I don’t understand what surprised you so much in this law that you have already mentioned it several times? This is the case when the legislative initiative adequately responded to the changed requirements of real life. The 40-year limit was too strict and was actually abolished, increased to the retirement age limit. The modern army is not only and not so much drill on the parade ground and forced marches in full uniform over rough terrain, but also the management of complex equipment, which requires a fairly long time to learn.
Look at the attempts by Western instructors to hastily train Ukrainian soldiers in the handling of Western military equipment. After a few weeks or even a couple of months of intensive express training, the success of the Ukrainians in shooting from American howitzers is more than modest (let's face it - they have not learned how to shoot accurately from them). Russian military equipment is usually easier to manage than Western ones, but nonetheless. If a person knows how to control a missile system well, he can successfully do it at the age of 50, and even at 60.
Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 283. (Read 73622 times)
Meanwhile:
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-raises-military-age/31867388.html
Quote
MOSCOW -- Russian parliament's lower chamber, the State Duma, has approved a bill that would raise the upper age limit for military personnel serving in the Russian Army on a contractual basis.
According to the bill, which had all three readings approved on May 25, men up to age 65 will now be eligible to serve in the army. The new limit also applies to foreign nationals wishing to serve in the army as well.
According to the bill, which had all three readings approved on May 25, men up to age 65 will now be eligible to serve in the army. The new limit also applies to foreign nationals wishing to serve in the army as well.
Any volunteer? Branko, you can go there an participate of the glory! Come on!
Any volunteer to get inside one of these?
Since when is Ukraine on Atlantic?
While we're at it, let's invade Luxembourg, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and North Macedonia on the grounds of them being illegitimate NATO members because "Atlantic".
Or, let Taiwain into it. Since those are in NATO, there are no legitimate reasons to keep Taiwan out
Correct. No legal reason... once the US recognises that is an independent nation, which I am not sure it has (US policy on Taiwan / Taipei is ambiguous as long as China does not make a point on getting a clear answer). The other step is to have it accepted by all members of NATO, which may not happen.
Anyway, NATO is not the only military alliance. For example, the UK has already made a pact with Finland and Sweden, regardless if they join or not NATO.
This is some free consultancy for the RF:
Your objective is competing in a world that is growing fast. If you are left behind your people and the nation as such will not do well, no matter how many wars you fight.
- Develop the east. The territory is immense, the opportunities endless, you do not need to look further. I understand that as of now, there are political reasons why Moscow / St Petersburg would rather not do that, but long term it causes tensions.
- Attract investment, both local and foreign. You cannot do without it. See next point on how to enable that, but, as a hint, you should be seen as a pacific partner and stable on that regards.
- Put in place the enablers of growth: Rule of law, fair and speedy justice. This implies you need to get rid of the Cleptocrats and local despots, no way around that.
- Keep your strengths: good universities, good research, ability to manage complex projects, ...
- Use wisely the money that is coming from exporting natural resources. Try to build up the chain of value (e.g. do not export crude oil, but refined products).
- Do not enter into unnecessary wars. Your territory is quite protected and other than that your real threat is terrorism (the real one, not the guys with the "tatoos").
- Do not spend 11% of your GDP in weapons - it is not needed.
Life could be very different in the RF.
There is a saying in Russia: "It's a pity that everyone who knows how to properly run the state is already working in a taxi." Your objective is competing in a world that is growing fast. If you are left behind your people and the nation as such will not do well, no matter how many wars you fight.
- Develop the east. The territory is immense, the opportunities endless, you do not need to look further. I understand that as of now, there are political reasons why Moscow / St Petersburg would rather not do that, but long term it causes tensions.
- Attract investment, both local and foreign. You cannot do without it. See next point on how to enable that, but, as a hint, you should be seen as a pacific partner and stable on that regards.
- Put in place the enablers of growth: Rule of law, fair and speedy justice. This implies you need to get rid of the Cleptocrats and local despots, no way around that.
- Keep your strengths: good universities, good research, ability to manage complex projects, ...
- Use wisely the money that is coming from exporting natural resources. Try to build up the chain of value (e.g. do not export crude oil, but refined products).
- Do not enter into unnecessary wars. Your territory is quite protected and other than that your real threat is terrorism (the real one, not the guys with the "tatoos").
- Do not spend 11% of your GDP in weapons - it is not needed.
Life could be very different in the RF.
That goes well with the old USSR saying "The workers pretend to work and the state pretends to pay them". The new one for Adolf Putin is "The soldiers pretend to fight and the Kremlin pretends they are doing well".
I do not work in a taxi. The people who are smiling while Adolf Putin drives the RF into a hole do not work in a taxi either. I am aware that it is the new thing of the internet and the brain-dead media to value equally all views and give credibility to anything, but not every opinion and view is the same and not all people who speak on a topic are the same.
...
I'm not sure what ramifications would belligerent status bring to this, but pretty sure we're at the stage where neither Russia nor US would care about legalities much.
Iran has some disputed Islands in the straight of Hormuz and can claim 20km if internal waters around them, they threaten to close it every few years. Strait is only like 25km at it's narrowest, and Iran has a lot of land exposure around it Plus conveniently a third of the world's liquefied natural gas and almost 25% of total global oil consumption passes through the strait. If Iran gets its hands on some hyper sonic missiles, that can easily take out an aircraft carrier, that might be enough to change it's math to perhaps partial blocking of US military. China getting few hyper sonic missiles (which can take out an airfield) would instantly nullify billions in fighter jets and patriot missiles sold to Taiwan. Seeing how Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe, and with it loosing around 20% of its land to Russia i'd guess thousands of javelins, NLAWs and MANPADS can easily find their way to battle grounds where US is involved. Bottom line there are a lot of painful points Russia can escalate at in retaliation, and of course run away escalations lead from cold wars to hot nuclear ones.
Russia indicated that Ukraine was a red line for it, and cornered they really have no better option but to escalate, EU clearly indicating that it doesn't care much for the conflict and just wants it to go away, so we're only left with US still pushing it. Regardless of what happens (short of nuke war) Russia knows that it'll be warm (with gas/oil) and fed (grain) this winter, such certainties don't exist for EU. Knowing that, i just don't see how any escalation can make Russia capitulate, admit a loss and return to long term ruined economy, political unrest, shortages in high tech sectors (and most likely full collapse). That's why I'm confused of US end goal with such semi (but not too far) escalations, surely the expectation can't be of Russia folding and willingly collapsing, guess that's why Kissinger said what he said.
I'm not sure what ramifications would belligerent status bring to this, but pretty sure we're at the stage where neither Russia nor US would care about legalities much.
Iran has some disputed Islands in the straight of Hormuz and can claim 20km if internal waters around them, they threaten to close it every few years. Strait is only like 25km at it's narrowest, and Iran has a lot of land exposure around it Plus conveniently a third of the world's liquefied natural gas and almost 25% of total global oil consumption passes through the strait. If Iran gets its hands on some hyper sonic missiles, that can easily take out an aircraft carrier, that might be enough to change it's math to perhaps partial blocking of US military. China getting few hyper sonic missiles (which can take out an airfield) would instantly nullify billions in fighter jets and patriot missiles sold to Taiwan. Seeing how Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe, and with it loosing around 20% of its land to Russia i'd guess thousands of javelins, NLAWs and MANPADS can easily find their way to battle grounds where US is involved. Bottom line there are a lot of painful points Russia can escalate at in retaliation, and of course run away escalations lead from cold wars to hot nuclear ones.
Russia indicated that Ukraine was a red line for it, and cornered they really have no better option but to escalate, EU clearly indicating that it doesn't care much for the conflict and just wants it to go away, so we're only left with US still pushing it. Regardless of what happens (short of nuke war) Russia knows that it'll be warm (with gas/oil) and fed (grain) this winter, such certainties don't exist for EU. Knowing that, i just don't see how any escalation can make Russia capitulate, admit a loss and return to long term ruined economy, political unrest, shortages in high tech sectors (and most likely full collapse). That's why I'm confused of US end goal with such semi (but not too far) escalations, surely the expectation can't be of Russia folding and willingly collapsing, guess that's why Kissinger said what he said.
Becoming "belligerent" means that there is a legal cover for actions directly affecting that country. e.g. blowing refineries and the like.
I am aware of the importance of the Ormuz strait. I just do not think that Iran wants to follow through with that strategy. You make too many assumptions on capabilities, corruption and politics here, but they are quite iffy.
The EU "not caring", in my view, does not match reality, particularly after the latest sanctions package.
This is some free consultancy for the RF:
Your objective is competing in a world that is growing fast. If you are left behind your people and the nation as such will not do well, no matter how many wars you fight.
- Develop the east. The territory is immense, the opportunities endless, you do not need to look further. I understand that as of now, there are political reasons why Moscow / St Petersburg would rather not do that, but long term it causes tensions.
- Attract investment, both local and foreign. You cannot do without it. See next point on how to enable that, but, as a hint, you should be seen as a pacific partner and stable on that regards.
- Put in place the enablers of growth: Rule of law, fair and speedy justice. This implies you need to get rid of the Cleptocrats and local despots, no way around that.
- Keep your strengths: good universities, good research, ability to manage complex projects, ...
- Use wisely the money that is coming from exporting natural resources. Try to build up the chain of value (e.g. do not export crude oil, but refined products).
- Do not enter into unnecessary wars. Your territory is quite protected and other than that your real threat is terrorism (the real one, not the guys with the "tatoos").
- Do not spend 11% of your GDP in weapons - it is not needed.
Life could be very different in the RF.
There is a saying in Russia: "It's a pity that everyone who knows how to properly run the state is already working in a taxi." Your objective is competing in a world that is growing fast. If you are left behind your people and the nation as such will not do well, no matter how many wars you fight.
- Develop the east. The territory is immense, the opportunities endless, you do not need to look further. I understand that as of now, there are political reasons why Moscow / St Petersburg would rather not do that, but long term it causes tensions.
- Attract investment, both local and foreign. You cannot do without it. See next point on how to enable that, but, as a hint, you should be seen as a pacific partner and stable on that regards.
- Put in place the enablers of growth: Rule of law, fair and speedy justice. This implies you need to get rid of the Cleptocrats and local despots, no way around that.
- Keep your strengths: good universities, good research, ability to manage complex projects, ...
- Use wisely the money that is coming from exporting natural resources. Try to build up the chain of value (e.g. do not export crude oil, but refined products).
- Do not enter into unnecessary wars. Your territory is quite protected and other than that your real threat is terrorism (the real one, not the guys with the "tatoos").
- Do not spend 11% of your GDP in weapons - it is not needed.
Life could be very different in the RF.
Since when is Ukraine on Atlantic?
While we're at it, let's invade Luxembourg, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and North Macedonia on the grounds of them being illegitimate NATO members because "Atlantic".
Or, let Taiwain into it. Since those are in NATO, there are no legitimate reasons to keep Taiwan out
...
Now to still try and make it work US need to continue to escalate the conflict (first Javelin will be a game changer, MANPADS, then Switchblades, then much needed M777 howitzers, now even more desperately needed HIMARS, next will be
) and as you previously noted everything comes at a cost. Where does that leave Russia, either sit back and do nothing or since US is setting a precedent that selling long range missiles is now acceptable practice and doesn't make you a party to a conflict, Russia can starts selling latest anti-air and anti-ship missiles to Iran, how much do you think it'd take for them to close the straight of Hormuz?
...
Turkey, Italy and Greece are connected to the Atlantic ocean through the mediterranean sea.
Now to still try and make it work US need to continue to escalate the conflict (first Javelin will be a game changer, MANPADS, then Switchblades, then much needed M777 howitzers, now even more desperately needed HIMARS, next will be
) and as you previously noted everything comes at a cost. Where does that leave Russia, either sit back and do nothing or since US is setting a precedent that selling long range missiles is now acceptable practice and doesn't make you a party to a conflict, Russia can starts selling latest anti-air and anti-ship missiles to Iran, how much do you think it'd take for them to close the straight of Hormuz?...
Turkey, Italy and Greece are connected to the Atlantic ocean through the mediterranean sea.
Quote
Well Taiwan is also connected to the Atlantic ocean through some body of water 
don't get tied up on semantics, you need to see the forest behind the trees. Surely if US would deem in beneficial, adding the + to NATO+ is the least of the problems.
...
don't get tied up on semantics, you need to see the forest behind the trees. Surely if US would deem in beneficial, adding the + to NATO+ is the least of the problems....
Super-funny the comment of the Mediterranean being connected. I guess then Taiwan is connected as well both on the east and the west, north and south through different oceans so all fine.
Some legal opinions state that selling weapons to a party in conflict is a legitimate trade according to international law and does not make you a party in the conflict. It does not remove your "non-belligerent" status no matter the precise weaponry, quantity or use - much more questionable to call that "neutrality". To be honest, I think that the RF would not want the US to be officially a belligerent party.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/ukraine-neutrality-co-belligerency-use-of-force/
In general, Ukraine is seen as a country unlawfully invaded and defending its territory from an aggression. Most legal opinions would claim that selling weapons to Ukraine is helping restore international legality rather than taking part in a conflict.
My personal view is that selling material that will be used to defend the Ukrainian territory is legal and does not remove "non-belligerent" claims, as long as it is not used to strike in Russian territory - again IMHO even that would also bee acceptable if targeting troops or means used for the invasion. That is why US and UK have been very reluctant to send their versions of MLRS (the HIMARS) which have nothing to do with the RF MLRS - much longer range, technologically advanced munitions.
So, for now, even M777 that are used within Ukraine are perfectly acceptable IMHO. The switchblades, Javelin, etc.. are pretty much defensive weapons just to provide infantry with a fighting chance against armoured groups.
On Iran closing Ormuz, I do not see how that could be a defensive act. Attacking or blockading ships would be an act of war and it would justify a strong response.
Looks like MQ-1C Gray Eagle (upgraded predator drone) is the next "game changer" for Ukraine that's totally winning. And US military hackers conducting offensive operations in support of Ukraine, says head of Cyber Command
I'm not sure what ramifications would belligerent status bring to this, but pretty sure we're at the stage where neither Russia nor US would care about legalities much.
Iran has some disputed Islands in the straight of Hormuz and can claim 20km if internal waters around them, they threaten to close it every few years. Strait is only like 25km at it's narrowest, and Iran has a lot of land exposure around it Plus conveniently a third of the world's liquefied natural gas and almost 25% of total global oil consumption passes through the strait. If Iran gets its hands on some hyper sonic missiles, that can easily take out an aircraft carrier, that might be enough to change it's math to perhaps partial blocking of US military. China getting few hyper sonic missiles (which can take out an airfield) would instantly nullify billions in fighter jets and patriot missiles sold to Taiwan. Seeing how Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe, and with it loosing around 20% of its land to Russia i'd guess thousands of javelins, NLAWs and MANPADS can easily find their way to battle grounds where US is involved. Bottom line there are a lot of painful points Russia can escalate at in retaliation, and of course run away escalations lead from cold wars to hot nuclear ones.
Russia indicated that Ukraine was a red line for it, and cornered they really have no better option but to escalate, EU clearly indicating that it doesn't care much for the conflict and just wants it to go away, so we're only left with US still pushing it. Regardless of what happens (short of nuke war) Russia knows that it'll be warm (with gas/oil) and fed (grain) this winter, such certainties don't exist for EU. Knowing that, i just don't see how any escalation can make Russia capitulate, admit a loss and return to long term ruined economy, political unrest, shortages in high tech sectors (and most likely full collapse). That's why I'm confused of US end goal with such semi (but not too far) escalations, surely the expectation can't be of Russia folding and willingly collapsing, guess that's why Kissinger said what he said.
...
Now to still try and make it work US need to continue to escalate the conflict (first Javelin will be a game changer, MANPADS, then Switchblades, then much needed M777 howitzers, now even more desperately needed HIMARS, next will be) and as you previously noted everything comes at a cost. Where does that leave Russia, either sit back and do nothing or since US is setting a precedent that selling long range missiles is now acceptable practice and doesn't make you a party to a conflict, Russia can starts selling latest anti-air and anti-ship missiles to Iran, how much do you think it'd take for them to close the straight of Hormuz?
...
Turkey, Italy and Greece are connected to the Atlantic ocean through the mediterranean sea.
Now to still try and make it work US need to continue to escalate the conflict (first Javelin will be a game changer, MANPADS, then Switchblades, then much needed M777 howitzers, now even more desperately needed HIMARS, next will be
) and as you previously noted everything comes at a cost. Where does that leave Russia, either sit back and do nothing or since US is setting a precedent that selling long range missiles is now acceptable practice and doesn't make you a party to a conflict, Russia can starts selling latest anti-air and anti-ship missiles to Iran, how much do you think it'd take for them to close the straight of Hormuz?...
Turkey, Italy and Greece are connected to the Atlantic ocean through the mediterranean sea.
Quote
Well Taiwan is also connected to the Atlantic ocean through some body of water don't get tied up on semantics, you need to see the forest behind the trees. Surely if US would deem in beneficial, adding the + to NATO+ is the least of the problems.
...
don't get tied up on semantics, you need to see the forest behind the trees. Surely if US would deem in beneficial, adding the + to NATO+ is the least of the problems....
Super-funny the comment of the Mediterranean being connected. I guess then Taiwan is connected as well both on the east and the west, north and south through different oceans so all fine.
Some legal opinions state that selling weapons to a party in conflict is a legitimate trade according to international law and does not make you a party in the conflict. It does not remove your "non-belligerent" status no matter the precise weaponry, quantity or use - much more questionable to call that "neutrality". To be honest, I think that the RF would not want the US to be officially a belligerent party.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/ukraine-neutrality-co-belligerency-use-of-force/
In general, Ukraine is seen as a country unlawfully invaded and defending its territory from an aggression. Most legal opinions would claim that selling weapons to Ukraine is helping restore international legality rather than taking part in a conflict.
My personal view is that selling material that will be used to defend the Ukrainian territory is legal and does not remove "non-belligerent" claims, as long as it is not used to strike in Russian territory - again IMHO even that would also bee acceptable if targeting troops or means used for the invasion. That is why US and UK have been very reluctant to send their versions of MLRS (the HIMARS) which have nothing to do with the RF MLRS - much longer range, technologically advanced munitions.
So, for now, even M777 that are used within Ukraine are perfectly acceptable IMHO. The switchblades, Javelin, etc.. are pretty much defensive weapons just to provide infantry with a fighting chance against armoured groups.
On Iran closing Ormuz, I do not see how that could be a defensive act. Attacking or blockading ships would be an act of war and it would justify a strong response.
Glorious Russian Looting Forces at it again (I mean they've never been not at it, it's just a never-ending cringe and horror).
Quote from: https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/features-61649249
A Ukrainian refugee in the UK says that in a recent photo of a Russian tank she recognized her belongings, which were probably stolen from her apartment.
According to Alina Korenyuk, the photo showed a new boiler that her family planned to install before the war.
[...]
According to Alina, in addition to the boiler, the tank had a tablecloth from their dacha, new children's sheets with Disney pictures and a red blanket.
According to Alina Korenyuk, the photo showed a new boiler that her family planned to install before the war.
[...]
According to Alina, in addition to the boiler, the tank had a tablecloth from their dacha, new children's sheets with Disney pictures and a red blanket.
Hard to know how the items got out of 'Alina's apartment even if the story has any truth to it whatsoever, but there are certainly some options as to how that could have happened:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/p2w0fp8WDmKf/
In related news, getting kicked out of the Jewkrainian 'Commissioner for Human Rights' for making up news is a truly impressive feat, but somehow this lady accomplished it.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-fires-human-rights-chief-perpetuating-russian-troop-systematic-rape-stories
It took a series of stories building up to "Russian Forces Rape Minors in Ukraine, as They Eat Stray Dogs which Ate Russian Corpses". Ultimately she somehow managed to go one bridge too far. Funny thing is that most of the gullible tards on this thread seem to have believed every word, and continue to do so to this day. Looking through her works, I see a couple of the lady's fabrications which have been relayed here by the usual suspects. 'Cannot cure stupid' so they say.
...
The beauty of that is that there is no way Russia can do anything about it they just cannot compete on the soft power field.
...
Only options for Russia is sit back and keep loosing countries in its sphere of influence and ultimately be torn apart, or radicalize become a dictatorship and switch the playing field to hard power.
...
The beauty of that is that there is no way Russia can do anything about it they just cannot compete on the soft power field.
...
Only options for Russia is sit back and keep loosing countries in its sphere of influence and ultimately be torn apart, or radicalize become a dictatorship and switch the playing field to hard power.
...
On regards to the RF becoming a dictatorship "in the future", I think that Moskva has sailed.
I think you have depicted the problem, but there is a solution. It is difficult for the RF to assume that its influence is in decline. It is not just the US, it is that all the world is moving ahead and the RF is not keeping the pace. Among other things, if you have the GDP of Italy and spend 11% of it in military you need to take it from schools, doctor, civil research, ... It is a problem of mindset.
This is some free consultancy for the RF:
Your objective is competing in a world that if itis growing fast. If you are left behind your people and the nation as such will not do well, no matter how many wars you fight.
- Develop the east. The territory is immense, the opportunities endless, you do not need to look further. I understand that as of now, there are political reasons why Moscow / St Petersburg would rather not do that, but long term it causes tensions.
- Attract investment, both local and foreign. You cannot do without it. See next point on how to enable that, but, as a hint, you should be seen as a pacific partner and stable on that regards.
- Put in place the enablers of growth: Rule of law, fair and speedy justice. This implies you need to get rid of the Cleptocrats and local despots, no way around that.
- Keep your strengths: good universities, good research, ability to manage complex projects, ...
- Use wisely the money that is coming from exporting natural resources. Try to build up the chain of value (e.g. do not export crude oil, but refined products).
- Do not enter into unnecessary wars. Your territory is quite protected and other than that your real threat is terrorism (the real one, not the guys with the "tatoos").
- Do not spend 11% of your GDP in weapons - it is not needed.
Life could be very different in the RF.
Why would US let RF prosper, especially considering it's proximity to China? You know what powerful nations want right? That combination is too dangerous and needs to be stopped at its infancy. Much easier to kneecap RF, take Ukraine out of it's sphere of influence and then it'd be great if that could sustain itself by forcing RF to continue to sell its resources to EU through Ukraine (so UA gets paid transit fees). That's the benefit of having a pact, on top of that you can freeze RF assets and bankrupt it anytime you wish. (That is unless they decide to stop playing such game for some reason)
Well, under that premise, you could argue that this war is actually helping US do so.
The US is not the only country in the world and, as far as I know, has until now only frozen assets when faced with very serious hostility. Freezing assets is not for free - the US is also getting a reputation hit on this.
It might initially seem so. Undercutting Russia in a proxy war without loosing a single American while making Europe totally depended on you, surely looks like a win/win. But there are no guarantees, the best think tanks can analyze the latest data live with best AI and machine learning but all they can propose is their estimated probabilities. Problem with that is if you're wrong you've actively pushed Russia and China together. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (This is well demonstrated by US sponsoring Osama bin Laden, and taking out Saddam Hussein only to create vacuum for ISIS to grow).
Russia drawing red lines over Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan (Russian speaking countries) seems logical, on the other hand US getting billions from Saudi Arabia by selling them weapons and enabling war in Yemen, only to escalate conflict in Ukraine because US suddenly cares about freedom of Ukrainians seems insincere at best. Russia indicated that Ukraine was an existential threat to it and Putin’s Domestic Approval Rating Reaches Highest Level In Five Years seems to indicate that people support that idea. US picking Ukraine as a hill to die on just seems more personal than a logical decision, and trying to sell it as if Ukraine protecting all of Europe is just silly with Article 5 and most of Europe being in NATO.
Now to still try and make it work US need to continue to escalate the conflict (first Javelin will be a game changer, MANPADS, then Switchblades, then much needed M777 howitzers, now even more desperately needed HIMARS, next will be
) and as you previously noted everything comes at a cost. Where does that leave Russia, either sit back and do nothing or since US is setting a precedent that selling long range missiles is now acceptable practice and doesn't make you a party to a conflict, Russia can starts selling latest anti-air and anti-ship missiles to Iran, how much do you think it'd take for them to close the straight of Hormuz? I'm sure Panam/Egypt can use cheap oil and some good anti-ship weapons and would like to get back control over Suez and Panama canals. Or how about a huge multi billion contract to supply hypersonic weapons to China? Will the world be better off with that? Probably not, will it help if media can easily blame the big Russian bear for it? Unlikely. They keep pushing the line and the whole world is forced to be a spectator in this new race to annihilation over Ukraine/Belarus/Chechnya/whatever... Easiest way to start another war, just offer Taiwan to join NATO sit back and watch the "fireworks" fly. (Don't those poor Taiwanese deserve the freedom cookies and guarantees of freedom??)
Do you know what NATO stands for? North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now, where is Taiwan located? Answer me....
What is the support in Taiwan for joining continental China's government? Answer me.
Where is Turkey, a NATO member located? An Italy, and Greece, ...?
Turkey, Italy and Greece are connected to the Atlantic ocean through the mediterranean sea.
Well Taiwan is also connected to the Atlantic ocean through some body of water
don't get tied up on semantics, you need to see the forest behind the trees. Surely if US would deem in beneficial, adding the + to NATO+ is the least of the problems.Countries that support Russia (Africa, Middle East, South America and some asian countries) have a low quality of life, have a low level of education which means their society is less educated, have a low-quality healthcare system, have a high level of corruption, have a high level of nepotism, have a high level of crime.
Soviet Union closed borders to its countries to make them live in swampland, to not let them see a high quality of life that was outside the USSR, once the borders were open, people started to travel and started to experience new life, they analyzed the difference in the quality of life between the USSR and West. Do you know where emigrants from post-soviet countries go to work? In western countries, they send money from western countries to their countries, they have increased their wealth, built new houses and increased their quality of life. That's why they are afraid of Russia, they don't want to go back, instead, they want to join the western family.
Soviet Union closed borders to its countries to make them live in swampland, to not let them see a high quality of life that was outside the USSR, once the borders were open, people started to travel and started to experience new life, they analyzed the difference in the quality of life between the USSR and West. Do you know where emigrants from post-soviet countries go to work? In western countries, they send money from western countries to their countries, they have increased their wealth, built new houses and increased their quality of life. That's why they are afraid of Russia, they don't want to go back, instead, they want to join the western family.
Have you considered why it is so? Why Venezuela, Lybia, Iran and Saudi Arabia are where they are? Or where those billions in aid and investments to needing countries around Russia come from? How Ukraine having higher corruption and lower GDP than Russia managed to totally revamp it's military in just 8yrs? Must be that ghost of Kyiv, or the soft power directing targeted fund exactly where they're needed.
And because there are Nazis in Luxembourg.
That part is easy, if they fight back against the glorious liberators - they're obviously nazis.
Since when is Ukraine on Atlantic?
While we're at it, let's invade Luxembourg, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and North Macedonia on the grounds of them being illegitimate NATO members because "Atlantic".
And because there are Nazis in Luxembourg.
Since when is Ukraine on Atlantic?
While we're at it, let's invade Luxembourg, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and North Macedonia on the grounds of them being illegitimate NATO members because "Atlantic".
Do you know what NATO stands for? North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now, where is Taiwan located? Answer me.
Since when is Ukraine on Atlantic?
ask yourself why the closer the country is to Russia the more it likes US/NATO and dislikes Russia (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Georgia), yet the further it is from Russia (Africa, Middle East, South America, Asia) the less they like US and the more they like Russia?
It can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that countries near Russia have suffered its invasions and occupations including the 50-70 years of brutal soviet totalitarian regime that's still in living history. Nah, it has to be some conspiracy from the evil West.
Of course, they have sent there T-62 to protect their loving brothers from the bears and deers of the forests.
https://youtu.be/LCZU1XdNb_E?t=613
They are also recycling arguments:
https://youtu.be/H4uLLSuUeDc?t=112
Quote
... Russia had to conquer Finland to "denazify" it
ask yourself why the closer the country is to Russia the more it likes US/NATO and dislikes Russia (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Georgia), yet the further it is from Russia (Africa, Middle East, South America, Asia) the less they like US and the more they like Russia?
It can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that countries near Russia have suffered its invasions and occupations including the 50-70 years of brutal soviet totalitarian regime that's still in living history. Nah, it has to be some conspiracy from the evil West.
Easiest way to start another war, just offer Taiwan to join NATO sit back and watch the "fireworks" fly. (Don't those poor Taiwanese deserve the freedom cookies and guarantees of freedom??)
Do you know what NATO stands for? North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now, where is Taiwan located? Answer me....
What is the support in Taiwan for joining continental China's government? Answer me.
Where is Turkey, a NATO member located? An Italy, and Greece, ...?
Turkey, Italy and Greece are connected to the Atlantic ocean through the mediterranean sea.
Easiest way to start another war, just offer Taiwan to join NATO sit back and watch the "fireworks" fly. (Don't those poor Taiwanese deserve the freedom cookies and guarantees of freedom??)
Do you know what NATO stands for? North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now, where is Taiwan located? Answer me....
What is the support in Taiwan for joining continental China's government? Answer me.
Where is Turkey, a NATO member located? An Italy, and Greece, ...?
Easiest way to start another war, just offer Taiwan to join NATO sit back and watch the "fireworks" fly. (Don't those poor Taiwanese deserve the freedom cookies and guarantees of freedom??)
Do you know what NATO stands for? North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now, where is Taiwan located? Answer me.You seem to be genuinely curious, and at first sight appear to have good points. But keep going with your line of thinking, now ask yourself why the closer the country is to Russia the more it likes US/NATO and dislikes Russia (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Georgia), yet the further it is from Russia (Africa, Middle East, South America, Asia) the less they like US and the more they like Russia? That's the beauty of soft power, you can exploit other countries and direct resources to targeted countries to win over their "hearts and minds". The beauty of that is that there is no way Russia can do anything about it they just cannot compete on the soft power field. If winning "hearts and minds" of Ukrainians worked, US could then start another revolution in Egypt or just finish the ones in Venezuela/Turkey/Iran etc... and then direct those resources on winning "hearts and minds" of Belarusians or Kazakhs... Only options for Russia is sit back and keep loosing countries in its sphere of influence and ultimately be torn apart, or radicalize become a dictatorship and switch the playing field to hard power. It was a matter of time, Russia lost all of western Europe like that but Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan was the red line for it, which US gladly crossed, and now here we are. Had it not been for Ukraine it would've been Belarus, and after some media work, people would gladly sacrifice their economies for the freedom to those poor Belarusians.
Countries that support Russia (Africa, Middle East, South America and some asian countries) have a low quality of life, have a low level of education which means their society is less educated, have a low-quality healthcare system, have a high level of corruption, have a high level of nepotism, have a high level of crime.Soviet Union closed borders to its countries to make them live in swampland, to not let them see a high quality of life that was outside the USSR, once the borders were open, people started to travel and started to experience new life, they analyzed the difference in the quality of life between the USSR and West. Do you know where emigrants from post-soviet countries go to work? In western countries, they send money from western countries to their countries, they have increased their wealth, built new houses and increased their quality of life. That's why they are afraid of Russia, they don't want to go back, instead, they want to join the western family.
...
The beauty of that is that there is no way Russia can do anything about it they just cannot compete on the soft power field.
...
Only options for Russia is sit back and keep loosing countries in its sphere of influence and ultimately be torn apart, or radicalize become a dictatorship and switch the playing field to hard power.
...
The beauty of that is that there is no way Russia can do anything about it they just cannot compete on the soft power field.
...
Only options for Russia is sit back and keep loosing countries in its sphere of influence and ultimately be torn apart, or radicalize become a dictatorship and switch the playing field to hard power.
...
On regards to the RF becoming a dictatorship "in the future", I think that Moskva has sailed.
I think you have depicted the problem, but there is a solution. It is difficult for the RF to assume that its influence is in decline. It is not just the US, it is that all the world is moving ahead and the RF is not keeping the pace. Among other things, if you have the GDP of Italy and spend 11% of it in military you need to take it from schools, doctor, civil research, ... It is a problem of mindset.
This is some free consultancy for the RF:
Your objective is competing in a world that is growing fast. If you are left behind your people and the nation as such will not do well, no matter how many wars you fight.
- Develop the east. The territory is immense, the opportunities endless, you do not need to look further. I understand that as of now, there are political reasons why Moscow / St Petersburg would rather not do that, but long term it causes tensions.
- Attract investment, both local and foreign. You cannot do without it. See next point on how to enable that, but, as a hint, you should be seen as a pacific partner and stable on that regards.
- Put in place the enablers of growth: Rule of law, fair and speedy justice. This implies you need to get rid of the Cleptocrats and local despots, no way around that.
- Keep your strengths: good universities, good research, ability to manage complex projects, ...
- Use wisely the money that is coming from exporting natural resources. Try to build up the chain of value (e.g. do not export crude oil, but refined products).
- Do not enter into unnecessary wars. Your territory is quite protected and other than that your real threat is terrorism (the real one, not the guys with the "tatoos").
- Do not spend 11% of your GDP in weapons - it is not needed.
Life could be very different in the RF.
Why would US let RF prosper, especially considering it's proximity to China? You know what powerful nations want right? That combination is too dangerous and needs to be stopped at its infancy. Much easier to kneecap RF, take Ukraine out of it's sphere of influence and then it'd be great if that could sustain itself by forcing RF to continue to sell its resources to EU through Ukraine (so UA gets paid transit fees). That's the benefit of having a pact, on top of that you can freeze RF assets and bankrupt it anytime you wish. (That is unless they decide to stop playing such game for some reason)
Well, under that premise, you could argue that this war is actually helping US do so.
The US is not the only country in the world and, as far as I know, has until now only frozen assets when faced with very serious hostility. Freezing assets is not for free - the US is also getting a reputation hit on this.
Jump to: