Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Elerond
-
-
16 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:
You are talking on a country with 40+ mln ppl accustomed to fairly comfy, western like style of life.
Russians will also have no interest of occuping the country. They will want to carve out the south east. Maybe force Zelensky out, but I do not see them having to fight in the cities.
You know how big Kiev is? Have tyou been there?
Russia wants to demilitarize Ukraine and change Ukraine government and order to achieve that goal they need to have there occupation force that can keep status quo after their invading forces leave. It isn't easy to keep alternate government in hostile country, you can just ask how easy it was for USA in Afghanistan. Resistance doesn't need to be big in order to change governance as soon as occupying forces leave. So in order to Putin to achieve his goal he needs to have total dominance over Ukraine.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:
It seems China is hinting to US that theu side with Russia's PoV.
“China is concerned about the evolving situation in Ukraine,” Wang said, reiterating that China’s stance on the matter had not changed and that “every country’s security concern should be respected”.
“The fact that the Ukraine crisis has evolved to this stage is related to the delayed implementation of the Minsk agreement,” Wang said
In past China has not ever supported letting areas get independence, because it goes against their policy in Taiwan and Tibet. So Russia will have hard time to convince China to give them official support
-
1
-
-
It seem that Russian troops new home is in Ukraine
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BruceVC said:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/crimeas-technically-flawe_b_4992908
How did he give the the people of Crimea a choice, the "referendum " didnt have a option that said " we want to keep things as they are ". To quote from the link
Crimeans were offered only two alternatives: independence or greater autonomy. Maintaining the status quo was not an option.
Thats not a referendum Elerond and thats apart from the other issues about it mentioned in the link?
Like I said he will help them get independence so that they can join Russia. Meaning that he will use pseudo democracy to annex areas from Ukraine to Russia. It is theatrical performance for Russian to so that he is the great doer opposed by evil west
-
1
-
-
Russia seems to repeat strategy they used in Crimea. Supporting repel area to get independence from the Ukraine and then letting it to decide that it wants to join in Russia.
-
1
-
-
Ice cream manufactures also have some explaining to do
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Zoraptor said:
They don't need approval from the UN, since they were invited in by the recognised government*. It's kind of indicative that the West treats it like they did need its approval though, isn't it? And plenty of people think whataboutism only works one way...
You were one that compared Russian Syrian mission to Nato's actions in Libya. So in this case whataboutism come from you
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Zoraptor said:
Yeah, just try substituting Russia with NATO in that situation and see if anyone would accept 'poor job' as an excuse. You don't even need to, just look at how the Russian intervention in Syria was portrayed.
Russia has not seek UN security council's approval on its actions. So I don't see any relevant comparison. It would better to compare Russian's actions to USA's actions in same area.
Question was that Nato attacks countries outside its borders and against its own rules, not how justifiable its actions have been.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:
Except they didn't, they went for regime change which was not authorised. When the rebels attacked Sirte, or Tripoli, under the actual terms of the UNSC resolution (and relevant section quoted below) NATO should have started bombing the rebels, but didn't. That abrogation is why they never got a resolution that even approached allowing force in Syria. Of course, NATO likes to pretend that the resolution allowed regime change- but then that's part of the problem isn't it, NATO pretending it's allowed do stuff that it shouldn't. It's always a special case with special justifications when NATO does something against the rules, but somehow only when NATO breaks the rules.
No mention of bombing only one side, it just says that civilians should be protected. Maybe the rebel grads and artillery etc fired only pot pourri and fluffy bunnies?
Oh yeah, and the NATO backed side used chemical weapons too, in Bani Walid.
That quote shows that they had authorization from UN security council to use force in order to protect civilian population. That they did poor job doesn't change fact that they acted with security council's mandate.
-
1
-
-
Technically NATO has only once attacked country outside of NATO and without approval from UN security council, In Serbia 1999.
As in other cases NATO members did attacking outside of NATO and NATO come later on to peace keeping with approval of UN Security Council.
Although NATO has couple times participated in air campaigns approved by UN security council
In Bosnia 1995 they bombed forces of Army of Republika Srpska who where seen as threat to UN safe zones in Bosnia.
In Libya 2011, Nato enforced non-fly zone and bombing camping with approval of UN Security council in order to protect civilians after two Libyan fighter pilots fly their fighter to Malta after Muammar Gaddafi had ordered them to bomb civilian protesters.
And Nato participated in counter piracy mission in Red Sea between 2009-2016 to protect ships from Somalian pirates.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BruceVC said:
Elerond whats your overall opinion on this Ukrainian development, do you think Russia is justified to demand Ukraine isnt allowed to joining NATO and deploying troops to the border because of the history or do you think Putin is going too far ?
There is never good justification for power politics, but Russia is taking opportunity given them discord in west
-
3 hours ago, Darkpriest said:
Aaaaannnddd it's gone. Russian miliatry returning home after maneuvers ended...
That depends on what is your definition of going home.
It is like "Russian troops have been pulled back 1,500 kilometres from the Finnish-Russian border in the spirit of peaceful relations" event though their closest naval air base is just 60 km from Finland's eastern border. And their later explanation also is bit clumsy.
-
1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:
The Afghans had ~7bn USD in gold and foreign currency (USD) reserves, held in the US (at the New York Federal Reserve); but starting at the latest in 2017, ie 5 years ago. So it's certainly not from recent donations.
The ultimate source probably was aid though, as Afghanistan had few ways to accumulate cash otherwise, eg less than 1bn in exports. It was definitively Aghanistan's money legally though, you can't get more formal than held by its central bank.
Main lesson: don't use the US to store your cash.
In 2017 Afghanistan's budget balance was in -2.5 billion dollars and it got worse after that, but they have only 1.3 billion of debt, so without foreign aid there would be nothing left of those 7 billion worth of assets today.
Also currently Da Afghanistan Bank does not have official leadership and it does not have official position in Taliban governance, so its formality is not that simple.
Taliban is also bit on thin ice when complaining about US seizing those funds considering how much foreign assets Taliban seized when they took over the Afghanistan
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Darkpriest said:
Thats what I meant, when telling @BruceVCthat US gov just stole 7bn from Afghanistan.
Technically they weren't Afghanistan's money but international aid to rebuild Afghanistan, which is why they were in US and why US was able to freeze them and take over them. They were mostly money paid by US tax payers.
EDIT: They were Afghanistan's money in sense that they were promised to them and there was already budgeted targets for them, but all those projects were cancelled when Taliban took over, so technically Taliban should start again all those projects again in order to get access to that money.
-
2
-
-
Corporal punishment had been illegal in Finland now 35 years and we are in brink of anarchy, as young people don't have any form respect towards their elders.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, BruceVC said:
Their are still legitimate and reasonable protestors within the Canadian truckers but as normally happens with these protests because their is no definitive and agreed on leadership and anyone can join parts of the protests degenerate into chaos and illegal actions
Aren't they guilty by association same way as BLM protesters? And it would be acceptable to take them all away in unmarked cars by people not wearing uniforms?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ComradeYellow said:
Russia would never join such a godless enslaving enterprise.
Whay?
Their own experience in such matters xD
They have applied to it already several times
-
4 hours ago, BruceVC said:
Interesting post, you raise some good talking points
I do think you are conflating some issues like credit profile checks with racism, banks dont decide on loans based on race they decide on risk profile and whether you can pay back the loan. I have never heard of anyone not getting finance because of their race? Maybe you can provide links so I see what you talking about, do you know how many white people I know who have had credit and things like home loans denied to them?
It become even harder to get credit when your credit score is lower just because of zip code for area where you live because it is seen as poor/bad/etc. area, which is true for almost all areas where majority population belongs to minorities in USA.
https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201209_Analysis_Differences_Consumer_Credit.pdf
-
16 hours ago, Raithe said:
So they can't teach anymore that Jesus is God's son?
-
There has been lack if good leadership for past 80000 years, which is why we have seen constant change of leadership
EDIT: Costa has been PM of Portugal for over 6 years now. His win is surprise because people have not liked his policies, but it seem that they like opposition even less.
EDIT2: with that win Costa was able to keep his promise that he doesn't let hard left parties like Communists and Left Block in the government
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Darkpriest said:
If they would be cut off from SWIFT how do you imagine they would be getting paid? Airplanes with cash or gold? The immediate response would be to cease all transit until new settlement protocol would be adopted. No payments, no gas.... Simple as that and logical, right?
Russia has already seen this as possible scenario and created alternative SPFS, also EU has planned INSTEX to trade with countries that aren't part of SWIFT
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Malcador said:
Russia should just say Ukraine has WMDs.
ironically one of reason why we are where we are is because Ukraine gave up of its WMDs, because Russia and USA (plus UK and France) promised to ensure its territorial integrity
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:
Elerond this is not a good time for fence sitting. Finland must join NATO, its in the best interest of Finland to be openly aligned with NATO. You need to convince people of the importance of this
But if the majority of the Finnish parliament support joining NATO whats stopping Finland from joining, surly your elected parliament do decide these things and not the citizens?
Joining Nato needs change in Finland's constitution and in order to do that parliament needs to have 2/3 majority and then next parliament needs to also vote for change with 2/3 majority. Or parliament needs 5/6 majority to change constitution without need for next parliament to accept the change. Or government can organize constitutional referendum.
There is no 5/6 majority that supports the joining to Nato and referendum seems hopeless considering that only 25% of people support joining to Nato, so if government wants to join the Nato they would need to take risk and face election after starting unpopular change in constitution.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Agiel said:
Apart from the fact that European defence spending on the whole was in seeming terminal decline up until the annexation of Crimea and the the shootdown of MH17 gave European governments the kick in the pants nearly three whole US presidential administrations had failed to do, and that the character of US foreign policy ever since Obama's second term has been one of disengaging with European matters (arguably the biggest factor in softening the US position of JCPOA in favour of Iran were European negotiators, their reasons misguided or not). This is reflected by the fact that China remains top of mind for the Biden administration (only one CVN is in the Mediterranean as opposed to the two CSGs and one ARG currently in the Western Pacific) and they've made abundantly clear that it is unlikely that any wider American involvement is forthcoming (barring, well, I don't know, Wagner Group or other thugs wantonly marauding west of the Dnieper), all but stating that if nothing else Europeans themselves have to take the lead on this.
Face it, Putin is the best advertisement for NATO membership among Russia's near-abroad. I hardly think escalating in Ukraine to keep it from joining NATO is a good trade if it drives Sweden and _Finland_ into NATO's arms and adding 500+ miles of frontage with NATO countries with no love for the Kremlin, are highly motivated, armed to the teeth, have high degrees of interoperability with NATO, and are also less than 100 miles from Russia's _second_ most important city.
Trump's and Biden's actions have almost ensured that Finland will not join in NATO in next 10 years.
As only 25% of Finnish people support joining Nato, as it is seen increasing problems with Russia and bringing only hollow promises of help in case of invasion. Majority of members of Finland's parliament have supported joining Nato from 1995, but support for Nato among voters has not increased in past decade much.
QuoteAnd yeah, it's an open secret that Finland and especially Sweden are nowhere near as neutral as they say, already. If they actually joined NATO that would formalise something that is pretty close to de facto already for both, and in Sweden's case has been so pretty much since NATO was established. But, it's handy enough to have someone 'neutral' for exactly these sorts of situations that they probably won't.
Finland and Sweden are members of EU and its defensive pacts so it is quite open that we are not neutral, which we say in every time it is asked. In case of Nato vs Russia, Finland has military co-operation agreements with both, Sweden has only with Nato, neither has defensive pacts either Nato or Russia. Concept Finland and Sweden being neutral come from Cold War, when we didn't join either NATO or Warsaw Pact and had trade and diplomatic relationships with members of both alliances.
Ukraine conflict - im Westen nichts Neues
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Putin's decision to invade was not made abruptly considering that his notification of invasion was recorded three days ago and Russia started moving troops to Ukraine boarders several months ago. And they already made anticipatory plans with Belarus six months ago.
They may have alternative plans to achieve their goals only with threats, but clearly Russia has prepared for this route for long time now