees for free, but are formed by the small and medium sized business for the most, the best social policy is to make sure that this kind of business has good grounds to blossom on: free markets, self-responsibly deciding their management issues and services they provide for customers at their prices. No social wellfare program can compare with a sufficient labour market. Where that is beign tried, we call it "Strukturprobleme" (structural problems). Structural problems appear where political ideology or wishful thinking demands the hard facts of business and trade to bend in their favour. But, as already von Mises has noted, never in history have the economic laws bend even by just one inch on behalf of political demands or ideologies. Whereever that is tried, tensions gets built that sooner or later will and must backfire. And it does, without a single exception ever. Its like in physics, every action has reaction and whatever amount of force you inflict, inevitably returns.

So much for regulation. :D Better leave it to the market, and make sure the market can act freely.

Possible though that right now we are stuck so deep in self-created brown stuff that any allowance to let the market correct the huge discrepancy our regulations have imposed on it at first will necessarily cause massive conflict and friction, when the tectonics of the overstressed economic structure relieve tensions and by doing so cannot avoid to crate earthquakes. But not allowng this only is possible at the cost of increasing the tensions. And there will come the breaking point, its not a question of if, but when. And then the conflicts will be even sharper and bigger in size. We bend it, and we cannot mend it. It needs to heal by itself. And that will cost us - the equivalent of the distortions we have put into and onto it.

[Skybird]

So should we or shouldn't we regulate the market for heavy drugs?

p.s. lets go back on topic.We already regulate them by policing them and sanctioning them and declaring drugs illegal, We shouldnt do that. Less crime, less power to criminals and organised crime. Less need for addicts to become criminal themselves, better chances for them to get help and get out of the vicious circle. Less financial investment into fighting drug crime needed.

Everybody would benefit. That starts with cannabis. That ends with heroin. (Not wanting to imply that consuming cannabis leads people to later consuming more serious drugs, that is a bollocks argument that empirically has been shown to be wrong since long).

The demand for drugs is there. And since they are illegal, that limits their availability, which makes them more expensive. Which makes dealing with them more attractive. Which makes them an inviting business field for organised crime. Which makes organised crime well-funded, and thus more powerful.

[ikalugin]

So we should (by your logic) allow free trade of heavy drugs? (just asking as to avoid a strawman attack).

[ikalugin]

Ok, so in your opinion
The demand for drugs is there. And since they are illegal, that limits their availability, which makes them more expensive. Which makes dealing with them more attractive. Which makes them an inviting business field for organised crime. Which makes organised crime well-funded, and thus more powerful.
Instead of an evill criminal organisation we should have a benighn legal organisation that forces people to take drugs first (there is no state to stop them, remember) and then expolit the addicts?

[ikalugin]

Anything that precludes a colluding group of security companies from abducting people and selling them as slave labour for that matter? Or is that perfectly fine as well, because we shouldn't regulate that market?

[Skybird]

The market for illegal drugs is demand-led, and obviously the demand is there. If you want to reduce drug consummation, because for whatever a reason you think that that is what you must do, then you have to adress the reasons why people take drugs. And the mid class citizen smoking his share of cannabis has different motives and at the same time may share motives with the social low class loser who takes heroin. Both are after some kind of recreational effect.

The issue is far more complex than you seem to be aware off. Just some law and order paroles will do no good, and as a matter of fact also never have done any good.

Criminalising the use of espeically the obviously dangerous, "heavy" drugs", does nothing positive, it doe snot prevcent the consummation, it makes the crminal gangs stronger and richer, and it increases the social misery of drug addicts and the health risks they have to take when needing to lurk in the shadows when doing their shot. Better to have them doing it under clinical control and therapeutic surveillance. Better for them. Better for all people meeting them by chance. And bad for the criminals selling the drugs because they lose income and influence.

Did you know that most juveniles between 14 and 17 nowadays experiment with drugs of any kind? That makes them the majority amongst juveniles. You can tackle that only by education and information, and demystification.

I would argue that the costs for the social wellfare system deriving from excessive consummation of tobacco, Alcohol and white sugar, exceeds the costs from consuming drugs very very clearly. The monopole for selling tobacco and alcohol - is held by your great regulator, the state, he takes his toll from any sale made, and without his permission any sale will be persecuted.

Well, there can be said much more, but judging by your recent posts you have stopped to think with your head, but with your belly, heart or any other organs, so I stop here. You can find many pro and contra arguments when googling for something like "legalising drugs argument", or some search terms like that. Have fun with it.

On your slavery comments, obviously slave-trading is non-compatible with out cultural value order, and I cannot see why we should be unable to enforce that our cultura norms and values remain valid and intact in our home spheres. For that we need no economic market regulation by a planned economy regime, but a security contractor whom we give the order to take care of this issue, like we also have given him the order to secure our homes, protecting our property and apartment from thieves, and so on. Whats more, where court and law procedures and policing duties are offered as services by companies, they could and would - in a bid to minimise their losses in case of loosing court battles - communicate amongst themselves how to cooperate and represent their different clients in a way so that as little conflicts as possible and as much security as possible take place. Risks express themselves in rising of falling tarrifs, and customers could vote for the service which makes them the best offer, in their eyes, when the balance costs versus the things they are interested in. The state however seem to offer the worst service and at the highest costs, with people bein unable to vote on the offer, or to reject it, and having no other choice. The citizen de facto is owned by the state and treated like the slaves you mentioned, he has to pay for all the state demands him to pay for, no matter whether he agrees with the purpose or not, and no matter whether the state does a good service in quality or not. And since the state is a onopolist,. his "offer" is extraordinary expensive and offers a loizusy low level of quality. With the budgets being tight and debts exploding, less and less money gets spend for state service, from education to police services. It does not become better - it becomes worse. And the costs go up. Great deal! No reasonable business man would sign such a deal at such conditions. There it is handy, therefore, that citizens are not left any choice.

There is a name for that. It is called blackmailing of protection money.

----

On the mafia-state of mind:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=211457

Once the mafia state of mind has seeped into every nook and cranny of the society and economy, it’s not even recognized as corruption: it’s simply the way the system works. And so the residents of nominal democracies in Asia, Europe and the Americas do not even realize how thoroughly corrupted their societies and economies really are; they cling to the illusions of choice even as their incomes, wealth and political influence are funneled into the hands of various elites by overlapping extortion rackets.

Once you realize that the mafia is a state of mind, you recognize just how thoroughly it has corrupted and criminalized our entire society and economy.


On the war on drugs:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=205541

what stunned me was the link between ethnic minorities becoming a competitor on the job market, and tackling them by not discriminating them - formally - for being that ethnicity, what would have translated into unhidden racist arguments, but by criminalising them by criminalising previously legal consummation of typical drugs. To get rid of Chinese workers, smoking Opium was criminalised. To get rid of Mexicans, smoking cannabis was criminalised and called Marihuana. To get rid of Blacks, cocains negative effect was blown beyond proportion by raising a hysteria over "crack". The weight of the empirical links and evidences stunned me, I did not know that it all was SO MUCH pushed off balance.
(...)
Somewhere in the film they count that up to 90% of a certain drug mentioned got consumed by whites, but at that time almost 90% of all drug addicts and traders arrested in relation with that drug were blacks.
----

Calm down now, or stay away. Your slave thing really pissed me. Arguing in extremes, will only lead you to extremes, and it says more about you, than about me.

[Buddahaid]

I would think the American West of old fits your small state, small business, small regulation, everybody pulling their own weight model, and it was full of trouble from those who found taking what hey want by force more to their liking so it changed by force of need.

Also what became of the commune experiments of the sixties? They failed because people are people and people fail all the time.

[ikalugin]

About drugs - heavy drug abuse (such as heroin), which would occur should it become legal (as it would be promoted by the companies that sell them for obvious reasons and due to the most population being incapable of making a rational choice of not partaking in it) would lead to:
- decrease in the life expectancy.
- decrease in public health levels.

Such would lead to the macro economical issues - due to the decrease in the labour productivity.

What precludes a collusion between security companies to abuse the population (ie making them into slaves), such collusion would be most proffitable to the their owners? As to the cultural hurdles - those are easily over come, one needs only to look at the history of man kind (ie first half of 20th century). You would find it that if something is not regulated (ie unethical and behavior that causes macro economic inefficiency is prohibited) it would be always abused.

What I am talking about is companies using non market means (usage of which is not regulated) to provide them an unfair competetive advantage.

[Skybird]

About drugs - heavy drug abuse (such as heroin), which would occur should it become legal (as it would be promoted by the companies that sell them for obvious reasons and due to the most population being incapable of making a rational choice of not partaking in it)
You mean like the population that cecides to eat too much fat, salt and sugar, to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco? I'm all for it. Just that thery have to pay themselves for the health treatment costs. No general health insurance coverage. But I can imagine special tariffs for these risks, with the monthly payment reflecting these increased risks.


would lead to:
- decrease in the life expectancy.

The individual person's decison and concern, not mandatorily that of the community.


- decrease in public health levels.

Interesting for statistic fans, and noone else.

I honstrely do jot care too much for peopel driunkling themselves tpo death. Why should I care more for peopel fixing themselves to death?

However, nobody stops you to laucnh porivate, viluntary charity funbds and projects, where oyu collect donoations by sponsors and donators to raise helping projects. Maybe I would even participate with some donation of mine.

Just keep your hands out of my purse. You have no right to steal my money becasue you ant to spend in on a purpose that fits your wishes. The decision whether I spend on the cause you describe or not, is to be left with whom it belongs - with me.


Such would lead to the macro economical issues - due to the decrease in the labour productivity.

Which would lead to the suffering compettitveness of products pöroduced in the economy of the given affected region. Which will either make people think, or will not. IUf the first, they will start to volunbtarily funnel some donations to projects helpi9ng drug addicts and edeucating young people at school. If the latter, the dropping compettitveness is the result from decisions made by the community members, in this case not to donate for such causes. People decide - and live with the consequences (or move away, which also is okay).

what is forbidden, is attractive, and in the past huge parts of the white population in Europe and America were addicted to drugs, namely opium, even the middle class (which today is the biggest consumer of cocaine, AFAIK). Hasnt stopped the wheels form turning, it seems. Legal drugs - are less interesting for the young people. Also, legalsing drugs keeps th young from getting into contact with people that represent very seous major crime company. Ruin the dealer'S business in the schollyards - good tactic.

BTW, where have I said that heroin all of a sudden would be sold in the drugstore? I do not even expect that. Different to cannabis, the reputation of stuff like heroin, crystal meth and the like,l is beyond doubt. It is empirical fact that most young people smoking cannabis as experiment, do not end up making a habit if it, and do not end up moving to serious drugs.


What precludes a collusion between security companies to abuse the population (ie making them into slaves), such collusion would be most proffitable to the their owners? As to the cultural hurdles - those are easily over come, one needs only to look at the history of man kind (ie first half of 20th century). You would find it that if something is not regulated (ie unethical and behavior that causes macro economic inefficiency is prohibited) it would be always abused.

I would argue that considering the hamster hweel smost people uncritcally accept to run in, producing protection money income for the state that way and wasting all their lifeitme for the office onloy, already is a form of slavery, at least abuse and misleading. However, where there is no market and no demand, there is no supply. Most people in the West will not accept slaves anymore. Mayb ein some Asian, far away factories where they do not see them, but not in their homes and places where their presence remind them of that there are slaves.

On your slaves remark again, I hint at that video linked in the reference to the war on drugs that I provided in my my earlier reply, the reference to that older threat.



What I am talking about is companies using non market means (usage of which is not regulated) to provide them an unfair competitive advantage.
Let them/have them to face competition by rivals providing the customers/the public a better offers, and have not a bunch of corrupted, bought politicians deciding on it behind closed doors, but a public, transparent citizen committee in the assembly hall of the community. Old fashioned maybe, but still: it has its charms. The internet also provides means to do like that with greater communities. I again say: monopolies must be prevented, but not by regulation by the biggest monopolist there is (and just look at how many problems of monopolised business and its protection come from politics having tailored state legislation to servew the monopolist ideas of these companies), that is not working, but paves the way to corrupted politics and corrupted laws dictated by lobbies and hidden networks.

More state is no answer. It has not only helped but has actively caused and increased these problems of monopolism.

See that video on that city in the US that I also linked to earlier where they seceded from the federal state government - and how that improved their financial and economic situation while at the same time leaving them free to lower taxes, and getting better services. There are several examples of cities having done like that in the US, although I cannot provide you any names just by memory, but I read repeatedly about such examples. And always it was the far away central government fighting bitterly against this loss of power it had over the people in that region and city.

More power to the regions, keep taxes local, ban professional career politicians, increase transparency of administration, make business contracts signed with service provides public. DONT GROW TOO LARGE. Self-responsibility and freedom - that is what its about, and both belong together. You cannot have the one without the other. That also means that you have to allow the risks self-respüonmsibility comes with. Yoi hzave no right to order people to behave like you nwant just becasue you think you are the one chosen one to protect them from themselves.

Just do not allow them to escape the consequences of their decisions in good and in bad.

Or in the words of the unforgettable Antoine de Saint-Exupery:

If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.

And if that does not help, leave them alone, move away and find other company appreciating the example you set.

[Skybird]

Back to the topic, in the Ukraine two treaties were signed today that harden the likely future design of the Ukraine, which is that of an internally or even formally split state. By now at the latest one can formally say that Putin has won the match, he got what he wanted.

If Kiev at a later time is stupid enough to try getting into NATO, and if NATO is stupid enough to support that (at least right now they seem to have learned the lesson on where the red lines are), they both now know what to expect then.

Moscow has secured lasting influence in internal politics of the Ukraine. The Ukraine could only change that by means that the Kremlin - formally irghtful - could see as violation of valid laws and treaties.

I would say that if it stays this way, the Ukraine even was lucky to get off the hook so easily. It could have ended for Kiev much worse, with much greater territorial losses. The new status of the Eastern priovinces is a fake compromise. Russia will have to say more there than Kiev, while Kiev can present a claimed keeping of territorial unity, even if it is not worth the paper it is described on.

Russia now seems to plan to massively boost the military defences on the Crimean. At least that was announced by the Russian defence minister today.

The EU has bound itself to another failing state and failed state. There will come a time when it should regret that, but as always will be shameless enough to not regret that - the symptom of those who think they are so very infallible, like the American ME policies of the past sixty years. Fails and disasters may get lined up like pearls on a string - but "it" has never been a mistake, never.

[ikalugin]

Back to the topic
Ok, however should mods transfer the whole 0 state buisness to the OT thread, we could continue there.

On the topic - it is too early to say. Even though Ukraine may have went with the Minsk protocol (which has 0 legal power) local authorities are against being a part of Ukraine in any form or way, as it is contrary to their declaration of independence.

Meanwhile one of the prominent leaders of Russian "financial" faction, a wealthy buisnessman, was arrested recently over the Bashneft stuff. This could be a signal that the "financial" faction is loosing political control over the events on the Ukraine and thus we could expect some form of policy change in Russia soon.

More on Russian internal politics - if one over simplifies there are two large factions. The "force ministry" people, those are ex KGB/GRU (or present FSB/SVR/GRU ect) and tend to be assosiated with a more conservative and hardline approach. The other faction is a "financial" faction, which compromises of the other half of goverment officials and oligarhs and has Medvedev as their figurehead and Surkov as one of their prominent leaders.

Surkov is known to be the one handling the political (not military) part of the Russian policy in the southeastern Ukraine and (as well as his faction) was pursuing a policy of exiting the crisis as to avoid the sanctions, which harm his (financial) faction the most.

[Betonov]

https://scontent-a-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10513310_10154604301280483_1531292209175096586_n.j pg?oh=83ab91ef1e0bb25f0f53d4039a5c159e&oe=54C8B75F

[antikristuseke]

About drugs - heavy drug abuse (such as heroin), which would occur should it become legal (as it would be promoted by the companies that sell them for obvious reasons and due to the most population being incapable of making a rational choice of not partaking in it) would lead to:
- decrease in the life expectancy.
- decrease in public health levels.

Such would lead to the macro economical issues - due to the decrease in the labour productivity.



I'm sorry, but that is not accurate and history shows it as such. Statistically addiction rates in the populations have not changed when compared to the time before the prohibition to the time now.
What is needed is proper drug education, not this propaganda BS we are given now and a framework to deal with the part of the population that already are addicts, funded by taxes on those very same drugs that are sold.

[nikimcbee]

So, anything going on over there of interest?

Russian Paradise:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NXSgsOdDCA
:hmph:

[Oberon]

So, anything going on over there of interest?

Yes and no:
http://www.reddit.com/live/3rgnbke2rai6hen7ciytwcxadi?t=t

Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine look to be banding together to create a joint military unit outside of NATO, no real surprises there, I expect Estonia will probably join in, Romania possibly too.

[ikalugin]

The only decent participant would be Poland though, as Baltic States dont really have any decent armed forces (between them they have like a lightly armed infantry brigade), Romanian equipment is outdated and so on.

[Sbygneus]

After yesterday's defeat of Russian volleyball team with Poland, Polish president received telegram from president Putin:

"congratulations with victory. stop. gas. stop. oil. stop"

Mr President also stated that it was not the Russian volleyball team, saying:

"such t-shirts and shorts are available in any sport gear shop"

:)

easy people, let's dont let politicians make up our minds

[kranz]

meanwhile in Moscow: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29300213

but hey - according to ikalugin (ok, let's be honest - this is a fake account of either skybird or oberon but our beloved yet completely impotent moderators 'cannot' trace it...) there is no war between ukraine and russia...
I'm confused.

[Oberon]

ikalugin (ok, let's be honest - this is a fake account of either skybird or oberon but our beloved yet completely impotent moderators 'cannot' trace it...)

http://i.imgur.com/49JhVKi.gif


...moving on...

[Sbygneus]

What a relief, Russians begin to protest against Putin's agressive policy. There are many decent Russians. I believe peace is possible.

[kranz]

There are many decent Russians.

ofc
I believe peace is possible.
I'm afraid you have to retake the course on our national history.

[Sbygneus]

ofc

I'm afraid you have to retake the course on our national history.

Of course, of course, our bad history... But what can we do without hope?

[Aktungbby]

What a relief, Russians begin to protest against Putin's agressive policy. There are many decent Russians. I believe peace is possible.

INDEED! http://www.newsweek.com/russian-mothers-waiting-news-their-missing-sons-267909 (http://www.newsweek.com/russian-mothers-waiting-news-their-missing-sons-267909) http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/headline/public/2014/09/02/gettys454291020.jpg?itok=WaBTL9MYThese SWMBO's will will give 'Vladimer the Good' a run for his ruble! threre's no disPutin' a mad soldier's mama!

[nikimcbee]

Yes and no:
http://www.reddit.com/live/3rgnbke2rai6hen7ciytwcxadi?t=t

Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine look to be banding together to create a joint military unit outside of NATO, no real surprises there, I expect Estonia will probably join in, Romania possibly too.

Thanks for the link!:salute:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByIQClpIYAADcpX.jpg

[Skybird]

Ukrainian defence minister Walerij Geletej recently claimed that during fights around the city of Luhansk, the Russians had used nuclear warheads in form of atomic grenades fired from artillery like the 2S4 Tjulpan.

:har:

Idiot!

This joke beats the one about a Russian armoured column "being wiped out by Ukrainian artillery" easily. :D

Not sure that it is such a clever Polish idea to deliver weapons to the Ukraine... Neither they nor the whole NATO can defend the Baltic and Poland currently in case of a Russian war strike against Poland - nevertheless poking the Russian bear's eye must be done, just for the sake of chatting about some old bills, eh? Focussing on boosting the military defences in the Baltic except provoking more confrontation between Russia and NATO in an area that is not part of NATO, would be the better effort to invest in... However, if the Poles think they are so strong that they can start to shuttle weapons to the Ukraine, maybe we can scratch all intentions to boost Polish NATO defences in the future , since they obviously are already that strong that they can start to dare dancing with the Russian bear...

BTW, the Russians currently are systematically testing out reaction times and patterns of Northamerican and all NATO-European and neutrals' air defence zones. Maybe the Poles better start investing their attention on this issue a bit instead of trying to run a proxy war in another country outside NATO, hoping that NATO would cover them if the tiger bites back when they slammed his tail with a hammer. Right now, NATO cannot defend the Baltic and the Polish territory. Its too impotent, militarily. It admitted that itself.

[mapuc]

Ukrainian defence minister Walerij Geletej recently claimed that during fights around the city of Luhansk, the Russians had used nuclear warheads in form of atomic grenades fired from artillery like the 2S4 Tjulpan.

:har:

Idiot!

Wouldn't that be detect trough detector or something?

And why should Russia use nuke? Ukraine is not some kind of huge military force like Israel or USA.

Markus

[Oberon]

Wouldn't that be detect trough detector or something?

And why should Russia use nuke? Ukraine is not some kind of huge military force like Israel or USA.

Markus

Russia already nuked Ukraine once...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/Chernobyl_Disaster.jpg

:hmmm: :03:

[Skybird]

Wouldn't that be detect trough detector or something?

And why should Russia use nuke? Ukraine is not some kind of huge military force like Israel or USA.

Markus
You got the point late, but you got it! :D

What'S more, Poroshenko announced today, admitted, declared, whatever, that "60% of the heavy military technology" of the Ukrainian forces had been destroyed. Don't know whether that is true, a lie, a propagandy slogan to manipulate and invite weapon sales to the Ukraine, but it would explain why so suddenly Kiev agree a seize fire, while it would contradict earlier claims by Kiev of how successful they are operating on the battlefield.

On the readiness level of NATO, just this detail as a sidenote. The German Navy admitted today that of its 43 hleicpters on land and on ships, currently only 3 are operational. Half of the fleet, made of Lynx and Seakings, had been grounded for longer time already, due to structural damages in the airframes being discovered. And that is not the only major problem in the German military forces. Even if Germany would want to come to help of its Polish neighbour in case of a Russian attack, Germany's means to do so in form of a combat mission would be serious limited, both in total strength numbers and readiness/operational levels. Not to mentuon the eroded supply system. The Bundeswehr has become an army of policing mission experts and school builders, bridge constructors, medics and water well drillers. The number of actual COMBAT troops, is horribly small. And our female military chief of moms is more concerned about turning the Bundeswehr into a feel-well oasis to compensate for the non-sufficient number of recruits after we went volunteers-only, and building Kindergardens on Bundeswehr compounds to raise the number of female soldiers to reach genderism goals for more "social justice", than to care for equipment, weaponry and training close to war-conditions. I heard that von der Leyen is extremely unpopular with the troops. And that is not because she makes unpopular and needed decisions, but because she knows brown stuff about military issues and abuses her post only as another step on her career ladder. She has a very big mouth, however. But initial american enthusiasm about the loud-mouthed words form her when he entered office, since then have become much more silent.

These are some reasons more for our Polish neighbours to maybe not drum the bongos too loud when wanting to march against Moscow. Washington does not hide its desinterest to get militarily engaged over the Ukraine issue, and in case of a military crisis Germany maybe would be willing to help Poland - but whether it really is capable anymore, is a completely different question. I hate to admit that the German armed forces are in a pityful state. And it does not become better, but apparently worse. Having four 212 uboats, Leopard 2 tanks and the world's best artillery system (Panzerhaubitze 2000) does not change that in principle.

[Skybird]

German magazine FOCUS just reported this evening that the Luftwaffe currently only runs 9 fighters that are fully functional and indeed combat ready, quoting a former parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces.

9 (nine).

Not sure what to make of this, but it sounds not good, does it.

The army heavily depends on leasing contracts for air transport. Most German air transports are grounded (last but not least: the Russians...). Air mobility is a dream for the infantry most do not dream of too often. Several active duty ships are kept ion harbour and get cannibalised, to keep the remaining fleet floating.

This is not the WWII- and post-war/cold war German army anymore. In no way. Not even the military instincts seem to be there anymore. Not even mentioning the recruiting problems.

[mapuc]

German magazine FOCUS just reported this evening that the Luftwaffe currently only runs 9 fighters that are fully functional and indeed combat ready, quoting a former parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces.

9 (nine).

Not sure what to make of this, but it sounds not good, does it.

In peacetime it's OK, as long they work on the problems with the other fighters. In wartime it would be a catastrophe

You should also look at Russia how is it with their airfleet? how many fighters are operational and how many is unavailable due to Maintenance or because of technical problems.

Markus

[Skybird]

No, mapuc, to have only 9 combat ready interceptors at peace time is NOT okay, not at all, considering the size of Germany and the fact that we monitor one of the two most busy air traffic spaces on the globe. Because you never know in advance when peace turns to war, or when there will be a n aerial or other terror attack lik e on 9/11 - on that day, they had just 2 interceptors in the air, I think. End of 2013, there were a bit more than 100 German eurofighters in service. Of these, now only every tenth fighters is operational?

War causes wearout in many ways. If even under ideal conditions you can only bring every tenth fighter into the air, what do you think how it will be during the stress of wartime then?

I recall that the problems are not new, Already years ago, the Luftwaffe had problems. Never where more than only one half of the Eurofighters in existence at those times, operational (if ignoring that for the first years when they were delivered they lacked any armament...)

The problem is simply underfunding. Since the ukraine crisis broke out, there is disucsison that the defence budget should be increased, but many politicians immediately claimed that that would be meaningless since even the existing yearly budget doe snot get fully consumed by the Bundeswehr. It's hard to believe that, and I do not believe that anymore for sure.

And there are so many more problems. The A400 not arriving. The G36. The Puma's instabile main cannon. The Puma's misplanning with not allowing a HMG as secondary weapon because they made the turret too small. Bad morale with the troops. And on and on the song goes.

In Afghanistan, the German force had three helicopters only, two of which usally where grounded for maintenance. The expeditionary force got there with Russian Antonows, they got their supply from germany via Russian Antonows as well, they now get their equipment back via Russian Antonows, and when on the ground the troops got into the need of tactical air troansdport, they totally depended on American helicopters. What the heck has such a vulnerable, depending force to do in Afghanistan, eh? Even now, during the ukraine crisis, we need the Russians to airlift our equipment and troops from Afghanistan!

[Skybird]

Addendum:

Just in:
Germany delivered some equipment and weapons to the Kurdish fighters in Iraq. Now seven instructors were sent to train them with the new gear (old) gear. These seven instructors - are now stranded in Bulgaria. Problem is the erosion in German airlift equipment:

Germany has 57 Transall C160 cargo planes in military use. These planes are very old, over half a century, the airframes are worn out, spare parts are no longer available since many years. Of the 57 Transalls, 35 are non-operational currently. It could take months to get one of them flying. Leaves the German military with 22 cargo planes only. Don't ask me about how many working hours it takes the miantenance crews to get one flight hpour out of these fossiles - I heard it some years ago, but forgot the number. But an American logistics expert by the Air Force who was told that number during a TV interview some years ago (an investigative TV journal), found himself unable to do so. He just could not stop laughing. :)

One of these 22 Transalls was meant to fly the seven instructors into Iraq. But the plane broke down in Bulgaria. A second Transall was sent out to pick the men up. And it broke down as well. :D

The first Airbus 400, which is meant to replace the Transall, is hoped to arrive by the end of the year. That means: one plane. The whole program already is several years behind schedule. Airbus already announced that the planes being delivered in the first tranche, for the time being will not be able to get armed with offensive or defensive systems. Software incompatabilities. :haha:

Maybe we better stay with our old and trusted C160. They stay on the ground, which makes them very safe planes for their flight crews, and at least their flare launchers are said to work. :har:

[Skybird]

I know its kind of a thread hijack, but for the sake of completeness about complaining about the losy state the Bundeswehr is in, I add this link to today'S article, I also add a table in it. The situation is even worse than I depicted it, says an official report by the armed forces to the defence minister. One reason is that due to financial cuts in the defence budget, already years ago, a full stop for all orders of spare parts came into effect and is effective until today.

The numbers may vary from numbers recently reported. Lets not split hairs. The general inspectors of the three branches of the armed forces admitted that the report glosses over many problems for internal reasons.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-schwere-maengel-bei-ausruestung-a-993530.html

http://www11.pic-upload.de/24.09.14/wdonuz6ki2go.jpg (http://www.pic-upload.de/view-24717239/Unbenannt.jpg.html)

"Gesamtbestand": number of all unit that originally were build or are ordered.
"Verfügbar": number of actual units in service , may it be in repair and temporary grounding, may it be in ready-to-go status
"Einsatzbereit": number of units ready to go

Of the four 212 Uboats, only one is available...? Only every third Tiger? Only every 4th MH-90? Only every fiftth CH-53?

Germany. Ready to take more responsibility as a world policeman.

Yeah, sure.

I would like to learn about the artillery and heavy tanks.

[ikalugin]

What a relief, Russians begin to protest against Putin's agressive policy. There are many decent Russians. I believe peace is possible.
Err, well there is a degree of freedom of speech in Russia.

However majority is pro separatists rather than pro loyalists.

P.s. why no one has commented so far on the legislative process in the separatist's republics?

P.p.s. It is funny how people think that i am an alternative account of some other forum member.

[ikalugin]

In peacetime it's OK, as long they work on the problems with the other fighters. In wartime it would be a catastrophe

You should also look at Russia how is it with their airfleet? how many fighters are operational and how many is unavailable due to Maintenance or because of technical problems.

Markus
I can look up the percentages (broke down by the airforces arm I think), they have been posted for the 2013 in some interview.

P.s. to stay on topic
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/dragon_first_1/72271520/5171/5171_original.jpg

[Oberon]

Hey, stop posting when I'm online...you'll ruin the illusion. :O: :haha: :03:

[kranz]

Hey, stop posting when I'm online...you'll ruin the illusion. :O: :haha: :03:
2/10 because you tried.
2 different browsers logged on two separate accounts.

[kranz]

P.p.s. It is funny how people think that i am an alternative account of some other forum member.
Funny? It's hilarious 'someone' needs a fake account to bolster his silly theories/opinions.

[HunterICX]

2/10 because you tried.
2 different browsers logged on two separate accounts.

Nice try Oberon, I know it's you.

[Oberon]

2/10 because you tried.
2 different browsers logged on two separate accounts.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/768/Kamspatacus.jpg

[Jimbuna]

Two separate accounts and many miles apart...BT and MTS OJSC.

[Oberon]

I know, the jet lag is crippling. :nope:

[Jimbuna]

Rgr that.

[Skybird]

You should consider to get yourself a split personality.

And stop typing at the same time, both of you.

[ikalugin]

O dear, I wonder if we both should post proofs of being different people, not that it would help a truly paranoid man.

P.s. you could also find my accounts on a number of English (Tank Net) and Russian (paralay, otvaga) forums.

[Skybird]

Update to the German story, it is so damn funny. Actually, I misunderstood some details there.

Those German specialists were to be picked up in London by a German Transall, which arrived, and broke down. A replacement Transall went to London, and broke down as well when arriving. A THIRD Transall then brought them to Bulgaria, where they stranded again over some Visa irregularities. When these were resolved, their third Transall which should have flown them to the Kurds - broke down.

The FOURTH Transall sent out then finally brought them to Kurdish places.

:) -> :D -> :haha: -> :har:

Four military transport planes needed to shuttle seven soldiers and a palette of weapons from Germany to North Iraq. :yeah: Fan-tas-tic! That is one sixth of the currently available air transport capacity of the German armed forces - for a short hop of seven men from here to there.

Oh, wait, its more than one sixth, with those three planes now grounded, too.

[Jimbuna]

^ Most gratifying to know the UK armed forces aren't as bad as others would have us believe.

[Oberon]

^ Most gratifying to know the UK armed forces aren't as bad as others would have us believe.

Indeed, more weight behind my ponderence if individual European nations actually have the strength to defend Europe anymore as separate entities.

[Jimbuna]

Indeed, more weight behind my ponderence if individual European nations actually have the strength to defend Europe anymore as separate entities.

I wonder if we are actually more dependant on the US than ever before...just as well Russia has to take in the economical considerations as well.

[Oberon]

I wonder if we are actually more dependant on the US than ever before...just as well Russia has to take in the economical considerations as well.

I'd say definitely.
It's the age old balance between guns and butter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model), and as it stands, if we want to continue to enjoy our current level of living then we cannot afford to increase military spending by the levels needed for an independent European nation to become non-reliant on the US for military support.

[kranz]

O dear, I wonder if we both should post proofs of being different people, not that it would help a truly paranoid man.

found this post a bit late but it's never too late to reply...:)

paranoia you say? then how would you call someone who for a month has been denying the involvement of russian forces in Ukraine?:88)

P.s. you could also find my accounts on a number of English (Tank Net) and Russian (paralay, otvaga) forums.
:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:
yeah?
you can find my accounts on ------------------------
A lot of ppl here will confirm that.

[Jimbuna]

http://s17.postimg.org/3k6uv6m17/adminwatch_2.gif (http://postimage.org/)

[kranz]

Sorry, didn't mean to endorse these pages (didn't even know they existed...)
Anyways...

Seems like I'm on someone's black list:

http://i57.tinypic.com/el6vxl.jpg
http://s17.postimg.org/3k6uv6m17/adminwatch_2.gif (http://postimage.org/)
:-?

well, seeing that someone calls me a 'paranoid man' and no reaction I have to take justice in my own hands.

[Oberon]

Well, you did call the moderators completely impotent, and then started throwing around completely baseless allegations of double accounts. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Sorry, didn't mean to endorse these pages (didn't even know they existed...)
Anyways...

Seems like I'm on someone's black list:

http://i57.tinypic.com/el6vxl.jpg

:-?

well, seeing that someone calls me a 'paranoid man' and no reaction I have to take justice in my own hands.

If you receive a PM from a moderator or see a cautionary post in the thread ask yourself 'why the need'? because myself personally am far happier simply watching the thread go about its business than having to go to the trouble of posting said messages.
As a last resort there is always the infraction and brigging route but by the time that point is reached I try to ensure sufficient cause has been established...not only does one have to be right but they should also be seen to be right.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2244556&postcount=125

[Skybird]

The LOLwaffe strikes again: Germany, always the first to promise air transport capacity for international mission in order to avoid being called up for combat troops (while at the same time being unable to airlift its own logistics from and to Afghanistan and instead depends on leasing Antonow transports form the Russians against whom it calls for sanctions ...), has participated in airlifting material to the Ebola crisis region.

Problem is that the Transall being sent broke down and now is stuck on Gran Canaria.

This could cost patients' lives.

Internal documents meanwhile got leaked, showing that Germany currently is not able to fulfill its NATO alliance obligations and would be unable to send those units it has reported to Brussel as ready within 180 days in case of a NATO crisis.

We should have bought one of the Swedish CV 90 designs instead of doing the Puma. And we should have bought some established cargo transport as well instead of going with the A400M.

[kranz]

Well, you did call the moderators completely impotent, and then started throwing around completely baseless allegations of double accounts. :hmmm:
you obviously missed my post about double standards but that's ok.
don't worry - as soon as Jim hits 100k, he will retire and someone might even consider you for a moderator.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2244556&postcount=125
:up:

[ikalugin]

So do you need a proof of my residence (and uniqunes)? If so, what kind of (reasonable) proof would suffice?

p.s.
If such proof is given, would you stop being paranoid and baselessly accusing me of being someone's clone (which I find rather offensive)?
p.p.s.
And I am being generous here.

[Catfish]

Ikalugin, this all started with a low-level joke and only got worse. There is no need, urge or any reason to prove anyone's location.

If the one meant that double-posting earnest he's plain crazy :03:

[Betonov]

It's only kranz, he's still giving me hard time over the gas station dating scene I had going on as a pet project of mine and he can't wait to hear how it back fired against me :O:

But I really can't do nothing about it. He already has a hard time. He's Polish :O:

[kranz]

So do you need a proof of my residence (and uniqunes)? If so, what kind of (reasonable) proof would suffice?

p.s.
If such proof is given, would you stop being paranoid and baselessly accusing me of being someone's clone (which I find rather offensive)?
p.p.s.
And I am being generous here.

Firstly, I appreciate your generosity.
Secondly, let's not overreact.
Thirdly, let me explain something to you.

A friend of mine works for one of the biggest corporation here in Poland and his task verification of candidates' CVs before they are invited for job interviews.
The way he handles his duties more or less looks like that: he gets a CV, puts the 'data' into a super-like computer whose task is to check whether a particular candidate actually exists - by checking his social activity over the Internet (comparing FB entries, forum posts etc.).
I asked him to compare your activity on the forum i.e. time of posting, average time of being logged, habits, the length of posts, their syntax and a lot of other parameters of which even I am not aware because a part of his job is confidential, with the other guy's posts.
When he revealed the outcome of the arduous process of verification (65 hours and 39 minutes) I was literally S-H-O-C-K-E-D.
99% match.
He told me that he heard that when they checked Jim Carey's ratio after Me, Myself and Irene and his score was around 90%.

I'm terribly sorry (I swear to God that I'm being honest) but you ARE the clone of that guy. According to the super-computer there is no such an autonomous entity as 'ikalugin'.
I know it might ruin your day. Day...a whole week or even month, year, decade...even LIFE...but IT IS TRUE.

Think about it for a minute. Could the super-computer be wrong? Sure it could. A 1% chance. I've been here since 2007. Damn...it's hard to write about it...but I'll try. I've never seen such a case before. The resemblance between your posts, your manner of writing, your command of English...
Sir...you are a clone but you're a PERFECT clone. You should be proud of yourself...oh wait - there is no 'yourself'. I'm sorry.

That's how it looks. The resemblance is so perfect that you might not even be aware of that. That's why you are trying to convince us that you are 'ikalugin' - someone's son, student, boyfriend (?). A citizen of mighty Russia.
Fool 'yourself' no longer.

I wish I could tell you: 'I understand' but I can't...I do accept that you are trying...but it's futile. I can't think of any reasonable proof you could possible provide. I hope you'll understand.

[kranz]

Ikalugin, (...)

It's only kranz, (...)
Alas, more clones!

[Oberon]

http://www.troll.me/images2/yoda-says/begun-the-clone-war-has-thumb.jpg

[ikalugin]

I see, so there are no means to elevate your concerns? I mean surely your super computer can view my internet activity in Russian (which you could find on paralay.com forum for example)?

I mean, I don't mind De anoning myself (as I never really conceal myself, though my FB and VK accounts are), you could see my personal info under the spoiler.
name: Kalugin Ivan Sergeevich (no surprise here, heh?)
year of birth: 1992.
city of birth: Moscow
present location: Pushkin Caffè, Moscow, having breakfast, pics related:
http://i62.tinypic.com/2qtuwpx.jpg
http://i57.tinypic.com/2d9v7md.jpg
notable relatives: Kalugin Sergey Borisovich, CEO Rostelecom.

Is there a need to produce a photographic ID?

[Oberon]

The similarity is remarkable:

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa54/TarJak/Subsim%20Meet%20York%202014/IMG_8294001.jpg

[ikalugin]

http://i62.tinypic.com/4fveab.jpgNo nickname and date on the photo so doesn't count.

P.s. I guess there is no further proof I could produce then (apart from photo graphic ID, which I don't have on my person atm). I mean, sure, Oberon wrote all those posts:
http://paralay.iboards.ru/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=1059
in Russian.

P.p.s.
The reason why I try to prove my identity is because I value it. And I find it quite sad that people don't. The last resort of course would be a personal meeting, but this would require one of us to get a visa. I mean I could get a shengen, but then I would need an invitation or to book a tourist trip, however a more convenient solution would be inviting yourself over to Moscow for a weekend, if that is fine with you.

p.p.p.s (o dear) I can even pay for the plane tickets and your stay if you can't afford them.

[Betonov]

Kranz's plan worked.
He provoked you to showing your ID so now he can forge them and move to Russia :)

[Sbygneus]

Would it be exageration if I say the conversation in this topic became stupid?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GtjE5OYYwR4/UR8e5Gkg0GI/AAAAAAAAJFI/SWDtgNfKJ0M/s1600/grchp.jpeg

[Jimbuna]

We should have bought one of the Swedish CV 90 designs instead of doing the Puma. And we should have bought some established cargo transport as well instead of going with the A400M.

Germany's first A400M runs its engines.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/germany39s-first-a400m-runs-its-engines-404239/

[Betonov]

The fourth article is something with cream.

I managed to read something like: SMETANA, similar to our word

[Skybird]

Germany's first A400M runs its engines.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/germany39s-first-a400m-runs-its-engines-404239/



More than four years beyond schedule, with the company having blackmailed the government that if no further price raises would be accepted and the contractual penalties would not be skipped, Airbus would not build the plane at all, and instead would sue Germany for compensation (now that is rich, isn't it), and would even cut jobs in Germany.

Note that at least the first tranche of planes delivered to Germany - will not feature any offensive or defensive system capacity. Airbus has messed up the software, the software implemented on this and the following plane is incompatible with the needs of the technical systems the German forces wanted to mount.

I cannot imagine how such disastrous failures cna even happen.

The German Eurofighters - the majority of planes is grounded, and many still lack armament, I learnt last week.

Of the four 212 uboats we have, only one is operational.

An internal report on the status of the Leopard tank force, is kept under secrecy and got prevented form pusblishing earlier this year. But when you know that of the new APC Boxer, only one third is operational, you can imagine why they keep the report on the Leopards locked.

And the new German IFV Puma got build with too small a turret. So it has not sufficient room to mount a heavy or medium machine gun as coax, but only a small 5.56mm light machine gun. As a coax, for an IFV. :dead:. Since weight demands also were not met, the air transport capacity for the Puma in maximum armour protection configuration is even significantly higher than for the Marder 1A3. :dead: :dead: You need more than one A400M to airlift one Puma - one for the vehicle, and one for the armour.

Last time I checked, the main gun it features, still lacks stability when firing, and lacks precision, therefore. :dead: :dead: :dead:

Give me a CV 90 with functioning systems, and damn impressive armament, armour and agility. Or even a Pizarro (Ulan), also no bad choice, AFAICS. But us Germans wanted to reinvent the wheel again with the Puma.

[ikalugin]

The fourth article is something with cream.

I managed to read something like: SMETANA, similar to our word
Pancakes, sadly they are fairly mediocre, but the place is still cheaper than Cofemania (chain) that I also frequent (though Cofemania pancakes are pretty good).

About German armor - what are the requirements for Puma again?

[Jimbuna]

More than four years beyond schedule, with the company having blackmailed the government that if no further price raises would be accepted and the contractual penalties would not be skipped, Airbus would not build the plane at all, and instead would sue Germany for compensation (now that is rich, isn't it), and would even cut jobs in Germany.

Note that at least the first tranche of planes delivered to Germany - will not feature any offensive or defensive system capacity. Airbus has messed up the software, the software implemented on this and the following plane is incompatible with the needs of the technical systems the German forces wanted to mount.

I cannot imagine how such disastrous failures cna even happen.

The German Eurofighters - the majority of planes is grounded, and many still lack armament, I learnt last week.

Of the four 212 uboats we have, only one is operational.

An internal report on the status of the Leopard tank force, is kept under secrecy and got prevented form pusblishing earlier this year. But when you know that of the new APC Boxer, only one third is operational, you can imagine why they keep the report on the Leopards locked.

And the new German IFV Puma got build with too small a turret. So it has not sufficient room to mount a heavy or medium machine gun as coax, but only a small 5.56mm light machine gun. As a coax, for an IFV. :dead:. Since weight demands also were not met, the air transport capacity for the Puma in maximum armour protection configuration is even significantly higher than for the Marder 1A3. :dead: :dead: You need more than one A400M to airlift one Puma - one for the vehicle, and one for the armour.

Last time I checked, the main gun it features, still lacks stability when firing, and lacks precision, therefore. :dead: :dead: :dead:

Give me a CV 90 with functioning systems, and damn impressive armament, armour and agility. Or even a Pizarro (Ulan), also no bad choice, AFAICS. But us Germans wanted to reinvent the wheel again with the Puma.

I readily admit I read your posts regarding German military quality/readiness with great interest but take small comfort from the fact Britain actually fares a lot better....even in these times of austerity.

Germany is a main player in the frontline defence of the NATO alliance and as such I hope they get their act together sooner rather than later.

It is shameful the way a once so powerful military force appears now to be reduced to little more than a bit part player.

[ikalugin]

How are Germans the front line defenders of NATO? They are in second operational echelon at best, more like second strategic echelon actually. First line defense of NATO is actually in Norway/Poland/Romania/Turkey, as Baltic states are little more than a tripwire.

That said, there is very little in terms of offensive capability arrayed against those countries in question, I mean the only external threats are Belarussia and some Russian units, which are a shadow of the Soviet forces.

[Skybird]

In probably every army you have a smaller group of actual combat forces doing the firefighting, and then the much bigger group that is the logistic apparatus, intel, planning, etc.

Revealing about the state of German forces and the maybe too big disproportion between these two is the harmlessly sounding comment of a German correspondent that I read maybe two weeks ago. He was travelling two German foreign mission engagement camps since years. And what he said, was this: "It is strange, no matter to which country I go and on which continent I travel - it seems as if I am always meeting the same couple of German faces in those BW camps."

At the same time, leaving the draw behind has put tremendous strain onto the BW, many potentially recruits coming voluntarily are folding within the first months (which they can), and the forces simply cannot meet the personnel demands that they would need. Quality of recruits is declining. Moral is low, trainings is constantly declining and leaves lacking, and even reservists helping out in training new recruits say that the training status now maintained in the regular forces and base courses, is lousy, that they cannot believe the deficits in even most elemental skills that they see in today'S recruits.

A main cause of course is money. Germany has cut the budget beyond the limits of sanity, and at the same time has overblown the bureaucratic apparatus that this apparatus now is so ineffectively that over ten percent of the yearly budget for the military cannot be allocated - due to the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that bogs things down. At the same time the German forces for several years now are operating with a full stop in regarding ordering maintenance and spare parts. The status we see now is due to the age of the equipment, yes, but we see that state also in brandnew equipment already. That is because more and more funcitonal equipment got cannibalised to repair broken down equipment, and more and more deficits in maintenance have accumulated over the past years in which no spare parts and maintenance were ordered.

That the majority of units that Berlin has reported to NATO headquarter as being ready and available within a 180 days warning period in case of an article 5 scenario, would not be able to be delivered, speaks volumes. The simple truth is: Germany is no longer able to keep up with its alliance commitments. In case of need we would be able to bring half of our systems and equipment into operational status - I think that now would already been seen as a successful mobilization. We are lucky that the Poles are guarding our Eastern border. It would probably be the Poles needing to help us out, instead of German coming to Poland's rescue. Which maybe is indicative for the misery: we are surrounded by currently non-hostile nations: Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Netherlands. Why should we maintain a big, huge army? - that is the politician's reasoning.

And then came the Ukraine crisis crushing some precious illusions. What a pity. Why has the Kremlin been so unpolite to us?

We have some other illusions of this kind, too, regarding our increasingly eroding infrastructure, and our school education quality. Germany's facade of shining wealth and economic strength - is just a fata morgana, we "maintain" it on credit only, but the truth is we are suffering structural erosion at the very root level, at the inner substance of things. The interests additional to the costs on final payday will kill us.

The Bundeswehr had a top reputation during the cold war, and back then it5 certainly also was a front line state. It is not top class anymore. Not even second choice, to admit it freely, I think.

[ikalugin]

According to this Ukraine plans to double GDP per capita and increase it's defense spending by 2020 (amongs other strange things).

stuff
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5104/94845085.ef/0_b6f55_2e88647d_orig.jpg
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6737/94845085.ef/0_b6f54_e5e2b4ee_orig.jpg

[Skybird]

According to this Ukraine plans to double GDP per capita and increase it's defense spending by 2020 (amongs other strange things).

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/santa-claus-laughing.jpg

Hohoho, good to know that presents fall from heaven for free! Or did Poroshenko take lessons from Francois Hollande...? :D

[Skybird]

And today more news from the German forces: the manufacturer of the Eurofighter has told the Luftwaffe that there are manufacturing faults at the tails of the plane, and problems with drilling holes, that could lead to massively increased wear and tear, loss of parts from the airframe, and a halving of the airframe's life expectancy. The Luftwaffe was advised to half the number of monthly operation hours :haha: - at least of those 43 of 100+ planes that still are operational.:har: the others already cannot fly anyway. :rotfl2:

[Catfish]

Hahahah and they took our money to build this crap and leave us in the desert, whlie they knew about it all along, glorious patriotism meeting lobby capitalism hahahah :haha:

.
.
.
.

:shifty:

[Skybird]

Mind you, these multi-national productions of military gear like the Eurofighter consortium are politically wanted. Technical reasons and competition have little to do with it. Same for the Puma: it was politically wanted to make it in Germany and do it this way and in no other, else there would have been a serious competition by several producers of IFVs who would have send in their offers. What was wrong with the CV90/xx or the Ulan? Nothing! They are great IFVs from all I have heard about them.

The British Typhoons should be affected by this new problem, too, since it is a manufacturing fault. The German LW now has stopped to accept any further planes being delivered.

Aquiring new G-36 rifles has been stopped some time ago, too, due to their inbuild problems and serious usage limitations in combat situations. :)

Oh my... Now the producer of the Leopard wants to fuse with the French major tank maker who builds the Leclerk. A technology transfer program from Germany to France. The Germans get eaten, the French profit. Once the French have what they wanted (know-how, that is) - guess what comes next... The Germans argue that the French would open them new access markets. What the...? Just compare the export numbers and customer lists for the Leclerk and the Leopards, and then tell me about the need for French customer lists! :haha:

[Oberon]

Do we need to start a 'German armed forces complaints department' thread? :hmmm:

[magic452]

Nope we already have one. :up:

Magic

[Oberon]

Nope we already have one. :up:

Magic

Is it in Danzig? :O:

[ikalugin]

Well I mean there isn't much to discuss in this thread now apart from the ability of Russia to press Marshal Frost into service for this winter.

B.c. if he does come to the Ukraine, I think that doubling GDP per capita may actually be possible, by halving the population.

[Skybird]

Hijacking this thread for the German forces issues is a thread preservation measurement.

:O:

[Skybird]

And while we are already at it :D , the one A400M having an engine test and being planned to be delivered to the Germans in November (Jim linked the story) - it now is in doubt that the German Luftwaffe will accept that plane. Talking is of severe "deficiency delivery" ("Minderleistung") by the consortium building the plane, putting its military usability into doubt. Also, legal considerations come into play, the defence ministry wants at last contract penalty fees or other financial compensations (after the consortium has blackmailed Germany with wanting to sue it and to cut jobs if it does not accept a much higher price).

[kranz]

p.p.p.s (o dear) I can even pay for the plane tickets and your stay if you can't afford them.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Ernie_staredown.gif

no, thanks. I'm too young for HIV.

[ikalugin]

There are free tickets to Kubinka though.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WuGvy1-wCuI/maxresdefault.jpg

Back on topic:
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DpoFreeAP74/maxresdefault.jpg
His son was tortured to death by loyalists. His father was -just- tortured by loyalists. Not an easy life for a separatist (though we still need an independent investigation onto those events ofc).

Ahh, and human organs trafficing buisness in Ukraine is blooming due to the all displaced civilians and the ability to blame everything on the "terrorists".

[Sbygneus]

ikalugin,
I really pity this man, believe me. I can imagine his feelings probably even better than you as I have kids myself. (judging by your young look on the photo you dont have children?)
Everyday I watch tv my heart sinks. Why in 21st century Europe people are shooting each other? It really doesnt matter who started. Its our responsibility to protect oldies and kids. This is about reality and death. Responsible civilised people know that there is no such thing like bad peace or good war.
Dont be fooled by politicians. They want us to hurt each other, while they are sitting in safety counting money.
I understand Russians better then most of our western collegues here. I speak and read Russian well enough. I studied it. I know Russian literature very good. I read and watch Russian news very often.
But war is NEVER an option. Didnt we suffer enough in Eastern Europe?

[ikalugin]

Although I do agree with the old wisdom of "bad peace is better than a good war", many would think that life of the people in the sense of the culture/historical heritage is just as important as their physical/biological existance.

[Oberon]

But war is NEVER an option. Didnt we suffer enough in Eastern Europe?

Seconding this, particularly in light of todays 70th anniversary. :yep:

[Skybird]

Pacifism-no-matter-what, is no alternative either.

Maybe one could agree to this: wars of aggression should not be seen as an ethical option.

However, for some they are.

The problem is this: you cannot mandatorily make anyone submitting to your game rule of "peace". But you can make everyone needing to play by your game rule of "war".

[Sbygneus]

Pacifism-no-matter-what, is no alternative either.

Maybe one could agree to this: wars of aggression should not be seen as an ethical option.

However, for some they are.

The problem is this: you cannot mandatorily make anyone submitting to your game rule of "peace". But you can make everyone needing to play by your game rule of "war".

I am not a pacifist-no-matter-what. I know what is self preservation. But the flags, political speaches, or so called national philosophies would never make me shoot a man I dont even know.
In almost every case people can reconsider their aggressive behaviour.
Its just how I understand my sovereignty. The enemy is the one who is trying to harm my (and my kin's) right to existence. Then I will fight to the death.

[ikalugin]

What about cultural identity?

Ie should the objective of the enemy be not to destroy the population physically, but to enforce a different culture, values and so on onto them?

An examples of this would be religious (Islam) or ideological (post modernistic revolution) conversion.

[Sbygneus]

Although I do agree with the old wisdom of "bad peace is better than a good war", many would think that life of the people in the sense of the culture/historical heritage is just as important as their physical/biological existance.

I wonder if this separatist now thinks the same...
I also value culture/historical heritage, but wouldnt sacrify my relative lives form them. There is no need for it. If we live, we can always hope to preserve our values somehow. Killing people is rather no way out option.

[Catfish]

Quite good arguments, only in german (anyone?)

The US idea of "Full spectrum dominance", or why Russia has to be the enemy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3RBDN_XgN4

I wonder if such stuff is ever published, in the anglo-saxon world ? :hmmm:

[Dread Knot]

I wonder if such stuff is ever published, in the anglo-saxon world ? :hmmm:

I'm sure somebody keeps an ear out for it. :O:

http://i.imgur.com/Xc6FjfW.jpg

[Catfish]

Good cartoon, and nice diversion.

But i meant published, made accessible for the public/population, not the NSA :03:

[ikalugin]

Quite good arguments, only in german (anyone?)

The US idea of "Full spectrum dominance", or why Russia has to be the enemy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJn7LHE83cc

I wonder if such stuff is ever published, in the anglo-saxon world ? :hmmm:
Well it is either Russia, China or faceless "terrorists".

[Catfish]

I had high hopes, that after 1989, the reunification, and the fall of the soviet regime, there would be some negotiations, understanding and combined work to make the nations of the former soviet block a real partner of the world, and (second) of the EU. The 'Petersburger Dialog' sure was and is a milestone. The former soviet satellites already used marketing and developed to capitalist states, with all pros and cons.

God knows Russia asked often enough for partnership, but due to NATO treaties and our west-fixated marionette government there never was a chance. The anglo-saxon "reluctance" to put this mildly (aggression and domination would be better words) and our treaties hindered that. The US s. service expression "Full spectrum dominance", as ridiculous as it sounds, says it all.

The idea of some nations to sell oil and gas without Dollar currency (the 'petro-dollar'), usually soon put an end to those nations. But they could not do the same to Russia, with its new St. Peterburg stock exchange. China is now paying for oil and gas in Yen, and the US sure does not like it.
Also, NATO needs an enemy, and a real unification of Europe is not wanted. Despite all lip service and complaints why the EU does not really unite, they are indeed quite happy with the status quo.

Of course, a real unified EU alone, let alone with Russia at its side, would have meant major competition, and by all means and capitalist theories, by all lip service, real competition is not really liked – a peaceful hegemony is what is wanted. Total dominance, everywhere. Economically and militarily. Remember Russia has the resources, for the future.

The silence of the anglo-saxon countries regarding Snowden, Assange, Nato, economical warfare and eavesdropping of what they call their "friends" speaks volumes.

[Skybird]

I recommend to read Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard. American Primarity and its Geostrategic Imperatives, from 1997. German translation 1999 under the titel: Die einzige Weltmacht. Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft.

Divide et Impera always has been a way of America to secure its influence in post-war Europe, and later in the EU. I cannot even completely blame it for that, America is an empire, though many Americans deny that, but technically it is, saying that without any moral judgement of the term "empire". And empires cannot afford not to act, they must act. And so America plays the game by the efficient rules that see through its strategic goal of keeping Russia away from and itself in Europe. To claim it only is about keeping away an aggressive Russia, is only one half of the truth. It is about keeping away a peaceful Russia as well. The chances for closer ties were there, after the Yeltzin years and during the early phase of Putin's reign. In Putin's early years he wanted a closing of ties between Russia and Europe. He made the bill without Washington that of course torpedoed these ambitions in several ways. Today, however, there seems to be no way back.

[Catfish]

Of course, is the US an empire.
But do not forget the British Empire, and its satraps. Its former colonies have forgotten all about what it was like, to become and be a colony. When their dominion calls, they come. History is not their strong side :O:

[Oberon]

I think only Australia and Canada come when asked these days, and that's out of friendship more than it is out of the fact that they were colonies of ours.
After all, I don't recall India, Pakistan, South Africa, Malaya, Zimbabwe, the Bahamas or Fiji sending any troops to Iraq or Afghanistan lately... :hmmm:

In fact, you might want to do some map comparisons:

http://i.imgur.com/ddvEmMs.jpg?1

Here is a map of forces that provided support to our conflict in Iraq

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EjNEI9gcAbg/TXY0tF24NLI/AAAAAAAAAD4/WRqpxVlqStQ/s1600/THE%2BBritish%2BEmpire.jpg

And here is a map of the British Empire and its colonies


Ok, but what about a solely British war then? Well, the last one that I can think of that didn't involve the UN was the Falklands war...here's a map of the participants in that:

http://cerebrovortex.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/rams-butting-heads-mage-2.jpg

And before that was mainly just the skirmishes involved in withdrawing from Africa.

But of course, as you say "When their dominion calls, they come"...

Still waiting for them... :har:

[mapuc]

Quite good arguments, only in german (anyone?)

The US idea of "Full spectrum dominance", or why Russia has to be the enemy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJn7LHE83cc

I wonder if such stuff is ever published, in the anglo-saxon world ? :hmmm:

Maybe it is just me, ´cause I don't get it. I clicked on your link and what I got was a clip from TOP GEAR

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Maybe it is just me, ´cause I don't get it. I clicked on your link and what I got was a clip from TOP GEAR

Markus

Relive the insta-classic TOP GEAR moment from Monday's episode when Jeremy Clarkson recreated the Battle of Britain - and faced off against a car called "The Brutus," a flame-spitting retro BMW.

[kranz]

@mapuc
it's just you. you didn't get the sublime parallel between the discussed matters and catfish's link.

[Catfish]

^ @Kranz :rotfl2: no, it really was the wrong link. And i don'teven know how the Top Gear one landed there :hmm2:

Maybe it is just me, ´cause I don't get it. I clicked on your link and what I got was a clip from TOP GEAR
Markus

Huh, no it is not just you – this is the link, don't know where this other came from ?? :oops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3RBDN_XgN4

[Catfish]

Things develop unexpected, in this ukrainian show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFDCtSLXdkw

The faces of the anchormen .. priceless :)

[ikalugin]

It is a bit old.

[Dowly]

Pro-Russian troops playing a prank on their comrades.. with an automatic grenade launcher...:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIoarndHIk

:doh:

.
.
.
:har:

[Oberon]

Well, that's one way to keep your OP on their toes! :har:

[Alex]

On 17th july 1914, the german foreign office sent a letter to its ambassador in London. In this letter, it is explained that if there is a way to start a war against Russia, it has to be done, because Russia is stronger year by year. :hmm2:
In 2014, we are exactly in the same situation. Russia is destined to be the 1st power in Europe ; and currently there are 2 powers which are not ready to accept it : this is of course the Washington government, but it is as well Angela Merkel's position.
Berlin is afraid of seeing east-european countries, like czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary or Finland do not believe any more that Russia is an imperialistic communist country. On the contrary, they see Russia as a reliable partner sharing the same values. The fear of a political and economic rise of Russia basically explains Germany's and Yankee's aggressive policy towards Russia. :hmm2:
The current challenge for Moscow is to manage these provocative behaviours. Amongst solutions, there is opportunity of re-building the Russia-France-Serbia alliance. Unlike Germany or USA, our nations have lost any imperialistic desire, and we can together create a new balance of power in Europe. This alliance will not lead to the war this time, but to peace.

With a solid french-russian alliance, we can reasonably expect to moderate the everlasting german ambitions. Of course, some questions are supposed to come to everyone's mind : is France ready to build this alliance ?
I think Russia has to be patient, it needs some time to convince France to cooperate to this ambitious policy. And finally I'd like to say that we in France are more and more ready to make this move, especially those french who see Russia as a leader of an Eurasian Europe. :)

Pro-Russian troops playing a prank on their comrades.. with an automatic grenade launcher...:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SIoarndHIk

:doh:

.
.
.
:har:
LOL

That video, that russian (!) sub in swedish waters, and that russian (!!) snowplough and its russian (!!!) driver killing Total's CEO on his takeoff from Moscow (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2801007/controversial-ceo-oil-giant-total-killed-private-jet-plane-crash-aircraft-hit-snow-plough-moscow-airport.html)... Yeah the snowplough's driver was most certainly drunk. He's russian (!!!!). http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/665961what.gif

Last year at the same time Ukraine was still a random european country which president just chose to establish closer ties with Russian Federation. Now Ukraine is part of the EU, and so... Well well well :hmm2:... But http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/232482eto.png... That means Russia is now on NATO's doorstep, doesn't it ? http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/99045168a.gif
So let the americans send all tanks they need close to the russian border.

Damn, your tv doesn't stop telling you Putin=Hitler|Putin=Hitler|Putin=Hitler|Putin=Hitle r, what are you still doing in front of your screen ? Save us ! :wah:

(Wait I feel cold, that's wind from Russia. Let the US drop a handful of Little Boys there. There will still be wind afterwards, but there won't be Russia any more, so it will be neutral wind, and we'll all feel better then !)


Phew... I'm exhausted after so much deep-thinking.http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/83863874a.gif

[Oberon]

Who woke you up? Go back to sleep.

[Skybird]

I'm exhausted after so much deep-thinking.
Me too. :doh:

[mapuc]

Who woke you up? Go back to sleep.

Every one has the right to say what's on they mind about political, religious and other stuff, how funny, weird awful it may sound(as long it doesn't break any Subsim rules)

Markus

[Skybird]

Every one has the right to say what's on they mind about political, religious and other stuff, how funny, weird awful it may sound(as long it doesn't break any Subsim rules)

Markus
But nobody has the right to expect already being taken serious for just having or voicing an "opinion".

Whether you can reason your opinion, and how: that is what earns you tolerance, consent, or respect - or the lack of.

Just having an opinion deserves nothing.

[mapuc]

But nobody has the right to expect already being taken serious for just having or voicing an "opinion".

Whether you can reason your opinion, and how: that is what earns you tolerance, consent, or respect - or the lack of.

Just having an opinion deserves nothing.

That's true.

[ikalugin]

Well this thread may become livier over this weekend, as Ukranian loyalists are preparing for a major offensive, which Russia could respond to in force.

[Jimbuna]

Not too lively I hope....I'm looking forward to a quiet peaceful weekend.

[Betonov]

You affraid of a little world war Jim ?? :03:

[Jimbuna]

You affraid of a little world war Jim ?? :03:

I reckon you know me a lot better than that Anze :know:

[kranz]

Well this thread may become livier over this weekend, as Ukranian loyalists are preparing for a major offensive, which Russia could respond to in force.
an offensive where? towards Moscow?
Russia's interventions in sovereign countries are nothing new.

[ikalugin]

Against the separatists of course.

Please correct me if i am wrong, but Russia (after the early 90s) has (openly) intervened only in those cases:
- Georgia in 2008 after an act of aggression again Russia.
- Ukraine 2014 (Crimea, possibly in the South-East).

[August]

Just to be clear here those aren't acts of aggression against Russia those are internal conflicts in foreign countries. Russia is not the injured party here and has no right to claim it is acting in self defense.

Russia chooses to foment and support rebellions in those foreign countries for purely imperialistic reasons.

[ikalugin]

Attacking Russian peace keepers (legaly stationed there) was an act of aggression by Georgia against Russia, hence that war was completely justified.

Ukranian crisis is not as clear cut of course, however Crimean part of it was essentially bloodless.

[kranz]

Russian peace keepers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

I can perfectly understand now why some people use the 'ignore button'.

[ikalugin]

So you lack any actual arguments then?

Or do you happen to have factual proof as to Russian peacekeeping force in question (pre 080808 war in South Osetia) loosing it's internationally recognised status?

P.s. There is an "ignore" button? Never saw it.

[Skybird]

Georgia's claim for Ossetia always was a very dubious one. It militarily conquered and occupied Ossetia in the 20s and committed a massacre that many Ossetian people see as genocide until today. During the Sovjet era, Ossetia was attached to the Sovjet Republic Georgia, an act that Stalin directly was responsible for. After the fall of the USSR, Ossetia and Abchasia, made it clear that they did not wish to stay with the former Sovjet Republic, and declared their relative autonomy as sovereignty, refusing any Georgian claim for them. Both countries made it clear that they wish closer ties with Russia. Throughout the 90s and early 00-years, many Ossetians and Abchasians voluntarily signed for Russian citizenship.

The war of 1991 was clearly initiated by Georgia, both politically and militarily, it started from exchanges of fire at border control posts, and ended in grenade shelling of the Ossetian capital by Georgian military. In the final war, tens of thousands of people fled Georgia and Ossetia, and finally Russia intervened and separated both conflicting parties, keeping them apart for years.

When Saakashvili came to power, Georgia again planned to subjugate Ossetia by force, there were plans for that already in 2005, and they finally came to life in 2008. Before, there were free and democratic referendums in Ossetia, parallel to the claimed supranational elections by Georgia which were boycotted by Ossetia. The Ossetian people clearly said by huge majority that they do not wish to have anything to do with the Georgians, and that they do not wish to be ruled by Georgia.

This was the historic background against which the events of the war 2008 and the way the war unfolded, have to be judged. In the West, EU and US alike, it was almost completely ignored and the media did little to report it. Washington wanted Georgia in NATO to tighten its strangling grip around Russia. Historic truths and democratic majority decisions that led to unwanted results, were just an obstacle that therefore was concealed. To me, Georgia always was the main aggressor in all this, due to its claim to own and possess a people that it n ever had any legitimate claim for and that it only could suppress by Stalinist decree, military occupation and genocide. Moscow of course welcomed the Ossetian and Abchasian independence moves that were friendly towards Russian interests. Since that were free and legitimate expressions of people'S will, nothing was wrong in that. Moscow could happily have lived without that war of 2008. Georgia's Saakashvili on the other hand lied, betrayed and cheated the West in an attempt to get NATO intervening in a war with Russia, overplayed his cards and did not even stop from ordering the nightly bombardement of civilian apartment blocks by missile artillery, then blaiming Russia for it. In the years after the war, even the highly biased EU finally had to relaise in its own exmainatio9ns of events that it allowed to get fooled by this thug and concluded that he lied, they then turned him into a diplomatic pariah. Since then Saakashvili ruled like just any other autocratic tyrant, suppressing opposition by means of a police state, by police violence, and intimidation of the media.

Nice choice for an ally by Washington. Once again. As they say: the cause justifies the means.

I judge this from a libertarian POV. The Ossetians were heavily mistreated by the Georgians since decades, and feely decided that they wish to stay for themselves. This wish has to be respected. Period. Whether Washington strategists like that, or the EU approves that, or the UN agrees to that, is unimportant. The people are free to decide whether they want to stay alone, or join this or that side.

For the same reason, I am for splitting the Ukraine. My main argument for that again is a truly libertarian one. The Ukraine forces together by ink-lines on paper two ethnic groups in different parts of country, that obviously are oriented to two different poles that cannot cooperate well together. Instead of creating pressure and conflict, accept their right to make their choice, and so have the place split.

And for the same reason, i would have accepted a Scottish Yes to independence, and do support Falkland'S claim to stay Brtish instead of joining Argentine; and for the same reason I declare illegal the Spanish constitutional claim to deny local people like the Catalunians the right to hold a referendum on their own future. Any such law necessarily is an illegal law, and immoral anyway. The Catalunians are not Madrid'S possessions, they are nbot trhe otzher Spnaiards'S slaves.

The same is true for any other independence movement that represents a majority of a region's population.