The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Russian Reaction BlogTeasers
Open Thread 16: Smorgasbord
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

I’ll be busy the next few days, there won’t be many poasts, so I suppose now is as good as any for a big linkfest covering the past month.

My more interesting posts from last few days

I also published the notes and slides for my SPB lecture on HBD and the Alt Right (in Russian, obviously).

As well as a Facebook “debate” with pozzed Russian liberals about it. (In response to Greasy William’s question: “isn’t everybody already HBD aware in Russia anyway? Don’t think there will be much a market for alt right views in a culture where everybody is alt right by default.” Well, here’s your answer. Nothing Russian liberals do at this point can really surprise seeing as they are a living sketch of a Marquis de Custine vignette. Even so it was still pretty surreal to hear the phrase “maga chuds” in Russian, and to have a “follow your leader” meme thrown at me by a fairly prominent figure in the anti-Putin liberal opposition, who then proceeded to block me.

***

Syrian civil war update

map-syria-afrin

* At this point Afrin canton is probably living on borrowed time, if persistent rumors in the past few weeks are to be believed.

As soon as the SDF finish taking Raqqa, or maybe even sooner, the TFSA (Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army) will move into Afrin, apparently with Russia’s and Iran’s acquiescence.

Russia has no obligations to Rojava, whose primary sponsor is the US. Though Russia does have good relations with it, and with the administration in Afrin especially.

But chaining yourself to Erdogan like this is risky. He is treacherous in the extreme, and linking up the TFSA zone in North Syria with the main jihadist stronghold around Idlib could really blow up in Russia’s face if Erdogan decides to shove another knife into Putin’s spine (a Runet meme by now). Especially considering that…

* Seymour Hersh: Trump‘s Red Line

Confirms Syria sarin attacks were false flags. But who cares now? Nikki Haley now basically egging the jihadists on to make another.

* The Saker seems to have finally stopped peddling the fiction that Russia is capable of doing anything to stop its modest Syrian forces from being swept off the board in the event of a full-scale confrontation with the US in that region.

I am pretty sure that Iran isn’t going to throw itself on a sword for Russia, so I have long been of the opinion that Putin’s main options would be to either (1) retaliate in theaters where Russia has military predominance, such as Ukraine or even the Baltics; or (2) retreat in ignominy and focus on beefing up the police and propaganda apparatus to avoid Milosevic’s fate.

***

IQ/HBD, Interesting Odds and Ends

* London psychometrics conference. Lots of excellent presentations by all accounts, here is a video of Emil Kirkegaard on “Differential immigrant group performance: A matter of intelligence?”

* James Thompson’s series of posts on on Davide Piffer (1, 2, 3, 4)

* Map of psychometrics (Unz.com is a central node)

* Sniekers et al. – 2017 – Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence

Intelligence is associated with important economic and health-related life outcomes. Despite intelligence having substantial heritability (0.54) and a confirmed polygenic nature, initial genetic studies were mostly underpowered. Here we report a meta-analysis for intelligence of 78,308 individuals. We identify 336 associated SNPs (METAL P < 5 × 10-8) in 18 genomic loci, of which 15 are new. Around half of the SNPs are located inside a gene, implicating 22 genes, of which 11 are new findings. Gene-based analyses identified an additional 30 genes (MAGMA P < 2.73 × 10-6), of which all but one had not been implicated previously. We show that the identified genes are predominantly expressed in brain tissue, and pathway analysis indicates the involvement of genes regulating cell development (MAGMA competitive P = 3.5 × 10-6). Despite the well-known difference in twin-based heritability for intelligence in childhood (0.45) and adulthood (0.80), we show substantial genetic correlation (rg = 0.89, LD score regression P = 5.4 × 10-29). These findings provide new insight into the genetic architecture of intelligence.

* Scott Alexander’s series of posts on Hungarian Jews and human accomplishment (1, 2, 3).

I wonder about this because of a sentiment I hear a lot, from people who know more about physics than I do, that we just don’t get people like John von Neumann or Leo Szilard anymore.

There’s a banally simple explanation for this: The problems get harder.

* Salvatier et al. – 2017 – When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts

salvatier-hlmi-arrival

Scott Alexander has a summary.

Despite faster than expected progress since the last expert survey in 2012 by Bostrom and Muller, projected dates have actually become more pessimistic. Scott’s explanation seems persuasive:

But as we saw before, expecting AI experts to make sense might be giving them too much credit. A more likely possibility: Bostrom’s sample included people from wackier subbranches of AI research, like a conference on Philosophy of AI and one on Artificial General Intelligence; Grace’s sample was more mainstream. The most mainstream part of Bostrom’s sample, a list of top 100 AI researchers, had an estimate a bit closer to Grace’s (2050).

* This is useful: A Compendium of Clean Graphs in R

* Hou, Xue, & Zhang – 2017 – Replication Anomalies

Capital markets are more efficient than previously recognized.

* Mike Johnson: Why we seek out pleasure: the Symmetry Theory of Homeostatic Regulation

***

Russia, Eastern Europe

* Massive report on the Russian economy by Jon Hellevig’s AWARA group.

* Oliver Stone’s Putin interviews. I need to watch them. But this summary by Alexander Mercouris looks good.

* Stephen Cohen vs. Julia Ioffe:

* Prosvirnin, a leading Russian right-wing intellectual, gets no platformed from a Saint-Petersburg “Geek Picnic” tech conference by SJWs.

Amerikwa pretty much needs to be nuked from orbit at this point.

Some of those freaks even grumbled about the presence of Alexandra Elbakyan, who – they claim – has “pro-Kremlin/imperialist” views. Even though as the founder of Sci-Hub, she has probably contributed more to technological progress than everyone else at the Geek Picnic combined.

* Started reading Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s more political writings, thanks largely to Egor Kholmogorov. Gaining an even greater appreciation for him.

There’s a reason the Western media and academic establishment props crazies such as Dugin as “Russian nationalists” while shunting off people such as Solzhenitsyn (once he made it clear he wasn’t going to be an anti-Russian patsy) to the sidelines.

* I am enjoying Matt Forney’s new Medium blog on European and Hungarian politics. E.g.

* Zhuravlev: The Russian recession is receding into the distance:

zhuravlev-russia-economy

* Russia population map

map-russia-population

 

* NBF: Russia Armata tank will outmatch the Abrams in active armor and triple range missiles

***

World

* WSJ: China’s All-Seeing Surveillance State Is Reading Its Citizens’ Faces

Face-scanning drones, restricted floors… powerful Deus Ex vibe.

* Where Automation Poses the Biggest Threat to American Jobs. This is basically a map of Belmonts (blue) and Fishtowns (red).

automation-threat

* Burke, Hsiang, & Miguel – 2015 – Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production

Russia needs Tropical Hyperborea.

burke-temperature-economy

* Schuenemann et al. – 2017 – Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods

* Enke et al. – 2017 – Kinship Systems, Cooperation and the Evolution of Culture

***

Culture war

* Corey et al. – 2017 – Our moral choices are foreign to us

Though moral intuitions and choices seem fundamental to our core being, there is surprising new evidence that people resolve moral dilemmas differently when they consider them in a foreign language (Cipolletti et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2014a; Geipel et al., 2015): People are more willing to sacrifice 1 person to save 5 when they use a foreign language compared with when they use their native tongue.

* Long simmering tensions between Richard Spencer/Daniel Friberg (AltRight.com) and Greg Johnson (Counter-Currents) have finally flared into the open.

I don’t have a dog in this fight. Bring on the popcorn.

* I learned legendary Twitter suicide bomber @jokeocracy was Pax Dickinson about a week ago. I’m slow.

* Added to favorite quotes list: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” – Lee Kuan Yew

* ‘Straight out of the Nazi playbook’: Hindu nationalists try to engineer ‘genius’ babies in India. Sounds cool, until…

Jani explained that the program consists of a “purification of energy channels” and body before a pregnancy, and mantra-chanting and “proper food,” such as meals rich in calcium and vitamin A, after the baby is born.

… and then you realize eugenics is also g loaded.

* Mark Yuray: Why Homosexuals Are A Signalling Hazard In Traditional Societies

* O’Handley – 2017 – What do two men kissing and a bucket of maggots have in common? Heterosexual men’s indistinguishable salivary α-amylase responses to photos of two men kissing and disgusting images

The results of the current study suggest that all individuals, not just highly sexually prejudiced individuals, may experience a physiological response indicative of stress when witnessing a male same-sex couple kissing.

* Hard to imagine the depth of SJW madness in American academia.

* Deus Ex world:

.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Mr. XYZ says:

    How much do you think that the U.S. would intervene in Syria, Anatoly?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Well it is already "intervening."

    If you mean set itself on a course likely leading to a clash with Russia, i.e. declare a no fly zone, or something more direct, then from my predictions at the start of the year:

    * US/Allies will NOT impose no fly zone over Syria: 95%.
    * Turkey will not “backstab” Russia and the Syrian government: 90%.

    I'd say the percentages now would remain the same (although this is bearing in mind that there's only just half a year to go now!).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/open-thread-16/#comment-1919781
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. retaliate in theaters where Russia has military predominance, such as Ukraine or even the Baltics;

    A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia’s image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations and make depictions of Russia as an imperialist power credible in a way not comparable to Russia’s Ukraine intervention. It would be perverse if Latvia had to pay the price for US idiocy in provoking Russia. Confirms me though in my view that NATO ought to be dissolved and replaced by a regional security structure, but of course the Atlanticist scum in Europe won’t even think seriously about this.
    Regarding Syria, recent events seem to confirm that the US is irredeemable and basically a rogue nation run by psychopaths. Trump apparently really is a stupid boomer asshole whose mental horizon is limited to what he sees on cable television…probably always was a delusion to expect positive change from a New York plutocrat.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig, Randal
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia’s image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations
     
    On the surface, it is true, but if to factor out public and for the record official statements, the question remains: do Russians really care how they are perceived in Europe? As strange as it may sound, but predominant feeling among Russians today is that of a contempt, if not outright dismissal of Europe as any standard to which Russia's actions should be measured. This is a dramatic turnaround which I, personally, never thought would see in my lifetime, but here it is. As I predicted in 2014 when Ukrainian crisis started--West has no idea what it is dealing with. It is also becoming very clear that Europe increasingly will mean less and less in Russia's economic considerations.

    But back to a matter, which generated many comments already. People fail to understand that Russia, should her contingent be attacked in Syria, has full capability to destroy any US military facility in the region and disrupt operations against Khmeimim and Tartus. In the end, there is no real necessity to attack anyone in Europe.
    , @Greasy William

    Trump apparently really is a stupid boomer asshole
     
    Trump isn't getting involved in Syria because he wants to, he is doing it because he has to. If Trump were dictator, he would probably be outright allying with Assad but he needs the support of the GOPe to remain in power and this is what they want. Trump is minimizing the damage as much as he can.

    If the US are psychopaths for helping their allies in Syria, then what does that make Russia who are doing a Hell of a lot more to help out Assad?
    , @vinteuil
    "A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia’s image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations and make depictions of Russia as an imperialist power credible in a way not comparable to Russia’s Ukraine intervention..."

    Totally agreed. As Americans go, I think I might count as a Russophile's Russophile - but any attack on the Baltics would instantly turn me over to the other side.

    That said, NATO's stupid provocations in the Baltics seem designed for no other purpose than to lure Russia into such an attack.
    , @Fredrik
    Well, I mean... nothing makes the blood of a British solider boil more than the thought of a EU army, i.e. a non-anglo ruled army capable of defending itself. It's not really the finished article yet...or for a while but Merkel and Macron would like it.
  3. Oliver Stone’s interviews are great. Stephen Cohen also great, much respect.

    Read More
  4. 5371 says:

    Prosvirnin wants to be an American, let him try what it’s really like.

    [There’s a banally simple explanation for this: The problems get harder.]
    If progress got monotonically harder throughout the history of physics, that would be all the explanation needed. But it doesn’t, so there must be other factors at play.

    Have you checked out the latest Top 500 HPC list? The slowdown continues and intensifies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, there's predictably a lot of gloating comments about this from more traditionalist quarters.

    In fairness, this particular case was far echoeier than your run of the mill SJW scandal. From what I noticed pretty much all of the most active players in getting Prosvirnin disinvited were Jews: Mikhail Gelfand, Boris Stern, Zilberburg, Asya Kazantseva, David Homak (I thought Lurkmore's founder would be cooler than that, guess not).

    Thanks for the reminder about the top500. I'll file that away for the next open thread.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    Prosvirnin wants to be an American, let him try what it’s really like.
     
    When he tried to recruit me for writing for his Sputnik and Pogrom (my epistolary with him is still somewhere in my home PC) several years ago, I specifically pointed out to him that I live in US and asked some other questions related to his positions--he disappeared into the www never to be heard from again;) I am not sure that he is real intellectual, but then again--I view intellectualism differently than mere ability for handling of abstract texts.
  5. @Mr. XYZ
    How much do you think that the U.S. would intervene in Syria, Anatoly?

    Well it is already “intervening.”

    If you mean set itself on a course likely leading to a clash with Russia, i.e. declare a no fly zone, or something more direct, then from my predictions at the start of the year:

    * US/Allies will NOT impose no fly zone over Syria: 95%.
    * Turkey will not “backstab” Russia and the Syrian government: 90%.

    I’d say the percentages now would remain the same (although this is bearing in mind that there’s only just half a year to go now!).

    Read More
  6. @5371
    Prosvirnin wants to be an American, let him try what it's really like.

    [There’s a banally simple explanation for this: The problems get harder.]
    If progress got monotonically harder throughout the history of physics, that would be all the explanation needed. But it doesn't, so there must be other factors at play.

    Have you checked out the latest Top 500 HPC list? The slowdown continues and intensifies.

    Yes, there’s predictably a lot of gloating comments about this from more traditionalist quarters.

    In fairness, this particular case was far echoeier than your run of the mill SJW scandal. From what I noticed pretty much all of the most active players in getting Prosvirnin disinvited were Jews: Mikhail Gelfand, Boris Stern, Zilberburg, Asya Kazantseva, David Homak (I thought Lurkmore’s founder would be cooler than that, guess not).

    Thanks for the reminder about the top500. I’ll file that away for the next open thread.

    Read More
  7. Randal says:

    The results of the current study suggest that all individuals, not just highly sexually prejudiced individuals, may experience a physiological response indicative of stress when witnessing a male same-sex couple kissing.

    Scientists discover “the bleeding obvious” yet again.

    On the other hand, it’s necessary to “discover” such basic truths in societies where they have been suppressed by ideological dogma, as in modern US sphere societies.

    I bet these researchers, assuming the piece lives up to your extract, are going to feel the full weight of the gay stasi upon them. Are they aware of what they have done, or were they naively thinking that they were working in a free society in which sapere aude is an acceptable creed for a scientist in all areas? Or do they think being enthusiastically sjw will protect them from the consequences of reporting unwelcome truth?

    I suppose I’d better follow your link and read the report.

    Read More
  8. Randal says:

    A nice, eclectic collection of links, thanks.

    Oliver Stone’s Putin interviews. I need to watch them.

    Likewise. The website you linked to seems very unstable on my system, but from what I managed to read of the Mercouris summary I was surprised at just how correct Putin seems to be on most of the issues, and how respect-worthy in most of his attitudes, for me.

    As national leaders go (not a high bar, generally), I find it hard to understand your and other Russians’ coolness towards him, except perhaps as natural and healthy contrariness towards power and popularity. Probably if he were the leader of my own nation I’d be less eager to give him the benefits of any doubts and to forgive his policy disagreements with me, and probably in domestic policy that would be much more of a problem than in foreign policy.

    From the Mercouris summary:

    With respect to (10), Putin is however quite clear that Russia today is a democracy. This is of course the most contentious topic of all, with the Western media and the Western political class passionately disagreeing (it is now standard practice in the British media to refer to Putin as “the dictator of Russia”).

    This is a very important current issue, and it is often thrown back at anyone arguing for pro-Russian (or even just non-Russophobic) positions that “Russia is a dictatorship”.

    It would be very useful to have a link that could be given out, to someone reasonably credible explaining in a readable and brief summary the ins and outs of the Russian system and how democratic it is and isn’t, and how it compares to US sphere “democracies”.

    Read More
  9. Randal says:

    Same problem here on my system as with James Thompson’s piece yesterday, by the way – on Explorer the text doesn’t wrap and disappears under the sidebar on the right. Perfectly readable in Chrome, though. Maybe it’s a problem with my Explorer setup, but I’ve only noticed it on Unz, and only in the past couple of days (though I was in Greece for ten days before that, with no internet access, so it might have arisen earlier).

    Read More
  10. iffen says:

    Several people have told your that your posts are unreadable. I use Explorer and maybe 1/4 of your script disappears behind/under/into the sidebar.

    AK: Thanks, I’ve been passing these concerns to Ron. Not much I myself can do about it. It should be fixed in a few hours.

    Read More
  11. @German_reader

    retaliate in theaters where Russia has military predominance, such as Ukraine or even the Baltics;
     
    A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia's image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations and make depictions of Russia as an imperialist power credible in a way not comparable to Russia's Ukraine intervention. It would be perverse if Latvia had to pay the price for US idiocy in provoking Russia. Confirms me though in my view that NATO ought to be dissolved and replaced by a regional security structure, but of course the Atlanticist scum in Europe won't even think seriously about this.
    Regarding Syria, recent events seem to confirm that the US is irredeemable and basically a rogue nation run by psychopaths. Trump apparently really is a stupid boomer asshole whose mental horizon is limited to what he sees on cable television...probably always was a delusion to expect positive change from a New York plutocrat.

    A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia’s image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations

    On the surface, it is true, but if to factor out public and for the record official statements, the question remains: do Russians really care how they are perceived in Europe? As strange as it may sound, but predominant feeling among Russians today is that of a contempt, if not outright dismissal of Europe as any standard to which Russia’s actions should be measured. This is a dramatic turnaround which I, personally, never thought would see in my lifetime, but here it is. As I predicted in 2014 when Ukrainian crisis started–West has no idea what it is dealing with. It is also becoming very clear that Europe increasingly will mean less and less in Russia’s economic considerations.

    But back to a matter, which generated many comments already. People fail to understand that Russia, should her contingent be attacked in Syria, has full capability to destroy any US military facility in the region and disrupt operations against Khmeimim and Tartus. In the end, there is no real necessity to attack anyone in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    do Russians really care how they are perceived in Europe?
     
    I think they should care, after all we'll always be neighbours and I see no reason why mutually beneficial relations shouldn't be possible. Granted, I can see how the degenerate nations of Western Europe are worthy of contempt, and the anti-Russian hysteria whipped up by Western media over the last few years has been disastrous. But there still are a lot of people in Europe who would like to see some sort of rapprochement with Russia. Even if they are politically powerless right now, it would be a monumentally self-defeating move by Russia to throw away those sympathies by an attack on the Baltic states.
    I hope you're right about the situation in Syria, and if the US does start hostilities I'd be happy to see US forces in the region suffer. But given the psycho strain in the American national character there probably would be some absurd overreaction by the Americans, so hopefully this can be avoided.
    , @Greasy William

    And what’s that supposed to mean “Trump has to act”? Is he being blackmailed by some shadowy group that will publish a sex tape if he doesn’t do their bidding?
     
    Pretty much. Without the support of the GOPe Trump is gone tomorrow. If you don't understand that then you don't understand American politics. You think that Trump actually *wants* to be involved in Syria?

    There isn’t the slightest basis for US actions in international law. Of course you may believe that international law shouldn’t matter anyway and is for pussies, but then don’t be surprised if other states act accordingly.
     
    Okay so does that mean you are against the egregious violations of international law that Assad has carried out during the war and that his father did before him? Or is violating international law only a big deal when America does it?

    People fail to understand that Russia, should her contingent be attacked in Syria, has full capability to destroy any US military facility in the region
     
    People fail to understand it because it isn't true. The Russian army couldn't even compete with the US military during the Soviet period and today the gap is about 10x bigger in favor of the US. In 50 years that will be a different story (because the US will probably no longer exist) but for the moment the US military is untouchable.
  12. @5371
    Prosvirnin wants to be an American, let him try what it's really like.

    [There’s a banally simple explanation for this: The problems get harder.]
    If progress got monotonically harder throughout the history of physics, that would be all the explanation needed. But it doesn't, so there must be other factors at play.

    Have you checked out the latest Top 500 HPC list? The slowdown continues and intensifies.

    Prosvirnin wants to be an American, let him try what it’s really like.

    When he tried to recruit me for writing for his Sputnik and Pogrom (my epistolary with him is still somewhere in my home PC) several years ago, I specifically pointed out to him that I live in US and asked some other questions related to his positions–he disappeared into the www never to be heard from again;) I am not sure that he is real intellectual, but then again–I view intellectualism differently than mere ability for handling of abstract texts.

    Read More
  13. @German_reader

    retaliate in theaters where Russia has military predominance, such as Ukraine or even the Baltics;
     
    A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia's image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations and make depictions of Russia as an imperialist power credible in a way not comparable to Russia's Ukraine intervention. It would be perverse if Latvia had to pay the price for US idiocy in provoking Russia. Confirms me though in my view that NATO ought to be dissolved and replaced by a regional security structure, but of course the Atlanticist scum in Europe won't even think seriously about this.
    Regarding Syria, recent events seem to confirm that the US is irredeemable and basically a rogue nation run by psychopaths. Trump apparently really is a stupid boomer asshole whose mental horizon is limited to what he sees on cable television...probably always was a delusion to expect positive change from a New York plutocrat.

    Trump apparently really is a stupid boomer asshole

    Trump isn’t getting involved in Syria because he wants to, he is doing it because he has to. If Trump were dictator, he would probably be outright allying with Assad but he needs the support of the GOPe to remain in power and this is what they want. Trump is minimizing the damage as much as he can.

    If the US are psychopaths for helping their allies in Syria, then what does that make Russia who are doing a Hell of a lot more to help out Assad?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    If the US are psychopaths for helping their allies in Syria, then what does that make Russia who are doing a Hell of a lot more to help out Assad?
     
    Russia has some sort of defense treaty with Syria iirc, and is in the country at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government. The US doesn't have any real treaty "allies" in the region except Turkey - there are no treaty obligations that I know of towards Israel and the Gulf states, and certainly none that would justify supporting the rebellion of armed jihadi groups which is what the US has been doing for the past few years. There isn't the slightest basis for US actions in international law. Of course you may believe that international law shouldn't matter anyway and is for pussies, but then don't be surprised if other states act accordingly.
    And what's that supposed to mean "Trump has to act"? Is he being blackmailed by some shadowy group that will publish a sex tape if he doesn't do their bidding? I just can't see any rational justification for the grossly irresponsible policies US elites are pursuing, they're certainly not based on any defensible view of legitimate US national interests.
    , @Anon

    If the US are psychopaths for helping their allies in Syria, then what does that make Russia who are doing a Hell of a lot more to help out Assad?
     
    Russia and Assad have mutual enemies, Sunni Jihadists and Western regime changers.
    Both are serious threats to them and to be dealt with.

    On the other hand, Washington encourages and enables questionable actions of their "allies" in Syria.
    , @Fredrik
    Considering who the US allies in Syria really are(al-Qaida affiliated groups and similar) then I think they should find new allies.

    I'm not the only one supporting the rebellion until I found out who the rebels were. No wonder the Potemkin village that is the FSA gets so much love.

    But hey, I would have thought the Israelis would have done their homework. Maybe Usama, if alive, really would be a better neighbour than Bashar.
  14. @Andrei Martyanov

    A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia’s image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations
     
    On the surface, it is true, but if to factor out public and for the record official statements, the question remains: do Russians really care how they are perceived in Europe? As strange as it may sound, but predominant feeling among Russians today is that of a contempt, if not outright dismissal of Europe as any standard to which Russia's actions should be measured. This is a dramatic turnaround which I, personally, never thought would see in my lifetime, but here it is. As I predicted in 2014 when Ukrainian crisis started--West has no idea what it is dealing with. It is also becoming very clear that Europe increasingly will mean less and less in Russia's economic considerations.

    But back to a matter, which generated many comments already. People fail to understand that Russia, should her contingent be attacked in Syria, has full capability to destroy any US military facility in the region and disrupt operations against Khmeimim and Tartus. In the end, there is no real necessity to attack anyone in Europe.

    do Russians really care how they are perceived in Europe?

    I think they should care, after all we’ll always be neighbours and I see no reason why mutually beneficial relations shouldn’t be possible. Granted, I can see how the degenerate nations of Western Europe are worthy of contempt, and the anti-Russian hysteria whipped up by Western media over the last few years has been disastrous. But there still are a lot of people in Europe who would like to see some sort of rapprochement with Russia. Even if they are politically powerless right now, it would be a monumentally self-defeating move by Russia to throw away those sympathies by an attack on the Baltic states.
    I hope you’re right about the situation in Syria, and if the US does start hostilities I’d be happy to see US forces in the region suffer. But given the psycho strain in the American national character there probably would be some absurd overreaction by the Americans, so hopefully this can be avoided.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Sometimes, its better to be feared than respected. It might actually wake up some of the children to realize that they are powerless and cause them to ask some deep and probing questions if they need so many trannies and why their "men" are as feminine as women.
    , @melanf

    I think they should care, after all we’ll always be neighbours and I see no reason why mutually beneficial relations shouldn’t be possible.
     
    When the basis of relations with Russia is an extreme Russophobia, "mutually beneficial relations" is impossible. And Russophobia have always been, and apparently always will be a defining force in the policy of the EU.

    I sincerely hope that relations with the EU will be minimized (and economic relations terminated completely) - it would be better for Russia and for the EU

    But there still are a lot of people in Europe who would like to see some sort of rapprochement with Russia. Even if they are politically powerless right now
     
    they are politically powerless right now, and they will always be politically powerless.

    ( To avoid confusion - I am against attack on the Baltic states)
  15. @Greasy William

    Trump apparently really is a stupid boomer asshole
     
    Trump isn't getting involved in Syria because he wants to, he is doing it because he has to. If Trump were dictator, he would probably be outright allying with Assad but he needs the support of the GOPe to remain in power and this is what they want. Trump is minimizing the damage as much as he can.

    If the US are psychopaths for helping their allies in Syria, then what does that make Russia who are doing a Hell of a lot more to help out Assad?

    If the US are psychopaths for helping their allies in Syria, then what does that make Russia who are doing a Hell of a lot more to help out Assad?

    Russia has some sort of defense treaty with Syria iirc, and is in the country at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government. The US doesn’t have any real treaty “allies” in the region except Turkey – there are no treaty obligations that I know of towards Israel and the Gulf states, and certainly none that would justify supporting the rebellion of armed jihadi groups which is what the US has been doing for the past few years. There isn’t the slightest basis for US actions in international law. Of course you may believe that international law shouldn’t matter anyway and is for pussies, but then don’t be surprised if other states act accordingly.
    And what’s that supposed to mean “Trump has to act”? Is he being blackmailed by some shadowy group that will publish a sex tape if he doesn’t do their bidding? I just can’t see any rational justification for the grossly irresponsible policies US elites are pursuing, they’re certainly not based on any defensible view of legitimate US national interests.

    Read More
  16. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @German_reader

    do Russians really care how they are perceived in Europe?
     
    I think they should care, after all we'll always be neighbours and I see no reason why mutually beneficial relations shouldn't be possible. Granted, I can see how the degenerate nations of Western Europe are worthy of contempt, and the anti-Russian hysteria whipped up by Western media over the last few years has been disastrous. But there still are a lot of people in Europe who would like to see some sort of rapprochement with Russia. Even if they are politically powerless right now, it would be a monumentally self-defeating move by Russia to throw away those sympathies by an attack on the Baltic states.
    I hope you're right about the situation in Syria, and if the US does start hostilities I'd be happy to see US forces in the region suffer. But given the psycho strain in the American national character there probably would be some absurd overreaction by the Americans, so hopefully this can be avoided.

    Sometimes, its better to be feared than respected. It might actually wake up some of the children to realize that they are powerless and cause them to ask some deep and probing questions if they need so many trannies and why their “men” are as feminine as women.

    Read More
  17. @Andrei Martyanov

    A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia’s image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations
     
    On the surface, it is true, but if to factor out public and for the record official statements, the question remains: do Russians really care how they are perceived in Europe? As strange as it may sound, but predominant feeling among Russians today is that of a contempt, if not outright dismissal of Europe as any standard to which Russia's actions should be measured. This is a dramatic turnaround which I, personally, never thought would see in my lifetime, but here it is. As I predicted in 2014 when Ukrainian crisis started--West has no idea what it is dealing with. It is also becoming very clear that Europe increasingly will mean less and less in Russia's economic considerations.

    But back to a matter, which generated many comments already. People fail to understand that Russia, should her contingent be attacked in Syria, has full capability to destroy any US military facility in the region and disrupt operations against Khmeimim and Tartus. In the end, there is no real necessity to attack anyone in Europe.

    And what’s that supposed to mean “Trump has to act”? Is he being blackmailed by some shadowy group that will publish a sex tape if he doesn’t do their bidding?

    Pretty much. Without the support of the GOPe Trump is gone tomorrow. If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand American politics. You think that Trump actually *wants* to be involved in Syria?

    There isn’t the slightest basis for US actions in international law. Of course you may believe that international law shouldn’t matter anyway and is for pussies, but then don’t be surprised if other states act accordingly.

    Okay so does that mean you are against the egregious violations of international law that Assad has carried out during the war and that his father did before him? Or is violating international law only a big deal when America does it?

    People fail to understand that Russia, should her contingent be attacked in Syria, has full capability to destroy any US military facility in the region

    People fail to understand it because it isn’t true. The Russian army couldn’t even compete with the US military during the Soviet period and today the gap is about 10x bigger in favor of the US. In 50 years that will be a different story (because the US will probably no longer exist) but for the moment the US military is untouchable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    People fail to understand it because it isn’t true. The Russian army couldn’t even compete with the US military during the Soviet period
     
    1. Do not write on the subjects you have no clue about. Or, try, say, Gastroenterology or astrophysics forums. I am sure your "expertise" in those fields will be as in demand there as it is here.
    2. US Army's track record in post-WW II is not impressive, to put it mildly. It didn't win a single war since Korea.
    3. Per "Soviet period"--don't even go there, you have zero knowledge (except for primitive memes and propaganda cliches--most of them false) of what Soviet Armed Forces were and I would suggest to you to read pp.1 of my list.

    Am I in a ball park or do you need more elaborations on your lack of qualifications to pass judgements on anything Russia related?
    , @German_reader

    Okay so does that mean you are against the egregious violations of international law that Assad has carried out during the war and that his father did before him?
     
    What are you referring to with Assad's supposed "violations of international law"? Sorry, I'm not a humanitarian interventionist, I don't care if Assad's regime massacres its internal opponents (many of whom are anti-Western Islamists themselves anyway whose death is preferable to their taking power in Syria), and as long as the regime's violence stays inside Syria it's no business of the US (I was referring to relations between states with "international law", not what governments are supposed to do or not to do inside their own states). And in any case, all that nonsense about "humanitarian" motivations for US policy is ridiculous at a time when the US is helping Saudi-Arabia bomb and starve Yemen.
  18. the fiction that Russia is capable of doing anything to stop its modest Syrian forces from being swept off the board in the event of a full-scale confrontation with the US in that region.

    If being alone, this force will be swept. But again, Russia’s stand-off capability is much, and I mean much, better than that of US. This force in Syria is NOT alone–it is an integral part of a much larger Russian military machine and it is not isolated. X-101 with its range of 5000+ kilometers is something US doesn’t have. Russia has this missile and platforms which can deliver. This gives Russia a great operational and strategic flexibility–Russia can strike with impunity any US military base in the region if Russian bases in Syria are attacked. Per Iran, Iran is not stupid, she knows if US and Russia go head-to-head in the region Iran get sucked in big time–this is as simple as 2 x 2, Israel will not miss such an opportunity. If Iran gets sucked in, which is inevitable in the worst case scenario, this will mean appearance (it has been done once already) of TU-22M3s with hyper-sonic, 1000 kilometer range X-31–this is a whole new paradigm for both US land installations and carrier force. Again, Russia is not defenseless in Syria and Pentagon knows this damn well. If US can reign in its crazies, we all should be fine but I don’t see reasons for Russia to “back down” under any scenario. There are very few idiots, if any in General Staff–those people know how to fight.

    Read More
  19. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @iffen
    Several people have told your that your posts are unreadable. I use Explorer and maybe 1/4 of your script disappears behind/under/into the sidebar.

    AK: Thanks, I've been passing these concerns to Ron. Not much I myself can do about it. It should be fixed in a few hours.

    I use Explorer

    But why?

    Read More
  20. @Greasy William

    And what’s that supposed to mean “Trump has to act”? Is he being blackmailed by some shadowy group that will publish a sex tape if he doesn’t do their bidding?
     
    Pretty much. Without the support of the GOPe Trump is gone tomorrow. If you don't understand that then you don't understand American politics. You think that Trump actually *wants* to be involved in Syria?

    There isn’t the slightest basis for US actions in international law. Of course you may believe that international law shouldn’t matter anyway and is for pussies, but then don’t be surprised if other states act accordingly.
     
    Okay so does that mean you are against the egregious violations of international law that Assad has carried out during the war and that his father did before him? Or is violating international law only a big deal when America does it?

    People fail to understand that Russia, should her contingent be attacked in Syria, has full capability to destroy any US military facility in the region
     
    People fail to understand it because it isn't true. The Russian army couldn't even compete with the US military during the Soviet period and today the gap is about 10x bigger in favor of the US. In 50 years that will be a different story (because the US will probably no longer exist) but for the moment the US military is untouchable.

    People fail to understand it because it isn’t true. The Russian army couldn’t even compete with the US military during the Soviet period

    1. Do not write on the subjects you have no clue about. Or, try, say, Gastroenterology or astrophysics forums. I am sure your “expertise” in those fields will be as in demand there as it is here.
    2. US Army’s track record in post-WW II is not impressive, to put it mildly. It didn’t win a single war since Korea.
    3. Per “Soviet period”–don’t even go there, you have zero knowledge (except for primitive memes and propaganda cliches–most of them false) of what Soviet Armed Forces were and I would suggest to you to read pp.1 of my list.

    Am I in a ball park or do you need more elaborations on your lack of qualifications to pass judgements on anything Russia related?

    Read More
  21. @Greasy William

    And what’s that supposed to mean “Trump has to act”? Is he being blackmailed by some shadowy group that will publish a sex tape if he doesn’t do their bidding?
     
    Pretty much. Without the support of the GOPe Trump is gone tomorrow. If you don't understand that then you don't understand American politics. You think that Trump actually *wants* to be involved in Syria?

    There isn’t the slightest basis for US actions in international law. Of course you may believe that international law shouldn’t matter anyway and is for pussies, but then don’t be surprised if other states act accordingly.
     
    Okay so does that mean you are against the egregious violations of international law that Assad has carried out during the war and that his father did before him? Or is violating international law only a big deal when America does it?

    People fail to understand that Russia, should her contingent be attacked in Syria, has full capability to destroy any US military facility in the region
     
    People fail to understand it because it isn't true. The Russian army couldn't even compete with the US military during the Soviet period and today the gap is about 10x bigger in favor of the US. In 50 years that will be a different story (because the US will probably no longer exist) but for the moment the US military is untouchable.

    Okay so does that mean you are against the egregious violations of international law that Assad has carried out during the war and that his father did before him?

    What are you referring to with Assad’s supposed “violations of international law”? Sorry, I’m not a humanitarian interventionist, I don’t care if Assad’s regime massacres its internal opponents (many of whom are anti-Western Islamists themselves anyway whose death is preferable to their taking power in Syria), and as long as the regime’s violence stays inside Syria it’s no business of the US (I was referring to relations between states with “international law”, not what governments are supposed to do or not to do inside their own states). And in any case, all that nonsense about “humanitarian” motivations for US policy is ridiculous at a time when the US is helping Saudi-Arabia bomb and starve Yemen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    and as long as the regime’s violence stays inside Syria it’s no business of the US
     
    But it is the business of Russia and Iran?

    I actually agree with you that the US shouldn't be in Syria*, I just think citing "international law" is a bullshit reason when the other side is also violating international law.

    *In a perfect world. If it helps Trump stay in power though I am for it because I focus on the big picture.

    Am I in a ball park or do you need more elaborations on your lack of qualifications to pass judgements on anything Russia related?
     
    No you're not in the ball park. I'm gonna assume you know way more about Russia than I do, but you obviously know way less about military tech than I do. You probably think the SU-35 is a match for the F-15 and that the S-400 could stop an attack of F-22s. You just don't know what you're talking about.
  22. @German_reader

    Okay so does that mean you are against the egregious violations of international law that Assad has carried out during the war and that his father did before him?
     
    What are you referring to with Assad's supposed "violations of international law"? Sorry, I'm not a humanitarian interventionist, I don't care if Assad's regime massacres its internal opponents (many of whom are anti-Western Islamists themselves anyway whose death is preferable to their taking power in Syria), and as long as the regime's violence stays inside Syria it's no business of the US (I was referring to relations between states with "international law", not what governments are supposed to do or not to do inside their own states). And in any case, all that nonsense about "humanitarian" motivations for US policy is ridiculous at a time when the US is helping Saudi-Arabia bomb and starve Yemen.

    and as long as the regime’s violence stays inside Syria it’s no business of the US

    But it is the business of Russia and Iran?

    I actually agree with you that the US shouldn’t be in Syria*, I just think citing “international law” is a bullshit reason when the other side is also violating international law.

    *In a perfect world. If it helps Trump stay in power though I am for it because I focus on the big picture.

    Am I in a ball park or do you need more elaborations on your lack of qualifications to pass judgements on anything Russia related?

    No you’re not in the ball park. I’m gonna assume you know way more about Russia than I do, but you obviously know way less about military tech than I do. You probably think the SU-35 is a match for the F-15 and that the S-400 could stop an attack of F-22s. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    you obviously know way less about military tech than I do. You probably think the SU-35 is a match for the F-15 and that the S-400 could stop an attack of F-22s. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.
     
    [Gets popcorn out]

    This promises to be entertaining! (I think you picked the wrong guy to have a pissing contest about military knowledge with....)
    , @Seamus Padraig

    I actually agree with you that the US shouldn’t be in Syria*, I just think citing “international law” is a bullshit reason when the other side is also violating international law.
     
    Russia is definitely not violating international law in this case. Russia is in Syria at the invitation of Syria. The fact that ISIS and the Al Nusra Front object means nothing.
  23. but you obviously know way less about military tech than I do.

    Sure, how could I, with my Bachelor’s degree in military science and MS in naval engineering with specialization in gyro-inertial navigational complexes of naval strategic missile systems, focus on Project 667B-BD (NATO–Delta I-II) plus 10+ years of active service in Armed Forces, including tactical command and staff position. Sure, how can I possibly know anything about “military tech”. Scandalous for me to even pretend. So, yes, I don’t know what I am talking about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    So, yes, I don’t know what I am talking about.
     
    So we are agreed.

    Sure, how could I, with my Bachelor’s degree in military science and MS in naval engineering with specialization in gyro-inertial navigational complexes of naval strategic missile systems, focus on Project 667B-BD (NATO–Delta I-II) plus 10+ years of active service in Armed Forces
     
    You served in the US military or the Russian military?
  24. And in any case, all that nonsense about “humanitarian” motivations for US policy is ridiculous at a time when the US is helping Saudi-Arabia bomb and starve Yemen.

    I gladly concede that point. US interventionism is bad for the US and bad for the planet. US justifications for it’s intervention are self serving bullshit. But the US is the most powerful country in the world and nature abhors a vacuum so US intervention is inevitable. Even a total non interventionist like Trump has been forced to expand US involvement in Syria just like Obama was forced to get involved in Libya.

    Getting angry about US involvement is a waste of energy when it is A) inevitable and B) nearing it’s end. US power is in a terminal decline, if the US even exists in 50 years it certainly will no longer be able to project force halfway across the planet. You have all this anger at what is essentially a dying man.

    One last thing, when the US finally does withdraw from being global policeman, I suspect their will actually be more chaos and death than there is today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Even a total non interventionist like Trump
     
    Trump's never been a non-interventionist. Let alone a "total" one.

    It's becoming ever clearer that he opportunistically rode some anti-interventionist political currents in his election campaign, as part of his general anti-establishment shtick, but even then he made clear he was fully on board for the US military destroying IS, when a non-interventionist would have happily left Syria, Russia, Iran and Iraq to bear the costs of doing that.

    He knew (and still knows) very little about foreign policy and geostrategic concerns, and he doesn't appear to be one of the actual dogmatic interventionists who infest the US elites, but that's very different from being a non-interventionist.
  25. @Andrei Martyanov

    but you obviously know way less about military tech than I do.
     
    Sure, how could I, with my Bachelor's degree in military science and MS in naval engineering with specialization in gyro-inertial navigational complexes of naval strategic missile systems, focus on Project 667B-BD (NATO--Delta I-II) plus 10+ years of active service in Armed Forces, including tactical command and staff position. Sure, how can I possibly know anything about "military tech". Scandalous for me to even pretend. So, yes, I don't know what I am talking about.

    So, yes, I don’t know what I am talking about.

    So we are agreed.

    Sure, how could I, with my Bachelor’s degree in military science and MS in naval engineering with specialization in gyro-inertial navigational complexes of naval strategic missile systems, focus on Project 667B-BD (NATO–Delta I-II) plus 10+ years of active service in Armed Forces

    You served in the US military or the Russian military?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    You served in the US military or the Russian military?
     
    Guess, LOL.
  26. @Greasy William

    So, yes, I don’t know what I am talking about.
     
    So we are agreed.

    Sure, how could I, with my Bachelor’s degree in military science and MS in naval engineering with specialization in gyro-inertial navigational complexes of naval strategic missile systems, focus on Project 667B-BD (NATO–Delta I-II) plus 10+ years of active service in Armed Forces
     
    You served in the US military or the Russian military?

    You served in the US military or the Russian military?

    Guess, LOL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    I can't. You got a Russian name but your writing style sounds like an American Paleocon. I'm gonna go with the US military.
  27. Randal says:
    @Greasy William

    and as long as the regime’s violence stays inside Syria it’s no business of the US
     
    But it is the business of Russia and Iran?

    I actually agree with you that the US shouldn't be in Syria*, I just think citing "international law" is a bullshit reason when the other side is also violating international law.

    *In a perfect world. If it helps Trump stay in power though I am for it because I focus on the big picture.

    Am I in a ball park or do you need more elaborations on your lack of qualifications to pass judgements on anything Russia related?
     
    No you're not in the ball park. I'm gonna assume you know way more about Russia than I do, but you obviously know way less about military tech than I do. You probably think the SU-35 is a match for the F-15 and that the S-400 could stop an attack of F-22s. You just don't know what you're talking about.

    you obviously know way less about military tech than I do. You probably think the SU-35 is a match for the F-15 and that the S-400 could stop an attack of F-22s. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.

    [Gets popcorn out]

    This promises to be entertaining! (I think you picked the wrong guy to have a pissing contest about military knowledge with….)

    Read More
  28. @Andrei Martyanov

    You served in the US military or the Russian military?
     
    Guess, LOL.

    I can’t. You got a Russian name but your writing style sounds like an American Paleocon. I’m gonna go with the US military.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I’m gonna go with the US military.
     
    Well, if you would know what real military tech is, you would have paid attention to this, from my previous post, which is a telltale sign:

    Project 667B-BD (NATO–Delta I-II)
     
    US Navy never had anything associated with such terms as "project" as ships' description, let alone 667B and BD--because those are rather famous Soviet nuclear strategic missile submarines (SSBN) Granted that I was trained to serve on those types of ships too, I , however, chose the surface fleet. So, no, I am Russian, in fact Soviet, if to go by time period--I graduated naval academy in 1985. But I really appreciate you mistaking my writing for American since, yes, I get published by leading American military professional magazines--precisely on the issues of "military tech" and how to use it. I am glad that in terms of writing in English I finally improved somewhat;) Famous United States Naval Institute certainly thinks so, they even allow me to write for their blog, like here;)

    https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/01/russian-navy-mission-found

    like an American Paleocon.
     
    Yes, I relate on many levels (not all, though) to American paleocons.
  29. Randal says:
    @Greasy William

    And in any case, all that nonsense about “humanitarian” motivations for US policy is ridiculous at a time when the US is helping Saudi-Arabia bomb and starve Yemen.
     
    I gladly concede that point. US interventionism is bad for the US and bad for the planet. US justifications for it's intervention are self serving bullshit. But the US is the most powerful country in the world and nature abhors a vacuum so US intervention is inevitable. Even a total non interventionist like Trump has been forced to expand US involvement in Syria just like Obama was forced to get involved in Libya.

    Getting angry about US involvement is a waste of energy when it is A) inevitable and B) nearing it's end. US power is in a terminal decline, if the US even exists in 50 years it certainly will no longer be able to project force halfway across the planet. You have all this anger at what is essentially a dying man.

    One last thing, when the US finally does withdraw from being global policeman, I suspect their will actually be more chaos and death than there is today.

    Even a total non interventionist like Trump

    Trump’s never been a non-interventionist. Let alone a “total” one.

    It’s becoming ever clearer that he opportunistically rode some anti-interventionist political currents in his election campaign, as part of his general anti-establishment shtick, but even then he made clear he was fully on board for the US military destroying IS, when a non-interventionist would have happily left Syria, Russia, Iran and Iraq to bear the costs of doing that.

    He knew (and still knows) very little about foreign policy and geostrategic concerns, and he doesn’t appear to be one of the actual dogmatic interventionists who infest the US elites, but that’s very different from being a non-interventionist.

    Read More
  30. @Greasy William
    I can't. You got a Russian name but your writing style sounds like an American Paleocon. I'm gonna go with the US military.

    I’m gonna go with the US military.

    Well, if you would know what real military tech is, you would have paid attention to this, from my previous post, which is a telltale sign:

    Project 667B-BD (NATO–Delta I-II)

    US Navy never had anything associated with such terms as “project” as ships’ description, let alone 667B and BD–because those are rather famous Soviet nuclear strategic missile submarines (SSBN) Granted that I was trained to serve on those types of ships too, I , however, chose the surface fleet. So, no, I am Russian, in fact Soviet, if to go by time period–I graduated naval academy in 1985. But I really appreciate you mistaking my writing for American since, yes, I get published by leading American military professional magazines–precisely on the issues of “military tech” and how to use it. I am glad that in terms of writing in English I finally improved somewhat;) Famous United States Naval Institute certainly thinks so, they even allow me to write for their blog, like here;)

    https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/01/russian-navy-mission-found

    like an American Paleocon.

    Yes, I relate on many levels (not all, though) to American paleocons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "I am glad that in terms of writing in English I finally improved somewhat;)"

    You do pretty well here and I imagine you do well in the technical journals. In this forum you do have the characteristic of avoiding the definite article, and also the indefinite ones, I think. This is a characteristic of Polish engineers where I work. (The Indians are the opposite, referring to colleagues as "the Tom," "the Joe," etc.)
  31. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Greasy William

    Trump apparently really is a stupid boomer asshole
     
    Trump isn't getting involved in Syria because he wants to, he is doing it because he has to. If Trump were dictator, he would probably be outright allying with Assad but he needs the support of the GOPe to remain in power and this is what they want. Trump is minimizing the damage as much as he can.

    If the US are psychopaths for helping their allies in Syria, then what does that make Russia who are doing a Hell of a lot more to help out Assad?

    If the US are psychopaths for helping their allies in Syria, then what does that make Russia who are doing a Hell of a lot more to help out Assad?

    Russia and Assad have mutual enemies, Sunni Jihadists and Western regime changers.
    Both are serious threats to them and to be dealt with.

    On the other hand, Washington encourages and enables questionable actions of their “allies” in Syria.

    Read More
  32. Trump’s never been a non-interventionist. Let alone a “total” one.

    By American foreign policy standards he is. Trump basically feels like most white Americans do about the middle east: he doesn’t like them and doesn’t want to be involved with them but is willing to do business with them. But the GOPe and the Deep State force him to be involved.

    The only way Trump could avoid getting involved in the region is if he directly confronted the GOPe and the Deep State on this point. That is totally impossible for somebody with 40% approval ratings to do.

    Yes, I relate on many levels (not all, though) to American paleocons.

    If you are a Russian and not a Paleocon that means that we can be friends.

    Read More
  33. since this thread is OT, I have some questions about Russia for Anatoly:

    1. Is there a PUA subculture at all in Russia?

    2. Related to the first question, does Russia have any what we would call “beta males”? I have met scrawny, frail Russian men, but they all have a “take no shit” personality. I can’t say I have even met a Russian guy with a weak personality. Boring, sure. But not not weak.

    3. How come Russian men in the west always go for plain jane/warpigs when they get with American girls? Is it because their creepy Russian personalities limit their options with western women or is because coming from a country where 99% of the young women are beauty queens by western standards means that Russian men actually prefer less attractive women?

    I used to box and have sparred against Russian (or at least somewhere in Eastern Europe) guys. Things I’ve noticed about Russian fighters:

    1. They are very physically intimidating. They have mean, predator facial expressions and their physiques always look Greek sculptures.

    2. They themselves can not be intimidated. If they are overmatched, they really don’t care. Getting knocked out or beaten up doesn’t phase them.

    3. They really aren’t very good fighters. I probably sparred with less than a dozen of them, but they all felt too stiff. I know from Kovalev and Golovkin that there are Russians with murderous punching power, but most of them definitely don’t have that. The physical strength they show on the weights doesn’t transalte into the ring. A scrawny, Jewish beta male like me was always able to manhandle Russian guys in the clinches, something I couldn’t always do with black, latino and American white guys. Honestly, in my experience, American white guys are the strongest in the clinches which I think would surprise most people. But my experience might not be representative.

    I also have a funny story about a Russian guy: when I was in 5th grade this new Russian guy came into our class. His name was even “Ivan”. He rubbed me the wrong way and I was an immature 5th grader so I gave him a hard time but it didn’t bother him any. One day I was trying to taunt him and I said, “Ivan, are you a fairy?”. And he said, “This word ‘fairy’, it is a good thing or a bad thing?”. And I said, “It’s a good thing, a very good thing.” And he said, “So then you are a fairy?”

    Maybe you had to be there but it was pretty funny. We ended up coming to blows later that year and he beat the living shit out of me. I probably had it coming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Is there a PUA subculture at all in Russia?
     
    Not that I'm aware of, though the social circles I tend to run with (familiar with the West, Internet raised) are generally aware of the phenomenon.

    Note that PUA culture was primarily developed in SoCal (the Neil Strauss nexus) and around Washington DC (Heartiste, Roosh). There's a good reason for that. Those places have some of the biggest concentrations of higher IQ, careerist, feminist, hypergamous, shit-testing women on the planet.

    That is, those are the places where learning game is more relatively useful than almost anywhere else in the world.

    Related to the first question, does Russia have any what we would call “beta males”?
     
    Sure, I've met plenty of them. Passive personalities who take shit from their bosses/directors to an extent that even Milton Waddams would rebel against. Though perhaps that's more a function of Russians' greater acceptance of hierarchy.

    On average Russian men probably are more alpha than Americans but the difference must be modest.

    How come Russian men in the west always go for plain jane/warpigs when they get with American girls?
     
    Haven't particularly noticed that. From my observations, Russian men tended to disproportionately have Asian gfs, though (1) small n because I didn't interact much with other Russians in the US; (2) I lived in the SF Bay Area, where white man - Asian woman couples are very prevalent in the Bobo class anyway.
  34. Art Deco says:

    * Seymour Hersh: Trump‘s Red Line Confirms Syria sarin attacks were false flags.

    You’d take Hersh at face value? Thirty-five years ago, students of foreign affairs on the starboard had concluded he was disreputable and not to be taken seriously; the mainstream reviewers for Time and Newsweek had concluded by that time that he was too accusatory to be trustworthy. Portside commentators like Garry Wills had concluded 20 years ago that he harbored a mixture of deceit and incompetence which made all of his work just about worthless. His last constituency is the Chomskyite left.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Thirty-five years ago, students of foreign affairs
     
    Evidently not very good students judging by the unmitigated disaster which US so called "foreign policy" is. I guess, once people of John Matlock and James Baker caliber left, the whole building of US "foreign policy" crumbled.

    the mainstream reviewers for Time and Newsweek had concluded
     
    LOL. Especially Newsweek--a neocon sewer.
  35. @Art Deco
    * Seymour Hersh: Trump‘s Red Line Confirms Syria sarin attacks were false flags.

    You'd take Hersh at face value? Thirty-five years ago, students of foreign affairs on the starboard had concluded he was disreputable and not to be taken seriously; the mainstream reviewers for Time and Newsweek had concluded by that time that he was too accusatory to be trustworthy. Portside commentators like Garry Wills had concluded 20 years ago that he harbored a mixture of deceit and incompetence which made all of his work just about worthless. His last constituency is the Chomskyite left.

    Thirty-five years ago, students of foreign affairs

    Evidently not very good students judging by the unmitigated disaster which US so called “foreign policy” is. I guess, once people of John Matlock and James Baker caliber left, the whole building of US “foreign policy” crumbled.

    the mainstream reviewers for Time and Newsweek had concluded

    LOL. Especially Newsweek–a neocon sewer.

    Read More
  36. @Andrei Martyanov

    Thirty-five years ago, students of foreign affairs
     
    Evidently not very good students judging by the unmitigated disaster which US so called "foreign policy" is. I guess, once people of John Matlock and James Baker caliber left, the whole building of US "foreign policy" crumbled.

    the mainstream reviewers for Time and Newsweek had concluded
     
    LOL. Especially Newsweek--a neocon sewer.

    John Matlock

    Jack Matlock

    Read More
  37. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @iffen
    Several people have told your that your posts are unreadable. I use Explorer and maybe 1/4 of your script disappears behind/under/into the sidebar.

    AK: Thanks, I've been passing these concerns to Ron. Not much I myself can do about it. It should be fixed in a few hours.

    Same on Firefox.

    Read More
  38. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Russian recession: Russia has done remarkably well post US sanctions.

    Per the graph, the recession ended in early 2016 and Russia is close to full recovery. Import substitution has been considered a desired outcome forever in development economics, but tends to be excruciatingly elusive. However, the perfect storm of sanctions and the collapse of oil and basic material prices seems to have worked wonders for Russia.

    It is better to quickly move from generalizations to specifics. A striking area has been that of Russian agriculture. Russia is now the world’s largest exporter of wheat. Here are a couple of stories (from Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-06/russia-upends-world-wheat-market-with-record-harvest-exports)

    The price of Russian wheat for export from Black Sea ports dropped to the lowest in at least six years in July and was last at $169 a metric ton as of Sept. 30, according to the Institute for Agricultural Market Studies. Wheat for December delivery added 0.4 percent in Chicago on Friday.

    Farmers trace the roots of the rebound to the Kremlin’s move a decade ago to allow land to be bought and sold freely. That set off a wave of investment in new equipment, fertilizers and expansion of farms into lands long left fallow. Government subsidies and the ruble devaluation, along with good weather, have added to harvests in recent years.

    Burdin was granted five hectares of land for his own use in the early 1990s, when his collective farm collapsed in the wake of the demise of the Soviet Union. After working as a hired hand, he struck out on his own in 2005. He traded his old Lada for a used Russian tractor. He said he barely earned enough for food. “It was hard when we started out.”

    Now he drives a late-model Ford pickup. His fleet includes a half-dozen imported tractors and four combines, along with a German machine to spread the fertilizer that’s helped him to victor,y in local wheat-yields contests. He owns 200 hectares (500 acres) of land and rents another 1,500.

    Contemporary mechanized agriculture requires large tracts of land and chemical inputs — fertilizer
    which is largely nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. 2,000 hectares is large enough to support the purchase of machinery. All of which Russia has in abundance. The government assisted in providing credit for inputs. And perhaps most importantly, The Ruble was devalued by roughly 50%. During the same period, wheat prices in dollars declined roughly by half — severely hurting US farmers while Russian exporters were able to sell at a roughly flat price in Rubles.

    But even collective farms would have worked under similar conditions:

    On the 40,000 hectares of fields at the Tselina farm company he runs, technology has also played a role. New tractors with GPS work 24 hours a day, with three shifts of drivers switching off. Profit margins were as high as 90 percent last year and earnings should be higher this year, he said.

    Last week, Agriculture Minister Alexander Tkachev reported to President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, predicting the best harvest in 25 years and forecasting it could grow another 20 percent over the next decade or so.

    “Exports give us a flow of cash, hard currency, from which our farm producers get rich,” said Tkachev, whose family is a major owner of farms and agricultural land in southern Russia.

    Per the Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/422a8252-2443-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16?mhq5j=e2:

    The success goes beyond grain. Russia has fully substituted imports with domestic production of pork and chicken. It has become a top producer of sugar beet; greenhouse vegetable production last year was up 30 per cent on the year before.

    While agriculture remains far below oil and gas, the sector has overtaken arms sales to become Russia’s second-biggest exporter.

    In reality, western sanctions had little to do with this. The weaker rouble that helped boost exports and make imports more expensive was a function, above all, of falling oil prices. The sanctions that helped boost import substitution were imposed by Russia — a supposedly “retaliatory” ban on many western foodstuffs. That ban arguably hit Russian consumers harder, by depriving them of favourite imported foods such as French cheese and fuelling inflation, than it did many of the exporting countries. Some analysts suggested president Vladimir Putin was using the sanctions as cover to advance a strategic objective he had already set: making Russia

    I’d much rather call it an unintended consequence of Obama’s sanction’s program. But Putin was there and has taken advantage of the outcome.

    One other comment about the Russian economy. Russian public companies produce reasonably high quality financial reports using International Accounting Standards. It’s like the GPS controlled tractor. The technology is just sitting out there. Or in this case, a set of standardized conventions and rules that have been developed over an extended period of time. The benefit is that over time Russian public companies will be in a position to access global capital markets as they find useful. And before long, the Tselina tractors will be driving themselves 24 hours per day.

    Read More
  39. vinteuil says:
    @German_reader

    retaliate in theaters where Russia has military predominance, such as Ukraine or even the Baltics;
     
    A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia's image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations and make depictions of Russia as an imperialist power credible in a way not comparable to Russia's Ukraine intervention. It would be perverse if Latvia had to pay the price for US idiocy in provoking Russia. Confirms me though in my view that NATO ought to be dissolved and replaced by a regional security structure, but of course the Atlanticist scum in Europe won't even think seriously about this.
    Regarding Syria, recent events seem to confirm that the US is irredeemable and basically a rogue nation run by psychopaths. Trump apparently really is a stupid boomer asshole whose mental horizon is limited to what he sees on cable television...probably always was a delusion to expect positive change from a New York plutocrat.

    “A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia’s image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations and make depictions of Russia as an imperialist power credible in a way not comparable to Russia’s Ukraine intervention…”

    Totally agreed. As Americans go, I think I might count as a Russophile’s Russophile – but any attack on the Baltics would instantly turn me over to the other side.

    That said, NATO’s stupid provocations in the Baltics seem designed for no other purpose than to lure Russia into such an attack.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Never do what your enemy wants. Putin seems to have successfully avoided the doing many of the actions NATO clearly desired him to make.
  40. melanf says:
    @German_reader

    do Russians really care how they are perceived in Europe?
     
    I think they should care, after all we'll always be neighbours and I see no reason why mutually beneficial relations shouldn't be possible. Granted, I can see how the degenerate nations of Western Europe are worthy of contempt, and the anti-Russian hysteria whipped up by Western media over the last few years has been disastrous. But there still are a lot of people in Europe who would like to see some sort of rapprochement with Russia. Even if they are politically powerless right now, it would be a monumentally self-defeating move by Russia to throw away those sympathies by an attack on the Baltic states.
    I hope you're right about the situation in Syria, and if the US does start hostilities I'd be happy to see US forces in the region suffer. But given the psycho strain in the American national character there probably would be some absurd overreaction by the Americans, so hopefully this can be avoided.

    I think they should care, after all we’ll always be neighbours and I see no reason why mutually beneficial relations shouldn’t be possible.

    When the basis of relations with Russia is an extreme Russophobia, “mutually beneficial relations” is impossible. And Russophobia have always been, and apparently always will be a defining force in the policy of the EU.

    I sincerely hope that relations with the EU will be minimized (and economic relations terminated completely) – it would be better for Russia and for the EU

    But there still are a lot of people in Europe who would like to see some sort of rapprochement with Russia. Even if they are politically powerless right now

    they are politically powerless right now, and they will always be politically powerless.

    ( To avoid confusion – I am against attack on the Baltic states)

    Read More
  41. @Greasy William

    and as long as the regime’s violence stays inside Syria it’s no business of the US
     
    But it is the business of Russia and Iran?

    I actually agree with you that the US shouldn't be in Syria*, I just think citing "international law" is a bullshit reason when the other side is also violating international law.

    *In a perfect world. If it helps Trump stay in power though I am for it because I focus on the big picture.

    Am I in a ball park or do you need more elaborations on your lack of qualifications to pass judgements on anything Russia related?
     
    No you're not in the ball park. I'm gonna assume you know way more about Russia than I do, but you obviously know way less about military tech than I do. You probably think the SU-35 is a match for the F-15 and that the S-400 could stop an attack of F-22s. You just don't know what you're talking about.

    I actually agree with you that the US shouldn’t be in Syria*, I just think citing “international law” is a bullshit reason when the other side is also violating international law.

    Russia is definitely not violating international law in this case. Russia is in Syria at the invitation of Syria. The fact that ISIS and the Al Nusra Front object means nothing.

    Read More
  42. LondonBob says:
    @vinteuil
    "A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia’s image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations and make depictions of Russia as an imperialist power credible in a way not comparable to Russia’s Ukraine intervention..."

    Totally agreed. As Americans go, I think I might count as a Russophile's Russophile - but any attack on the Baltics would instantly turn me over to the other side.

    That said, NATO's stupid provocations in the Baltics seem designed for no other purpose than to lure Russia into such an attack.

    Never do what your enemy wants. Putin seems to have successfully avoided the doing many of the actions NATO clearly desired him to make.

    Read More
  43. @Greasy William
    since this thread is OT, I have some questions about Russia for Anatoly:

    1. Is there a PUA subculture at all in Russia?

    2. Related to the first question, does Russia have any what we would call "beta males"? I have met scrawny, frail Russian men, but they all have a "take no shit" personality. I can't say I have even met a Russian guy with a weak personality. Boring, sure. But not not weak.

    3. How come Russian men in the west always go for plain jane/warpigs when they get with American girls? Is it because their creepy Russian personalities limit their options with western women or is because coming from a country where 99% of the young women are beauty queens by western standards means that Russian men actually prefer less attractive women?

    I used to box and have sparred against Russian (or at least somewhere in Eastern Europe) guys. Things I've noticed about Russian fighters:

    1. They are very physically intimidating. They have mean, predator facial expressions and their physiques always look Greek sculptures.

    2. They themselves can not be intimidated. If they are overmatched, they really don't care. Getting knocked out or beaten up doesn't phase them.

    3. They really aren't very good fighters. I probably sparred with less than a dozen of them, but they all felt too stiff. I know from Kovalev and Golovkin that there are Russians with murderous punching power, but most of them definitely don't have that. The physical strength they show on the weights doesn't transalte into the ring. A scrawny, Jewish beta male like me was always able to manhandle Russian guys in the clinches, something I couldn't always do with black, latino and American white guys. Honestly, in my experience, American white guys are the strongest in the clinches which I think would surprise most people. But my experience might not be representative.


    I also have a funny story about a Russian guy: when I was in 5th grade this new Russian guy came into our class. His name was even "Ivan". He rubbed me the wrong way and I was an immature 5th grader so I gave him a hard time but it didn't bother him any. One day I was trying to taunt him and I said, "Ivan, are you a fairy?". And he said, "This word 'fairy', it is a good thing or a bad thing?". And I said, "It's a good thing, a very good thing." And he said, "So then you are a fairy?"

    Maybe you had to be there but it was pretty funny. We ended up coming to blows later that year and he beat the living shit out of me. I probably had it coming.

    Is there a PUA subculture at all in Russia?

    Not that I’m aware of, though the social circles I tend to run with (familiar with the West, Internet raised) are generally aware of the phenomenon.

    Note that PUA culture was primarily developed in SoCal (the Neil Strauss nexus) and around Washington DC (Heartiste, Roosh). There’s a good reason for that. Those places have some of the biggest concentrations of higher IQ, careerist, feminist, hypergamous, shit-testing women on the planet.

    That is, those are the places where learning game is more relatively useful than almost anywhere else in the world.

    Related to the first question, does Russia have any what we would call “beta males”?

    Sure, I’ve met plenty of them. Passive personalities who take shit from their bosses/directors to an extent that even Milton Waddams would rebel against. Though perhaps that’s more a function of Russians’ greater acceptance of hierarchy.

    On average Russian men probably are more alpha than Americans but the difference must be modest.

    How come Russian men in the west always go for plain jane/warpigs when they get with American girls?

    Haven’t particularly noticed that. From my observations, Russian men tended to disproportionately have Asian gfs, though (1) small n because I didn’t interact much with other Russians in the US; (2) I lived in the SF Bay Area, where white man – Asian woman couples are very prevalent in the Bobo class anyway.

    Read More
  44. Fredrik says:
    @German_reader

    retaliate in theaters where Russia has military predominance, such as Ukraine or even the Baltics;
     
    A Russian attack against the Baltic states would be disastrous, it would totally destroy Russia's image even among many Europeans interested in friendly relations and make depictions of Russia as an imperialist power credible in a way not comparable to Russia's Ukraine intervention. It would be perverse if Latvia had to pay the price for US idiocy in provoking Russia. Confirms me though in my view that NATO ought to be dissolved and replaced by a regional security structure, but of course the Atlanticist scum in Europe won't even think seriously about this.
    Regarding Syria, recent events seem to confirm that the US is irredeemable and basically a rogue nation run by psychopaths. Trump apparently really is a stupid boomer asshole whose mental horizon is limited to what he sees on cable television...probably always was a delusion to expect positive change from a New York plutocrat.

    Well, I mean… nothing makes the blood of a British solider boil more than the thought of a EU army, i.e. a non-anglo ruled army capable of defending itself. It’s not really the finished article yet…or for a while but Merkel and Macron would like it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    or for a while but Merkel and Macron would like it.
     
    Germany nowadays has 200 main battle tanks, which is apparently about as many as Switzerland. Similar for the navy (according to a recent article I read about as large as that of the Netherlands) and the air force. A large part of the vehicles and aircraft also isn't fit for use, and parts of the existing stock are cannibalized for spare parts.
    Another one of Merkel's "achievements" (she also had conscription abolished). And given that funds will be needed for other, really important projects (like paying Danegeld to the invaders Merkel invited), this state is unlikely to change.
    The "opposition" is also against increased military spending, just read this by Eurocrat Martin Schulz:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/opinion/martin-schulz-trump-germany.html

    You may be right that the US and its UK satellite don't want to see independent German military power. But the idea that the current German political leadership would be capable of creating it, is a fantasy. Merkel may criticize Trump somewhat, but at heart she's still an obedient US vassal.
  45. Fredrik says:
    @Greasy William

    Trump apparently really is a stupid boomer asshole
     
    Trump isn't getting involved in Syria because he wants to, he is doing it because he has to. If Trump were dictator, he would probably be outright allying with Assad but he needs the support of the GOPe to remain in power and this is what they want. Trump is minimizing the damage as much as he can.

    If the US are psychopaths for helping their allies in Syria, then what does that make Russia who are doing a Hell of a lot more to help out Assad?

    Considering who the US allies in Syria really are(al-Qaida affiliated groups and similar) then I think they should find new allies.

    I’m not the only one supporting the rebellion until I found out who the rebels were. No wonder the Potemkin village that is the FSA gets so much love.

    But hey, I would have thought the Israelis would have done their homework. Maybe Usama, if alive, really would be a better neighbour than Bashar.

    Read More
  46. @Fredrik
    Well, I mean... nothing makes the blood of a British solider boil more than the thought of a EU army, i.e. a non-anglo ruled army capable of defending itself. It's not really the finished article yet...or for a while but Merkel and Macron would like it.

    or for a while but Merkel and Macron would like it.

    Germany nowadays has 200 main battle tanks, which is apparently about as many as Switzerland. Similar for the navy (according to a recent article I read about as large as that of the Netherlands) and the air force. A large part of the vehicles and aircraft also isn’t fit for use, and parts of the existing stock are cannibalized for spare parts.
    Another one of Merkel’s “achievements” (she also had conscription abolished). And given that funds will be needed for other, really important projects (like paying Danegeld to the invaders Merkel invited), this state is unlikely to change.
    The “opposition” is also against increased military spending, just read this by Eurocrat Martin Schulz:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/opinion/martin-schulz-trump-germany.html

    You may be right that the US and its UK satellite don’t want to see independent German military power. But the idea that the current German political leadership would be capable of creating it, is a fantasy. Merkel may criticize Trump somewhat, but at heart she’s still an obedient US vassal.

    Read More
  47. On average Russian men probably are more alpha than Americans but the difference must be modest.

    Beta towards women or beta towards men? I just can’t imagine a Russian man getting bullied unless he had aspergers or something. But maybe I just have only met a certain type. In fact, even FSU Jews aren’t the pushovers that American Jews are.

    Isn’t it considered totally socially acceptable in Russia to smack around your wife/gf?

    I feel like people are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position on US invovlement in Syria: I agree the US shouldn’t be over there. What I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can’t say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it.

    Unlike everybody else here, I am okay with not only killing civilians but even targeting them directly in certain situations. I’m not a hypocrite like you guys are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    What I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians
     
    That's not what I wrote, my point was about international law and sovereignty. For the past 30 years at least, since the collapse of the Soviet Union removed any restraint, the US (with the support of its European satellites) has repeatedly broken international law by attacking/invading other countries on spurious grounds (Serbia, Iraq, Lybia, now apparently Syria as well). It's clear that the US with its self-appointed role as global hegemon doesn't regard itself as bound by the norms applying to other states - which will inevitably weaken those norms in general (Russia justified its Ukraine intervention and the Crimea annexation partly with the West having done the same in Kosvo, against Russian objections). This obviously hypocritical attitude cannot but lead to increased global instability and severe tensions with major powers that refuse to become US satellites.
    , @Darin

    Beta towards women or beta towards men? I just can’t imagine a Russian man getting bullied unless he had aspergers or something.
     
    Search for "dedovshchina".

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gqdx44/full-v13n4

    There are lots of stories and videos that would make your stomach churn, if you are into this kind of stuff.

    But maybe I just have only met a certain type.
     
    Maybe you are like other Westerners, who know just enough about Russia to project their visions and hopes into it like on empty white screen. Just like formerly some people saw Russia as land of workers, some people now see Russia as land of pious and spiritual Christians, you see Russia as land of tough men who ride bears and eat nails for breakfast. The reality, as always, is more complicated.
    , @E
    "I agree the US shouldn’t be over there. What I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can’t say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it."

    Do many Westerners have bad reading comprehension or something? Not to single you out, but you're far from the first person I've seen conflating these two quite unrelated issues.

    What Putin, and Russians in general, are mainly concerned about is not the moral issue of who kills more or less civilians with horrible weapons of war (although that's also notable, of course). What they're concerned about most of all is to prevent the world descending into a WW2-type situation once again. Russians are far more horrified of war than are Americans, are more paranoid about recognizing the warning signs that we're heading towards another great global conflict, and are trying very hard to solve their rather strong fundamental disagreements with NATO's leadership by way of international law (that is, in a civilized manner) rather than might-makes-right, whenever that is possible to do without complete capitulation.

    So as far as they're concerned, no, it is not hypocritical to criticize the US for ignoring international law in Syria (in fact, not event making a token effort to pretend they have a legal right to be there) while Russia is there entirely legally.

    If the US refuses to acknowledge and use civilized ways of handling disagreements with other countries (which is what international law is, despite all its flaws), if their entire diplomacy consists of making demands of other countries and attacking anyone who doesn't meet them, while using their mass media to make their own citizens incapable of understanding the other side's points of view (Russian debate shows have a much wider range of opinions allowed on air than American ones, by the way, and the discussions are more sophisticated)... eventually, the only way left open will be warfare on a truly horrendous scale, and we're getting ever closer to it.

    , @Seamus Padraig

    I feel like people are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position on US invovlement in Syria: I agree the US shouldn’t be over there. What I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can’t say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it.
     
    Oh, I understand your position well enough:

    1.) You're accusing the Syrian government--totally without evidence*--of targeting their own civilians, and ...

    2.) You're trying to create some sort of moral equivalence between and invader (the US) and the defender (Syria).

    I think we're all well aware of the fact that civilians die in every war, but that general fact does not excuse or provide any support for the above assumptions.

    *And no, I don't consider the western MSM, or the 'White Helmets,' or the 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights' to be evidence of anything.

  48. @Greasy William

    On average Russian men probably are more alpha than Americans but the difference must be modest.
     
    Beta towards women or beta towards men? I just can't imagine a Russian man getting bullied unless he had aspergers or something. But maybe I just have only met a certain type. In fact, even FSU Jews aren't the pushovers that American Jews are.

    Isn't it considered totally socially acceptable in Russia to smack around your wife/gf?


    I feel like people are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position on US invovlement in Syria: I agree the US shouldn't be over there. What I'm saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can't say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it.

    Unlike everybody else here, I am okay with not only killing civilians but even targeting them directly in certain situations. I'm not a hypocrite like you guys are.

    What I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians

    That’s not what I wrote, my point was about international law and sovereignty. For the past 30 years at least, since the collapse of the Soviet Union removed any restraint, the US (with the support of its European satellites) has repeatedly broken international law by attacking/invading other countries on spurious grounds (Serbia, Iraq, Lybia, now apparently Syria as well). It’s clear that the US with its self-appointed role as global hegemon doesn’t regard itself as bound by the norms applying to other states – which will inevitably weaken those norms in general (Russia justified its Ukraine intervention and the Crimea annexation partly with the West having done the same in Kosvo, against Russian objections). This obviously hypocritical attitude cannot but lead to increased global instability and severe tensions with major powers that refuse to become US satellites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    It’s clear that the US with its self-appointed role as global hegemon
     
    Self appointed!!!!??!!! Your own country has flipped it's shit over Trump's threat to leave NATO. *YOU* dragged Obama into Libya against his will. Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were all furious at Obama for scaling back the US presence in the region. South Korea and Japan were shitting bricks when they thought that Trump might leave.

    So only the US is responsible, not all the countries that demand US involvement in their shit?
  49. @German_reader

    What I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians
     
    That's not what I wrote, my point was about international law and sovereignty. For the past 30 years at least, since the collapse of the Soviet Union removed any restraint, the US (with the support of its European satellites) has repeatedly broken international law by attacking/invading other countries on spurious grounds (Serbia, Iraq, Lybia, now apparently Syria as well). It's clear that the US with its self-appointed role as global hegemon doesn't regard itself as bound by the norms applying to other states - which will inevitably weaken those norms in general (Russia justified its Ukraine intervention and the Crimea annexation partly with the West having done the same in Kosvo, against Russian objections). This obviously hypocritical attitude cannot but lead to increased global instability and severe tensions with major powers that refuse to become US satellites.

    It’s clear that the US with its self-appointed role as global hegemon

    Self appointed!!!!??!!! Your own country has flipped it’s shit over Trump’s threat to leave NATO. *YOU* dragged Obama into Libya against his will. Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were all furious at Obama for scaling back the US presence in the region. South Korea and Japan were shitting bricks when they thought that Trump might leave.

    So only the US is responsible, not all the countries that demand US involvement in their shit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    *YOU* dragged Obama into Libya against his will.
     
    That was Britain and France (two pathetic countries with sad delusions about their role in the world), Germany wisely stayed out of this one (due to the insistence of the late foreign minister Westerwelle, Merkel would probably have gone along with it).
    And what Merkel or other mainstream politicians in Germany think about NATO, is really irrevelant...they're vassals, many of them have probably been bought by the Americans anyway. The US clearly wants total global hegemony, this isn't changed by the fact that it has been highly successful in cultivating collaborationist elites among its "allies".
  50. @Greasy William

    It’s clear that the US with its self-appointed role as global hegemon
     
    Self appointed!!!!??!!! Your own country has flipped it's shit over Trump's threat to leave NATO. *YOU* dragged Obama into Libya against his will. Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were all furious at Obama for scaling back the US presence in the region. South Korea and Japan were shitting bricks when they thought that Trump might leave.

    So only the US is responsible, not all the countries that demand US involvement in their shit?

    *YOU* dragged Obama into Libya against his will.

    That was Britain and France (two pathetic countries with sad delusions about their role in the world), Germany wisely stayed out of this one (due to the insistence of the late foreign minister Westerwelle, Merkel would probably have gone along with it).
    And what Merkel or other mainstream politicians in Germany think about NATO, is really irrevelant…they’re vassals, many of them have probably been bought by the Americans anyway. The US clearly wants total global hegemony, this isn’t changed by the fact that it has been highly successful in cultivating collaborationist elites among its “allies”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    You think that Merkel is a vassal of Trump? She despises him.

    If I'm wrong, let me know but is it not the case that public opinion in Germany is very much against the US leaving NATO?
    , @Matra
    And what Merkel or other mainstream politicians in Germany think about NATO, is really irrevelant…they’re vassals

    Rubbish. There've been many occasions when Europeans have gone against the wishes of the US. It happened during the Cold War, the Iraq war (France even launched a worldwide diplomatic offensive in many countries against Bush at the UN), trade disputes, refusing to extradite criminals because of the death penalty, etc. Saying we are only vassals, it is not our fault, is a typical Euroweenie cop out.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    That was Britain and France (two pathetic countries with sad delusions about their role in the world)
     
    Agree. 100%.
  51. @German_reader

    *YOU* dragged Obama into Libya against his will.
     
    That was Britain and France (two pathetic countries with sad delusions about their role in the world), Germany wisely stayed out of this one (due to the insistence of the late foreign minister Westerwelle, Merkel would probably have gone along with it).
    And what Merkel or other mainstream politicians in Germany think about NATO, is really irrevelant...they're vassals, many of them have probably been bought by the Americans anyway. The US clearly wants total global hegemony, this isn't changed by the fact that it has been highly successful in cultivating collaborationist elites among its "allies".

    You think that Merkel is a vassal of Trump? She despises him.

    If I’m wrong, let me know but is it not the case that public opinion in Germany is very much against the US leaving NATO?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    You think that Merkel is a vassal of Trump? She despises him.

    If I’m wrong, let me know but is it not the case that public opinion in Germany is very much against the US leaving NATO?

     

    She isn't a vassal of Trump personally, but of the US as a system. She's against certain aspects of Trump's "nationalism" like immigration restriction, protectionism...but she's in agreement about that with US elites. She isn't really opposed to US military interventionism - back in 2003 she wrote a grovelling letter of support to Bush for the looming Iraq invasion, and in April this year she voiced her support for Trump's missile strike on Syria. She also didn't really have a problem with US spying against Germany. Her criticism of Trump isn't a formulation of an alternative viewpoint based on genuine German or European interests - she's merely regurgitating the talking points of US elites.
    I don't know what most Germans think about NATO, you may well be right, there are many braindead Atlanticists in Germany (though the opinion of the public is probably far more critical of NATO than that of political and media elites).
  52. @Greasy William
    You think that Merkel is a vassal of Trump? She despises him.

    If I'm wrong, let me know but is it not the case that public opinion in Germany is very much against the US leaving NATO?

    You think that Merkel is a vassal of Trump? She despises him.

    If I’m wrong, let me know but is it not the case that public opinion in Germany is very much against the US leaving NATO?

    She isn’t a vassal of Trump personally, but of the US as a system. She’s against certain aspects of Trump’s “nationalism” like immigration restriction, protectionism…but she’s in agreement about that with US elites. She isn’t really opposed to US military interventionism – back in 2003 she wrote a grovelling letter of support to Bush for the looming Iraq invasion, and in April this year she voiced her support for Trump’s missile strike on Syria. She also didn’t really have a problem with US spying against Germany. Her criticism of Trump isn’t a formulation of an alternative viewpoint based on genuine German or European interests – she’s merely regurgitating the talking points of US elites.
    I don’t know what most Germans think about NATO, you may well be right, there are many braindead Atlanticists in Germany (though the opinion of the public is probably far more critical of NATO than that of political and media elites).

    Read More
  53. Matra says:
    @German_reader

    *YOU* dragged Obama into Libya against his will.
     
    That was Britain and France (two pathetic countries with sad delusions about their role in the world), Germany wisely stayed out of this one (due to the insistence of the late foreign minister Westerwelle, Merkel would probably have gone along with it).
    And what Merkel or other mainstream politicians in Germany think about NATO, is really irrevelant...they're vassals, many of them have probably been bought by the Americans anyway. The US clearly wants total global hegemony, this isn't changed by the fact that it has been highly successful in cultivating collaborationist elites among its "allies".

    And what Merkel or other mainstream politicians in Germany think about NATO, is really irrevelant…they’re vassals

    Rubbish. There’ve been many occasions when Europeans have gone against the wishes of the US. It happened during the Cold War, the Iraq war (France even launched a worldwide diplomatic offensive in many countries against Bush at the UN), trade disputes, refusing to extradite criminals because of the death penalty, etc. Saying we are only vassals, it is not our fault, is a typical Euroweenie cop out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Saying we are only vassals, it is not our fault, is a typical Euroweenie cop out.
     
    Maybe I should have phrased it differently, but you can't really deny imo that there is a very deliberate effort by the US to cultivate pro-American elites in Europe, through all those foundations, think tanks etc. And with a lot of success - who today is really anti-American? Even people who criticize the US do so because the US isn't supposedly true enough to its "values" and not adequately fulfilling its role as "leader" of the Atlantic community, that is they accept the limits of discourse set by US elites.
    It's of course true though that ultimately Europeans are themselves to blame for letting all this happen and not taking the steps that would be necessary for real independece (like increased military spending).
    , @Anon

    Saying we are only vassals
     
    We are. Vassals are not without rights, unlike slaves, but still clearly subordinated to their overlord.

    the Iraq war (France even launched a worldwide diplomatic offensive in many countries against Bush at the UN)
     
    The next president rejoined the military part of NATO which de Gaulle left to limit American influence on France. European opposition against this war was without much consequence for the relations between American overlord and European vassals. The latter did not become more independent or more willing to defy him.

    trade disputes
     
    And who has the upper hand? TTIP suggests that it is not EUrope despite a larger economy.

    refusing to extradite criminals because of the death penalty
     
    Considering that a large and increasing number of Americans do not support death penalty, that is not that much of an issue.

    typical Euroweenie cop out
     
    People are used to American domination and overcoming it would cost a lot which reinforces the ones who do not want to change the status quo.
  54. @Matra
    And what Merkel or other mainstream politicians in Germany think about NATO, is really irrevelant…they’re vassals

    Rubbish. There've been many occasions when Europeans have gone against the wishes of the US. It happened during the Cold War, the Iraq war (France even launched a worldwide diplomatic offensive in many countries against Bush at the UN), trade disputes, refusing to extradite criminals because of the death penalty, etc. Saying we are only vassals, it is not our fault, is a typical Euroweenie cop out.

    Saying we are only vassals, it is not our fault, is a typical Euroweenie cop out.

    Maybe I should have phrased it differently, but you can’t really deny imo that there is a very deliberate effort by the US to cultivate pro-American elites in Europe, through all those foundations, think tanks etc. And with a lot of success – who today is really anti-American? Even people who criticize the US do so because the US isn’t supposedly true enough to its “values” and not adequately fulfilling its role as “leader” of the Atlantic community, that is they accept the limits of discourse set by US elites.
    It’s of course true though that ultimately Europeans are themselves to blame for letting all this happen and not taking the steps that would be necessary for real independece (like increased military spending).

    Read More
  55. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Matra
    And what Merkel or other mainstream politicians in Germany think about NATO, is really irrevelant…they’re vassals

    Rubbish. There've been many occasions when Europeans have gone against the wishes of the US. It happened during the Cold War, the Iraq war (France even launched a worldwide diplomatic offensive in many countries against Bush at the UN), trade disputes, refusing to extradite criminals because of the death penalty, etc. Saying we are only vassals, it is not our fault, is a typical Euroweenie cop out.

    Saying we are only vassals

    We are. Vassals are not without rights, unlike slaves, but still clearly subordinated to their overlord.

    the Iraq war (France even launched a worldwide diplomatic offensive in many countries against Bush at the UN)

    The next president rejoined the military part of NATO which de Gaulle left to limit American influence on France. European opposition against this war was without much consequence for the relations between American overlord and European vassals. The latter did not become more independent or more willing to defy him.

    trade disputes

    And who has the upper hand? TTIP suggests that it is not EUrope despite a larger economy.

    refusing to extradite criminals because of the death penalty

    Considering that a large and increasing number of Americans do not support death penalty, that is not that much of an issue.

    typical Euroweenie cop out

    People are used to American domination and overcoming it would cost a lot which reinforces the ones who do not want to change the status quo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    European opposition against this war was without much consequence for the relations between American overlord and European vassals. The latter did not become more independent or more willing to defy him.
     
    Even Schröder's opposition to the Iraq war was fake to some degree. He still let the Americans use Germany as a logistics base for the Iraq war, and iirc there was also some supportive cooperation at the intelligence level. If there hadn't been an election in 2002, he might even have gone along with it as he did with the Kosovo war in 1999.
  56. @Anon

    Saying we are only vassals
     
    We are. Vassals are not without rights, unlike slaves, but still clearly subordinated to their overlord.

    the Iraq war (France even launched a worldwide diplomatic offensive in many countries against Bush at the UN)
     
    The next president rejoined the military part of NATO which de Gaulle left to limit American influence on France. European opposition against this war was without much consequence for the relations between American overlord and European vassals. The latter did not become more independent or more willing to defy him.

    trade disputes
     
    And who has the upper hand? TTIP suggests that it is not EUrope despite a larger economy.

    refusing to extradite criminals because of the death penalty
     
    Considering that a large and increasing number of Americans do not support death penalty, that is not that much of an issue.

    typical Euroweenie cop out
     
    People are used to American domination and overcoming it would cost a lot which reinforces the ones who do not want to change the status quo.

    European opposition against this war was without much consequence for the relations between American overlord and European vassals. The latter did not become more independent or more willing to defy him.

    Even Schröder’s opposition to the Iraq war was fake to some degree. He still let the Americans use Germany as a logistics base for the Iraq war, and iirc there was also some supportive cooperation at the intelligence level. If there hadn’t been an election in 2002, he might even have gone along with it as he did with the Kosovo war in 1999.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    He still let the Americans use Germany as a logistics base for the Iraq war, and iirc there was also some supportive cooperation at the intelligence level.
     
    Thousands of German soldiers were sent to guard American bases in Germany.
    Other German soldiers were sent to reinforce NATO in the Balkans and Afghanistan.
    All of that helped the American military to focus on Iraq.
    And there was also an unconstitutional German participation in the AWACS air surveillance flights in/near the war zone.
  57. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @German_reader

    European opposition against this war was without much consequence for the relations between American overlord and European vassals. The latter did not become more independent or more willing to defy him.
     
    Even Schröder's opposition to the Iraq war was fake to some degree. He still let the Americans use Germany as a logistics base for the Iraq war, and iirc there was also some supportive cooperation at the intelligence level. If there hadn't been an election in 2002, he might even have gone along with it as he did with the Kosovo war in 1999.

    He still let the Americans use Germany as a logistics base for the Iraq war, and iirc there was also some supportive cooperation at the intelligence level.

    Thousands of German soldiers were sent to guard American bases in Germany.
    Other German soldiers were sent to reinforce NATO in the Balkans and Afghanistan.
    All of that helped the American military to focus on Iraq.
    And there was also an unconstitutional German participation in the AWACS air surveillance flights in/near the war zone.

    Read More
  58. I think they should care, after all we’ll always be neighbours

    Russians, as usual, will continue to both loath and love Bayern Munich, root for any Jurgen Klopp’s teams (secretly dreaming of him coaching Russian National team) and pack stadiums for Bundesmachine. That is a given;) On a more somber note, I think Russians are ready for many Russian Germans (it is in process) coming back home and German Germans follow not far behind. Not the first time, not the last time in common Russo-German history.

    Read More
  59. @German_reader

    *YOU* dragged Obama into Libya against his will.
     
    That was Britain and France (two pathetic countries with sad delusions about their role in the world), Germany wisely stayed out of this one (due to the insistence of the late foreign minister Westerwelle, Merkel would probably have gone along with it).
    And what Merkel or other mainstream politicians in Germany think about NATO, is really irrevelant...they're vassals, many of them have probably been bought by the Americans anyway. The US clearly wants total global hegemony, this isn't changed by the fact that it has been highly successful in cultivating collaborationist elites among its "allies".

    That was Britain and France (two pathetic countries with sad delusions about their role in the world)

    Agree. 100%.

    Read More
  60. Darin says:
    @Greasy William

    On average Russian men probably are more alpha than Americans but the difference must be modest.
     
    Beta towards women or beta towards men? I just can't imagine a Russian man getting bullied unless he had aspergers or something. But maybe I just have only met a certain type. In fact, even FSU Jews aren't the pushovers that American Jews are.

    Isn't it considered totally socially acceptable in Russia to smack around your wife/gf?


    I feel like people are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position on US invovlement in Syria: I agree the US shouldn't be over there. What I'm saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can't say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it.

    Unlike everybody else here, I am okay with not only killing civilians but even targeting them directly in certain situations. I'm not a hypocrite like you guys are.

    Beta towards women or beta towards men? I just can’t imagine a Russian man getting bullied unless he had aspergers or something.

    Search for “dedovshchina”.

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gqdx44/full-v13n4

    There are lots of stories and videos that would make your stomach churn, if you are into this kind of stuff.

    But maybe I just have only met a certain type.

    Maybe you are like other Westerners, who know just enough about Russia to project their visions and hopes into it like on empty white screen. Just like formerly some people saw Russia as land of workers, some people now see Russia as land of pious and spiritual Christians, you see Russia as land of tough men who ride bears and eat nails for breakfast. The reality, as always, is more complicated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Search for “dedovshchina”.
     
    In the navy it was called godkovshina. In general, a classic case known as hazing in any armed forces in the word. Some cases of hazing, especially in the units of not the first line were brutal and were persecuted big time. There were some bad cases. But it was in post-Soviet Russia where things went bad for a while. Yet, life in post WW II Soviet Armed Forces was also not easy for young recruits. So, you missed one thing when suggesting "dedovshina"--a number of initiation ceremonies in very many "civilized" civilian institutions in the West (some of them even merited broadcasts on ID--Investigation Discovery--about murders and torture), plus re-watching Full Metal Jacket is good once in a while.

    https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/articles/marines-find-culture-of-hazing-abuse-at-boot-camp-after-recruits-death-at-parris-island

    Yeah, military life everywhere is tough.
  61. @Darin

    Beta towards women or beta towards men? I just can’t imagine a Russian man getting bullied unless he had aspergers or something.
     
    Search for "dedovshchina".

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gqdx44/full-v13n4

    There are lots of stories and videos that would make your stomach churn, if you are into this kind of stuff.

    But maybe I just have only met a certain type.
     
    Maybe you are like other Westerners, who know just enough about Russia to project their visions and hopes into it like on empty white screen. Just like formerly some people saw Russia as land of workers, some people now see Russia as land of pious and spiritual Christians, you see Russia as land of tough men who ride bears and eat nails for breakfast. The reality, as always, is more complicated.

    Search for “dedovshchina”.

    In the navy it was called godkovshina. In general, a classic case known as hazing in any armed forces in the word. Some cases of hazing, especially in the units of not the first line were brutal and were persecuted big time. There were some bad cases. But it was in post-Soviet Russia where things went bad for a while. Yet, life in post WW II Soviet Armed Forces was also not easy for young recruits. So, you missed one thing when suggesting “dedovshina”–a number of initiation ceremonies in very many “civilized” civilian institutions in the West (some of them even merited broadcasts on ID–Investigation Discovery–about murders and torture), plus re-watching Full Metal Jacket is good once in a while.

    https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/articles/marines-find-culture-of-hazing-abuse-at-boot-camp-after-recruits-death-at-parris-island

    Yeah, military life everywhere is tough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    plus re-watching Full Metal Jacket is good once in a while

    That's not hazing.

    Anyway, it's a movie, in real life they counted the brass.
  62. Matra says:

    The most obvious example of Europeans, particularly Germans, sticking it to the Americans was the Siberian pipeline drama in the 1980s. Then there was the French refusing to allow American planes to fly over their territory to bomb Libya. The Iraq UN debacle with France was actually pretty serious despite what’s written above.

    The reality is that the Europeans have the ability to stand up to the US but being cowardly bourgeois poseurs who are so comfortable with the status quo they just can’t be bothered. I’m tired of the excuses for these people. We heard them last month after the French election. “Oh, they are really patriotic it’s just that they are afraid of giving up the Euro” – which they’ve had for only a decade and a half versus about 700 years of the franc. “If only Marine had been more pro-Euro she might’ve won”. Get lost. De Gaulle once referred to Sweden as a eunuch for not having nukes. What would he think of a France that shrugs off the Bataclan and Nice atrocities but shits bricks over the possibility of having to accept the responsibility of having its own currency?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I’m tired of the excuses for these people.
     
    I'm not making excuses for anybody, to a large extent I even agree with you about the state of Europe today. I'm disgusted by the majority of my countrymen who are spineless, decadent cretins mentally living in some sort of fantasy land. Certainly continued dependence on the US in security matters is much easier and more comfortable than thinking about the alternatives (which might necessitate reintroduction of conscription, or even seriously considering a nuclear deterrent).
    However I still believe that US influence is pernicious on many levels, and that the US systematically cultivates pro-American networks among European politicians (including such deeply subversive multiculti forces like Germany's Greens).
  63. iffen says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Search for “dedovshchina”.
     
    In the navy it was called godkovshina. In general, a classic case known as hazing in any armed forces in the word. Some cases of hazing, especially in the units of not the first line were brutal and were persecuted big time. There were some bad cases. But it was in post-Soviet Russia where things went bad for a while. Yet, life in post WW II Soviet Armed Forces was also not easy for young recruits. So, you missed one thing when suggesting "dedovshina"--a number of initiation ceremonies in very many "civilized" civilian institutions in the West (some of them even merited broadcasts on ID--Investigation Discovery--about murders and torture), plus re-watching Full Metal Jacket is good once in a while.

    https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/articles/marines-find-culture-of-hazing-abuse-at-boot-camp-after-recruits-death-at-parris-island

    Yeah, military life everywhere is tough.

    plus re-watching Full Metal Jacket is good once in a while

    That’s not hazing.

    Anyway, it’s a movie, in real life they counted the brass.

    Read More
  64. @Matra
    The most obvious example of Europeans, particularly Germans, sticking it to the Americans was the Siberian pipeline drama in the 1980s. Then there was the French refusing to allow American planes to fly over their territory to bomb Libya. The Iraq UN debacle with France was actually pretty serious despite what's written above.

    The reality is that the Europeans have the ability to stand up to the US but being cowardly bourgeois poseurs who are so comfortable with the status quo they just can't be bothered. I'm tired of the excuses for these people. We heard them last month after the French election. "Oh, they are really patriotic it's just that they are afraid of giving up the Euro" - which they've had for only a decade and a half versus about 700 years of the franc. "If only Marine had been more pro-Euro she might've won". Get lost. De Gaulle once referred to Sweden as a eunuch for not having nukes. What would he think of a France that shrugs off the Bataclan and Nice atrocities but shits bricks over the possibility of having to accept the responsibility of having its own currency?

    I’m tired of the excuses for these people.

    I’m not making excuses for anybody, to a large extent I even agree with you about the state of Europe today. I’m disgusted by the majority of my countrymen who are spineless, decadent cretins mentally living in some sort of fantasy land. Certainly continued dependence on the US in security matters is much easier and more comfortable than thinking about the alternatives (which might necessitate reintroduction of conscription, or even seriously considering a nuclear deterrent).
    However I still believe that US influence is pernicious on many levels, and that the US systematically cultivates pro-American networks among European politicians (including such deeply subversive multiculti forces like Germany’s Greens).

    Read More
  65. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    However I still believe that US influence is pernicious on many levels, and that the US systematically cultivates pro-American networks among European politicians (including such deeply subversive multiculti forces like Germany’s Greens).

    That is why I am not willing to support more military spending.
    I do not trust our elites not to use it for Washington’s sake instead of for more independence from Washington.

    Merkel did even justify increasing military spending by pointing at demands from her boss Hussein Obama in a speech to the youth wing of her party.
    Fortunately, unpopular DJT is ruining that justification.

    Read More
  66. Not Raul says:

    If Turkey and/or the “rebels” take the Afrin area, Aleppo would be put at risk.

    I can’t see Putin signing off on that.

    Read More
  67. E says:
    @Greasy William

    On average Russian men probably are more alpha than Americans but the difference must be modest.
     
    Beta towards women or beta towards men? I just can't imagine a Russian man getting bullied unless he had aspergers or something. But maybe I just have only met a certain type. In fact, even FSU Jews aren't the pushovers that American Jews are.

    Isn't it considered totally socially acceptable in Russia to smack around your wife/gf?


    I feel like people are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position on US invovlement in Syria: I agree the US shouldn't be over there. What I'm saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can't say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it.

    Unlike everybody else here, I am okay with not only killing civilians but even targeting them directly in certain situations. I'm not a hypocrite like you guys are.

    “I agree the US shouldn’t be over there. What I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can’t say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it.”

    Do many Westerners have bad reading comprehension or something? Not to single you out, but you’re far from the first person I’ve seen conflating these two quite unrelated issues.

    What Putin, and Russians in general, are mainly concerned about is not the moral issue of who kills more or less civilians with horrible weapons of war (although that’s also notable, of course). What they’re concerned about most of all is to prevent the world descending into a WW2-type situation once again. Russians are far more horrified of war than are Americans, are more paranoid about recognizing the warning signs that we’re heading towards another great global conflict, and are trying very hard to solve their rather strong fundamental disagreements with NATO’s leadership by way of international law (that is, in a civilized manner) rather than might-makes-right, whenever that is possible to do without complete capitulation.

    So as far as they’re concerned, no, it is not hypocritical to criticize the US for ignoring international law in Syria (in fact, not event making a token effort to pretend they have a legal right to be there) while Russia is there entirely legally.

    If the US refuses to acknowledge and use civilized ways of handling disagreements with other countries (which is what international law is, despite all its flaws), if their entire diplomacy consists of making demands of other countries and attacking anyone who doesn’t meet them, while using their mass media to make their own citizens incapable of understanding the other side’s points of view (Russian debate shows have a much wider range of opinions allowed on air than American ones, by the way, and the discussions are more sophisticated)… eventually, the only way left open will be warfare on a truly horrendous scale, and we’re getting ever closer to it.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader, JL
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Russians are far more horrified of war than are Americans
     
    Many Americans have a bizarrely romanticized view of war imo, also US popular culture is suffused with ridiculous militarism (which is odd, given that before WW2 the US was one of the least militarist developed countries). It really shows that US experience of the disasters that were the world wars was quite limited.
  68. @E
    "I agree the US shouldn’t be over there. What I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can’t say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it."

    Do many Westerners have bad reading comprehension or something? Not to single you out, but you're far from the first person I've seen conflating these two quite unrelated issues.

    What Putin, and Russians in general, are mainly concerned about is not the moral issue of who kills more or less civilians with horrible weapons of war (although that's also notable, of course). What they're concerned about most of all is to prevent the world descending into a WW2-type situation once again. Russians are far more horrified of war than are Americans, are more paranoid about recognizing the warning signs that we're heading towards another great global conflict, and are trying very hard to solve their rather strong fundamental disagreements with NATO's leadership by way of international law (that is, in a civilized manner) rather than might-makes-right, whenever that is possible to do without complete capitulation.

    So as far as they're concerned, no, it is not hypocritical to criticize the US for ignoring international law in Syria (in fact, not event making a token effort to pretend they have a legal right to be there) while Russia is there entirely legally.

    If the US refuses to acknowledge and use civilized ways of handling disagreements with other countries (which is what international law is, despite all its flaws), if their entire diplomacy consists of making demands of other countries and attacking anyone who doesn't meet them, while using their mass media to make their own citizens incapable of understanding the other side's points of view (Russian debate shows have a much wider range of opinions allowed on air than American ones, by the way, and the discussions are more sophisticated)... eventually, the only way left open will be warfare on a truly horrendous scale, and we're getting ever closer to it.

    Russians are far more horrified of war than are Americans

    Many Americans have a bizarrely romanticized view of war imo, also US popular culture is suffused with ridiculous militarism (which is odd, given that before WW2 the US was one of the least militarist developed countries). It really shows that US experience of the disasters that were the world wars was quite limited.

    Read More
  69. @Greasy William

    On average Russian men probably are more alpha than Americans but the difference must be modest.
     
    Beta towards women or beta towards men? I just can't imagine a Russian man getting bullied unless he had aspergers or something. But maybe I just have only met a certain type. In fact, even FSU Jews aren't the pushovers that American Jews are.

    Isn't it considered totally socially acceptable in Russia to smack around your wife/gf?


    I feel like people are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position on US invovlement in Syria: I agree the US shouldn't be over there. What I'm saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can't say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it.

    Unlike everybody else here, I am okay with not only killing civilians but even targeting them directly in certain situations. I'm not a hypocrite like you guys are.

    I feel like people are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position on US invovlement in Syria: I agree the US shouldn’t be over there. What I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can’t say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it.

    Oh, I understand your position well enough:

    1.) You’re accusing the Syrian government–totally without evidence*–of targeting their own civilians, and …

    2.) You’re trying to create some sort of moral equivalence between and invader (the US) and the defender (Syria).

    I think we’re all well aware of the fact that civilians die in every war, but that general fact does not excuse or provide any support for the above assumptions.

    *And no, I don’t consider the western MSM, or the ‘White Helmets,’ or the ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’ to be evidence of anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    *And no, I don’t consider the western MSM, or the ‘White Helmets,’ or the ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’ to be evidence of anything
     
    But you do consider Iran, Russia and Assad trustworthy sources.

    1. Assad isn't killing his "own people". He is an Alawite. His regime serves the interest of Alawites, Druze, Shi'ites and Christians. He is killing Sunnis.

    2. Basically your defense of Assad/Iran/Russia is "Assad isn't targeting civilians but if he does so it's okay because he is in the right". I'm actually okay with that line of argument because that's the same line of reasoning I use when my people kill Arabs/Muslims. The difference between us, however, is that I am not a sanctimonious, hypocritical Paleocon piece of trash like you are.

    If you think Assad is in the right, that's enough. You don't need to make up bullshit arguments* about how Assad isn't murdering civilians when everybody knows that he is. Denying Assad's war crimes is like denying the Holocaust, something you probably also do.

    In fact, on social media Assad has become a folk hero of sorts to the Israeli right for his butchering of Arab civilians and what Assad is doing is seen as a model for what should ultimately be done to the Palestinians, Lebanese, Alawites, Arab Christians, Arab Shi'ites and Iranians.

    *Oh right. You're a Paleocon piece of shit so you do, in fact, need to make up bullshit arguments because that sustains your existence. Carry on then. How is your faggot idol Ron Paul doing these days?
  70. @Seamus Padraig

    I feel like people are misunderstanding/misrepresenting my position on US invovlement in Syria: I agree the US shouldn’t be over there. What I’m saying is that it is hypocritical to criticize the US for killing civilians when Assad is killing even more civilians. You can’t say that killing civilians is good when Assad does it but bad when the US does it.
     
    Oh, I understand your position well enough:

    1.) You're accusing the Syrian government--totally without evidence*--of targeting their own civilians, and ...

    2.) You're trying to create some sort of moral equivalence between and invader (the US) and the defender (Syria).

    I think we're all well aware of the fact that civilians die in every war, but that general fact does not excuse or provide any support for the above assumptions.

    *And no, I don't consider the western MSM, or the 'White Helmets,' or the 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights' to be evidence of anything.

    *And no, I don’t consider the western MSM, or the ‘White Helmets,’ or the ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’ to be evidence of anything

    But you do consider Iran, Russia and Assad trustworthy sources.

    1. Assad isn’t killing his “own people”. He is an Alawite. His regime serves the interest of Alawites, Druze, Shi’ites and Christians. He is killing Sunnis.

    2. Basically your defense of Assad/Iran/Russia is “Assad isn’t targeting civilians but if he does so it’s okay because he is in the right”. I’m actually okay with that line of argument because that’s the same line of reasoning I use when my people kill Arabs/Muslims. The difference between us, however, is that I am not a sanctimonious, hypocritical Paleocon piece of trash like you are.

    If you think Assad is in the right, that’s enough. You don’t need to make up bullshit arguments* about how Assad isn’t murdering civilians when everybody knows that he is. Denying Assad’s war crimes is like denying the Holocaust, something you probably also do.

    In fact, on social media Assad has become a folk hero of sorts to the Israeli right for his butchering of Arab civilians and what Assad is doing is seen as a model for what should ultimately be done to the Palestinians, Lebanese, Alawites, Arab Christians, Arab Shi’ites and Iranians.

    *Oh right. You’re a Paleocon piece of shit so you do, in fact, need to make up bullshit arguments because that sustains your existence. Carry on then. How is your faggot idol Ron Paul doing these days?

    Read More
    • Disagree: German_reader
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    But you do consider Iran, Russia and Assad trustworthy sources.
     
    These days, they're a shitload better than the western MSM. But best of all are independent journalists, especially Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley.

    1. Assad isn’t killing his “own people”. He is an Alawite. His regime serves the interest of Alawites, Druze, Shi’ites and Christians. He is killing Sunnis.
     
    If that were really true, I'm sure the Syrian Arab Army (which is about 2/3 Sunni) would have mutineed or switched sides by now. And I'm sure Assad's own wife, who is also Sunni, would have raised a few hackles if he planned to do such a thing.

    2. Basically your defense of Assad/Iran/Russia is “Assad isn’t targeting civilians but if he does so it’s okay because he is in the right”.
     
    Not really, no. I don't believe deliberately targeting civilians is ever a good practice. Granted, when you're fighting irregular forces, such as ISIS or the Al Nusra Front, distinguishing civilians from fighters becomes a bit more difficult, but there's still no evidence that the SAA has deliberately targeted any civilians, Sunni or otherwise. It's just another one of the MSM talking points that they repeat over and over, hoping to wear down their audience. But that is not that same thing as furnishing evidence.

    I’m actually okay with that line of argument because that’s the same line of reasoning I use when my people kill Arabs/Muslims. The difference between us, however, is that I am not a sanctimonious, hypocritical Paleocon piece of trash like you are.
     
    Oh, I know that! You're our resident Zio-con Talmudist here at Unz.

    If you think Assad is in the right, that’s enough. You don’t need to make up bullshit arguments* about how Assad isn’t murdering civilians when everybody knows that he is. Denying Assad’s war crimes is like denying the Holocaust, something you probably also do.
     
    Argumentum ad Holocaustiam. Yawn ...

    In fact, on social media Assad has become a folk hero of sorts to the Israeli right for his butchering of Arab civilians and what Assad is doing is seen as a model for what should ultimately be done to the Palestinians, Lebanese, Alawites, Arab Christians, Arab Shi’ites and Iranians.
     
    I don't doubt that for a minute. I'm sure hardcore Zionists get an erection watching Arabs kill Arabs. If not, why would they go to such trouble to create these wars in the first place? In fact, I bet the only thing they like better than watching Arabs kill Arabs would be watching Arabs kills Persians. Now that'd be some real Zio-porn!
    , @for-the-record
    1. Assad isn’t killing his “own people”. He is an Alawite. His regime serves the interest of Alawites, Druze, Shi’ites and Christians. He is killing Sunnis.

    You really don't know what you are talking about. The majority of troops in Assad's army are Sunnis, as are the majority of Syrians who support him.

    Do you actually know anything about Syria?
  71. vinteuil says:

    “You’re a Paleocon piece of shit so you do, in fact, need to make up bullshit arguments because that sustains your existence. Carry on then. How is your faggot idol Ron Paul doing these days?”

    Wow, GW. That’s some mighty powerful reasoning you’ve got going on there.

    Read More
  72. @Greasy William

    *And no, I don’t consider the western MSM, or the ‘White Helmets,’ or the ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’ to be evidence of anything
     
    But you do consider Iran, Russia and Assad trustworthy sources.

    1. Assad isn't killing his "own people". He is an Alawite. His regime serves the interest of Alawites, Druze, Shi'ites and Christians. He is killing Sunnis.

    2. Basically your defense of Assad/Iran/Russia is "Assad isn't targeting civilians but if he does so it's okay because he is in the right". I'm actually okay with that line of argument because that's the same line of reasoning I use when my people kill Arabs/Muslims. The difference between us, however, is that I am not a sanctimonious, hypocritical Paleocon piece of trash like you are.

    If you think Assad is in the right, that's enough. You don't need to make up bullshit arguments* about how Assad isn't murdering civilians when everybody knows that he is. Denying Assad's war crimes is like denying the Holocaust, something you probably also do.

    In fact, on social media Assad has become a folk hero of sorts to the Israeli right for his butchering of Arab civilians and what Assad is doing is seen as a model for what should ultimately be done to the Palestinians, Lebanese, Alawites, Arab Christians, Arab Shi'ites and Iranians.

    *Oh right. You're a Paleocon piece of shit so you do, in fact, need to make up bullshit arguments because that sustains your existence. Carry on then. How is your faggot idol Ron Paul doing these days?

    But you do consider Iran, Russia and Assad trustworthy sources.

    These days, they’re a shitload better than the western MSM. But best of all are independent journalists, especially Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley.

    1. Assad isn’t killing his “own people”. He is an Alawite. His regime serves the interest of Alawites, Druze, Shi’ites and Christians. He is killing Sunnis.

    If that were really true, I’m sure the Syrian Arab Army (which is about 2/3 Sunni) would have mutineed or switched sides by now. And I’m sure Assad’s own wife, who is also Sunni, would have raised a few hackles if he planned to do such a thing.

    2. Basically your defense of Assad/Iran/Russia is “Assad isn’t targeting civilians but if he does so it’s okay because he is in the right”.

    Not really, no. I don’t believe deliberately targeting civilians is ever a good practice. Granted, when you’re fighting irregular forces, such as ISIS or the Al Nusra Front, distinguishing civilians from fighters becomes a bit more difficult, but there’s still no evidence that the SAA has deliberately targeted any civilians, Sunni or otherwise. It’s just another one of the MSM talking points that they repeat over and over, hoping to wear down their audience. But that is not that same thing as furnishing evidence.

    I’m actually okay with that line of argument because that’s the same line of reasoning I use when my people kill Arabs/Muslims. The difference between us, however, is that I am not a sanctimonious, hypocritical Paleocon piece of trash like you are.

    Oh, I know that! You’re our resident Zio-con Talmudist here at Unz.

    If you think Assad is in the right, that’s enough. You don’t need to make up bullshit arguments* about how Assad isn’t murdering civilians when everybody knows that he is. Denying Assad’s war crimes is like denying the Holocaust, something you probably also do.

    Argumentum ad Holocaustiam. Yawn …

    In fact, on social media Assad has become a folk hero of sorts to the Israeli right for his butchering of Arab civilians and what Assad is doing is seen as a model for what should ultimately be done to the Palestinians, Lebanese, Alawites, Arab Christians, Arab Shi’ites and Iranians.

    I don’t doubt that for a minute. I’m sure hardcore Zionists get an erection watching Arabs kill Arabs. If not, why would they go to such trouble to create these wars in the first place? In fact, I bet the only thing they like better than watching Arabs kill Arabs would be watching Arabs kills Persians. Now that’d be some real Zio-porn!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    I'm not a Zionist. Zionism is a secular ideology. "Zio-con Talmudist" is about as big an oxymoron as there is.

    If that were really true, I’m sure the Syrian Arab Army (which is about 2/3 Sunni) would have mutineed or switched sides by now.
     
    Yeah, Sunni Syrians support Assad. Okay boss.

    I can find literally thousands, probably even hundreds of thousands of Uncle Ahmad Israeli Arabs who support Israel over their Palestinians brothers. Some of them even serve in the IDF and kill their fellow Arabs. But I would never cite them as an example that most Israeli Arabs support Israel because I am not an intellectually dishonest Paleocon piece of trash.

    If not, why would they go to such trouble to create these wars in the first place?
     
    Yeah right, we are the ones who make Arabs kill each other. Ishmaelite's have been slaughtering each other since biblical times. For that they need no help from us.

    In fact, I bet the only thing they like better than watching Arabs kill Arabs would be watching Arabs kills Persians.
     
    The Iranians are ours. We are the ones who get the honor of finishing that race off. Arabs will have to sit this one out.

    How is Ron Paul doing these days? Can you remind me how many primaries he won?
  73. @Seamus Padraig

    But you do consider Iran, Russia and Assad trustworthy sources.
     
    These days, they're a shitload better than the western MSM. But best of all are independent journalists, especially Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley.

    1. Assad isn’t killing his “own people”. He is an Alawite. His regime serves the interest of Alawites, Druze, Shi’ites and Christians. He is killing Sunnis.
     
    If that were really true, I'm sure the Syrian Arab Army (which is about 2/3 Sunni) would have mutineed or switched sides by now. And I'm sure Assad's own wife, who is also Sunni, would have raised a few hackles if he planned to do such a thing.

    2. Basically your defense of Assad/Iran/Russia is “Assad isn’t targeting civilians but if he does so it’s okay because he is in the right”.
     
    Not really, no. I don't believe deliberately targeting civilians is ever a good practice. Granted, when you're fighting irregular forces, such as ISIS or the Al Nusra Front, distinguishing civilians from fighters becomes a bit more difficult, but there's still no evidence that the SAA has deliberately targeted any civilians, Sunni or otherwise. It's just another one of the MSM talking points that they repeat over and over, hoping to wear down their audience. But that is not that same thing as furnishing evidence.

    I’m actually okay with that line of argument because that’s the same line of reasoning I use when my people kill Arabs/Muslims. The difference between us, however, is that I am not a sanctimonious, hypocritical Paleocon piece of trash like you are.
     
    Oh, I know that! You're our resident Zio-con Talmudist here at Unz.

    If you think Assad is in the right, that’s enough. You don’t need to make up bullshit arguments* about how Assad isn’t murdering civilians when everybody knows that he is. Denying Assad’s war crimes is like denying the Holocaust, something you probably also do.
     
    Argumentum ad Holocaustiam. Yawn ...

    In fact, on social media Assad has become a folk hero of sorts to the Israeli right for his butchering of Arab civilians and what Assad is doing is seen as a model for what should ultimately be done to the Palestinians, Lebanese, Alawites, Arab Christians, Arab Shi’ites and Iranians.
     
    I don't doubt that for a minute. I'm sure hardcore Zionists get an erection watching Arabs kill Arabs. If not, why would they go to such trouble to create these wars in the first place? In fact, I bet the only thing they like better than watching Arabs kill Arabs would be watching Arabs kills Persians. Now that'd be some real Zio-porn!

    I’m not a Zionist. Zionism is a secular ideology. “Zio-con Talmudist” is about as big an oxymoron as there is.

    If that were really true, I’m sure the Syrian Arab Army (which is about 2/3 Sunni) would have mutineed or switched sides by now.

    Yeah, Sunni Syrians support Assad. Okay boss.

    I can find literally thousands, probably even hundreds of thousands of Uncle Ahmad Israeli Arabs who support Israel over their Palestinians brothers. Some of them even serve in the IDF and kill their fellow Arabs. But I would never cite them as an example that most Israeli Arabs support Israel because I am not an intellectually dishonest Paleocon piece of trash.

    If not, why would they go to such trouble to create these wars in the first place?

    Yeah right, we are the ones who make Arabs kill each other. Ishmaelite’s have been slaughtering each other since biblical times. For that they need no help from us.

    In fact, I bet the only thing they like better than watching Arabs kill Arabs would be watching Arabs kills Persians.

    The Iranians are ours. We are the ones who get the honor of finishing that race off. Arabs will have to sit this one out.

    How is Ron Paul doing these days? Can you remind me how many primaries he won?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Seamus: Your post inspired me to look up more info about the conflict and apparently you are correct and that most Sunnis do support Assad. It seems like the war is more tribal/class based and not so sectarian.

    I was wrong and concede defeat on this point.


    p.s.: you are still gay.
    , @E
    "The Iranians are ours. We are the ones who get the honor of finishing that race off."

    Do you believe that the Holocaust was a bad thing? Or would it have been okay if the race was Persian?

    Just a warning. Holocaust-shaming becomes less effective if you let the mask slip like that.
    , @Talha
    Hey Greasy,

    We are the ones who get the honor of finishing that race off.
     
    Man - how are we supposed to hook you up with a Persian honey with you mouthing off like that?

    Plus - the Persians have been hit and overrun by the Greeks, Arabs, Mongols, etc. - they've always adapted and they're still around. Nuking a few of their population centers is not going to do anything beyond the equivalent of what the Mongols did.

    Peace.
  74. @Greasy William
    I'm not a Zionist. Zionism is a secular ideology. "Zio-con Talmudist" is about as big an oxymoron as there is.

    If that were really true, I’m sure the Syrian Arab Army (which is about 2/3 Sunni) would have mutineed or switched sides by now.
     
    Yeah, Sunni Syrians support Assad. Okay boss.

    I can find literally thousands, probably even hundreds of thousands of Uncle Ahmad Israeli Arabs who support Israel over their Palestinians brothers. Some of them even serve in the IDF and kill their fellow Arabs. But I would never cite them as an example that most Israeli Arabs support Israel because I am not an intellectually dishonest Paleocon piece of trash.

    If not, why would they go to such trouble to create these wars in the first place?
     
    Yeah right, we are the ones who make Arabs kill each other. Ishmaelite's have been slaughtering each other since biblical times. For that they need no help from us.

    In fact, I bet the only thing they like better than watching Arabs kill Arabs would be watching Arabs kills Persians.
     
    The Iranians are ours. We are the ones who get the honor of finishing that race off. Arabs will have to sit this one out.

    How is Ron Paul doing these days? Can you remind me how many primaries he won?

    Seamus: Your post inspired me to look up more info about the conflict and apparently you are correct and that most Sunnis do support Assad. It seems like the war is more tribal/class based and not so sectarian.

    I was wrong and concede defeat on this point.

    p.s.: you are still gay.

    Read More
  75. E says:
    @Greasy William
    I'm not a Zionist. Zionism is a secular ideology. "Zio-con Talmudist" is about as big an oxymoron as there is.

    If that were really true, I’m sure the Syrian Arab Army (which is about 2/3 Sunni) would have mutineed or switched sides by now.
     
    Yeah, Sunni Syrians support Assad. Okay boss.

    I can find literally thousands, probably even hundreds of thousands of Uncle Ahmad Israeli Arabs who support Israel over their Palestinians brothers. Some of them even serve in the IDF and kill their fellow Arabs. But I would never cite them as an example that most Israeli Arabs support Israel because I am not an intellectually dishonest Paleocon piece of trash.

    If not, why would they go to such trouble to create these wars in the first place?
     
    Yeah right, we are the ones who make Arabs kill each other. Ishmaelite's have been slaughtering each other since biblical times. For that they need no help from us.

    In fact, I bet the only thing they like better than watching Arabs kill Arabs would be watching Arabs kills Persians.
     
    The Iranians are ours. We are the ones who get the honor of finishing that race off. Arabs will have to sit this one out.

    How is Ron Paul doing these days? Can you remind me how many primaries he won?

    “The Iranians are ours. We are the ones who get the honor of finishing that race off.”

    Do you believe that the Holocaust was a bad thing? Or would it have been okay if the race was Persian?

    Just a warning. Holocaust-shaming becomes less effective if you let the mask slip like that.

    Read More
  76. @Greasy William

    *And no, I don’t consider the western MSM, or the ‘White Helmets,’ or the ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’ to be evidence of anything
     
    But you do consider Iran, Russia and Assad trustworthy sources.

    1. Assad isn't killing his "own people". He is an Alawite. His regime serves the interest of Alawites, Druze, Shi'ites and Christians. He is killing Sunnis.

    2. Basically your defense of Assad/Iran/Russia is "Assad isn't targeting civilians but if he does so it's okay because he is in the right". I'm actually okay with that line of argument because that's the same line of reasoning I use when my people kill Arabs/Muslims. The difference between us, however, is that I am not a sanctimonious, hypocritical Paleocon piece of trash like you are.

    If you think Assad is in the right, that's enough. You don't need to make up bullshit arguments* about how Assad isn't murdering civilians when everybody knows that he is. Denying Assad's war crimes is like denying the Holocaust, something you probably also do.

    In fact, on social media Assad has become a folk hero of sorts to the Israeli right for his butchering of Arab civilians and what Assad is doing is seen as a model for what should ultimately be done to the Palestinians, Lebanese, Alawites, Arab Christians, Arab Shi'ites and Iranians.

    *Oh right. You're a Paleocon piece of shit so you do, in fact, need to make up bullshit arguments because that sustains your existence. Carry on then. How is your faggot idol Ron Paul doing these days?

    1. Assad isn’t killing his “own people”. He is an Alawite. His regime serves the interest of Alawites, Druze, Shi’ites and Christians. He is killing Sunnis.

    You really don’t know what you are talking about. The majority of troops in Assad’s army are Sunnis, as are the majority of Syrians who support him.

    Do you actually know anything about Syria?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    Do you actually know anything about Syria?
     
    Apparently not.

    Missed you, Tahla.
  77. Talha says:
    @Greasy William
    I'm not a Zionist. Zionism is a secular ideology. "Zio-con Talmudist" is about as big an oxymoron as there is.

    If that were really true, I’m sure the Syrian Arab Army (which is about 2/3 Sunni) would have mutineed or switched sides by now.
     
    Yeah, Sunni Syrians support Assad. Okay boss.

    I can find literally thousands, probably even hundreds of thousands of Uncle Ahmad Israeli Arabs who support Israel over their Palestinians brothers. Some of them even serve in the IDF and kill their fellow Arabs. But I would never cite them as an example that most Israeli Arabs support Israel because I am not an intellectually dishonest Paleocon piece of trash.

    If not, why would they go to such trouble to create these wars in the first place?
     
    Yeah right, we are the ones who make Arabs kill each other. Ishmaelite's have been slaughtering each other since biblical times. For that they need no help from us.

    In fact, I bet the only thing they like better than watching Arabs kill Arabs would be watching Arabs kills Persians.
     
    The Iranians are ours. We are the ones who get the honor of finishing that race off. Arabs will have to sit this one out.

    How is Ron Paul doing these days? Can you remind me how many primaries he won?

    Hey Greasy,

    We are the ones who get the honor of finishing that race off.

    Man – how are we supposed to hook you up with a Persian honey with you mouthing off like that?

    Plus – the Persians have been hit and overrun by the Greeks, Arabs, Mongols, etc. – they’ve always adapted and they’re still around. Nuking a few of their population centers is not going to do anything beyond the equivalent of what the Mongols did.

    Peace.

    Read More
  78. @for-the-record
    1. Assad isn’t killing his “own people”. He is an Alawite. His regime serves the interest of Alawites, Druze, Shi’ites and Christians. He is killing Sunnis.

    You really don't know what you are talking about. The majority of troops in Assad's army are Sunnis, as are the majority of Syrians who support him.

    Do you actually know anything about Syria?

    Do you actually know anything about Syria?

    Apparently not.

    Missed you, Tahla.

    Read More
  79. Hibernian says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    I’m gonna go with the US military.
     
    Well, if you would know what real military tech is, you would have paid attention to this, from my previous post, which is a telltale sign:

    Project 667B-BD (NATO–Delta I-II)
     
    US Navy never had anything associated with such terms as "project" as ships' description, let alone 667B and BD--because those are rather famous Soviet nuclear strategic missile submarines (SSBN) Granted that I was trained to serve on those types of ships too, I , however, chose the surface fleet. So, no, I am Russian, in fact Soviet, if to go by time period--I graduated naval academy in 1985. But I really appreciate you mistaking my writing for American since, yes, I get published by leading American military professional magazines--precisely on the issues of "military tech" and how to use it. I am glad that in terms of writing in English I finally improved somewhat;) Famous United States Naval Institute certainly thinks so, they even allow me to write for their blog, like here;)

    https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/01/russian-navy-mission-found

    like an American Paleocon.
     
    Yes, I relate on many levels (not all, though) to American paleocons.

    “I am glad that in terms of writing in English I finally improved somewhat;)”

    You do pretty well here and I imagine you do well in the technical journals. In this forum you do have the characteristic of avoiding the definite article, and also the indefinite ones, I think. This is a characteristic of Polish engineers where I work. (The Indians are the opposite, referring to colleagues as “the Tom,” “the Joe,” etc.)

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored