Just tells you how shitty life is to some people.
- 0 Posts
- 133 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
Cake day: May 11th, 2025
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Who owns the app that gets the location data of every illegal immigrant? Maye they do know the Streisand effect.
Unipolary didn’t have strict rules either.
Neither is convenient for me because there will be a very inconvenient war. It’s just that people only count when there is an election, and then they only count as a manipulatable resource. Otherwise nobody in power cares about what people want.
You are right about your expectations about future wars. It’s time to come up with something to make a better future.
12·3 days agoSure. Unfortunately that’s not what counts. Also history is more complicated and doesn’t start in 2014.
Wang was said to have given Kallas – the former Estonian prime minister who only late last year took up her role as the bloc’s de facto foreign affairs chief – several “history lessons and lectures”.
Ukraine seems to be more of a unipolar project than a multipolar project. The important part is the last part of the last sentence.
David C. Hendrickson, in his article in Foreign Affairs on November 1, 1997, saw the core of the book as the ambitious strategy of NATO to move eastward to Ukraine’s Russian border and vigorously support the newly independent republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus, which is an integral part of what Hendrickson said could be called a “tough love” strategy for the Russians. Hendrickson considers “this great project” to be problematic for two reasons: the “excessive expansion of Western institutions” could well introduce centrifugal forces into it; moreover, Brzezinski’s “test of what legitimate Russian interests are” seems to be so strict that even a democratic Russia would probably “fail”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
Of course there can also be wars in the multipolar world. But there are enough started by the US that peace seems to be secondary.
The US wants to stay the hegemon but China is advancing technology faster than the US. The conflict is about the multipolar world. Unfortunately the US, and the EU, haven’t explained why they don’t want to be part of a multipolar world.
5·4 days agoThat depends on how much people with morals stick together. People are isolated so that they can be manipulated.
Wang hasn’t said it. He almost said the opposite. Please check my other comment for details.
They don’t have those plans. That’s insinuated to distract from what the minister actually said and implied.
I have poined this out in the other post: https://feddit.org/post/15221478
This article is slightly misleading if compared with the SCMP article which has big implications on understanding the global power dynamics. Draw your own conclusions.
SCMP:
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union’s top diplomat on Wednesday that Beijing does not want to see a Russian loss in Ukraine because it fears the United States would then shift its whole focus to Beijing, according to several people familiar with the exchange.
vs
As the war in Ukraine drags on, Wang’s reported comments suggest that Russia’s war in Ukraine may serve China’s strategic needs as focus is deviated away from Beijing’s mounting preparation to launch its own possible invasion into Taiwan.
It’s subtle, but the attack on Taiwan is an interpretation. The minister means something else.
If the economic development continues, Taiwan will want to join China. Thus the focus of the US is interpreted differently by China, more like the focus Iraq or Afghanistan received.
SCMP:
During a marathon four-hour debate on a wide range of geopolitical and commercial grievances, Wang was said to have given Kallas – the former Estonian prime minister who only late last year took up her role as the bloc’s de facto foreign affairs chief – several “history lessons and lectures”.
Some EU officials felt he was giving her a lesson in realpolitik, part of which focused on Beijing’s belief that Washington will soon turn its full attention eastward, two officials said. One interpretation of Wang’s statement in Brussels is that while China did not ask for the war, its prolongation may suit Beijing’s strategic needs, so long as the US remains engaged in Ukraine.
vs
that they believed Wang was providing Kallas with a lesson in realpolitik during the four-hour encounter.
No mentioning of the “history lessons and lectures”, which is a friendlier way of saying that he has referenced past behavior that suggest that the EU is in the wrong.
There seems to be ignorance about what is going to happen even right at the top of the EU. The Chinese minister is calling bullshit. Yet Kallas must have already known better.
Yes, go on from there. Shit happened. What will be next?
27·7 days ago7th branch of the military operating on US soil
Seventh National Army
It’s just a pun. Nothing to worry about.
An AI isn’t gonna judge you,
Guess what is happening with that chat history.
You don’t send your best troops into a position they can’t get out of if you don’t expect results.
They sent like 3 helicopters of their best looking soldiers. Why wouldn’t they try, at least it binds Ukrainian attention? But it’s muddy. To me it doesn’t look like a serious attack. They were also retreating at the same time as there was the peace treaty and the claim is that the retreat was part of the deal. I will judge that when the cloak of war is gone.
The joined military exercises, the advisers, the defence lines and the time it took to take Grozny. That requires a level of ignorance by the Russians that is very unlikely.
But even if they expected an easy victory, does that change that Ukraine is used to undermine and ultimately conquer Russia?
Russia was always going to push something to the point where other nations wouldn’t let them anymore. It’s not like Ukraine is the first sovereign nation they’ve invaded.
No. They used conflicts to prevent Nato expansions at their borders. Which souvereign nation do you have in mind?
Iraq, Libya, Syria. How can the West throw stones? I can understand and accept why we fight those wars. But without discussing the true motives we have essentially given up on our democracy while spreading democracy.
They are still purchasing it,
They are not purchasing it directly. Germany is paying for a war that is against their strategic advantage while handing over profits to other countries.
which is dumb because it increases they amount the need to spend in Ukraine
Russia won’t go broke. If Russia loses, China is next. China will always send enough money.
Gas is a liquid commodity. Russia could export to Algeria and Libya and they export their own gas to the EU. The more complicated the more costs. Russia will always sell gas and the EU will always import gas.
I think 2027 capacity will be there and Russia will be out. How much money was that for Russia? I don’t think that changed the war but immensely helped the EU.
20% from Russia are 300 TWh. At 30 Euro per MWh that’s 9 billion Euro.
This only increases costs for the EU and moves industries to other countries.
That’s dumb, especially since Germany could still use North Stream. Cui bono again.
You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into
everyone except Russia gains from it. China, North Korea, and Iran get to have Russia owe them a lot
Russia loses second most, with not much to win. 30% more wheat production is not a reason for war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wheat_production
Of course, Ukraine loses most. Indepted, lost territory and huge amount of death.
China owes Russia a lot because China is the ultimate objective. Russia could fold, have new elections and join Nato.
North Korea wins big, mostly for Russia stopping participation in sanctions. An advantage for Russia.
‘Europe’, or rather Germany loses third most because all profits from industrial products and benefits from cheap energy moves to China. Russia wasn’t threatening, an economic union suggested by Putin was possible.
US wins the most, by far. The US feels threatened by the Eurasian Union even though the EU is deeply linked with the US. Many major advisers argued against Nato expansion and they still did it. What’s their offer to Germany so that Germany accepted the Nato and EU expansion to Ukraine?
We can’t look at the past with the understanding we have now and think they knew this would happen though. They made it clear they expected an easy victory.
They told their soldiers about the easy victory.
Do you think they didn’t know about the Ukraine fortifications built since 2014? Have you seen their faces when they announced the ‘operation’? They had to take Grozny. Why should Kyiv fall in 3 days?
Have you looked at the book? This conflict is in the making for a long time. Putin tried to win over Germany with cheap gas to become part of the West and avoid the conflict but Merkel betrayed him and just took the gas without changing the original goals.
In what way were they forced to invade Crimea, and then the rest of Ukraine?
States are always doing things to make themselves more powerful.
That’s what you were taught in school what the US does.
This book explains how Ukraine is used.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
If you’re going to make the “buffer zone” argument, see how that’s decreased since the invasion, not increased, so if that was the goal, is was incredibly stupid.
Catch 22. But Finland and Sweden were essentially part of Nato by being part of the EU so Russia loses not much and would be much more threatened by Nato in Ukraine.
Probably the best option for Russia (not Putin though) would be closer economic ties to Europe.
That’s what Russia did.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
“In particular, he writes that no Eurasian challenger should emerge that can dominate Eurasia and thus also challenge U.S. global pre-eminence.”
The Ukraine war creates the hate between the EU and Russia that prevents that emergence. Russia would win so much more if it were part of the EU.
Cui bono?
That’s the elephant in the room.
For those who don’t know, Trump is threatening tariffs on Spain for not complying.
To me it means that the threat of leaving Nato is a ruse to facilitate armament for a big war against China. Fewer people would support that.
Such an agreement was never made," NATO says in a fact page on its website, one of multiple pages that addresses the Russian allegations. “NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 — and that has never changed.”
In the Tucker interview Putin references the meeting where he asked for membership. The minutes of that meeting could have been published to proof him wrong. In other words Russia was kept out and as an opponent by the choice of Nato.
Besides the wording is that there was no agreement and not that there were no promises. That suggests that Russia’s point of view is not entirely wrong.
As I think it was a professor of mine said, international politics is about power, not good. States are always doing things to make themselves more powerful.
In that light, aren’t Nato’s actions forcing Russia’s hands?
They can. They don’t though. I advocate that they do. I’d love to see the EU with its own defensive force
Article 42
And
The command was designed in light of growing hostilities between European countries and Russia since the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and in response to logistic and bureaucratic hurdles limiting military logistics in case of a crisis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Support_and_Enabling_Command
BAE Systems is a major supplier.
Using fracking if you could have electric cars shows that it is all about spoiling ground water.
This is the preparation for selling water to everybody.