Russia-Ukrainian War

[Luca]

45 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Be careful with what you are posting, @Luca! If you were mentioning the name you would likely be at risk for being called severely biased, based on your personal misogyny. 

 

It's great to a place to steam out here, right!? 

Hahaha, i dont even do that anymore. I also defended her about the 7000€ a month hair stylist budget but whenever i hear her talk with that broken english, harming relations with the biggest trading partners, i get a crisis. Its great to steam yes

Edited September 20, 2023 by Luca

[no_free_lunch]

34 minutes ago, Dinar said:

When has Ukraine existed for centuries?  Your own link shows that it was not an independent country before 1991.  In any case, you can argue whatever you want, but the point is there is no support on the American street for helping Ukraine.   

I never said as a sovereign.  Always under different yokes.  Poland and Russia in particular.  However, they were always independent culturally and this is what led to the creation of the country, like so many others, post Soviet breakup.

 

The US will support Ukraine, I believe, not because man on the street wants it to too but because the politicians know there is no real choice.  It really comes down to fighting your enemy for a fraction of the cost.  The US knows Russia is their enemy, Russia constantly reminds us of this when they threaten nuclear holocaust.  So to counteract them for $25B, is really nothing.  It's about 3% of the US defense budget.   Contain Russia so the US is free to fight China, if needed, that is I think the US thought process.

[cubsfan]

35 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

I never said as a sovereign.  Always under different yokes.  Poland and Russia in particular.  However, they were always independent culturally and this is what led to the creation of the country, like so many others, post Soviet breakup.

 

The US will support Ukraine, I believe, not because man on the street wants it to too but because the politicians know there is no real choice.  It really comes down to fighting your enemy for a fraction of the cost.  The US knows Russia is their enemy, Russia constantly reminds us of this when they threaten nuclear holocaust.  So to counteract them for $25B, is really nothing.  It's about 3% of the US defense budget.   Contain Russia so the US is free to fight China, if needed, that is I think the US thought process.

yeah, exactly the point. Protect Western Europe. Protect the South China Sea and Allies. The galvanizing of NATO was long overdue. That’s the real silver lining on this war, regardless if Ukraine territory is lost. 
 

China is watching Europe and the US closely.

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, no_free_lunch said:

I never said as a sovereign.  Always under different yokes.  Poland and Russia in particular.  However, they were always independent culturally and this is what led to the creation of the country, like so many others, post Soviet breakup.

 

The US will support Ukraine, I believe, not because man on the street wants it to too but because the politicians know there is no real choice.  It really comes down to fighting your enemy for a fraction of the cost.  The US knows Russia is their enemy, Russia constantly reminds us of this when they threaten nuclear holocaust.  So to counteract them for $25B, is really nothing.  It's about 3% of the US defense budget.   Contain Russia so the US is free to fight China, if needed, that is I think the US thought process.

Politicians have to respond to voters.  There is a choice, not to support Ukraine, and let the Europeans pay for it.  Russia is NOT our enemy, and has never been one.  We fought two wars against Germany, two against England, one against Japan, and not one against Russia.  

In any case, it is irrelevant what you and I think.  What matters is what man on the street in US wants, and he wants nothing to do with Ukraine.  Let the Germans & the French and the Lithuanians/Latvians/Estonians/Danes/Czechs and company for this is.  This is their problem, not ours.

[John Hjorth]

17 minutes ago, Dinar said:

In any case, it is irrelevant what you and I think.  What matters is what man on the street in US wants, and he wants nothing to do with Ukraine.  Let the Germans & the French and the Lithuanians/Latvians/Estonians/Danes/Czechs and company for this is.  This is their problem, not ours.

 

No it's not. What matters is this below [, and all here on CoBF know it, and by the way, all here on CoBF also know, that you also know it]  :

 

Quote

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 ¹

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France ², on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Article 7

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

 

[Dinar]

@John Hjorth, Ukraine is NOT part of NATO, so what is your point?

[Xerxes]

West has a fascination about breaking things up, for self-gratifying ideological reasons, which may or may not cause civil wars and then be involved to re-patch it up. 
 

I’ll just leave it at that. 

[no_free_lunch]

8 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

West has a fascination about breaking things up, for self-gratifying ideological reasons, which may or may not cause civil wars and then be involved to re-patch it up. 
 

I’ll just leave it at that. 

People like to criticize the west but sure like the progress and security of the west.  

[Xerxes]

13 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

People like to criticize the west but sure like the progress and security of the west.  

if I burn down your house and half of your family with it. And offer you safe haven, surely you will …..=> like the progress and security of my house 

 

Edit: and then I can sit and complain from about why the surviving members are not gratified by the “opportunities” by the Giving Hand. 
 

You guys do realize that most people just want stay where they are. And live their lives. And have no interest about some Westerner who “wants to free them”.  
 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Xerxes

[cubsfan]

1 minute ago, no_free_lunch said:

People like to criticize the west but sure like the progress and security of the west.  

No doubt about it. Witness even the behavior of Western Europe the last many years against their strongest ally, the USA. Past leaders of France, Germany, etc - totally poisoned the relationship.

 

Its great to see this changing.

[John Hjorth]

18 minutes ago, Dinar said:

@John Hjorth, Ukraine is NOT part of NATO, so what is your point?

 

I think my point here would be, let just Putin attack Sweden [ALSO not a NATO member] tomorrow. Because It doesen't matter to anything, anyway, right?

 

It's simply not how things work around here.

 

[And I can assure you, he wouldn't even dare.]

[John Hjorth]

2 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

... Its great to see this changing.

 

Mike [ @cubsfan],

 

I can personally assure you, it is!, at least here, locally.

[no_free_lunch]

12 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

if I burn down your house and half of your family with it. And offer you safe haven, surely you will …..=> like the progress and security of my house 

There are so many other countries that are relatively stable.  People are selecting the west for it's wealth and rule of law.  I don't buy what you are saying.  The proof is in where people are moving to.

[Xerxes]

10 minutes ago, John Hjorth said:

 

I think my point here would be, let just Putin attack Sweden [ALSO not a NATO member] tomorrow. Because It doesen't matter to anything, anyway, right?

 

It's simply not how things work around here.

 

[And I can assure you, he wouldn't even dare.]

@John Hjorth @Dinar

 

Eastern Europe is carved out for good, for decades to come. 
 

The axis of what comes next has moved to Armenia Azerbaijan. 

[Xerxes]

33 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

There are so many other countries that are relatively stable.  People are selecting the west for it's wealth and rule of law.  I don't buy what you are saying.  The proof is in where people are moving to.

 

immigrants choose to move for better opportunities. Like the Irish and Italians did to the US, eons ago. 
 

Refugees move because they do not have a choice. Refugees just look for the closest “escape valve”. Wherever that might be. 

I don’t think immigrants in the early 20th century to the US went there for wealth and rule of law, as you say. They went because it was the “undiscovered country” and its prospect. By many measures Europe was wealthier and had established rule of law (notwithstanding wars). But what US had was opportunities. 
 

it depends when you want to draw your line in the timeline. 
 

today, yes, folk immigrate to be where the rule of law is. But again opportunity trumps wealth. Europe still has a lot of wealth, but that is only good if you are “old money”. You cannot create new wealth in Europe with the same scale as in the US. 
 

So is it really West we are talking about or US specifically. 

Edited September 20, 2023 by Xerxes

[no_free_lunch]

52 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

 

immigrants choose to move for better opportunities. Like the Irish and Italians did to the US, eons ago. 
 

Refugees move because they do not have a choice. Refugees just look for the closest “escape valve”. Wherever that might be. 

I don’t think immigrants in the early 20th century to the US went there for wealth and rule of law, as you say. They went because it was the “undiscovered country” and its prospect. By many measures Europe was wealthier and had established rule of law (notwithstanding wars). But what US had was opportunities. 
 

it depends when you want to draw your line in the timeline. 
 

today, yes, folk immigrate to be where the rule of law is. But again opportunity trumps wealth. Europe still has a lot of wealth, but that is only good if you are “old money”. You cannot create new wealth in Europe with the same scale as in the US. 
 

So is it really West we are talking about or US specifically. 

Why is it that the US is so much richer than Mexico?   Why is Arizona so much richer than any of the states it borders?  Rule of law most certainly.

 

I really wonder about the above.   To ignore these type of inquiry and just flip to US imperialism or whatever you are getting at misses so much.  If we are to move forward and you want to talk about the US specifically, we need to at least understand what led to the US wealth creation.  To go apples to apples you need to compare the US to the best peers, probably Canada, Mexico, South America?  When I do, superficially, what rhymes and doesn't rhyme is the rule of law and capitalist systems in place here.

[cubsfan]

10 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

Why is it that the US is so much richer than Mexico?   Why is Arizona so much richer than any of the states it borders?  Rule of law most certainly.

 

I really wonder about the above.   To ignore these type of inquiry and just flip to US imperialism or whatever you are getting at misses so much.  If we are to move forward and you want to talk about the US specifically, we need to at least understand what led to the US wealth creation.  To go apples to apples you need to compare the US to the best peers, probably Canada, Mexico, South America?  When I do, superficially, what rhymes and doesn't rhyme is the rule of law and capitalist systems in place here.

absolutely. The US and Canada are special places due to English common law (rule of law) - the rest of the western hemisphere pails in comparison.

[Xerxes]

3 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

Why is it that the US is so much richer than Mexico?   Why is Arizona so much richer than any of the states it borders?  Rule of law most certainly.

 

I really wonder about the above.   To ignore these type of inquiry and just flip to US imperialism or whatever you are getting at misses so much.  If we are to move forward and you want to talk about the US specifically, we need to at least understand what led to the US wealth creation.  To go apples to apples you need to compare the US to the best peers, probably Canada, Mexico, South America?  When I do, superficially, what rhymes and doesn't rhyme is the rule of law and capitalist systems in place here.

you seem to have missed my point. I made a distinction between US and West to clarify that most people like to go to the US, as oppose this “generic” West-West-we-are-the-best—West that gets thrown about. That is the distinction that I was going to make. 
 

in any case, we are talking past each other. Since I wasn’t even talking/thinking about US “imperialism” when I wrote about civil wars. That was generic comment. If anything it relates to the mess that British left in India and Pakistan. 

- - -

 

On a different note and completely unrelated, Argentina is part of the New World and was a rich country. I don’t know their history well but over the past 80 years or so it flipped for them. Why is that ? What makes you think the samething is not going to happen to Canada or US. We are looking at snapshot in time. We don’t know what the future holds. Maybe 80 years from now someone will be sitting in their ivory tower in Buenos Aires and issue grand proclamation about immigrants. 

 

[no_free_lunch]

46 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

you seem to have missed my point. I made a distinction between US and West to clarify that most people like to go to the US, as oppose this “generic” West-West-we-are-the-best—West that gets thrown about. That is the distinction that I was going to make. 
 

in any case, we are talking past each other. Since I wasn’t even talking/thinking about US “imperialism” when I wrote about civil wars. That was generic comment. If anything it relates to the mess that British left in India and Pakistan. 

- - -

 

On a different note and completely unrelated, Argentina is part of the New World and was a rich country. I don’t know their history well but over the past 80 years or so it flipped for them. Why is that ? What makes you think the samething is not going to happen to Canada or US. We are looking at snapshot in time. We don’t know what the future holds. Maybe 80 years from now someone will be sitting in their ivory tower in Buenos Aires and issue grand proclamation about immigrants. 

 

Argentina went in for socialism.. this is how it always ends up.  I am no expert on it, never been there, but I know they chased the socialist demon.

 

"

Argentina, “which has defaulted 7 times since its independence in 1816, which has seen the largest relative standard of living decline in the world since 1900, and which is on the brink of political and economic chaos again in 2019.

 

Argentina met most of the following criteria: a) higher personal and corporate tax rates, and higher government spending; b) more worker protections restricting the ability of companies to hire and fire, and less flexibility for companies to set wages based on worker productivity and/or to hire foreign labor; c) more reliance on regulation, more constraints on real estate development; d) more anti-trust enforcement and more state intervention in product markets; and a shift away from a shareholder-centric business model; e) protections for workers and domestic industries through tariff and non-tariff barriers, and more constraints on capital inflows and outflows.

"

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-one-country-proves-even-little-socialism-does-lot-damage-118946

 

Canada is going for socialism and could end up similar.  I wonder if the stagnant indices we have seen in Canada and the EU since 2008 are not reflective of the degree of socialism that we have taken on.

Edited September 20, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[ValueArb]

On 9/19/2023 at 11:43 PM, John Hjorth said:

 

The above is not correct.

 

Wikipedia : 2022 Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage.

Come on, Wikipedia isn’t an authority on anything, it’s a crowd sourced compendium of claims from investigators who refuse to reveal their findings and methods.

 

I already posted a link to a description of how the explosions could have been caused by methane hydrate blocks at high speed triggered by attempting to clear the pipelines from a single end, just as Gazprom would hace done to prep them for possible use.

 

Even the investigators say things that unwittingly support this possibility. “Two Danish engineers with expertise in pipeline construction argued that the highly pressurised gas released by the explosion could have both bent the severed pipeline ends and formed the crater in the seabed”

[John Hjorth]

Just to keep @Lucas blood pressure up!  -This does not look good and is embarassing for Germany.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by John Hjorth

[Luca]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

Just to keep @Lucas blood pressure up!  -This does not look good and is embassing for Germany.

 

 

The Hypocrisy...

[UK]

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/09/21/to-endure-a-long-war-ukraine-is-remaking-its-army-economy-and-society

 

Ukrainians clearly have some concerns about how the country is being run. Approval of the army and the president remain sky high, but confidence in the country’s politicians in general is down from 60% in December to 44% in June. The share of Ukrainians who say the country is on the right track has also slipped (see chart). There is disquiet about corruption in particular. But 76% tell pollsters they do not want new elections until the war is over. Support for Ukraine’s independence is the highest it has ever been, at 82%. Most do not complain about restrictions on movement or other wartime curtailment of civil liberties. “War has become part of a new horrific normal,” says Darina Solodova, a sociologist with the United Nations Development Programme in Kyiv. Resistance to Russia’s aggression remains a unifying principle for the vast majority. “It is not the question of whether to resist or not, but who has done more or less for that resistance,” says Ms Solodova. Across Ukraine 42% say that even if Russia intensifies its bombing of cities Ukraine should keep fighting. Some 21% think that the conflict should be frozen without making any concessions to Russia. Only 23% think it is worth initiating negotiations. Even in the east and south, which have borne the brunt of the war, support for negotiations is relatively low, at 32% and 39% respectively. Only 5% of Ukrainians are willing to cede any territory to Russia and only 18% to forswear joining nato.

[UK]

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/09/21/western-help-for-ukraine-is-likely-to-diminish-next-year

 

The year after next is also a lifetime away in terms of politics. In Europe, the political winds seem favourable to Ukraine. Polls conducted in June and July showed that 64% of Europeans favour military aid to Ukraine, with strong support not just in countries with a long-standing suspicion of Russia, such as Sweden (93%), but also in more distant member states such as Portugal (90%). Olaf Scholz, Germany’s chancellor, has been mindful of anti-war sentiment, notably within his own Social Democratic Party. He dithered for months before agreeing to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine. He still refuses to send long-range Taurus missiles, even though Britain and France have given Ukraine comparable weapons. Yet Mr Scholz has by now realised that public scepticism is mushy: as soon as he sends a new weapon, approval broadly follows. On September 18th his government announced another €400m ($429m) of arms, including ammunition, armoured vehicles and mine-clearing equipment. Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, who provoked grumbling in Kyiv last year over his frequent phone calls with Vladimir Putin, his Russian counterpart, and over his hesitation in sending weapons, is now among the most gung-ho of European leaders. France has long resisted expanding the eu, yet Mr Macron has become a fervent supporter of Ukraine’s accession to the bloc. A poll in July showed that 58% of the French backed this approach. Ukraine’s bid for eu membership is proceeding at a pace that would have astonished Europe-watchers just a few years ago. It formally became a candidate to join in June, 2022. This December, barring a shock, that status will be upgraded by the opening of detailed negotiations on accession. Ukraine is dazzling eu officials with its swift progress on the necessary reforms. It may still take years for Ukraine to become a fully fledged member, but the war seems to be speeding up the process rather than delaying it.

...

In America, however, the outlook is much more divided and uncertain. On August 10th the White House asked Congress to authorise another $24bn “supplemental” budget for Ukraine, which would bring total American aid thus far to $135bn. Supporters of such assistance, among both Democrats and Republicans, constitute a clear majority of both chambers of Congress. Were the request put to a simple up-or-down vote, it would be approved relatively easily. But it is unlikely to be, because of America’s dysfunctional politics. A majority of the members of the House of Representatives may support Ukraine, but a small number of Republicans hold extreme anti-Ukrainian views, including Matt Gaetz, who has proposed inviting Russia to join nato, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, a conspiracy theorist who has promoted the absurd notion that aid to Ukraine is actually being siphoned off by donors to the Democrats. Since the Republicans have only a slender majority in the House and since the Speaker, Kevin McCarthy, does not want to rely on Democratic votes to push legislation through, the pro-Russia fringe has much more influence than its numbers would imply. The likeliest course is for Mr McCarthy to attach the supplemental budget to other important legislation, making it harder to derail. Past efforts in the House to deny Ukraine funding have been overcome, although each one attracts more Republican votes. Mr Biden already has congressional approval to send a further $6bn-worth of weapons to Ukraine from existing stockpiles. But after that there is likely to be a delay of several months while Congress contorts itself over the latest request. What emerges may be dribs and drabs of aid, rather than the big packages of last year. In the longer run, aid for Ukraine is fast becoming a partisan issue, which makes its prospects ever less certain. Republican voters, egged on by the scepticism of Donald Trump, their party’s likeliest nominee for president next year, have begun to question further aid to Ukraine. Democrats remain broadly supportive. The big budget deficit and high interest rates make politicians of all parties reluctant to rack up more debt. And even Democrats support the notion that America’s European allies should be the ones taking the initiative in conflicts on their own borders. And then there is the possibility that Mr Trump wins next year’s election. His policy on Ukraine is characteristically incoherent. In March he promised that he would settle the war in “no longer than one day”, before even entering office. “We don’t have ammunition for ourselves,” he complained in May, “We’re giving away so much.” But he denies he would push for a deal allowing Mr Putin to keep Ukrainian territory. “Nobody was tougher on Russia than me,” he said this week, insisting he would strike “a fair deal for everybody”.

Edited September 22, 2023 by UK

[Xerxes]

What would be the “adjusted” stats if Western support was withdrawn ?
 

This is like the argument that stocks are fairly valued in 2021, because interest rate were close to zero. Who said rock-bottom interest rate was going to be permanent. 

 

 

Across Ukraine 42% say that even if Russia intensifies its bombing of cities Ukraine should keep fighting. Some 21% think that the conflict should be frozen without making any concessions to Russia. Only 23% think it is worth initiating negotiations. Even in the east and south, which have borne the brunt of the war, support for negotiations is relatively low, at 32% and 39% respectively. Only 5% of Ukrainians are willing to cede any territory to Russia and only 18% to forswear joining nato.