Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Post Reply New Topic

I have heard nothing about the vunder veapon offered to Poland yet, no.
Perhaps Denys will talk about it tomorrow.

I don't think so, Denys is focused on military situation in Ukraine, not on developments in neighbouring states.

In the summer, our govt asked the appropriate institution in USA if they would export 500 Himars systems to Poland.
Now USA gave the answer. In short, yes, with top-shelf ammo. Ten billion dollars.

Military commenters say, we'll probably ultimately buy half of it because we already have contracts for over 200 similar systems from Korea.

In the worst case scenario, we have WWIII. In such case, USA will be busy in Pacific, UK will be playing Atlantic, while the main ground battles will be here. That's what world wars look like.
Preparations should always be for the worst case scenario. Hopefully, with enough fire power, we'll be simply not an attractive prey to attack at all.

Pepe stated:

The pipeline was designed and is operated by Russian company. Since Russia's economy is heavily dependent on distribution of oil and gas, it's just not a plausible scenario.

The U.S. has a much better motive to sabotage the pipeline. And remember, Biden pretty stated what was going to happen.

I don't think the U.S. state department worries too much what American allies think. They're not in much of a position to do anything about it. We can just trot out the propaganda that Russia did it and they'll all fall in line with it.

Amerria stated it would stop Nord Stream, but it is only SPECULATION that they were going to do it through sabotage.
There were political means available in stopping the project, surely.
Do you agree with these statements?



That is your OPINION.
You are entitled to it.
However, I don't share it at this time.

@Josh:

And consider this:

https://short-fact.com/who-owns-nord-stream-pipeline/

Well, not today at least.
Denys has just broken his arm.

^ Nice interview.

I hope as we're becoming so important, we get motivated to improve our own mess... Ukrainians are buying us time to get rid of pathologies in our own army.

More on Hersh's report, what he left out, maybe deliberately:

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/what-hersh-got-wrong/

The war broke out on February 24. The pipeline was blown up on September 26. That’s seven months. So, if there were “more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to” “sabotage the pipelines” then we must assume the scheming preceeded the war.

...

Later in the article, Hersh makes the same claim again without emphasizing its underlying significance. He says: “The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.”

...

US opposition to Nord Stream is not a recent development; it has a long history dating back to the very beginning of the project in 2011. Even back then, an article appeared in the German magazine Spiegel claiming that ” The project is aimed at ensuring the long-term security of Europe’s energy supplies, but it remains controversial”

Controversial?

Why was Nord Stream considered controversial? What is controversial about sovereign nations strengthening economic ties with other countries in order to ensure they have enough cheap energy to fuel their factories and heat their homes?

This question really cuts to the heart of the matter, and yet, Hersh eschews it altogether. Why?

...

...

But the biggest failing of the Hersh piece is the complete omission of the geopolitical context in which this act of terrorism took place. The US doesn’t go around the world blowing up critical energy infrastructure for nothing. No. The reason Washington embarked on this risky gambit was because it is facing an existential crisis that can only be resolved by crushing those emerging centers of power that threaten America’s dominant position in the global order. That’s what’s going on below the surface; the US is trying to roll back the clock to the glorious 1990’s after the Soviet empire had collapsed and the world was Washington’s oyster. But those days are gone forever and US power is irreversibly eroding due to its basic lack of competitiveness. If the US was still the industrial powerhouse it was following WW2—when the rest of the world was in ruins—then there would be no need to blow up pipelines to prevent European-Russian economic integration and the emergence of a massive free trade zone spanning the area from Lisbon to Vladivostok . But the fact is, the US is not as essential to global growth as it once was and, besides, other nations want to be free to pursue their own growth model. They want to implement the changes that best fit their own culture, their own religion and their own traditions. They don’t want to be told what to do. But Washington doesn’t want change. Washington wants to preserve the system bestows the greatest amount of power and wealth on itself. Hersh does not simply ignore the geopolitical factors that led to the sabotage, he proactively creates a smokescreen with his misleading explanations.

...

Washington doesn’t care about Germany’s pathetic contribution to the war effort. What Washington cares about is power; pure, unalloyed power. And Washington’s global power was being directly challenged by European-Russian economic integration and the creation of a giant economic commons beyond its control. And the Nord Stream pipeline was at the very heart of this new bustling phenom. It was the main artery connecting the raw materials and labor of the east with the technology and industry of the west. It was a marriage of mutual interests that Washington had to destroy to maintain its grip on regional power.

Ahem, Germany is a part of EU, so their trade bonds are not "only between them and the other party". There's the whole common market and regulations of it.
The ones who protested against NSs were us - a group of other EU states that did not believe energetic dependency on an agressive dictatorship is ever a good idea. And we turned out to be right.

The map perfectly ignores the topic of alliances. NATO is not USA but it's one of alliances USA are a part of. They want to be popular and important, they have to be reliable to their allies.

Are those states just as aggrieved by the world's dependence on Saudi oil or is it only Russia as usual? If the latter, it's a pretext and not the real reason.



It's a counter-troll to a similar viral map where every country is labelled "Not Russia" or some variation on that.

Saudis have not been threatning to nuke our capital for the last two decades. They aren't showing any interest in invading this part of the world at all.
Anyway, there are policies aimed at not becoming dependent on them. Diversifying energy sources is considered important where I live. Importing is one thing, making yourself dependent on this import is another. That's also why USA is trying to limit their trade with China despite the cost of it.

When did you last time see Americans invading another state, claiming it should have never existed?

So it's not some principle about dependence on an "aggressive dictatorship" then, it's about Russia.

And you should know full well the context of those threats - joining hostile alliances and housing foreign war infrastructure designed only to be used in an all-out war / nuclear missile exchange between Russia and the US. Russia warns you that by housing such things, you are a valid target if such a war breaks out. And they are right.



Interesting qualification, obviously you couldn't have asked the question without those last six words hehe. I can't think of an instance, but who cares? Is it so much worse than fabricating WMD scare stories in order to invade? Or to orchestrate or fabricate false flag attacks? (America's favourite pastime since the 19th century). But this particular (arguable historically true) bit of justification is so terrible?