Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, that, and the appointment voiced by her of the next Ukrainian government - who should be there and who should not.
But the boots on the ground were Ukrainian, yes - those paramilitary Nazi Units on Maidan Square, that were setting police officers on fire and shooting them.
We know that much.
Is it so? How interesting.
Then whence THIS anger comes I wonder?
Trump admitted that the US used these tactics to destabilize governments. He made the same threat to stage color revolution riots and paramilitary forces (in this case ISIS) against the previous prime minister Abdul-Mahdi even down to the detail that he would have snipers shoot at his protestors and blame the Iraqi government. It's become a well-known formula, so much so that the Venezuelan military intercepted Colombian snipers that were being sent to Caracas for the protests.
I don't think it would've mattered so much in Ukraine because of the heavy ethnic split in the population and in government sentiment. It made more sense to divide the country along ethnic lines as the US has done in other countries where it intervened.
Now THIS is the scene coming from Ukraine that I can enjoy for a change.
Today is the 8th of March - International Women's day.
So there was a Woman's march organized in Kiev - the march of the feminists, demanding the ratification of the Istanbul Convention in Ukraine.
I didn't even know that such convention existed, but that's not all that important.
What's important, is the howling of the Nationals Corps, that this convention destroys the "traditional values" and "promotes prostitution."
That's what they scream during their rally in response to the marching women, and that's why their march was heavily guarded by the police ( to please the Western observers I suppose.)
Yeah, the scene I genuinely enjoyed for a change, since it's very telling who/what the National Corps are standing for, and so that the "liberated West" wouldn't have any illusions, what it supports/sponsors on its money.
The only thing I can wonder about, is whose side the female variety of the hyenas, part of the bleating idiots crowd is standing with in this situation...
Meanwhile - I remembered this old footage from the DNR, from the 8th of March - International women's day.
Givi was still alive back then, so this is the little celebration in his "Somali" battalion of the event.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, we gathered today to honor this important event; this is to our most beautiful women. No one can compare to you - you are the most beautiful and most intelligent ones in the whole world.
I am not going to honor you as a whole group - there are too many of you here, so let me honor you in chunks" (laughs in the audience.)
Then he proceeds calling them to the stage, one by one - the accountants, the medical staff, the nurses, the cooks, the snipers - acknowledging their importance and service, sometimes accompanying it with little insiders jokes and short stories about them.
He concludes the evening with the words "And now, the men go back to their duties, while the women will be free till 9 p.m. of 9th of March.
As we already know, men have two days per year of celebration - on 23 of February ( traditionally the day of the Army, which was regarded as "men's day" on the territory of the former S.U.,) and the 8th of March ( which is women's day.) Because they drink and party on both days. ( Laughs in the audience.)
But I remind you guys, that it's Women's day, so let them have a break today, but you - you go back to your assignments.
You can't "advocate" anything DKM, because your understanding of things is too superficial.
It was a good thing that Soviet system crumbled, but it was not wise of Americans to target Russia itself ( not just *Soviet system*) as the end result. Because the victory in the "cold war" is not the same as victory in the real war, when you can come to the capital, force the enemy to sign the capitulation and bring your troops in for further occupation.
There was no "victory" in the Cold War. The Soviet system simply collapsed on itself, America was not responsible for this....even the common belief that "The US pushed the Soviet Union to overspend for the military into oblivion" is hogwash. The Soviet Union did not run out of natural resources, human resources or rubles...the system was simply untenable and it did crumble.
There was no "victory" in the Cold War. The Soviet system simply collapsed on itself, America was not responsible for this....even the common belief that "The US pushed the Soviet Union to overspend for the military into oblivion" is hogwash. The Soviet Union did not run out of natural resources, human resources or rubles...the system was simply untenable and it did crumble.
They collapsed because they devoted nearly 50 percent of their economy on military expenditures which was unsustainable. They were involved in so many wars and policing efforts to maintain their empire. Eastern and Central Europe became dead weight as Russia had to supply them with raw materials and provide a market for their goods.
The CIA had predicted back in the late 70's that the Soviet Union would encounter a severe oil production crunch by the mid 1980's as they weren't developing new oil fields to replace production from maturing oil fields. It turned out to be accurate. That was compounded by the Iran-Iraq war and the Saudis attempt to squeeze the warring sides by flooding the market with oil.
They became overextended pursuing hegemony and eventually unable to finance their economy through exports and debt as they weren't fully part of the world economic system. They needed the hard currency from oil exports which were declining.
They needed the high oil prices of the 70's to bring in revenue to finance the development of new wells. Their production collapsed in the 1990's with the low price of oil and privatization.
They collapsed because they devoted nearly 50 percent of their economy on military expenditures which was unsustainable. They were involved in so many wars and policing efforts to maintain their empire. Eastern and Central Europe became dead weight as Russia had to supply them with raw materials and provide a market for their goods.
The CIA had predicted back in the late 70's that the Soviet Union would encounter a severe oil production crunch by the mid 1980's as they weren't developing new oil fields to replace production from maturing oil fields. It turned out to be accurate. That was compounded by the Iran-Iraq war and the Saudis attempt to squeeze the warring sides by flooding the market with oil.
They became overextended pursuing hegemony and eventually unable to finance their economy through exports and debt as they weren't fully part of the world economic system. They needed the hard currency from oil exports which were declining.
They needed the high oil prices of the 70's to bring in revenue to finance the development of new wells. Their production collapsed in the 1990's with the low price of oil and privatization.
They simply run out of human resources willing to work for the system not money.
They did not need to import dollars to develop new oil fields, they could print rubles.....problems were not financial.
Low productivity was the enemy.
I can hardly imagine a better candidate for autarky then the Soviet Union, they had everything.
They simply run out of human resources willing to work for the system not money.
They did not need to import dollars to develop new oil fields, they could print rubles.....problems were not financial.
Low productivity was the enemy.
I can hardly imagine a better candidate for autarky then the Soviet Union, they had everything.
There was an embargo on technology from the West for oilfield exploration, and probably still is.
They could not accumulate the dollars from their trade partners in the Warsaw Pact. Other than the Soviet Union, there wasn't much of a market for goods from the Warsaw Pact countries. It becomes crucial that the Soviets earn enough reserves from the export of oil.
The military became overextended with the many wars in Africa. According to my memory, the East Germans, Poles, and Cubans sent soldiers and advisors as well. But these are additional Marxist government they had to prop up outside the Warsaw Pact, and they were opposed by the US in these civil wars. I remember the news coverage of Somalia in 1992 which directly mentioned the proxy wars with the Soviet Union and how there were similar situations throughout the continent.
When you devote that much of the economy to military production, the system becomes corrupted and keeps demanding more (as in the US).
There was an embargo on technology from the West for oilfield exploration, and probably still is.
This is when you develop your own technology.
Quote:
They could not accumulate the dollars from their trade partners in the Warsaw Pact. Other than the Soviet Union, there wasn't much of a market for goods from the Warsaw Pact countries. It becomes crucial that the Soviets earn enough reserves from the export of oil.
Why they needed dollars?? Trade with the West was negligible. The USSR had all the natural resources it needed. People was the problem.
Quote:
The military became overextended with the many wars in Africa. According to my memory, the East Germans, Poles, and Cubans sent soldiers and advisors as well. But these are additional Marxist government they had to prop up outside the Warsaw Pact, and they were opposed by the US in these civil wars. I remember the news coverage of Somalia in 1992 which directly mentioned the proxy wars with the Soviet Union and how there were similar situations throughout the continent.
Yes, they simply propped up regimes that were not productive, at best they were raw material and crop suppliers.
Problem was productivity (which did stem from their ideological/political system) not money or trade. If they were more productive, they could sustain even more military spending with no problem.
The core had to support the periphery more and more, it was not a self-sustaining system like the West.
I think you both outlined it pretty well. There were many factors involved. I do think the entangling alliances abroad with the military expenditures are the main contributors to the change.
They simply run out of human resources willing to work for the system not money.
They did not need to import dollars to develop new oil fields, they could print rubles.....problems were not financial.
Low productivity was the enemy.
I can hardly imagine a better candidate for autarky then the Soviet Union, they had everything.
You're correct. There was no incentive to work hard, other than a medal or your name/picture posted on the board outside of the factory (still do this in separatist states). The system simply does not work with human nature. Some people want to get rich, save and invest (and not have investments stolen by the state). Some want to work harder and make more money than others. You need to allow this to happen to thrive. That's something China figured out in the 80s.
Trump admitted that the US used these tactics to destabilize governments. He made the same threat to stage color revolution riots and paramilitary forces (in this case ISIS) against the previous prime minister Abdul-Mahdi even down to the detail that he would have snipers shoot at his protestors and blame the Iraqi government. It's become a well-known formula, so much so that the Venezuelan military intercepted Colombian snipers that were being sent to Caracas for the protests.
Look Ichoro - Trump was an outsider in politics; he was only learning about the "kitchen" of it, once he made it to the office, and I am sure some of the things he learned took him by surprise.
His vision for American international affairs was different comparably to what the "deep state" was dictating him to do.
The reason I liked Trump in this respect ( comparably to the "corporate democrats,") is that he was much more honest person. He is a capitalist, so he wanted as much financial gains for America as he could get, because America is a capitalist country after all, and that's what capitalists do. He was not playing silly games of "America is the only country that has the moral right" to do this or that.
He saw his country as yet another state out there, fighting for its interests, like other states out there were fighting for theirs.
And as left-minded person as I am, I respect that.
I wish the Dems were as honest as him, then I'd go back to same old, same old bashing the republicans, but I am sorry at this point I can't do it.
Particularly after the whole "Ukrainegate" thing and that attempt to impeach Trump over it.
This whole circus was such a disgrace, that I am still at the loss of words, not to mention his latest ban from Twitter.
Quote:
I don't think it would've mattered so much in Ukraine because of the heavy ethnic split in the population and in government sentiment. It made more sense to divide the country along ethnic lines as the US has done in other countries where it intervened.
I don't believe for a second that US was planning to "divide Ukraine by ethnic lines" - or rather that it was their goal in any way, because that's precisely what hampered US objectives in the area.
Could the bleating idiots leave the Easterners alone with their language and traditions, and to look for what actually could UNITE the country under the new leadership, instead of inciting hatred from the Easterners with the FIRST LAW that they pushed through the RADA, outlawing the Russian language?
Of course they could.
But I don't call them "bleating idiots" for nothing, trust me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
