The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Syria Shoots Down Russian Il-20 Surveillance Plane
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Russian MOD seems to have agreed with the Americans that it was Syrian friendly fire. Probably this wouldn’t have happened but for the recent Israeli bombings of Syria.

Elijah Magnier says it was to Syria’s and Iran’s advantage. Glad to hear that! /s

PS. In other news, the long-assault on Idlib has been indefinitely postponed. Following talks between Putin and Erdogan, there will instead be a DMZ separating Syria proper from Idlib, jointly patrolled by Turkish and Russian troops. The Turks have also reinforced their presence within Idlib itself.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Syrian Civil War 
Hide 325 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Enough is enough, either Russia responds by declaring war on Israel or else it shows that is nothing more than a pathetic puppet to Israel tolerating the fact that Israel can kill Russians without consequence.

    • Replies: @DFH

    or else it shows that is nothing more than a pathetic puppet to Israel tolerating the fact that Israel can kill Russians without consequence.
     
    Should Britain declare war on Russia, by this logic?
    , @Mikhail
    Remember the Liberty
    , @Cato
    Russia declare war on Israel? Israel is full of Russians. Most Russian Mafia bosses hold Israeli citizenship. The Russian and Israeli power networks are completely intertwined. If you are an Israel-hater, you should not be so stupid as to expect Russia to be the white knight that will defeat your enemy. Actually, you should not be so stupid as to be an Israel-hater. Just saying.
  2. The Syrian and Russian air defenses are integrated, so even if an F-16 was hiding behind the IL-20, the AA operators should have known not to shoot near it.

    Mimi is a bit too passionate and not a military expert, but I agree with her takes here 100%:

    • Replies: @Mitleser

    "We know it was you Israel, we're gonna pretend it wasn't this time, but next time we will retaliate, don't see this as weekness, be afraid and don't attack again"
     
    Israel won't care.
    , @Anonymous

    The Syrian and Russian air defenses are integrated, so even if an F-16 was hiding behind the IL-20, the AA operators should have known not to shoot near it.

    Mimi is a bit too passionate and not a military expert, but I agree with her takes here 100%:
     
    This is exactly wrong. As Martyanov explains, “ ...fact of Russia not providing Syrian AD (and with a good reason) with own IFF technology and codes--things become much more clearer. This was confirmed today. Of course military counter-intelligence still has to do its due diligence but it increasingly begins to look more as FUBAR rather than some "special" operations. Most likely, in fact highly likely, IAF F-16s were detected and tracked (and even possibly locked on) by Syrian S-200 and they "masked" (the oldest trick in the book) by descending IL-20.”
  3. @neutral
    Enough is enough, either Russia responds by declaring war on Israel or else it shows that is nothing more than a pathetic puppet to Israel tolerating the fact that Israel can kill Russians without consequence.

    or else it shows that is nothing more than a pathetic puppet to Israel tolerating the fact that Israel can kill Russians without consequence.

    Should Britain declare war on Russia, by this logic?

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    England could certainly try. lol

    Power is what really counts here, and I'm no military expert, but if Russia has the means to make Syrian sky Judenfrei, this should have been done years ago. Israel is the problem, it is time we started treating it as such.
    , @Mikhail
    Rather foolish when considering the lack of Brit government evidence to support such a move.
    , @neutral
    Britain is a puppet, puppets don't declare war they do what what their masters tell them to do.
    , @Epigon
    Britain first has to assemble a motley assortment of continental allies and third world and colonial auxiliaries.
    It never fought its wars alone and with British soldiers dominating the war effort.

    The perfidious Eternal Anglo is incapable of this right now, so they resort to bellicose statements, diplomat expulsions and other hot air.

    Hopefully, post-Brexit and with Scottish independence looming, England will remain alone to enjoy its enrichment, lords and monarchy.
  4. Elijah Magnier says it was to Syria’s and Iran’s advantage. Glad to hear that! /s

    One can hope, but you should never underestimate Putin’s capacity to absorb stab-in-the-backs and other humiliations. The problem we have is that Putin’s own “partners” do not respect him or Russia.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    This is correct.

    However, the broader reality is that, as opposed to the Ukraine, the Russian forces in Syria ultimately operate on the sufferance of Israel, Turkey, and the US. This was always part of the cost/benefits equation when getting into Syria. There is not much it can do except bluster since it does not have escalation dominance in that region.
  5. @Spisarevski
    The Syrian and Russian air defenses are integrated, so even if an F-16 was hiding behind the IL-20, the AA operators should have known not to shoot near it.

    Mimi is a bit too passionate and not a military expert, but I agree with her takes here 100%:

    https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1041971525753036800
    https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1041957578123530240
    https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1041960273572114432
    https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1041962992072646656

    “We know it was you Israel, we’re gonna pretend it wasn’t this time, but next time we will retaliate, don’t see this as weekness, be afraid and don’t attack again”

    Israel won’t care.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    But it’s still interesting what really happened.
  6. Are there still Russian MPs next to the Israel-occupied Golan Heights?

    It would be a good move to move them all to the North where they are needed for Putin’s next Syria deal and let Syrians and Iranians take over the whole de facto border.

  7. @DFH

    or else it shows that is nothing more than a pathetic puppet to Israel tolerating the fact that Israel can kill Russians without consequence.
     
    Should Britain declare war on Russia, by this logic?

    England could certainly try. lol

    Power is what really counts here, and I’m no military expert, but if Russia has the means to make Syrian sky Judenfrei, this should have been done years ago. Israel is the problem, it is time we started treating it as such.

  8. @Felix Keverich

    Elijah Magnier says it was to Syria’s and Iran’s advantage. Glad to hear that! /s
     
    One can hope, but you should never underestimate Putin's capacity to absorb stab-in-the-backs and other humiliations. The problem we have is that Putin's own "partners" do not respect him or Russia.

    This is correct.

    However, the broader reality is that, as opposed to the Ukraine, the Russian forces in Syria ultimately operate on the sufferance of Israel, Turkey, and the US. This was always part of the cost/benefits equation when getting into Syria. There is not much it can do except bluster since it does not have escalation dominance in that region.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    ussian forces in Syria ultimately operate on the sufferance of Israel, Turkey, and the US
     
    S-400 - which could shoot down the F-16s - are deployed here. So Israel's airstrikes are on de facto permission from S-400 operators.

    Israel bombs Syria hundreds of times, from this area of sea, for over 3 years.

    Russia allows Israel to bomb (which is real, as S-400 are deployed here) and it also allows Syria to shoot back. But Israeli planes always stay out of range of the S-200 in this area of sea.

    Russia's role like a prison guard who says "I don't see anything", when two inmates are fighting.

    Statistically, in retrospect, it seems inevitably that the flaw of the system eventually happens.

    According to this official version, Russia allows Israel to hit Syria, then Syria shoots back and hits Russia.

    It is difficult to absorb with this many deaths.

    , @Felix Keverich
    Does this mean we should just let them kill us wholesale, cause we are so afraid of what they might do? That's cowardice and stupidity.
    , @karl1haushofer
    Russia can escalate. Russia can hit Western military bases in the Middle East from its own territory.
    , @g2k
    Not attacking Idlib is wise. I think you've posted data on this blog demonstrating that social attitudes, iq, demographics etc. are all really really undesirable, even for somewhere as backward as Syria. Reintegrating it will mean that it's going to be a future source of instability, not to mention a potential flashpoint and source of gas attack allegations. Simply drawing a defacto border around it and writing on the map "here be dragons" seems like the best solution. The SAA must be totally bled out by now.
  9. Clearly allowing the Israelis to bomb your allies fighting alongside you was daft. This should be stopped.

    Congrats on the Ru MoD for calling the Israelis out explicitly, can’t be allowed to hide behind others, Israel hates operating in the open. Erdogan can’t be seen to be acting in Israel’s interests.

    Next steps, retaliation proportionately at the right time. Upgrade the Syrian forces further, perhaps Iran and Hezbollah too. Sanctions will hit Israel even harder than they did Turkey.

    Reality is the Israel lobby has been driving a lot of this new Cold War carp, time to call out Israel and the lobby.

    • Agree: Felix Keverich
  10. @Mitleser

    "We know it was you Israel, we're gonna pretend it wasn't this time, but next time we will retaliate, don't see this as weekness, be afraid and don't attack again"
     
    Israel won't care.

    But it’s still interesting what really happened.

  11. @neutral
    Enough is enough, either Russia responds by declaring war on Israel or else it shows that is nothing more than a pathetic puppet to Israel tolerating the fact that Israel can kill Russians without consequence.

    Remember the Liberty

  12. @DFH

    or else it shows that is nothing more than a pathetic puppet to Israel tolerating the fact that Israel can kill Russians without consequence.
     
    Should Britain declare war on Russia, by this logic?

    Rather foolish when considering the lack of Brit government evidence to support such a move.

  13. There are a number of arguments that it really was the Israelis.

    They are that brazen, so it’s at least not inconceivable. They have destroyed an American spy ship when America was already their biggest benefactor. Why not destroy a Russian spy plane when Russian interests are opposed to Israeli interests? Attackers certainly have a motivation to destroy spy planes (especially if they are transmitting data to the attacked side, which was very likely happening).

    Then we’d need some information about air defense systems, but theoretically IFF systems prevent the shooting of missiles at targets which have friendly targets nearby, so theoretically speaking, the official version should be impossible. Israeli F-16s also cannot be hiding behind a slow spy plane.

    So the official Russian explanation doesn’t seem likely. Of course there is very little information out there (other than official communiques), so we need some time to find out. If we’ll ever find it out.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
    The Russians shot down a couple of their own aircraft during the Ossetian War. No weapon system is 100% foolproof against friendly fire. Separate forces operating alongside one another only adds to the possibility for error, and Syria’s SAM operators have never earned a reputation for world class proficiency.

    The official story is unfortunate and embarrassing, but it does make sense to me.
  14. @DFH

    or else it shows that is nothing more than a pathetic puppet to Israel tolerating the fact that Israel can kill Russians without consequence.
     
    Should Britain declare war on Russia, by this logic?

    Britain is a puppet, puppets don’t declare war they do what what their masters tell them to do.

    • Replies: @DFH
    Non-sequitur
  15. @neutral
    Britain is a puppet, puppets don't declare war they do what what their masters tell them to do.

    Non-sequitur

  16. The same people who orchestrated the Turkish downing of Su-24 are responsible for this.

    You lot were definitely among the knee-jerk crowd wanting to go to war with Turkey.

    Russia operates in hostile surrondings yet achieves its geopolitical goals. Death of 15 Russian servicemen is a tragedy, but far there are far higher stakes here.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Russia imposed sanctions on Turkey, effectively imposed a no fly zone and bombed the carp out of Turkish proxies in Syria.
    , @reiner Tor
    I think the difference is that after the downing of the Su-24 Russia was winning, and winning hard. There was very little Turkey (or NATO, or anyone else) was going to do about it (with Obama being more risk-averse than Trump, and his relationship with Netanyahu strained to the extreme), the Russians and Assad were going to slowly destroy the American/Israeli/Turkish/Saudi proxies in Syria.

    Now the situation is different: with most of the rebel strongholds destroyed, and the fragile alliance with Turkey, it's now difficult for Russia to gain further ground. Therefore, you cannot simply respond with the usual "well, they managed to down one airplane, but we're winning the war" answer. Because that is only true if Idlib is destroyed, but that is likely going to push Turkey back into the NATO fold.

    This is good on one hand (it means Russia now has much stronger hands - Turkey might be lost for the US as an ally, the Syrian war is almost fully won), but it's also bad on the other hand - Russia's lack of response now looks like weakness, and I'd argue looking weak is worse to Russia than an objective strength. If war breaks out with the US, or even with only Israel, it won't matter how many Syrian provinces will be under Assad's control. It might not even matter if Turkey will stay neutral in that. Realistically, it won't be an ally.

    So Russia cannot leave Syria without showing significant weakness. It cannot respond to Israeli or American strikes by destroying further jihadi groupings.

    Therefore, now it now has the following options:

    1) respond militarily against Israel or the US or other NATO members in theater; this is highly unappealing and risky
    2) start shooting down Israeli (American, etc.) planes participating in strikes; risky, and highly unappealing, too
    3) respond militarily elsewhere - most notably, Ukraine (I think occupying Ukraine would be a mistake - the population is hostile, so Russia would get bogged down without any big benefit; however, airstrikes on Ukraine's blossoming military and military industry, or even fully destroying it before it could be strong enough to retaliate, might be an option; perhaps annexing a few border regions with friendlier population, if there's any such region) (full disclosure: I don't really like the idea from my own perspective, it'd obviously be bad for Hungary, but from a purely Russian perspective it might make sense to arrest and reverse the modernization and growth of Ukraine's military, while also making good PR for Russian weapons and bad PR for Americans); this option contains some risks of its own (e.g. it can only be a response to an American, but not an Israeli attack; the perception might be of a separate aggression as opposed to a response to events in Syria)
    4) no response (what it's doing right now), but it risks a nuclear war later down the road (because the neocons will keep pushing against what they perceive to be Russian weakness)

    Is there anything else?
  17. @DFH

    or else it shows that is nothing more than a pathetic puppet to Israel tolerating the fact that Israel can kill Russians without consequence.
     
    Should Britain declare war on Russia, by this logic?

    Britain first has to assemble a motley assortment of continental allies and third world and colonial auxiliaries.
    It never fought its wars alone and with British soldiers dominating the war effort.

    The perfidious Eternal Anglo is incapable of this right now, so they resort to bellicose statements, diplomat expulsions and other hot air.

    Hopefully, post-Brexit and with Scottish independence looming, England will remain alone to enjoy its enrichment, lords and monarchy.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    To be perfectly honest, I don't like Britons or Americans or most other English speaking peoples, but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.
    , @DFH
    More deranged Anglophobia

    Britain first has to assemble a motley assortment of continental allies and third world and colonial auxiliaries.
     

    Britain has usually fought against other European countries to protect its European allies, not in wars of agression like France and Germany. I guess this is a bad thing though, since anti-Anglos are usually all about fetishistic power worship of conquerors who killed millions of other Europeans like Napoleon or Hitler. Non-Anglo colonial forces have never played a significant part in a British war in Europe.

    It never fought its wars alone and with British soldiers dominating the war effort.
     
    Not true, there are the Peninsular War and the North Africa campaign in which British soldiers performed very well. I don't know what the point of this criticism is anyway. If you want to claim that British do not make good soldiers (which is incorrect), then just come out and say it. If you want to claim that Britain's allies did not benefit from their relationship and were somehow forced into war by Britain (also incorrect), then just come out and say it.

    The perfidious Eternal Anglo
     
    What exactly this perfidy consists of is never specified. Perfidious like promising not to annex Czechoslovakia and then annexing it?

    so they resort to bellicose statements, diplomat expulsions and other hot air.
     
    Sort of like how Russia (unfortunately, imo) cannot do anything to stop ZOG shooting down its planes?
    , @Tyrion 2
    Rather than resenting Britain for divorcing the EU, why not learn from it?
  18. @Epigon
    Britain first has to assemble a motley assortment of continental allies and third world and colonial auxiliaries.
    It never fought its wars alone and with British soldiers dominating the war effort.

    The perfidious Eternal Anglo is incapable of this right now, so they resort to bellicose statements, diplomat expulsions and other hot air.

    Hopefully, post-Brexit and with Scottish independence looming, England will remain alone to enjoy its enrichment, lords and monarchy.

    To be perfectly honest, I don’t like Britons or Americans or most other English speaking peoples, but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.

    • Replies: @iffen
    but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.

    Well, faint and fall out on the floor.

    Has anyone checked to see if there were any vacationing Americans in the area?

    , @Bukephalos
    veering off topic, but it's probably a sad thing in world history that British and British off-shoots came to dominate the world and not a continental power, eg France until and including the premier Empire, or any German or Russian derived empire.

    Napoléon in fact compared England to Carthage, and rightly so, even once he called them "a nation of shopkeepers". Was he a sore loser? Probably, the British exhibited genius time and again in empire-making, science and technology. Could have others pulled the industrial revolution, the French? Or some German polity? probably, but god knows how long that would have taken them. Where Napoléon was right is about the mercantile ethos of the Brits. They were always biased toward colonial exploitation, pillage instead of long-term rule and order. I see continuation of that in the US and how it deals with the world and its own population. And now this ideology is getting imposed on other people. Ancients Greeks and Romans saw the mercantile Carthaginians as lowly and dishonorable traders, not very different to how European nobles despised merchants and bourgeois centuries thereafter. I think it shows in today's global elites and their values.
    , @Hyperborean

    To be perfectly honest, I don’t like Britons or Americans or most other English speaking peoples, but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.
     
    I suppose one cannot really blame them for acting in their own self-interest, but this attitude of acting like we should be grateful to them for doing things that benefit them and having to often assert their superiority, whether in moral matters or the petty details of British housing is grating to me.
  19. @reiner Tor
    To be perfectly honest, I don't like Britons or Americans or most other English speaking peoples, but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.

    but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.

    Well, faint and fall out on the floor.

    Has anyone checked to see if there were any vacationing Americans in the area?

  20. @Epigon
    Britain first has to assemble a motley assortment of continental allies and third world and colonial auxiliaries.
    It never fought its wars alone and with British soldiers dominating the war effort.

    The perfidious Eternal Anglo is incapable of this right now, so they resort to bellicose statements, diplomat expulsions and other hot air.

    Hopefully, post-Brexit and with Scottish independence looming, England will remain alone to enjoy its enrichment, lords and monarchy.

    More deranged Anglophobia

    Britain first has to assemble a motley assortment of continental allies and third world and colonial auxiliaries.

    Britain has usually fought against other European countries to protect its European allies, not in wars of agression like France and Germany. I guess this is a bad thing though, since anti-Anglos are usually all about fetishistic power worship of conquerors who killed millions of other Europeans like Napoleon or Hitler. Non-Anglo colonial forces have never played a significant part in a British war in Europe.

    It never fought its wars alone and with British soldiers dominating the war effort.

    Not true, there are the Peninsular War and the North Africa campaign in which British soldiers performed very well. I don’t know what the point of this criticism is anyway. If you want to claim that British do not make good soldiers (which is incorrect), then just come out and say it. If you want to claim that Britain’s allies did not benefit from their relationship and were somehow forced into war by Britain (also incorrect), then just come out and say it.

    The perfidious Eternal Anglo

    What exactly this perfidy consists of is never specified. Perfidious like promising not to annex Czechoslovakia and then annexing it?

    so they resort to bellicose statements, diplomat expulsions and other hot air.

    Sort of like how Russia (unfortunately, imo) cannot do anything to stop ZOG shooting down its planes?

    • Replies: @neutral

    since anti-Anglos are usually all about fetishistic power worship of conquerors who killed millions of other Europeans like Napoleon or Hitler
     
    Don't bother playing your concern trolling games, it may work at hangouts such as the Telegraph or Guardian, but in the end death tolls matter less than the actual outcomes of the various actors. Britain fought to make world non white, Hitler was fighting for white survival, I know who of the two were better for white people ultimately. The Anglo really means (((Anglo))), to hell with them, no sympathy for the devil.
    , @Anonymous
    Are you kidding me? WW1 and WW2 only happened because of the meddling of the Anglo.

    And of course, as is typical of Anglos, they resorted to the cowardly divide and conquer tactics instead of getting their own hands dirty.
  21. Russia has itself to blame. It had S-400 at Hmeymim that could have shot those f16s down 100s of kms before they created a danger. Could’ve shot the f16s down even as they retreated. They don’t use them. They don’t give them to the Syrians to use. Instead they let the Syrians use their old S-200 that aren’t good enough and aren’t even programmed with IFF to avoid Russian planes. Russia calls enemies such as the US or Israel “partners”. Every time the US spits in Russia’s face, Russia begs in response to be friends. This is not behavior that invites respect or creates deterrence out of fear. Even now it is only the Russian defense ministry calling it like it is, with nothing from Putin, indicating Russia will again do nothing – signalling to Israel it’s not even a risk to use Russian assets as shields when attacking Syria.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Pretty damning if true about the IFF and S200.
  22. It looks like IDF liaison officer at Russia’s MOD writes their official statements.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    No, the statements blamed Israel for the situation. I expected something way weaker.
  23. Someone wrote that spy planes often don’t have IFF, as it might interfere with their primary function. It’d be nice if someone could confirm this.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Someone else wrote something slightly different: the IFF is not a perfect foolproof fail-safe mechanism, many things can and do go wrong with it, especially if it was from the wrong angle, enemy planes were close, etc.

    In other words, the official version is quite a bit believable.
  24. Syria has many interested parties. In order of power on the ground and with their main interests listed they are:

    Syrian government: unite country under their rule and take revenge/will accept a degree of federalisation and let most bygones be bygones.

    Sunni rebels: everything up to and including world domination (they is crae crae)/will accept a degree of federalisation and let most bygones be bygones.

    Kurds: independence/will accept a degree of federalisation and let most bygones be bygones.

    America: no permament base for Iran, some deference from the Syrian government.

    Turkey: to be seen as protector of Sunni Islam + screw the Kurds and “uppity” Assad/will accept a degree of federalisation and let most bygones be bygones

    Russia: will accept a degree of federalisation and let most bygones be bygones

    Iran: hardcore element want Syria as Iranian colony/will accept a degree of federalisation and let most bygones be bygones…now they are bring forced to.

    Israel: no long-term Iranian presence in Syria.

    Hezbollah: Syria as lranian colony/will accept a degree of federalisation and let most bygones be bygones

    Gulf Arabs: Sunni domination of Syria/will accept a degree of federalisation and let most bygones be bygones

    Once you understand the above you understand why the various parties are making the decisions they are making. Obviously, this is not how all started their involvement but it is how they will finish it. This is also a reasonable grounding for peace.

    Otoh, if you follow the theories of motivations presented in this comments section then you would be in a state of continual shock at the various actors’ behaviour.

  25. @Epigon
    Britain first has to assemble a motley assortment of continental allies and third world and colonial auxiliaries.
    It never fought its wars alone and with British soldiers dominating the war effort.

    The perfidious Eternal Anglo is incapable of this right now, so they resort to bellicose statements, diplomat expulsions and other hot air.

    Hopefully, post-Brexit and with Scottish independence looming, England will remain alone to enjoy its enrichment, lords and monarchy.

    Rather than resenting Britain for divorcing the EU, why not learn from it?

  26. @utu
    It looks like IDF liaison officer at Russia's MOD writes their official statements.

    No, the statements blamed Israel for the situation. I expected something way weaker.

  27. @Anatoly Karlin
    This is correct.

    However, the broader reality is that, as opposed to the Ukraine, the Russian forces in Syria ultimately operate on the sufferance of Israel, Turkey, and the US. This was always part of the cost/benefits equation when getting into Syria. There is not much it can do except bluster since it does not have escalation dominance in that region.

    ussian forces in Syria ultimately operate on the sufferance of Israel, Turkey, and the US

    S-400 – which could shoot down the F-16s – are deployed here. So Israel’s airstrikes are on de facto permission from S-400 operators.

    Israel bombs Syria hundreds of times, from this area of sea, for over 3 years.

    Russia allows Israel to bomb (which is real, as S-400 are deployed here) and it also allows Syria to shoot back. But Israeli planes always stay out of range of the S-200 in this area of sea.

    Russia’s role like a prison guard who says “I don’t see anything”, when two inmates are fighting.

    Statistically, in retrospect, it seems inevitably that the flaw of the system eventually happens.

    According to this official version, Russia allows Israel to hit Syria, then Syria shoots back and hits Russia.

    It is difficult to absorb with this many deaths.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    On a Hungarian forum (which I don’t follow myself, but was linked to elsewhere) a former Hungarian air defense officer wrote a couple possible scenarios.

    He wrote it was possible that the Israelis were hiding behind the Russian plane, though he didn’t think it was the most likely. He thought it was simply that the Russians were very much interested in the Israeli capabilities and so were constantly listening in to these attacks. However, this kind of spying live from the frontline was always bound to be risky. If not for Russia (which might have learned things worth a spy plane or two), but at least for the spy plane and its crew.
  28. And what about the Russian claim that the French launched missiles? Is there any corroboration of this?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think it was a false initial information, due to the fog of war.
    , @Zogby
    The more recent announcement from the Russian MoD said that the f16s fired from a low altitude in the vicinity of the frigate. I think the frigate didn’t participate in the attack and the original report about the frigate firing was a mistake.
    , @notanon

    the Russian claim that the French launched missiles
     
    F16s firing missiles from low, close and behind a NATO ship to make it look like the missiles came from them - interesting they picked a French ship as the sacrifice for a potential Russian/Syrian counter attack. I wonder if Macron was told in advance so he could prepare his response to a bunch of dead French sailors?

    this scenario could be a possible motive for taking out the spy plane if its radars were specifically watching for that kind of operation (which they ought to have been after the last time)
  29. @Dmitry

    ussian forces in Syria ultimately operate on the sufferance of Israel, Turkey, and the US
     
    S-400 - which could shoot down the F-16s - are deployed here. So Israel's airstrikes are on de facto permission from S-400 operators.

    Israel bombs Syria hundreds of times, from this area of sea, for over 3 years.

    Russia allows Israel to bomb (which is real, as S-400 are deployed here) and it also allows Syria to shoot back. But Israeli planes always stay out of range of the S-200 in this area of sea.

    Russia's role like a prison guard who says "I don't see anything", when two inmates are fighting.

    Statistically, in retrospect, it seems inevitably that the flaw of the system eventually happens.

    According to this official version, Russia allows Israel to hit Syria, then Syria shoots back and hits Russia.

    It is difficult to absorb with this many deaths.

    On a Hungarian forum (which I don’t follow myself, but was linked to elsewhere) a former Hungarian air defense officer wrote a couple possible scenarios.

    He wrote it was possible that the Israelis were hiding behind the Russian plane, though he didn’t think it was the most likely. He thought it was simply that the Russians were very much interested in the Israeli capabilities and so were constantly listening in to these attacks. However, this kind of spying live from the frontline was always bound to be risky. If not for Russia (which might have learned things worth a spy plane or two), but at least for the spy plane and its crew.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    F-16 and Il-20 have as different as possible radar signature from each other, so I (while not being a radar expert), do not understand how this mistake was even technically possible.

    F-16s hiding behind a plane with unrelated radar signature - but the planes should be very different from each other on the radar screen and easy to distinguish a large, slow turboprop plane, from small fast jets travelling in an opposite direction.

    -


    Here the official version:
    https://i.imgur.com/gv0uBVU.jpg

  30. @for-the-record
    And what about the Russian claim that the French launched missiles? Is there any corroboration of this?

    I think it was a false initial information, due to the fog of war.

  31. @reiner Tor
    To be perfectly honest, I don't like Britons or Americans or most other English speaking peoples, but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.

    veering off topic, but it’s probably a sad thing in world history that British and British off-shoots came to dominate the world and not a continental power, eg France until and including the premier Empire, or any German or Russian derived empire.

    Napoléon in fact compared England to Carthage, and rightly so, even once he called them “a nation of shopkeepers”. Was he a sore loser? Probably, the British exhibited genius time and again in empire-making, science and technology. Could have others pulled the industrial revolution, the French? Or some German polity? probably, but god knows how long that would have taken them. Where Napoléon was right is about the mercantile ethos of the Brits. They were always biased toward colonial exploitation, pillage instead of long-term rule and order. I see continuation of that in the US and how it deals with the world and its own population. And now this ideology is getting imposed on other people. Ancients Greeks and Romans saw the mercantile Carthaginians as lowly and dishonorable traders, not very different to how European nobles despised merchants and bourgeois centuries thereafter. I think it shows in today’s global elites and their values.

    • Replies: @AP

    it’s probably a sad thing in world history that British and British off-shoots came to dominate the world and not a continental power, eg France
     
    France post Revolution, and much more so Russia post Revolution and Nazi Germany, were morally worse than the Anglo world. Germany under the monarchy and Austria-Hungary were better, as was Spain further back in time. Pre-revolutionary Russia was probably better.

    So it is not an accurate generalization to say that a continental power ultimately ruling and shaping the world would have been better than Anglo dominance. Robespierre and Napoleon unleashed mass political murder and nationalism, Bolshevism and Nazism were even worse.
    , @DFH
    Yes, so sad that someone who started wars that killed millions of people like Napoleon and subjugated other European nations did not dominate the world. Britain never dominated Europe anyway (or tried to). As I commented earlier, unsurprising that an anti-Anglo is a power-fetishist who fantasies about being conquered by the French or Germans.

    Where Napoléon was right is about the mercantile ethos of the Brits. They were always biased toward colonial exploitation, pillage instead of long-term rule and order
     
    This is hysterical since Napoleon literally plundered the rest of Europe to finance uncessesary and self-destructive wars.
    British people turned two entire continents from wilderness into stable, peaceful societies that were the most succesful on earth.
    Even the non-white colonies were generally improved by British rule. Africa certainly was. India is more debatable, but during the Raj British rule can certainly not be characterised as pillage or exploitation, and involved more 'long-term rule and order' and peace than any previous period of Indian history.

    And now this ideology is getting imposed on other people. Ancients Greeks and Romans saw the mercantile Carthaginians as lowly and dishonorable traders, not very different to how European nobles despised merchants and bourgeois centuries thereafter. I think it shows in today’s global elites and their values.
     
    Perhaps it would be better for you to examine the actual facts and events of history instead of vague abstractions and analogies.
    This might shock you, but the most succesful city of Ancient Greece, Athens, actually did quite a lot of trading, and they were also the most vigorous and boldest state.
    , @Anonymous
    Completely agree. Anglos are worse than Jews.

    Their claim to fame is being devious and using divide and conquer tactics to defeat other countries.

    Only when Anglos have guns and they are fighting people with sticks will the Anglo show a fighting spirit.
  32. @Anatoly Karlin
    This is correct.

    However, the broader reality is that, as opposed to the Ukraine, the Russian forces in Syria ultimately operate on the sufferance of Israel, Turkey, and the US. This was always part of the cost/benefits equation when getting into Syria. There is not much it can do except bluster since it does not have escalation dominance in that region.

    Does this mean we should just let them kill us wholesale, cause we are so afraid of what they might do? That’s cowardice and stupidity.

  33. @Anatoly Karlin
    This is correct.

    However, the broader reality is that, as opposed to the Ukraine, the Russian forces in Syria ultimately operate on the sufferance of Israel, Turkey, and the US. This was always part of the cost/benefits equation when getting into Syria. There is not much it can do except bluster since it does not have escalation dominance in that region.

    Russia can escalate. Russia can hit Western military bases in the Middle East from its own territory.

  34. @reiner Tor
    Someone wrote that spy planes often don’t have IFF, as it might interfere with their primary function. It’d be nice if someone could confirm this.

    Someone else wrote something slightly different: the IFF is not a perfect foolproof fail-safe mechanism, many things can and do go wrong with it, especially if it was from the wrong angle, enemy planes were close, etc.

    In other words, the official version is quite a bit believable.

  35. @for-the-record
    And what about the Russian claim that the French launched missiles? Is there any corroboration of this?

    The more recent announcement from the Russian MoD said that the f16s fired from a low altitude in the vicinity of the frigate. I think the frigate didn’t participate in the attack and the original report about the frigate firing was a mistake.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Yes, that's very likely.
  36. @reiner Tor
    On a Hungarian forum (which I don’t follow myself, but was linked to elsewhere) a former Hungarian air defense officer wrote a couple possible scenarios.

    He wrote it was possible that the Israelis were hiding behind the Russian plane, though he didn’t think it was the most likely. He thought it was simply that the Russians were very much interested in the Israeli capabilities and so were constantly listening in to these attacks. However, this kind of spying live from the frontline was always bound to be risky. If not for Russia (which might have learned things worth a spy plane or two), but at least for the spy plane and its crew.

    F-16 and Il-20 have as different as possible radar signature from each other, so I (while not being a radar expert), do not understand how this mistake was even technically possible.

    F-16s hiding behind a plane with unrelated radar signature – but the planes should be very different from each other on the radar screen and easy to distinguish a large, slow turboprop plane, from small fast jets travelling in an opposite direction.

    Here the official version:

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    F-16 and Il-20 have as different as possible radar signature from each other, so I (while not being a radar expert), do not understand how this mistake was even technically possible.
     
    What the guys on the Hungarian forum wrote (and some of these were air defense officers who had worked with the S-200 Vega in Hungary) was that it's not as trivial as civilians brought up on video games would imagine. Theoretically a turboprop airliner and a jet fighter look as different as it gets, but it all depends on the angle, the distance between the two, etc.

    Eventually, it's very easy to make such a mistake.
    , @Tyrion 2
    This seems like reasonable analysis from the BBC.

    Russia's anger is real. But the question is, are the Russians attributing blame fairly? The charges are two-fold. Long-standing and up to now effective information-sharing broke down.

    The Israeli Air Force has Russian-speaking air traffic controllers able to communicate with their Russian opposite numbers. But Moscow says they were informed of the Israeli raid with only one minute's notice.

    Secondly, Russia charges - more seriously - that the Israelis used the large radar signature of the Ilyushin turbo-prop to mask their own aircraft.

    But the radar signatures of the relatively slow Ilyushin and four nimble F-16 jets are radically different.

    Furthermore, the Syrian air defences should have known the Russian plane was in-bound, whatever the Israelis were doing.

    There may be several contributory factors in this tragedy. Russia cannot publicly castigate its Syrian allies. In private things may be rather different.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-45563304
  37. @Zogby
    The more recent announcement from the Russian MoD said that the f16s fired from a low altitude in the vicinity of the frigate. I think the frigate didn’t participate in the attack and the original report about the frigate firing was a mistake.

    Yes, that’s very likely.

  38. @Dmitry
    F-16 and Il-20 have as different as possible radar signature from each other, so I (while not being a radar expert), do not understand how this mistake was even technically possible.

    F-16s hiding behind a plane with unrelated radar signature - but the planes should be very different from each other on the radar screen and easy to distinguish a large, slow turboprop plane, from small fast jets travelling in an opposite direction.

    -


    Here the official version:
    https://i.imgur.com/gv0uBVU.jpg

    F-16 and Il-20 have as different as possible radar signature from each other, so I (while not being a radar expert), do not understand how this mistake was even technically possible.

    What the guys on the Hungarian forum wrote (and some of these were air defense officers who had worked with the S-200 Vega in Hungary) was that it’s not as trivial as civilians brought up on video games would imagine. Theoretically a turboprop airliner and a jet fighter look as different as it gets, but it all depends on the angle, the distance between the two, etc.

    Eventually, it’s very easy to make such a mistake.

  39. @Zogby
    Russia has itself to blame. It had S-400 at Hmeymim that could have shot those f16s down 100s of kms before they created a danger. Could’ve shot the f16s down even as they retreated. They don’t use them. They don’t give them to the Syrians to use. Instead they let the Syrians use their old S-200 that aren’t good enough and aren’t even programmed with IFF to avoid Russian planes. Russia calls enemies such as the US or Israel “partners”. Every time the US spits in Russia’s face, Russia begs in response to be friends. This is not behavior that invites respect or creates deterrence out of fear. Even now it is only the Russian defense ministry calling it like it is, with nothing from Putin, indicating Russia will again do nothing - signalling to Israel it’s not even a risk to use Russian assets as shields when attacking Syria.

    Pretty damning if true about the IFF and S200.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    What the Hungarian guys wrote about the Vega and the IFF is that these systems require highly trained specialists to operate them. Basically, I'd be skeptical of Arabs' ability to operate them flawlessly.

    It all depends on the usual things like angle, closeness of targets, how close the enemy is, etc.
  40. @Epigon
    The same people who orchestrated the Turkish downing of Su-24 are responsible for this.

    You lot were definitely among the knee-jerk crowd wanting to go to war with Turkey.

    Russia operates in hostile surrondings yet achieves its geopolitical goals. Death of 15 Russian servicemen is a tragedy, but far there are far higher stakes here.

    Russia imposed sanctions on Turkey, effectively imposed a no fly zone and bombed the carp out of Turkish proxies in Syria.

  41. @DFH
    More deranged Anglophobia

    Britain first has to assemble a motley assortment of continental allies and third world and colonial auxiliaries.
     

    Britain has usually fought against other European countries to protect its European allies, not in wars of agression like France and Germany. I guess this is a bad thing though, since anti-Anglos are usually all about fetishistic power worship of conquerors who killed millions of other Europeans like Napoleon or Hitler. Non-Anglo colonial forces have never played a significant part in a British war in Europe.

    It never fought its wars alone and with British soldiers dominating the war effort.
     
    Not true, there are the Peninsular War and the North Africa campaign in which British soldiers performed very well. I don't know what the point of this criticism is anyway. If you want to claim that British do not make good soldiers (which is incorrect), then just come out and say it. If you want to claim that Britain's allies did not benefit from their relationship and were somehow forced into war by Britain (also incorrect), then just come out and say it.

    The perfidious Eternal Anglo
     
    What exactly this perfidy consists of is never specified. Perfidious like promising not to annex Czechoslovakia and then annexing it?

    so they resort to bellicose statements, diplomat expulsions and other hot air.
     
    Sort of like how Russia (unfortunately, imo) cannot do anything to stop ZOG shooting down its planes?

    since anti-Anglos are usually all about fetishistic power worship of conquerors who killed millions of other Europeans like Napoleon or Hitler

    Don’t bother playing your concern trolling games, it may work at hangouts such as the Telegraph or Guardian, but in the end death tolls matter less than the actual outcomes of the various actors. Britain fought to make world non white, Hitler was fighting for white survival, I know who of the two were better for white people ultimately. The Anglo really means (((Anglo))), to hell with them, no sympathy for the devil.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Britain fought to make world non white, Hitler was fighting for white survival, I know who of the two were better for white people ultimately.
     
    Well, if one of your brothers kills all of your other brothers and sisters, including yourself, and then goes on to survive and have many descendants, then, I guess, from a genetic interests point of view, it's better than if no one kills any of your brothers or sisters, but longer term, none of you will have descendants.

    Still, you'd need to be psychopathic to support the murder of your brothers and sisters. And you'd need to be an extreme masochist to enjoy your own dispossession and murder.
    , @DFH

    Britain fought to make world non white
     
    Fantasism, even Churchill later wanted to run on the slogan 'Keep Britain White'.

    Hitler was fighting for white survival
     

    Hitler started a war of German expansionism that resulted in the present state of the world. How would white people have been destroyed if Hitler didn't invade Poland? Or was it absolutely crucial for the survival of Europeans that West Prussia be occupied by Germans?
  42. Russians are certainly at fault for having allowed the Israelis this freedom of action over Syria and trusting them. Let’s assume the official version is correct, and the Syrians made this enormous blunder. But if you consider their options, that also means the Syrians were supposed to sit and take it while Russian air defense and interceptors where watching comfortably nearby, and do nothing to retaliate…since the S-200 is the only means of retaliation they were allowed to have and the nice Israeli “partners” would knowingly fly in close vicinity to Russian assets. In other words the Russians backed them into a corner with these shady and ambiguous dealings with the Israelis.

  43. @LondonBob
    Pretty damning if true about the IFF and S200.

    What the Hungarian guys wrote about the Vega and the IFF is that these systems require highly trained specialists to operate them. Basically, I’d be skeptical of Arabs’ ability to operate them flawlessly.

    It all depends on the usual things like angle, closeness of targets, how close the enemy is, etc.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    I took the Ru MoD briefing to imply this is what the Israelis did. As you say easy to make mistakes, friendly fire is all too common.
    , @LondonBob
    If Russia does now deliver the S300 it could be manned by Russians for this reason.
  44. I hope the link works, I couldn’t open this (it’s forbidden from my computer in the office), but apparently it’s in Russian. Anyway, I read a Hungarian translation of this, and it should be an interview with a Russian (ret.) air defense general, who is not very kind to the Syrian operators.

    http://aviator.guru/blog/43611848180/General-Gorkov:-V-gibeli-Il-20-vinoven-ne-tolko-Izrayil?image=20437290924

    So it was probably a Syrian screwup.

    • Replies: @iffen
    So it was probably a Syrian screwup.


    I see a pattern stretching from The Ukraine to Syria: Russian presence in a war zone, Russian missiles and air defenses, planes fall from the sky, some sort of "mistake."
  45. @reiner Tor
    What the Hungarian guys wrote about the Vega and the IFF is that these systems require highly trained specialists to operate them. Basically, I'd be skeptical of Arabs' ability to operate them flawlessly.

    It all depends on the usual things like angle, closeness of targets, how close the enemy is, etc.

    I took the Ru MoD briefing to imply this is what the Israelis did. As you say easy to make mistakes, friendly fire is all too common.

  46. @Bukephalos
    veering off topic, but it's probably a sad thing in world history that British and British off-shoots came to dominate the world and not a continental power, eg France until and including the premier Empire, or any German or Russian derived empire.

    Napoléon in fact compared England to Carthage, and rightly so, even once he called them "a nation of shopkeepers". Was he a sore loser? Probably, the British exhibited genius time and again in empire-making, science and technology. Could have others pulled the industrial revolution, the French? Or some German polity? probably, but god knows how long that would have taken them. Where Napoléon was right is about the mercantile ethos of the Brits. They were always biased toward colonial exploitation, pillage instead of long-term rule and order. I see continuation of that in the US and how it deals with the world and its own population. And now this ideology is getting imposed on other people. Ancients Greeks and Romans saw the mercantile Carthaginians as lowly and dishonorable traders, not very different to how European nobles despised merchants and bourgeois centuries thereafter. I think it shows in today's global elites and their values.

    it’s probably a sad thing in world history that British and British off-shoots came to dominate the world and not a continental power, eg France

    France post Revolution, and much more so Russia post Revolution and Nazi Germany, were morally worse than the Anglo world. Germany under the monarchy and Austria-Hungary were better, as was Spain further back in time. Pre-revolutionary Russia was probably better.

    So it is not an accurate generalization to say that a continental power ultimately ruling and shaping the world would have been better than Anglo dominance. Robespierre and Napoleon unleashed mass political murder and nationalism, Bolshevism and Nazism were even worse.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Anglos were actually the worst possible outcome for the world. Its true that other countries would not have ruled benevolently, but Anglos pushed for open borders and cowardly divide and conquer tactics.
  47. @neutral

    since anti-Anglos are usually all about fetishistic power worship of conquerors who killed millions of other Europeans like Napoleon or Hitler
     
    Don't bother playing your concern trolling games, it may work at hangouts such as the Telegraph or Guardian, but in the end death tolls matter less than the actual outcomes of the various actors. Britain fought to make world non white, Hitler was fighting for white survival, I know who of the two were better for white people ultimately. The Anglo really means (((Anglo))), to hell with them, no sympathy for the devil.

    Britain fought to make world non white, Hitler was fighting for white survival, I know who of the two were better for white people ultimately.

    Well, if one of your brothers kills all of your other brothers and sisters, including yourself, and then goes on to survive and have many descendants, then, I guess, from a genetic interests point of view, it’s better than if no one kills any of your brothers or sisters, but longer term, none of you will have descendants.

    Still, you’d need to be psychopathic to support the murder of your brothers and sisters. And you’d need to be an extreme masochist to enjoy your own dispossession and murder.

    • Replies: @neutral
    Europe has endured many deadly wars in its history, Mao killed many of his people, the black plague wiped out cities, such things happened, however what the (((Anglo))) represents is profoundly worse. People have survived these things, but this global SJW ideology that is being enforced by the (((Anglo))) is an extermination event for the white race.
    , @utu
    How do you know that Hitler wanted to kill his brothers? neutral is neutral not Jewish.
  48. In other news, the long-assault on Idlib has been indefinitely postponed.

    skirpal/salisbury imo

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not at all:

    a) Nusra/Qaeda/FSA could rally "public opinion" by staging gas attacks at any time and feeding the megaphone
    b) US could throw tantrums in the UN and then perform NATO-enhanced action because of "Responsibility to Protect" (the Truman is apparently moving in, too?)
    c) Turkey is happy with the status quo because Syria stays weak, Kurds stay weak. They seem to have influence with the Nusra/Qaeda so these are manageable, too. They sure hope there will be a piece of Syria for them to annex later in this game.
    d) Israel is ok with the situation as they keep an active force in Syria that can be reactivated at any time, so they can look after Iranian forces.
    e) Russia can pretend this is all an acceptable way of doing things.
  49. @reiner Tor

    Britain fought to make world non white, Hitler was fighting for white survival, I know who of the two were better for white people ultimately.
     
    Well, if one of your brothers kills all of your other brothers and sisters, including yourself, and then goes on to survive and have many descendants, then, I guess, from a genetic interests point of view, it's better than if no one kills any of your brothers or sisters, but longer term, none of you will have descendants.

    Still, you'd need to be psychopathic to support the murder of your brothers and sisters. And you'd need to be an extreme masochist to enjoy your own dispossession and murder.

    Europe has endured many deadly wars in its history, Mao killed many of his people, the black plague wiped out cities, such things happened, however what the (((Anglo))) represents is profoundly worse. People have survived these things, but this global SJW ideology that is being enforced by the (((Anglo))) is an extermination event for the white race.

    • Replies: @notanon
    as an ultra-anglo i kind of agree we messed up - creating the most powerful nations in world history and then letting them be hijacked by a banking mafia who want to turn all the most impressive nations into 85 IQ slave cattle. personally i see it as a duty to make things right but i understand if people are mad.

    however you're not going to survive without us cos we're the only people who are both smart enough and savage enough to out play the bad guys.
    , @DFH
    English people are not Jews though. A fatal flaw in your argument. After Jews, French have contributed significantly more to 'global SJW ideology' than English people anyway.
  50. @for-the-record
    And what about the Russian claim that the French launched missiles? Is there any corroboration of this?

    the Russian claim that the French launched missiles

    F16s firing missiles from low, close and behind a NATO ship to make it look like the missiles came from them – interesting they picked a French ship as the sacrifice for a potential Russian/Syrian counter attack. I wonder if Macron was told in advance so he could prepare his response to a bunch of dead French sailors?

    this scenario could be a possible motive for taking out the spy plane if its radars were specifically watching for that kind of operation (which they ought to have been after the last time)

    • Replies: @El Dato
    ça doit faire vachement mal au cul.

    Rappellez-vous de "La Liberté".
  51. @reiner Tor
    What the Hungarian guys wrote about the Vega and the IFF is that these systems require highly trained specialists to operate them. Basically, I'd be skeptical of Arabs' ability to operate them flawlessly.

    It all depends on the usual things like angle, closeness of targets, how close the enemy is, etc.

    If Russia does now deliver the S300 it could be manned by Russians for this reason.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Syria doesn't need S300, more air-defense systems. There is already S400 in the country, and they never engage Israeli aircraft. The problem we have is a problem of willpower, lack of intestinal fortitude in the Kremlin. This is not for the lack of military capability.
  52. @neutral
    Europe has endured many deadly wars in its history, Mao killed many of his people, the black plague wiped out cities, such things happened, however what the (((Anglo))) represents is profoundly worse. People have survived these things, but this global SJW ideology that is being enforced by the (((Anglo))) is an extermination event for the white race.

    as an ultra-anglo i kind of agree we messed up – creating the most powerful nations in world history and then letting them be hijacked by a banking mafia who want to turn all the most impressive nations into 85 IQ slave cattle. personally i see it as a duty to make things right but i understand if people are mad.

    however you’re not going to survive without us cos we’re the only people who are both smart enough and savage enough to out play the bad guys.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Anglos are outplaying the bad guys? Your streets are dominated by aggressive, intimidating muslims, and the English don’t even defend their own girls from systematic rape and torture.

    It would seem that the English are the quintessential Anglos.
    So which anglos are you talking about?
    , @Anonymous
    Haha. Funny thought.

    Actually, the world will never be unfucked until it gets rid of the Anglo problem.

    Anglos were not hijacked by the banking mafia. They ARE the banking mafia.

    And please stop with the whole savageness. Anglos are cowards and o ly get their hands dirty when they bomb goat herders or shoot up some spear chuckers.
    , @iffen
    Yawn
    , @anonymous coward

    we’re the only people who are both smart enough and savage enough to out play the bad guys
     
    The twist: you are the bad guys.
  53. angry direct responses to having a red flag waved in your face is the desired reaction

    the IRA waged a guerrilla campaign to no effect for decades until they started to target the banks – UK govt surrendered almost immediately afterwards

    similarly the US is ruled by the banking mafia so in the same way the Russkis need to think where the banking mafia have their eggs

  54. @reiner Tor

    Britain fought to make world non white, Hitler was fighting for white survival, I know who of the two were better for white people ultimately.
     
    Well, if one of your brothers kills all of your other brothers and sisters, including yourself, and then goes on to survive and have many descendants, then, I guess, from a genetic interests point of view, it's better than if no one kills any of your brothers or sisters, but longer term, none of you will have descendants.

    Still, you'd need to be psychopathic to support the murder of your brothers and sisters. And you'd need to be an extreme masochist to enjoy your own dispossession and murder.

    How do you know that Hitler wanted to kill his brothers? neutral is neutral not Jewish.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Slavs, for example, which is right the second largest white group after Germanics. He also didn’t like Latins, nor generic white Americans, though maybe he didn’t want to exterminate them. But certainly they’d have been subjugated, and it’s natural for humans to resist it.
  55. @Bukephalos
    veering off topic, but it's probably a sad thing in world history that British and British off-shoots came to dominate the world and not a continental power, eg France until and including the premier Empire, or any German or Russian derived empire.

    Napoléon in fact compared England to Carthage, and rightly so, even once he called them "a nation of shopkeepers". Was he a sore loser? Probably, the British exhibited genius time and again in empire-making, science and technology. Could have others pulled the industrial revolution, the French? Or some German polity? probably, but god knows how long that would have taken them. Where Napoléon was right is about the mercantile ethos of the Brits. They were always biased toward colonial exploitation, pillage instead of long-term rule and order. I see continuation of that in the US and how it deals with the world and its own population. And now this ideology is getting imposed on other people. Ancients Greeks and Romans saw the mercantile Carthaginians as lowly and dishonorable traders, not very different to how European nobles despised merchants and bourgeois centuries thereafter. I think it shows in today's global elites and their values.

    Yes, so sad that someone who started wars that killed millions of people like Napoleon and subjugated other European nations did not dominate the world. Britain never dominated Europe anyway (or tried to). As I commented earlier, unsurprising that an anti-Anglo is a power-fetishist who fantasies about being conquered by the French or Germans.

    Where Napoléon was right is about the mercantile ethos of the Brits. They were always biased toward colonial exploitation, pillage instead of long-term rule and order

    This is hysterical since Napoleon literally plundered the rest of Europe to finance uncessesary and self-destructive wars.
    British people turned two entire continents from wilderness into stable, peaceful societies that were the most succesful on earth.
    Even the non-white colonies were generally improved by British rule. Africa certainly was. India is more debatable, but during the Raj British rule can certainly not be characterised as pillage or exploitation, and involved more ‘long-term rule and order’ and peace than any previous period of Indian history.

    And now this ideology is getting imposed on other people. Ancients Greeks and Romans saw the mercantile Carthaginians as lowly and dishonorable traders, not very different to how European nobles despised merchants and bourgeois centuries thereafter. I think it shows in today’s global elites and their values.

    Perhaps it would be better for you to examine the actual facts and events of history instead of vague abstractions and analogies.
    This might shock you, but the most succesful city of Ancient Greece, Athens, actually did quite a lot of trading, and they were also the most vigorous and boldest state.

  56. @neutral

    since anti-Anglos are usually all about fetishistic power worship of conquerors who killed millions of other Europeans like Napoleon or Hitler
     
    Don't bother playing your concern trolling games, it may work at hangouts such as the Telegraph or Guardian, but in the end death tolls matter less than the actual outcomes of the various actors. Britain fought to make world non white, Hitler was fighting for white survival, I know who of the two were better for white people ultimately. The Anglo really means (((Anglo))), to hell with them, no sympathy for the devil.

    Britain fought to make world non white

    Fantasism, even Churchill later wanted to run on the slogan ‘Keep Britain White’.

    Hitler was fighting for white survival

    Hitler started a war of German expansionism that resulted in the present state of the world. How would white people have been destroyed if Hitler didn’t invade Poland? Or was it absolutely crucial for the survival of Europeans that West Prussia be occupied by Germans?

    • Replies: @notanon

    Hitler started a war of German expansionism that resulted in the present state of the world.
     
    reacting like this to anti-anglo stuff helps the bad guys and incentivises them to do more of it for divide and rule
    , @neutral
    The slogans of the two sides were clear, Churchill and Roosevelt were making grand proclamations about their "universal values" and other such bullshit, the other sides were clear in their battle for blood and soil. You may call the utterings of Churchill as only propaganda, but even if this was the case he decided to kill millions in the name of such propaganda and that alone is unforgivable. This same propaganda also has now become sacrosanct dogma that leads to jail in most of Europe who questions it.

    Blaming Hitler for the present state of the world is simply wrong, the blame is on him.

  57. Anatoly, you always try to be objective, you were so harsh after the Petrov/Boshirov interview (far too harsh imo) but here you act like this isn’t the huge humiliation for Russia that it is.

    This was the cherry on top:

    Putin on Israel’s role in Il-20 downing: ‘Looks accidental, like chain of tragic circumstances’

    What a fucking cuck, holy shit.

    This is not about fighting Israel for the benefit of Syria or Iran. This is about being attacked and defending yourself.
    If 14 killed Russians is not enough (not to count the dozen/200 that Pompeo bragged about murdering) then how many Russians have to be killed?
    And if the answer is “all of them, we can’t defend ourselves” then what are they doing there?

    Lob a few cruise missiles with tactical nukes on them without using the strategic arsenal and see who has escalation dominance.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    This is not about fighting Israel for the benefit of Syria or Iran. This is about being attacked and defending yourself. If 14 killed Russians is not enough (not to count the dozen/200 that Pompeo bragged about murdering) then how many Russians have to be killed? And if the answer is “all of them, we can’t defend ourselves” then what are they doing there?
     
    I have this question as well. That's a funny way to handle a bully: give him everything he wants and don't make a peep.
    , @iffen
    Chill Ivan, place the red button on the ground and step away.
    , @Dmitry
    Putin's response was strange to see now - to take away blame from Israel, even relative to the Turkey incident (which resulted far less deaths). Yet here a significant aviation disaster for the mission in Syria, with 15 airmen lost.

    Shoigu blamed Israel, while Putin then seems to contradict him.

    I guess one possibility, just Putin thinks there was no reason for Syrian S-200 to shoot down IL-20, in response to Israel's F-16s.

    One is a large and slow turboprop, the other small and fast jets - so it's not clear why they would shoot a turboprop, since it doesn't have a similar radar signature to fighter jets.

    It's Putin's decision to allow Israeli airstrikes, or make an agreement to allow this (Israel's airstrikes are happening with de facto his consent - S-400 operators are very close, and can shoot down the Israeli planes if they want anytime). It would have avoided the incident if the airstrikes (on Hezbollah or Iran) were not allowed.

    Also Putin's decision was to allow Syria to fire the S-200s after the incidents, apparently without co-ordination with Russian aviation. It would have also avoided the incident if this was banned.

    For the current game to continue, and not to kill soldiers, requires nobody to make mistakes. For three years, it was like this with no deaths from these strikes, while rolling the dice every week starts to accumulate the risk.

    Putin's views for Syria still a bit of mystery, if he has a real longterm plan. His response could be evidence in question if he was not unhappy that Israel was bombing Iran in Syria.

  58. @neutral
    Europe has endured many deadly wars in its history, Mao killed many of his people, the black plague wiped out cities, such things happened, however what the (((Anglo))) represents is profoundly worse. People have survived these things, but this global SJW ideology that is being enforced by the (((Anglo))) is an extermination event for the white race.

    English people are not Jews though. A fatal flaw in your argument. After Jews, French have contributed significantly more to ‘global SJW ideology’ than English people anyway.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Anglos are Jewish enablers. Other feed off of each other. Nice try Anglo trash. Fix your teeth and stop your grooming problem.
  59. @utu
    How do you know that Hitler wanted to kill his brothers? neutral is neutral not Jewish.

    Slavs, for example, which is right the second largest white group after Germanics. He also didn’t like Latins, nor generic white Americans, though maybe he didn’t want to exterminate them. But certainly they’d have been subjugated, and it’s natural for humans to resist it.

  60. IMO, even if it’s a symbolic “blow up empty building” effort, Russia should respond minimally. This is pretty embarrassing.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  61. @DFH

    Britain fought to make world non white
     
    Fantasism, even Churchill later wanted to run on the slogan 'Keep Britain White'.

    Hitler was fighting for white survival
     

    Hitler started a war of German expansionism that resulted in the present state of the world. How would white people have been destroyed if Hitler didn't invade Poland? Or was it absolutely crucial for the survival of Europeans that West Prussia be occupied by Germans?

    Hitler started a war of German expansionism that resulted in the present state of the world.

    reacting like this to anti-anglo stuff helps the bad guys and incentivises them to do more of it for divide and rule

  62. @DFH

    Britain fought to make world non white
     
    Fantasism, even Churchill later wanted to run on the slogan 'Keep Britain White'.

    Hitler was fighting for white survival
     

    Hitler started a war of German expansionism that resulted in the present state of the world. How would white people have been destroyed if Hitler didn't invade Poland? Or was it absolutely crucial for the survival of Europeans that West Prussia be occupied by Germans?

    The slogans of the two sides were clear, Churchill and Roosevelt were making grand proclamations about their “universal values” and other such bullshit, the other sides were clear in their battle for blood and soil. You may call the utterings of Churchill as only propaganda, but even if this was the case he decided to kill millions in the name of such propaganda and that alone is unforgivable. This same propaganda also has now become sacrosanct dogma that leads to jail in most of Europe who questions it.

    Blaming Hitler for the present state of the world is simply wrong, the blame is on him.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Blaming Hitler for the present state of the world is simply wrong


    H. saved the Bolsheviks and created Israel so there's that.
  63. @notanon
    as an ultra-anglo i kind of agree we messed up - creating the most powerful nations in world history and then letting them be hijacked by a banking mafia who want to turn all the most impressive nations into 85 IQ slave cattle. personally i see it as a duty to make things right but i understand if people are mad.

    however you're not going to survive without us cos we're the only people who are both smart enough and savage enough to out play the bad guys.

    Anglos are outplaying the bad guys? Your streets are dominated by aggressive, intimidating muslims, and the English don’t even defend their own girls from systematic rape and torture.

    It would seem that the English are the quintessential Anglos.
    So which anglos are you talking about?

    • Replies: @neutral

    and the English don’t even defend their own girls from systematic rape and torture
     
    The Anglos don't care if their own girls are raped, but I am very sure that the (((Anglos))) will not be reacting that way if it happened to their girls.
    , @notanon
    i didn't say "are outplaying" i said "are capable of outplaying" (and even then the odds aren't that great).

    i agree we're doing a terrible job currently cos like most peoples most of the smartest anglos are upper middle class and the upper middle class are the ones most gas-lit by the media - but it's not over yet.
  64. @Spisarevski
    Anatoly, you always try to be objective, you were so harsh after the Petrov/Boshirov interview (far too harsh imo) but here you act like this isn't the huge humiliation for Russia that it is.

    This was the cherry on top:

    Putin on Israel’s role in Il-20 downing: ‘Looks accidental, like chain of tragic circumstances’
     
    What a fucking cuck, holy shit.

    This is not about fighting Israel for the benefit of Syria or Iran. This is about being attacked and defending yourself.
    If 14 killed Russians is not enough (not to count the dozen/200 that Pompeo bragged about murdering) then how many Russians have to be killed?
    And if the answer is "all of them, we can't defend ourselves" then what are they doing there?

    Lob a few cruise missiles with tactical nukes on them without using the strategic arsenal and see who has escalation dominance.

    This is not about fighting Israel for the benefit of Syria or Iran. This is about being attacked and defending yourself. If 14 killed Russians is not enough (not to count the dozen/200 that Pompeo bragged about murdering) then how many Russians have to be killed? And if the answer is “all of them, we can’t defend ourselves” then what are they doing there?

    I have this question as well. That’s a funny way to handle a bully: give him everything he wants and don’t make a peep.

  65. @reiner Tor
    I hope the link works, I couldn't open this (it's forbidden from my computer in the office), but apparently it's in Russian. Anyway, I read a Hungarian translation of this, and it should be an interview with a Russian (ret.) air defense general, who is not very kind to the Syrian operators.

    http://aviator.guru/blog/43611848180/General-Gorkov:-V-gibeli-Il-20-vinoven-ne-tolko-Izrayil?image=20437290924

    So it was probably a Syrian screwup.

    So it was probably a Syrian screwup.

    I see a pattern stretching from The Ukraine to Syria: Russian presence in a war zone, Russian missiles and air defenses, planes fall from the sky, some sort of “mistake.”

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Soviet/Russian weapons systems are not as user friendly as American/Western ones, and so they require better trained crew than Western systems. This opens up the possibility of major screwups in the hands of badly trained incompetent crews.

    This is I think a major weakness of Russian/Soviet weapon systems, they look impressive on paper, and are great in the hands of competent and well trained crews, but the soft parameters of American systems make them more robust to the incompetence of their crews. They are also usually easier to maintain.
  66. @RadicalCenter
    Anglos are outplaying the bad guys? Your streets are dominated by aggressive, intimidating muslims, and the English don’t even defend their own girls from systematic rape and torture.

    It would seem that the English are the quintessential Anglos.
    So which anglos are you talking about?

    and the English don’t even defend their own girls from systematic rape and torture

    The Anglos don’t care if their own girls are raped, but I am very sure that the (((Anglos))) will not be reacting that way if it happened to their girls.

  67. @neutral
    The slogans of the two sides were clear, Churchill and Roosevelt were making grand proclamations about their "universal values" and other such bullshit, the other sides were clear in their battle for blood and soil. You may call the utterings of Churchill as only propaganda, but even if this was the case he decided to kill millions in the name of such propaganda and that alone is unforgivable. This same propaganda also has now become sacrosanct dogma that leads to jail in most of Europe who questions it.

    Blaming Hitler for the present state of the world is simply wrong, the blame is on him.

    Blaming Hitler for the present state of the world is simply wrong

    H. saved the Bolsheviks and created Israel so there’s that.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    H. saved the Bolsheviks
     
    Mind explaining this one?
  68. @Spisarevski
    Anatoly, you always try to be objective, you were so harsh after the Petrov/Boshirov interview (far too harsh imo) but here you act like this isn't the huge humiliation for Russia that it is.

    This was the cherry on top:

    Putin on Israel’s role in Il-20 downing: ‘Looks accidental, like chain of tragic circumstances’
     
    What a fucking cuck, holy shit.

    This is not about fighting Israel for the benefit of Syria or Iran. This is about being attacked and defending yourself.
    If 14 killed Russians is not enough (not to count the dozen/200 that Pompeo bragged about murdering) then how many Russians have to be killed?
    And if the answer is "all of them, we can't defend ourselves" then what are they doing there?

    Lob a few cruise missiles with tactical nukes on them without using the strategic arsenal and see who has escalation dominance.

    Chill Ivan, place the red button on the ground and step away.

    • Replies: @Spisarevski

    Chill Ivan
     
    I am not Russian if that's what you are implying.
    Ivan is actually the second most popular male name in my country but I doubt you had that in mind.
  69. @reiner Tor
    There are a number of arguments that it really was the Israelis.

    They are that brazen, so it’s at least not inconceivable. They have destroyed an American spy ship when America was already their biggest benefactor. Why not destroy a Russian spy plane when Russian interests are opposed to Israeli interests? Attackers certainly have a motivation to destroy spy planes (especially if they are transmitting data to the attacked side, which was very likely happening).

    Then we’d need some information about air defense systems, but theoretically IFF systems prevent the shooting of missiles at targets which have friendly targets nearby, so theoretically speaking, the official version should be impossible. Israeli F-16s also cannot be hiding behind a slow spy plane.

    So the official Russian explanation doesn’t seem likely. Of course there is very little information out there (other than official communiques), so we need some time to find out. If we’ll ever find it out.

    The Russians shot down a couple of their own aircraft during the Ossetian War. No weapon system is 100% foolproof against friendly fire. Separate forces operating alongside one another only adds to the possibility for error, and Syria’s SAM operators have never earned a reputation for world class proficiency.

    The official story is unfortunate and embarrassing, but it does make sense to me.

  70. @RadicalCenter
    Anglos are outplaying the bad guys? Your streets are dominated by aggressive, intimidating muslims, and the English don’t even defend their own girls from systematic rape and torture.

    It would seem that the English are the quintessential Anglos.
    So which anglos are you talking about?

    i didn’t say “are outplaying” i said “are capable of outplaying” (and even then the odds aren’t that great).

    i agree we’re doing a terrible job currently cos like most peoples most of the smartest anglos are upper middle class and the upper middle class are the ones most gas-lit by the media – but it’s not over yet.

  71. @LondonBob
    If Russia does now deliver the S300 it could be manned by Russians for this reason.

    Syria doesn’t need S300, more air-defense systems. There is already S400 in the country, and they never engage Israeli aircraft. The problem we have is a problem of willpower, lack of intestinal fortitude in the Kremlin. This is not for the lack of military capability.

  72. @iffen
    Chill Ivan, place the red button on the ground and step away.

    Chill Ivan

    I am not Russian if that’s what you are implying.
    Ivan is actually the second most popular male name in my country but I doubt you had that in mind.

    • Agree: iffen
  73. @iffen
    So it was probably a Syrian screwup.


    I see a pattern stretching from The Ukraine to Syria: Russian presence in a war zone, Russian missiles and air defenses, planes fall from the sky, some sort of "mistake."

    Soviet/Russian weapons systems are not as user friendly as American/Western ones, and so they require better trained crew than Western systems. This opens up the possibility of major screwups in the hands of badly trained incompetent crews.

    This is I think a major weakness of Russian/Soviet weapon systems, they look impressive on paper, and are great in the hands of competent and well trained crews, but the soft parameters of American systems make them more robust to the incompetence of their crews. They are also usually easier to maintain.

    • Replies: @iffen
    and are great in the hands of competent and well trained crews

    Maybe there was a catastrophic decline when smoothie left, heck, he might have taken all the how-to manuals.

    American systems make them more robust to the incompetence of their crews.


    And some people claim that dumbing down is a bad thing.
  74. @reiner Tor
    To be perfectly honest, I don't like Britons or Americans or most other English speaking peoples, but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.

    To be perfectly honest, I don’t like Britons or Americans or most other English speaking peoples, but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.

    I suppose one cannot really blame them for acting in their own self-interest, but this attitude of acting like we should be grateful to them for doing things that benefit them and having to often assert their superiority, whether in moral matters or the petty details of British housing is grating to me.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I agree, I have had my debates with DFH (and perhaps some other commenters) on those issues. Maybe with iffen about Americans, too.

    But you guys are carrying this too far.
    , @DFH

    but this attitude of acting like we should be grateful to them for doing things that benefit them and having to often assert their superiority, whether in moral matters or the petty details of British housing is grating to me
     
    I don't usually bring it up (at least not 9 times out of 10), I only respond to deranged anti-Anglo hatred and lies, which often have nothing to do with the topic at hand. The housing comment was in an open thread and was a joke.
  75. @Spisarevski
    Anatoly, you always try to be objective, you were so harsh after the Petrov/Boshirov interview (far too harsh imo) but here you act like this isn't the huge humiliation for Russia that it is.

    This was the cherry on top:

    Putin on Israel’s role in Il-20 downing: ‘Looks accidental, like chain of tragic circumstances’
     
    What a fucking cuck, holy shit.

    This is not about fighting Israel for the benefit of Syria or Iran. This is about being attacked and defending yourself.
    If 14 killed Russians is not enough (not to count the dozen/200 that Pompeo bragged about murdering) then how many Russians have to be killed?
    And if the answer is "all of them, we can't defend ourselves" then what are they doing there?

    Lob a few cruise missiles with tactical nukes on them without using the strategic arsenal and see who has escalation dominance.

    Putin’s response was strange to see now – to take away blame from Israel, even relative to the Turkey incident (which resulted far less deaths). Yet here a significant aviation disaster for the mission in Syria, with 15 airmen lost.

    Shoigu blamed Israel, while Putin then seems to contradict him.

    I guess one possibility, just Putin thinks there was no reason for Syrian S-200 to shoot down IL-20, in response to Israel’s F-16s.

    One is a large and slow turboprop, the other small and fast jets – so it’s not clear why they would shoot a turboprop, since it doesn’t have a similar radar signature to fighter jets.

    It’s Putin’s decision to allow Israeli airstrikes, or make an agreement to allow this (Israel’s airstrikes are happening with de facto his consent – S-400 operators are very close, and can shoot down the Israeli planes if they want anytime). It would have avoided the incident if the airstrikes (on Hezbollah or Iran) were not allowed.

    Also Putin’s decision was to allow Syria to fire the S-200s after the incidents, apparently without co-ordination with Russian aviation. It would have also avoided the incident if this was banned.

    For the current game to continue, and not to kill soldiers, requires nobody to make mistakes. For three years, it was like this with no deaths from these strikes, while rolling the dice every week starts to accumulate the risk.

    Putin’s views for Syria still a bit of mystery, if he has a real longterm plan. His response could be evidence in question if he was not unhappy that Israel was bombing Iran in Syria.

    • Replies: @Spisarevski

    Putin’s response was strange to see now
     
    Not if you remember how he invited Netanyahu as an honored guest on the May 9 parade at the same time as Israel released a video where they destroyed a Pantsir.

    https://i.imgur.com/wK3Ck7c.jpg
    , @El Dato

    I guess one possibility, just Putin thinks there was no reason for Syrian S-200 to shoot down IL-20, in response to Israel’s F-16s.

    One is a large and slow turboprop, the other small and fast jets – so it’s not clear why they would shoot a turboprop, since it doesn’t have a similar radar signature to fighter jets.
     
    Are S-200 autonomous in the targeting phase?
  76. @iffen
    Blaming Hitler for the present state of the world is simply wrong


    H. saved the Bolsheviks and created Israel so there's that.

    H. saved the Bolsheviks

    Mind explaining this one?

    • Replies: @iffen

    H. saved the Bolsheviks
     
    Mind explaining this one?

    They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them.
  77. @Hyperborean

    H. saved the Bolsheviks
     
    Mind explaining this one?

    H. saved the Bolsheviks

    Mind explaining this one?

    They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them.
     
    Why do you think so?
    , @notanon
    the German invasion pushed the Bolsheviks out of power
    , @ussr andy
    this is deranged.

    surely if X can survive war, X can survive peacetime.

    wartime tightening of the crews, circling of the wagons (if that's the argument) is a plus for stability, but one could likewise argue that having all your sh** bombed and millions of your people killed is a huge, huge minus.

    >running on fumes

    no, they weren't. all industrial indicators were going up. standards of living were going up. nor was there any crisis of legitimacy looming.
  78. @Hyperborean

    To be perfectly honest, I don’t like Britons or Americans or most other English speaking peoples, but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.
     
    I suppose one cannot really blame them for acting in their own self-interest, but this attitude of acting like we should be grateful to them for doing things that benefit them and having to often assert their superiority, whether in moral matters or the petty details of British housing is grating to me.

    I agree, I have had my debates with DFH (and perhaps some other commenters) on those issues. Maybe with iffen about Americans, too.

    But you guys are carrying this too far.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    But you guys are carrying this too far.
     
    Personally, I'd prefer if we all just agreed to drop the topic, it doesn't seem to be leading to anything all that productive.
  79. @iffen

    H. saved the Bolsheviks
     
    Mind explaining this one?

    They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them.

    They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them.

    Why do you think so?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Grave external threat. They were running on fumes by this time.
  80. @reiner Tor
    I agree, I have had my debates with DFH (and perhaps some other commenters) on those issues. Maybe with iffen about Americans, too.

    But you guys are carrying this too far.

    But you guys are carrying this too far.

    Personally, I’d prefer if we all just agreed to drop the topic, it doesn’t seem to be leading to anything all that productive.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  81. @reiner Tor
    Soviet/Russian weapons systems are not as user friendly as American/Western ones, and so they require better trained crew than Western systems. This opens up the possibility of major screwups in the hands of badly trained incompetent crews.

    This is I think a major weakness of Russian/Soviet weapon systems, they look impressive on paper, and are great in the hands of competent and well trained crews, but the soft parameters of American systems make them more robust to the incompetence of their crews. They are also usually easier to maintain.

    and are great in the hands of competent and well trained crews

    Maybe there was a catastrophic decline when smoothie left, heck, he might have taken all the how-to manuals.

    American systems make them more robust to the incompetence of their crews.

    And some people claim that dumbing down is a bad thing.

  82. Slightly OT but on the subject of Russian air tragedies.

    Is there still an on-going investigation into the December 2016 Tupolev Tu-154 crash that killed 92 people, including some military choir?

    The Wikipedia page doesn’t say. It only has preliminary analysis from the days immediately after the crash and mentions a May 2017 Kommersant report blaming pilot error. It was a big story at the time yet it has completely disappeared, at least, from non-Russian media.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The Russian commentators will need to look into this in Russian language sources.
    , @El Dato
    I just know that the MH-17 event was warmed up yesterday. Not sure whether the Russian dished good stuff on that or not or why it took them so long.
  83. @iffen

    H. saved the Bolsheviks
     
    Mind explaining this one?

    They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them.

    the German invasion pushed the Bolsheviks out of power

    • Replies: @iffen
    At least you are consistent: H. wasn't the bad guy and Stalin wasn't a Bolshevik.
  84. @Hyperborean

    To be perfectly honest, I don’t like Britons or Americans or most other English speaking peoples, but this constant Anglo-bashing is getting boring, and makes me inclined to defend them.
     
    I suppose one cannot really blame them for acting in their own self-interest, but this attitude of acting like we should be grateful to them for doing things that benefit them and having to often assert their superiority, whether in moral matters or the petty details of British housing is grating to me.

    but this attitude of acting like we should be grateful to them for doing things that benefit them and having to often assert their superiority, whether in moral matters or the petty details of British housing is grating to me

    I don’t usually bring it up (at least not 9 times out of 10), I only respond to deranged anti-Anglo hatred and lies, which often have nothing to do with the topic at hand. The housing comment was in an open thread and was a joke.

  85. @Hyperborean

    They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them.
     
    Why do you think so?

    Grave external threat. They were running on fumes by this time.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    Doesn't this assume that the Bolsheviks were more likely than not to come out of the Second World War alive?
  86. Israelis needs to be punished. Russia has been sooping up the s-200 systems, maybe it’s time to give them s-300. Israelis should pay next time they attack Syria.

    BTW, what was the point of this attack on Latakia? To damage infrastructure in Assad’s home turf? Just petty, no military purpose. Down with the Zionists!

  87. @notanon
    the German invasion pushed the Bolsheviks out of power

    At least you are consistent: H. wasn’t the bad guy and Stalin wasn’t a Bolshevik.

    • Replies: @notanon
    H was both a German chauvinist *and* someone who realized how deadly a threat the Bolsheviks were to everyone (including the Russians).
    , @neutral
    Stalin just wanted power, he latched on to whatever means one could get that power. Real (((Bolsheviks))) were about more than just power, they were true believers in their ideology.
  88. @iffen
    At least you are consistent: H. wasn't the bad guy and Stalin wasn't a Bolshevik.

    H was both a German chauvinist *and* someone who realized how deadly a threat the Bolsheviks were to everyone (including the Russians).

  89. @Anatoly Karlin
    This is correct.

    However, the broader reality is that, as opposed to the Ukraine, the Russian forces in Syria ultimately operate on the sufferance of Israel, Turkey, and the US. This was always part of the cost/benefits equation when getting into Syria. There is not much it can do except bluster since it does not have escalation dominance in that region.

    Not attacking Idlib is wise. I think you’ve posted data on this blog demonstrating that social attitudes, iq, demographics etc. are all really really undesirable, even for somewhere as backward as Syria. Reintegrating it will mean that it’s going to be a future source of instability, not to mention a potential flashpoint and source of gas attack allegations. Simply drawing a defacto border around it and writing on the map “here be dragons” seems like the best solution. The SAA must be totally bled out by now.

  90. i don’t know how likely this is but *if* the F16s were trying to make it look like the French ship was launching missiles to try and get Russia/Syria to fire on a NATO ship then you’d think at least some of the NATO captains in the vicinity would have figured it out and be pretty mad about it.

    • Replies: @El Dato

    then you’d think at least some of the NATO captains in the vicinity would have figured it out and be pretty mad about it
     
    Yeah, they are probably discreetly throwing up into their handkerchieves.
  91. @Dmitry
    Putin's response was strange to see now - to take away blame from Israel, even relative to the Turkey incident (which resulted far less deaths). Yet here a significant aviation disaster for the mission in Syria, with 15 airmen lost.

    Shoigu blamed Israel, while Putin then seems to contradict him.

    I guess one possibility, just Putin thinks there was no reason for Syrian S-200 to shoot down IL-20, in response to Israel's F-16s.

    One is a large and slow turboprop, the other small and fast jets - so it's not clear why they would shoot a turboprop, since it doesn't have a similar radar signature to fighter jets.

    It's Putin's decision to allow Israeli airstrikes, or make an agreement to allow this (Israel's airstrikes are happening with de facto his consent - S-400 operators are very close, and can shoot down the Israeli planes if they want anytime). It would have avoided the incident if the airstrikes (on Hezbollah or Iran) were not allowed.

    Also Putin's decision was to allow Syria to fire the S-200s after the incidents, apparently without co-ordination with Russian aviation. It would have also avoided the incident if this was banned.

    For the current game to continue, and not to kill soldiers, requires nobody to make mistakes. For three years, it was like this with no deaths from these strikes, while rolling the dice every week starts to accumulate the risk.

    Putin's views for Syria still a bit of mystery, if he has a real longterm plan. His response could be evidence in question if he was not unhappy that Israel was bombing Iran in Syria.

    Putin’s response was strange to see now

    Not if you remember how he invited Netanyahu as an honored guest on the May 9 parade at the same time as Israel released a video where they destroyed a Pantsir.

  92. Putin wasn’t going to rant and rave, the Israelis are trying to exploit the turmoil in the US and a weakened Trump ahead of the midterms. I would guess something like S300 delivery will go ahead for now. In theory this now makes Western intervention less likely, too associated with the Zionist cause. Israelis are acting out of desperation and Russia should not fall in to the trap.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    A riskier response would be blowing up some empty warehouses in Israel, while denying responsibility for it or blaming it on the Syrians.
  93. @Matra
    Slightly OT but on the subject of Russian air tragedies.

    Is there still an on-going investigation into the December 2016 Tupolev Tu-154 crash that killed 92 people, including some military choir?

    The Wikipedia page doesn't say. It only has preliminary analysis from the days immediately after the crash and mentions a May 2017 Kommersant report blaming pilot error. It was a big story at the time yet it has completely disappeared, at least, from non-Russian media.

    The Russian commentators will need to look into this in Russian language sources.

  94. @LondonBob
    Putin wasn't going to rant and rave, the Israelis are trying to exploit the turmoil in the US and a weakened Trump ahead of the midterms. I would guess something like S300 delivery will go ahead for now. In theory this now makes Western intervention less likely, too associated with the Zionist cause. Israelis are acting out of desperation and Russia should not fall in to the trap.

    A riskier response would be blowing up some empty warehouses in Israel, while denying responsibility for it or blaming it on the Syrians.

  95. @Dmitry
    F-16 and Il-20 have as different as possible radar signature from each other, so I (while not being a radar expert), do not understand how this mistake was even technically possible.

    F-16s hiding behind a plane with unrelated radar signature - but the planes should be very different from each other on the radar screen and easy to distinguish a large, slow turboprop plane, from small fast jets travelling in an opposite direction.

    -


    Here the official version:
    https://i.imgur.com/gv0uBVU.jpg

    This seems like reasonable analysis from the BBC.

    Russia’s anger is real. But the question is, are the Russians attributing blame fairly? The charges are two-fold. Long-standing and up to now effective information-sharing broke down.

    The Israeli Air Force has Russian-speaking air traffic controllers able to communicate with their Russian opposite numbers. But Moscow says they were informed of the Israeli raid with only one minute’s notice.

    Secondly, Russia charges – more seriously – that the Israelis used the large radar signature of the Ilyushin turbo-prop to mask their own aircraft.

    But the radar signatures of the relatively slow Ilyushin and four nimble F-16 jets are radically different.

    Furthermore, the Syrian air defences should have known the Russian plane was in-bound, whatever the Israelis were doing.

    There may be several contributory factors in this tragedy. Russia cannot publicly castigate its Syrian allies. In private things may be rather different.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-45563304

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    But the radar signatures of the relatively slow Ilyushin and four nimble F-16 jets are radically different.
     
    Yes, but it's not like it's impossible to shoot it down instead of the F-16s by mistake.
  96. @Tyrion 2
    This seems like reasonable analysis from the BBC.

    Russia's anger is real. But the question is, are the Russians attributing blame fairly? The charges are two-fold. Long-standing and up to now effective information-sharing broke down.

    The Israeli Air Force has Russian-speaking air traffic controllers able to communicate with their Russian opposite numbers. But Moscow says they were informed of the Israeli raid with only one minute's notice.

    Secondly, Russia charges - more seriously - that the Israelis used the large radar signature of the Ilyushin turbo-prop to mask their own aircraft.

    But the radar signatures of the relatively slow Ilyushin and four nimble F-16 jets are radically different.

    Furthermore, the Syrian air defences should have known the Russian plane was in-bound, whatever the Israelis were doing.

    There may be several contributory factors in this tragedy. Russia cannot publicly castigate its Syrian allies. In private things may be rather different.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-45563304

    But the radar signatures of the relatively slow Ilyushin and four nimble F-16 jets are radically different.

    Yes, but it’s not like it’s impossible to shoot it down instead of the F-16s by mistake.

  97. @notanon

    the Russian claim that the French launched missiles
     
    F16s firing missiles from low, close and behind a NATO ship to make it look like the missiles came from them - interesting they picked a French ship as the sacrifice for a potential Russian/Syrian counter attack. I wonder if Macron was told in advance so he could prepare his response to a bunch of dead French sailors?

    this scenario could be a possible motive for taking out the spy plane if its radars were specifically watching for that kind of operation (which they ought to have been after the last time)

    ça doit faire vachement mal au cul.

    Rappellez-vous de “La Liberté”.

  98. @notanon
    i don't know how likely this is but *if* the F16s were trying to make it look like the French ship was launching missiles to try and get Russia/Syria to fire on a NATO ship then you'd think at least some of the NATO captains in the vicinity would have figured it out and be pretty mad about it.

    then you’d think at least some of the NATO captains in the vicinity would have figured it out and be pretty mad about it

    Yeah, they are probably discreetly throwing up into their handkerchieves.

  99. @DFH
    More deranged Anglophobia

    Britain first has to assemble a motley assortment of continental allies and third world and colonial auxiliaries.
     

    Britain has usually fought against other European countries to protect its European allies, not in wars of agression like France and Germany. I guess this is a bad thing though, since anti-Anglos are usually all about fetishistic power worship of conquerors who killed millions of other Europeans like Napoleon or Hitler. Non-Anglo colonial forces have never played a significant part in a British war in Europe.

    It never fought its wars alone and with British soldiers dominating the war effort.
     
    Not true, there are the Peninsular War and the North Africa campaign in which British soldiers performed very well. I don't know what the point of this criticism is anyway. If you want to claim that British do not make good soldiers (which is incorrect), then just come out and say it. If you want to claim that Britain's allies did not benefit from their relationship and were somehow forced into war by Britain (also incorrect), then just come out and say it.

    The perfidious Eternal Anglo
     
    What exactly this perfidy consists of is never specified. Perfidious like promising not to annex Czechoslovakia and then annexing it?

    so they resort to bellicose statements, diplomat expulsions and other hot air.
     
    Sort of like how Russia (unfortunately, imo) cannot do anything to stop ZOG shooting down its planes?

    Are you kidding me? WW1 and WW2 only happened because of the meddling of the Anglo.

    And of course, as is typical of Anglos, they resorted to the cowardly divide and conquer tactics instead of getting their own hands dirty.

    • Replies: @El Dato

    WW1 and WW2 only happened because of the meddling of the Anglo
     
    Stop low-quality retarded trolling.
  100. @Matra
    Slightly OT but on the subject of Russian air tragedies.

    Is there still an on-going investigation into the December 2016 Tupolev Tu-154 crash that killed 92 people, including some military choir?

    The Wikipedia page doesn't say. It only has preliminary analysis from the days immediately after the crash and mentions a May 2017 Kommersant report blaming pilot error. It was a big story at the time yet it has completely disappeared, at least, from non-Russian media.

    I just know that the MH-17 event was warmed up yesterday. Not sure whether the Russian dished good stuff on that or not or why it took them so long.

  101. @Anonymous
    Are you kidding me? WW1 and WW2 only happened because of the meddling of the Anglo.

    And of course, as is typical of Anglos, they resorted to the cowardly divide and conquer tactics instead of getting their own hands dirty.

    WW1 and WW2 only happened because of the meddling of the Anglo

    Stop low-quality retarded trolling.

  102. Mark Sleboda is learning to despise Putin like every honest Russian nationalist:

  103. @Bukephalos
    veering off topic, but it's probably a sad thing in world history that British and British off-shoots came to dominate the world and not a continental power, eg France until and including the premier Empire, or any German or Russian derived empire.

    Napoléon in fact compared England to Carthage, and rightly so, even once he called them "a nation of shopkeepers". Was he a sore loser? Probably, the British exhibited genius time and again in empire-making, science and technology. Could have others pulled the industrial revolution, the French? Or some German polity? probably, but god knows how long that would have taken them. Where Napoléon was right is about the mercantile ethos of the Brits. They were always biased toward colonial exploitation, pillage instead of long-term rule and order. I see continuation of that in the US and how it deals with the world and its own population. And now this ideology is getting imposed on other people. Ancients Greeks and Romans saw the mercantile Carthaginians as lowly and dishonorable traders, not very different to how European nobles despised merchants and bourgeois centuries thereafter. I think it shows in today's global elites and their values.

    Completely agree. Anglos are worse than Jews.

    Their claim to fame is being devious and using divide and conquer tactics to defeat other countries.

    Only when Anglos have guns and they are fighting people with sticks will the Anglo show a fighting spirit.

    • Troll: reiner Tor
  104. @Dmitry
    Putin's response was strange to see now - to take away blame from Israel, even relative to the Turkey incident (which resulted far less deaths). Yet here a significant aviation disaster for the mission in Syria, with 15 airmen lost.

    Shoigu blamed Israel, while Putin then seems to contradict him.

    I guess one possibility, just Putin thinks there was no reason for Syrian S-200 to shoot down IL-20, in response to Israel's F-16s.

    One is a large and slow turboprop, the other small and fast jets - so it's not clear why they would shoot a turboprop, since it doesn't have a similar radar signature to fighter jets.

    It's Putin's decision to allow Israeli airstrikes, or make an agreement to allow this (Israel's airstrikes are happening with de facto his consent - S-400 operators are very close, and can shoot down the Israeli planes if they want anytime). It would have avoided the incident if the airstrikes (on Hezbollah or Iran) were not allowed.

    Also Putin's decision was to allow Syria to fire the S-200s after the incidents, apparently without co-ordination with Russian aviation. It would have also avoided the incident if this was banned.

    For the current game to continue, and not to kill soldiers, requires nobody to make mistakes. For three years, it was like this with no deaths from these strikes, while rolling the dice every week starts to accumulate the risk.

    Putin's views for Syria still a bit of mystery, if he has a real longterm plan. His response could be evidence in question if he was not unhappy that Israel was bombing Iran in Syria.

    I guess one possibility, just Putin thinks there was no reason for Syrian S-200 to shoot down IL-20, in response to Israel’s F-16s.

    One is a large and slow turboprop, the other small and fast jets – so it’s not clear why they would shoot a turboprop, since it doesn’t have a similar radar signature to fighter jets.

    Are S-200 autonomous in the targeting phase?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Target is determined and locked by the ground radar.

    Operators on the ground acquire the target and fire towards it.

    Missile's sensor just tracks passively the target which was locked by ground operators.

    So ground operator skill, and organization, to determine what target to shoot. Interface of S-200 is old, and obviously requires a lot of skill and training.


    -

    Even modern S-300 does not appear simple, once you see what the guys' are operating (obviously very effective with and dependent on skilled operators).


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT7CW179iOQ

    , @notanon
    the Ukrainian missile that shot down the airliner over the Black Sea in 2001 was apparently fired at a target decoy but when it missed the decoy it went after the airliner.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812
  105. @AP

    it’s probably a sad thing in world history that British and British off-shoots came to dominate the world and not a continental power, eg France
     
    France post Revolution, and much more so Russia post Revolution and Nazi Germany, were morally worse than the Anglo world. Germany under the monarchy and Austria-Hungary were better, as was Spain further back in time. Pre-revolutionary Russia was probably better.

    So it is not an accurate generalization to say that a continental power ultimately ruling and shaping the world would have been better than Anglo dominance. Robespierre and Napoleon unleashed mass political murder and nationalism, Bolshevism and Nazism were even worse.

    Anglos were actually the worst possible outcome for the world. Its true that other countries would not have ruled benevolently, but Anglos pushed for open borders and cowardly divide and conquer tactics.

    • Replies: @AP
    Worldwide Bolshevism or worldwide Nazism would have been worse than the current world.

    But the wrong side won World War I.
  106. Anonymous[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @notanon

    In other news, the long-assault on Idlib has been indefinitely postponed.
     
    skirpal/salisbury imo

    Not at all:

    a) Nusra/Qaeda/FSA could rally “public opinion” by staging gas attacks at any time and feeding the megaphone
    b) US could throw tantrums in the UN and then perform NATO-enhanced action because of “Responsibility to Protect” (the Truman is apparently moving in, too?)
    c) Turkey is happy with the status quo because Syria stays weak, Kurds stay weak. They seem to have influence with the Nusra/Qaeda so these are manageable, too. They sure hope there will be a piece of Syria for them to annex later in this game.
    d) Israel is ok with the situation as they keep an active force in Syria that can be reactivated at any time, so they can look after Iranian forces.
    e) Russia can pretend this is all an acceptable way of doing things.

  107. Anonymous[309] • Disclaimer says:
    @notanon
    as an ultra-anglo i kind of agree we messed up - creating the most powerful nations in world history and then letting them be hijacked by a banking mafia who want to turn all the most impressive nations into 85 IQ slave cattle. personally i see it as a duty to make things right but i understand if people are mad.

    however you're not going to survive without us cos we're the only people who are both smart enough and savage enough to out play the bad guys.

    Haha. Funny thought.

    Actually, the world will never be unfucked until it gets rid of the Anglo problem.

    Anglos were not hijacked by the banking mafia. They ARE the banking mafia.

    And please stop with the whole savageness. Anglos are cowards and o ly get their hands dirty when they bomb goat herders or shoot up some spear chuckers.

  108. @DFH
    English people are not Jews though. A fatal flaw in your argument. After Jews, French have contributed significantly more to 'global SJW ideology' than English people anyway.

    Anglos are Jewish enablers. Other feed off of each other. Nice try Anglo trash. Fix your teeth and stop your grooming problem.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Please don't feed Anonymous[309], if possible.
  109. @Anonymous
    Anglos are Jewish enablers. Other feed off of each other. Nice try Anglo trash. Fix your teeth and stop your grooming problem.

    Please don’t feed Anonymous[309], if possible.

  110. @El Dato

    I guess one possibility, just Putin thinks there was no reason for Syrian S-200 to shoot down IL-20, in response to Israel’s F-16s.

    One is a large and slow turboprop, the other small and fast jets – so it’s not clear why they would shoot a turboprop, since it doesn’t have a similar radar signature to fighter jets.
     
    Are S-200 autonomous in the targeting phase?

    Target is determined and locked by the ground radar.

    Operators on the ground acquire the target and fire towards it.

    Missile’s sensor just tracks passively the target which was locked by ground operators.

    So ground operator skill, and organization, to determine what target to shoot. Interface of S-200 is old, and obviously requires a lot of skill and training.

    Even modern S-300 does not appear simple, once you see what the guys’ are operating (obviously very effective with and dependent on skilled operators).

  111. @iffen
    At least you are consistent: H. wasn't the bad guy and Stalin wasn't a Bolshevik.

    Stalin just wanted power, he latched on to whatever means one could get that power. Real (((Bolsheviks))) were about more than just power, they were true believers in their ideology.

  112. @Anonymous
    Anglos were actually the worst possible outcome for the world. Its true that other countries would not have ruled benevolently, but Anglos pushed for open borders and cowardly divide and conquer tactics.

    Worldwide Bolshevism or worldwide Nazism would have been worse than the current world.

    But the wrong side won World War I.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Worldwide Bolshevism or worldwide Nazism would have been worse than the current world.
     
    It's possible that there'll be no more countries with a majority white population by 2150. This would not be the case with worldwide Nazism (and probably not with worldwide Bolshevism). From a genetic interests viewpoint, these might be better than what will happen soon.

    In my previous example, you have some brothers, and you have two alternate realities. In one, one of your brothers murders you and your other brothers and sisters, but then will have lots of descendants, so it could be considered good for the family as a whole. Or you can prevent your brother from murdering any of your other brothers or sisters, but then none of you will have descendants at all. Which is better for the family, long term? You might easily argue that the first one would be better, long term.
  113. @El Dato

    I guess one possibility, just Putin thinks there was no reason for Syrian S-200 to shoot down IL-20, in response to Israel’s F-16s.

    One is a large and slow turboprop, the other small and fast jets – so it’s not clear why they would shoot a turboprop, since it doesn’t have a similar radar signature to fighter jets.
     
    Are S-200 autonomous in the targeting phase?

    the Ukrainian missile that shot down the airliner over the Black Sea in 2001 was apparently fired at a target decoy but when it missed the decoy it went after the airliner.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It should've self-destructed, but instead went hundreds of kilometers farther.
  114. @Epigon
    The same people who orchestrated the Turkish downing of Su-24 are responsible for this.

    You lot were definitely among the knee-jerk crowd wanting to go to war with Turkey.

    Russia operates in hostile surrondings yet achieves its geopolitical goals. Death of 15 Russian servicemen is a tragedy, but far there are far higher stakes here.

    I think the difference is that after the downing of the Su-24 Russia was winning, and winning hard. There was very little Turkey (or NATO, or anyone else) was going to do about it (with Obama being more risk-averse than Trump, and his relationship with Netanyahu strained to the extreme), the Russians and Assad were going to slowly destroy the American/Israeli/Turkish/Saudi proxies in Syria.

    Now the situation is different: with most of the rebel strongholds destroyed, and the fragile alliance with Turkey, it’s now difficult for Russia to gain further ground. Therefore, you cannot simply respond with the usual “well, they managed to down one airplane, but we’re winning the war” answer. Because that is only true if Idlib is destroyed, but that is likely going to push Turkey back into the NATO fold.

    This is good on one hand (it means Russia now has much stronger hands – Turkey might be lost for the US as an ally, the Syrian war is almost fully won), but it’s also bad on the other hand – Russia’s lack of response now looks like weakness, and I’d argue looking weak is worse to Russia than an objective strength. If war breaks out with the US, or even with only Israel, it won’t matter how many Syrian provinces will be under Assad’s control. It might not even matter if Turkey will stay neutral in that. Realistically, it won’t be an ally.

    So Russia cannot leave Syria without showing significant weakness. It cannot respond to Israeli or American strikes by destroying further jihadi groupings.

    Therefore, now it now has the following options:

    1) respond militarily against Israel or the US or other NATO members in theater; this is highly unappealing and risky
    2) start shooting down Israeli (American, etc.) planes participating in strikes; risky, and highly unappealing, too
    3) respond militarily elsewhere – most notably, Ukraine (I think occupying Ukraine would be a mistake – the population is hostile, so Russia would get bogged down without any big benefit; however, airstrikes on Ukraine’s blossoming military and military industry, or even fully destroying it before it could be strong enough to retaliate, might be an option; perhaps annexing a few border regions with friendlier population, if there’s any such region) (full disclosure: I don’t really like the idea from my own perspective, it’d obviously be bad for Hungary, but from a purely Russian perspective it might make sense to arrest and reverse the modernization and growth of Ukraine’s military, while also making good PR for Russian weapons and bad PR for Americans); this option contains some risks of its own (e.g. it can only be a response to an American, but not an Israeli attack; the perception might be of a separate aggression as opposed to a response to events in Syria)
    4) no response (what it’s doing right now), but it risks a nuclear war later down the road (because the neocons will keep pushing against what they perceive to be Russian weakness)

    Is there anything else?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Needless to say, none of the four options look particularly appealing to Putin, who would really be happy with a Cold War Two, where he would have his own sphere of influence. But the Americans won't let him have it - so he needs to make the Americans (and of course Israelis) respect him, so he needs to create a perception of a combination of strength and craziness, all that without blowing up himself and the world in a nuclear war.

    Basically the big problem is neocon craziness and ideology, which doesn't allow American diplomats and politicians think and talk in terms of interests (except those of America), spheres of influence (except perhaps for American allies, otherwise the whole world is considered an American sphere of influence), rules (except when it comes to America's adversaries who should abide by them, but never America or its allies when acting with American permission), etc.

    , @Swedish Family

    3) respond militarily elsewhere – most notably, Ukraine (I think occupying Ukraine would be a mistake – the population is hostile, so Russia would get bogged down without any big benefit; however, airstrikes on Ukraine’s blossoming military and military industry, or even fully destroying it before it could be strong enough to retaliate, might be an option; perhaps annexing a few border regions with friendlier population, if there’s any such region) (full disclosure: I don’t really like the idea from my own perspective, it’d obviously be bad for Hungary, but from a purely Russian perspective it might make sense to arrest and reverse the modernization and growth of Ukraine’s military, while also making good PR for Russian weapons and bad PR for Americans); this option contains some risks of its own (e.g. it can only be a response to an American, but not an Israeli attack; the perception might be of a separate aggression as opposed to a response to events in Syria)
     
    I'm interested to hear what our Russian commenters think of this scenario. To my mind, Russia will be forced to start bombing, sooner rather than later, critical Ukrainian military infrastructure the way Israel is bombing Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Anything less would be negligence on Kremlin's part.
    , @Dmitry
    In relation to response, it's not clear quite what their private position of the cause of this incident is.

    We know two different public ones. So far Shoigu says publicly one thing, and Putin says publicly a different one. Shoigu says it's Israel's blame, and Putin says it's not Israel's blame.

    Which of the two is what they actually think happened in the incident, and which is for public consumption? Or is the private position a synthesis of the two statements, or something different. This probably we can't really know, but maybe will learn by watching what happens in the next year.

    -
    .
    As for Ukraine, Hungary, etc, - I don't see your large connection to the topics. But then I do not read the kind of websites which want to place everything into a large narrative of superpower conflict.

    Unlike Ukraine, which was outside of control and damage limitation - the Syria mission was conceived to be simple and cost-effective mission abroad. But it was promised to be short. As I remember, it was only bombing jihadists and becoming a more respected international partner.

    A lot of this was following a law of diminishing returns. In the first year there was a huge rise in military prestige in that region, and demonstration of military technology. But since those opening months, there are diminishing returns.

    So far, the numbers of dead are still very small by war standards , even including the Tu-154 crash. But the potential benefit of the conflict, also not seeming not large or exciting.

    As for Israel's position, obviously this is a miniature disaster as their operations over this area depend on Russian generosity and permission.

    But it's Yom Kippur in Israel today. And I think their offices don't open until next Sunday (I could be wrong). So not much information will be released from them, until their holiday is over.

    As for Syria's position. This could either be good, or bad from their view, depending on whether privately they are seen as innocent for the shooting down, or blamed for shooting down. (Although in the end there is no utility in blaming them from Putin's view).

    , @Jon0815

    3) respond militarily elsewhere – most notably, Ukraine
     
    In Ukraine, at a minimum Russia should do what it should have done years ago: Recognize the DLNR, and stop Kiev's terror-shelling, either by allowing the DLNR to join Russia, or by airstrikes against Ukrainian artillery.
  115. @AP
    Worldwide Bolshevism or worldwide Nazism would have been worse than the current world.

    But the wrong side won World War I.

    Worldwide Bolshevism or worldwide Nazism would have been worse than the current world.

    It’s possible that there’ll be no more countries with a majority white population by 2150. This would not be the case with worldwide Nazism (and probably not with worldwide Bolshevism). From a genetic interests viewpoint, these might be better than what will happen soon.

    In my previous example, you have some brothers, and you have two alternate realities. In one, one of your brothers murders you and your other brothers and sisters, but then will have lots of descendants, so it could be considered good for the family as a whole. Or you can prevent your brother from murdering any of your other brothers or sisters, but then none of you will have descendants at all. Which is better for the family, long term? You might easily argue that the first one would be better, long term.

    • Replies: @AP

    It’s possible that there’ll be no more countries with a majority white population by 2150
     
    Very doubtful, because other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Moreover in this case it is not that none of us has descendants at all, rather that our descendants, while still existing, will simply be outnumbered by other peoples' descendants. Or will be mixed with them so they don't look a lot like us, while nevertheless still being our descendants.

    If Nazis dominated the globe, there would be far fewer European people - tens of millions of Slavs would be gone; taking onto account them not having descendants, this would probably be over 200 million fewer Europeans in the 21st century than in our current reality. Would that price be worth it, to contain Arabs and Africans in their own homelands?

    If Bolshevism took over, the death rates would be lower. But fertility would still decline in that oppressive grey reality , and Bolshevism loved the Third World so who knows how it would have been with immigration, wealth transfers, etc.
  116. @notanon
    the Ukrainian missile that shot down the airliner over the Black Sea in 2001 was apparently fired at a target decoy but when it missed the decoy it went after the airliner.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

    It should’ve self-destructed, but instead went hundreds of kilometers farther.

    • Replies: @notanon
    yes, you'd think so - they might be lying about missing the decoy but if they're not it implies the missile had some kind of backup targeting for such a situation and locked onto the airliner by itself.

    if correct and people know about it then "hiding" behind a larger plane might not really be about hiding per se as the AA might still be able to see you - it might be more to do with making yourself too risky a target to shoot at in case the missile goes for the bigger plane instead.
  117. @reiner Tor
    I think the difference is that after the downing of the Su-24 Russia was winning, and winning hard. There was very little Turkey (or NATO, or anyone else) was going to do about it (with Obama being more risk-averse than Trump, and his relationship with Netanyahu strained to the extreme), the Russians and Assad were going to slowly destroy the American/Israeli/Turkish/Saudi proxies in Syria.

    Now the situation is different: with most of the rebel strongholds destroyed, and the fragile alliance with Turkey, it's now difficult for Russia to gain further ground. Therefore, you cannot simply respond with the usual "well, they managed to down one airplane, but we're winning the war" answer. Because that is only true if Idlib is destroyed, but that is likely going to push Turkey back into the NATO fold.

    This is good on one hand (it means Russia now has much stronger hands - Turkey might be lost for the US as an ally, the Syrian war is almost fully won), but it's also bad on the other hand - Russia's lack of response now looks like weakness, and I'd argue looking weak is worse to Russia than an objective strength. If war breaks out with the US, or even with only Israel, it won't matter how many Syrian provinces will be under Assad's control. It might not even matter if Turkey will stay neutral in that. Realistically, it won't be an ally.

    So Russia cannot leave Syria without showing significant weakness. It cannot respond to Israeli or American strikes by destroying further jihadi groupings.

    Therefore, now it now has the following options:

    1) respond militarily against Israel or the US or other NATO members in theater; this is highly unappealing and risky
    2) start shooting down Israeli (American, etc.) planes participating in strikes; risky, and highly unappealing, too
    3) respond militarily elsewhere - most notably, Ukraine (I think occupying Ukraine would be a mistake - the population is hostile, so Russia would get bogged down without any big benefit; however, airstrikes on Ukraine's blossoming military and military industry, or even fully destroying it before it could be strong enough to retaliate, might be an option; perhaps annexing a few border regions with friendlier population, if there's any such region) (full disclosure: I don't really like the idea from my own perspective, it'd obviously be bad for Hungary, but from a purely Russian perspective it might make sense to arrest and reverse the modernization and growth of Ukraine's military, while also making good PR for Russian weapons and bad PR for Americans); this option contains some risks of its own (e.g. it can only be a response to an American, but not an Israeli attack; the perception might be of a separate aggression as opposed to a response to events in Syria)
    4) no response (what it's doing right now), but it risks a nuclear war later down the road (because the neocons will keep pushing against what they perceive to be Russian weakness)

    Is there anything else?

    Needless to say, none of the four options look particularly appealing to Putin, who would really be happy with a Cold War Two, where he would have his own sphere of influence. But the Americans won’t let him have it – so he needs to make the Americans (and of course Israelis) respect him, so he needs to create a perception of a combination of strength and craziness, all that without blowing up himself and the world in a nuclear war.

    Basically the big problem is neocon craziness and ideology, which doesn’t allow American diplomats and politicians think and talk in terms of interests (except those of America), spheres of influence (except perhaps for American allies, otherwise the whole world is considered an American sphere of influence), rules (except when it comes to America’s adversaries who should abide by them, but never America or its allies when acting with American permission), etc.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It must be noted that the Americans weren't that crazy or ideologically driven during Cold War One.
    , @iffen
    spheres of influence (except perhaps for American allies, otherwise the whole world is considered an American sphere of influence), rules (except when it comes to America’s adversaries who should abide by them, but never America or its allies when acting with American permission), etc.


    Agree.
    , @iffen
    Why didn't you get into the comments on the Johnstone piece?
  118. @reiner Tor
    Needless to say, none of the four options look particularly appealing to Putin, who would really be happy with a Cold War Two, where he would have his own sphere of influence. But the Americans won't let him have it - so he needs to make the Americans (and of course Israelis) respect him, so he needs to create a perception of a combination of strength and craziness, all that without blowing up himself and the world in a nuclear war.

    Basically the big problem is neocon craziness and ideology, which doesn't allow American diplomats and politicians think and talk in terms of interests (except those of America), spheres of influence (except perhaps for American allies, otherwise the whole world is considered an American sphere of influence), rules (except when it comes to America's adversaries who should abide by them, but never America or its allies when acting with American permission), etc.

    It must be noted that the Americans weren’t that crazy or ideologically driven during Cold War One.

  119. @reiner Tor
    It should've self-destructed, but instead went hundreds of kilometers farther.

    yes, you’d think so – they might be lying about missing the decoy but if they’re not it implies the missile had some kind of backup targeting for such a situation and locked onto the airliner by itself.

    if correct and people know about it then “hiding” behind a larger plane might not really be about hiding per se as the AA might still be able to see you – it might be more to do with making yourself too risky a target to shoot at in case the missile goes for the bigger plane instead.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Of course, that's a big part of "hiding." But it's also possible to stay behind a bigger plane without being noticed, but of course it's impossible if the enemy has multiple radars and air defense batteries at multiple locations.
    , @reiner Tor
    The missile was designed to self-destruct within a certain distance, precisely to avoid shooting down friendly or neutral planes hundreds of kilometers away, but for some reason it didn't work.
    , @Dmitry
    The missile is not designed to fly to larger targets which were not locked originally. This would make it militarily useless. It's designed to follow target (and track) which is locked by ground operators.

    But it's very old especially in terms of its interface (it is not a modern computer screen), which probably required a lot of training in the past. In a sophisticated air defense network, they would also receive information from lots of other sources than just their own radar.
  120. @notanon
    yes, you'd think so - they might be lying about missing the decoy but if they're not it implies the missile had some kind of backup targeting for such a situation and locked onto the airliner by itself.

    if correct and people know about it then "hiding" behind a larger plane might not really be about hiding per se as the AA might still be able to see you - it might be more to do with making yourself too risky a target to shoot at in case the missile goes for the bigger plane instead.

    Of course, that’s a big part of “hiding.” But it’s also possible to stay behind a bigger plane without being noticed, but of course it’s impossible if the enemy has multiple radars and air defense batteries at multiple locations.

  121. @notanon
    yes, you'd think so - they might be lying about missing the decoy but if they're not it implies the missile had some kind of backup targeting for such a situation and locked onto the airliner by itself.

    if correct and people know about it then "hiding" behind a larger plane might not really be about hiding per se as the AA might still be able to see you - it might be more to do with making yourself too risky a target to shoot at in case the missile goes for the bigger plane instead.

    The missile was designed to self-destruct within a certain distance, precisely to avoid shooting down friendly or neutral planes hundreds of kilometers away, but for some reason it didn’t work.

    • Replies: @notanon
    right but what are the odds it missed its target and then hit another plane 100 of km away by accident?

    unless i'm missing something it seems to me they must have either targeted the wrong plane from the beginning or the missile had an independent tracking system which kicked in after it missed the decoy?
  122. @reiner Tor
    The missile was designed to self-destruct within a certain distance, precisely to avoid shooting down friendly or neutral planes hundreds of kilometers away, but for some reason it didn't work.

    right but what are the odds it missed its target and then hit another plane 100 of km away by accident?

    unless i’m missing something it seems to me they must have either targeted the wrong plane from the beginning or the missile had an independent tracking system which kicked in after it missed the decoy?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Locking a target is not magic. The missile's computer is also not particularly smart. For all sorts of reasons it might mistake a target several kilometers away for a nearby target. (In a very bad case, especially with an obsolete missile, the new, false target might even be hundreds of kilometers away, like with the missile in your example.) It's not very smart, so it'll "think" that it's still pursuing its original target. (It won't think anything at all, it's just a shorthand. It'll just behave as if it was still pursuing the original target, even though it isn't.)

    If all else is equal, more modern missiles will make such mistakes much less frequently than older missiles.
  123. @reiner Tor
    I think the difference is that after the downing of the Su-24 Russia was winning, and winning hard. There was very little Turkey (or NATO, or anyone else) was going to do about it (with Obama being more risk-averse than Trump, and his relationship with Netanyahu strained to the extreme), the Russians and Assad were going to slowly destroy the American/Israeli/Turkish/Saudi proxies in Syria.

    Now the situation is different: with most of the rebel strongholds destroyed, and the fragile alliance with Turkey, it's now difficult for Russia to gain further ground. Therefore, you cannot simply respond with the usual "well, they managed to down one airplane, but we're winning the war" answer. Because that is only true if Idlib is destroyed, but that is likely going to push Turkey back into the NATO fold.

    This is good on one hand (it means Russia now has much stronger hands - Turkey might be lost for the US as an ally, the Syrian war is almost fully won), but it's also bad on the other hand - Russia's lack of response now looks like weakness, and I'd argue looking weak is worse to Russia than an objective strength. If war breaks out with the US, or even with only Israel, it won't matter how many Syrian provinces will be under Assad's control. It might not even matter if Turkey will stay neutral in that. Realistically, it won't be an ally.

    So Russia cannot leave Syria without showing significant weakness. It cannot respond to Israeli or American strikes by destroying further jihadi groupings.

    Therefore, now it now has the following options:

    1) respond militarily against Israel or the US or other NATO members in theater; this is highly unappealing and risky
    2) start shooting down Israeli (American, etc.) planes participating in strikes; risky, and highly unappealing, too
    3) respond militarily elsewhere - most notably, Ukraine (I think occupying Ukraine would be a mistake - the population is hostile, so Russia would get bogged down without any big benefit; however, airstrikes on Ukraine's blossoming military and military industry, or even fully destroying it before it could be strong enough to retaliate, might be an option; perhaps annexing a few border regions with friendlier population, if there's any such region) (full disclosure: I don't really like the idea from my own perspective, it'd obviously be bad for Hungary, but from a purely Russian perspective it might make sense to arrest and reverse the modernization and growth of Ukraine's military, while also making good PR for Russian weapons and bad PR for Americans); this option contains some risks of its own (e.g. it can only be a response to an American, but not an Israeli attack; the perception might be of a separate aggression as opposed to a response to events in Syria)
    4) no response (what it's doing right now), but it risks a nuclear war later down the road (because the neocons will keep pushing against what they perceive to be Russian weakness)

    Is there anything else?

    3) respond militarily elsewhere – most notably, Ukraine (I think occupying Ukraine would be a mistake – the population is hostile, so Russia would get bogged down without any big benefit; however, airstrikes on Ukraine’s blossoming military and military industry, or even fully destroying it before it could be strong enough to retaliate, might be an option; perhaps annexing a few border regions with friendlier population, if there’s any such region) (full disclosure: I don’t really like the idea from my own perspective, it’d obviously be bad for Hungary, but from a purely Russian perspective it might make sense to arrest and reverse the modernization and growth of Ukraine’s military, while also making good PR for Russian weapons and bad PR for Americans); this option contains some risks of its own (e.g. it can only be a response to an American, but not an Israeli attack; the perception might be of a separate aggression as opposed to a response to events in Syria)

    I’m interested to hear what our Russian commenters think of this scenario. To my mind, Russia will be forced to start bombing, sooner rather than later, critical Ukrainian military infrastructure the way Israel is bombing Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Anything less would be negligence on Kremlin’s part.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I don't like that scenario much (though there are some nationalistic squabbles with Ukraine, so I wouldn't be totally unhappy either), but anyway, from a purely Russian perspective, I think it makes sense.

    It also needs to be done more openly, to build up "street cred." Israel or the US never deny their illegal aggressions.

    , @notanon
    i don't think they should do anything in Ukraine cos the neocons don't care about Ukraine. imo the only reason they made a coup was to grab the naval base and then offer to give it back in exchange for Russia ditching Syria.

    i think they would be better off looking for ways to squeeze the financial assets of the US elite - tit for tat.

    (longer term they should also be looking into creating a samizdat internet where Swedes can talk to Swedes without censorship and Germans can talk to Germans etc as this is largely an information war and the bad guys are trying to shut down all sources of information they don't control.)
  124. @notanon
    yes, you'd think so - they might be lying about missing the decoy but if they're not it implies the missile had some kind of backup targeting for such a situation and locked onto the airliner by itself.

    if correct and people know about it then "hiding" behind a larger plane might not really be about hiding per se as the AA might still be able to see you - it might be more to do with making yourself too risky a target to shoot at in case the missile goes for the bigger plane instead.

    The missile is not designed to fly to larger targets which were not locked originally. This would make it militarily useless. It’s designed to follow target (and track) which is locked by ground operators.

    But it’s very old especially in terms of its interface (it is not a modern computer screen), which probably required a lot of training in the past. In a sophisticated air defense network, they would also receive information from lots of other sources than just their own radar.

    • Replies: @notanon
    right but if a missile without an independent targeting system misses its target and flies in a straight line until it runs out of fuel what are the odds of it hitting another plane hundreds of km away?

    although either way it may not be relevant to the current situation.
  125. @notanon
    right but what are the odds it missed its target and then hit another plane 100 of km away by accident?

    unless i'm missing something it seems to me they must have either targeted the wrong plane from the beginning or the missile had an independent tracking system which kicked in after it missed the decoy?

    Locking a target is not magic. The missile’s computer is also not particularly smart. For all sorts of reasons it might mistake a target several kilometers away for a nearby target. (In a very bad case, especially with an obsolete missile, the new, false target might even be hundreds of kilometers away, like with the missile in your example.) It’s not very smart, so it’ll “think” that it’s still pursuing its original target. (It won’t think anything at all, it’s just a shorthand. It’ll just behave as if it was still pursuing the original target, even though it isn’t.)

    If all else is equal, more modern missiles will make such mistakes much less frequently than older missiles.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    I agree.

    Now would be a great time for Russia to help Syria upgrade their anti-aircraft missile systems.
  126. @Dmitry
    The missile is not designed to fly to larger targets which were not locked originally. This would make it militarily useless. It's designed to follow target (and track) which is locked by ground operators.

    But it's very old especially in terms of its interface (it is not a modern computer screen), which probably required a lot of training in the past. In a sophisticated air defense network, they would also receive information from lots of other sources than just their own radar.

    right but if a missile without an independent targeting system misses its target and flies in a straight line until it runs out of fuel what are the odds of it hitting another plane hundreds of km away?

    although either way it may not be relevant to the current situation.

  127. @Swedish Family

    3) respond militarily elsewhere – most notably, Ukraine (I think occupying Ukraine would be a mistake – the population is hostile, so Russia would get bogged down without any big benefit; however, airstrikes on Ukraine’s blossoming military and military industry, or even fully destroying it before it could be strong enough to retaliate, might be an option; perhaps annexing a few border regions with friendlier population, if there’s any such region) (full disclosure: I don’t really like the idea from my own perspective, it’d obviously be bad for Hungary, but from a purely Russian perspective it might make sense to arrest and reverse the modernization and growth of Ukraine’s military, while also making good PR for Russian weapons and bad PR for Americans); this option contains some risks of its own (e.g. it can only be a response to an American, but not an Israeli attack; the perception might be of a separate aggression as opposed to a response to events in Syria)
     
    I'm interested to hear what our Russian commenters think of this scenario. To my mind, Russia will be forced to start bombing, sooner rather than later, critical Ukrainian military infrastructure the way Israel is bombing Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Anything less would be negligence on Kremlin's part.

    I don’t like that scenario much (though there are some nationalistic squabbles with Ukraine, so I wouldn’t be totally unhappy either), but anyway, from a purely Russian perspective, I think it makes sense.

    It also needs to be done more openly, to build up “street cred.” Israel or the US never deny their illegal aggressions.

    • Replies: @AP
    Depends on how extreme these strikes would be. Ukraine is not completely defenseless anymore. If it comes to complete destruction of Ukraine's military - several large Russian cities and bases are within range of Ukrainian missiles, not to mention the possibility of all sorts of asymmetrical retaliation (if Russia were to bomb to death 10,000s of Ukrainian soldiers who can guarantee that a dirty bomb won't erase central Moscow or St. Petersburg). I suspect that some among Russia's Western "partners", as Putin calls them, would not mind such an endgame.
  128. @reiner Tor

    Worldwide Bolshevism or worldwide Nazism would have been worse than the current world.
     
    It's possible that there'll be no more countries with a majority white population by 2150. This would not be the case with worldwide Nazism (and probably not with worldwide Bolshevism). From a genetic interests viewpoint, these might be better than what will happen soon.

    In my previous example, you have some brothers, and you have two alternate realities. In one, one of your brothers murders you and your other brothers and sisters, but then will have lots of descendants, so it could be considered good for the family as a whole. Or you can prevent your brother from murdering any of your other brothers or sisters, but then none of you will have descendants at all. Which is better for the family, long term? You might easily argue that the first one would be better, long term.

    It’s possible that there’ll be no more countries with a majority white population by 2150

    Very doubtful, because other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Moreover in this case it is not that none of us has descendants at all, rather that our descendants, while still existing, will simply be outnumbered by other peoples’ descendants. Or will be mixed with them so they don’t look a lot like us, while nevertheless still being our descendants.

    If Nazis dominated the globe, there would be far fewer European people – tens of millions of Slavs would be gone; taking onto account them not having descendants, this would probably be over 200 million fewer Europeans in the 21st century than in our current reality. Would that price be worth it, to contain Arabs and Africans in their own homelands?

    If Bolshevism took over, the death rates would be lower. But fertility would still decline in that oppressive grey reality , and Bolshevism loved the Third World so who knows how it would have been with immigration, wealth transfers, etc.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    If Bolshevism took over, the death rates would be lower. But fertility would still decline in that oppressive grey reality , and Bolshevism loved the Third World so who knows how it would have been with immigration, wealth transfers, etc.
     
    It is hard to know how the Communist regimes would have reacted to things further in the future, but it should be noted that while they spent a lot of money on hopeless revolutionary regimes abroad there was very little permanent immigration to the USSR and its satellites and the popular opinion of Europeans would in this hypothetical future be a lot less positive towards immigration.
    , @RadicalCenter
    If it’s doubtful that there will be no countries with a majority of people who are white Anglos or Europeans — even broadly construing white to include “mostly white” and broadly construing Europe — which country seems unlikely to be majority nonwhite 40 years from now?

    England or the UK? Certainly not.
    France? No way.
    Germany? Changing fast, and pace of Change likely to be faster soon.
    Sweden?
    Netherlands? Belgium? Greece?

    Canada is well on its way to being a mess of Chinese (five percent and rising, especially in BC but in several other provinces too), Indians and Punjabis and Pakistanis (four percent and rising, especially in BC), Filipinos (approaching three percent amid BOOMING growth), and a minority of whites. Outside BC, Toronto, and Montreal, Canada is still pretty white, but ALL the of the rapid net population growth nationally comes from nonwhites. ALL.

    Australia looks to be headed for a terribly Chinese and Indian demographic future.

    Perhaps some small Eastern European countries and perhaps Russia (though Russia has long been mixed, if predominantly white euro, different from the others). But that’s uncertain too.

    , @Hmm
    Whites are projected to drop to 5-6 percent of the world population in 2100 from near 30 percent in 1950.
    Muslim birth rate is stable and is not dropping (3,1 world wide, 2,6 in Europe). So african amd muslim population is projected to srongly increase world wide.

    White tfr is 1,6 world wide which means that whites are going away.

    Whites to become minority in the US in 2045.
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/

    Whites to drop to 20 % of Canada‘s population in 2100.
    https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/douglas-todd-almost-7-in-10-metro-residents-will-be-non-white-in-two-decades

    Almost 30 per cent of pupils in UK state primary schools and around 25 per cent of pupils at secondary schools are classified as being from a minority ethnic group.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620957/Ethnic-minorities-make-one-population-2050-Britains-melting-pot-continues-grow.html

    Whites to become minority in Britain by the 2060s
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3613682/RIP-Britain-academic-objectivity-Oxford-Professor-DAVID-COLEMAN-one-country-s-population-experts-says-white-Britons-minority-late-2060s-sooner-current-immigration-trends-continue.html

    Whites to become minority in Sweden in 2066.
    https://gefira.org/en/2018/07/27/sweden-will-remain-sweden-but-in-name/

    Whites to become minority in Italy in 2080.
    https://gefira.org/en/2018/01/18/the-incredibly-shrinking-italian-population-by-2080-italians-will-be-a-minority-in-their-own-country/

    Whites will be one third of Australia‘s population in 2090.
    http://www.ironbarkresources.com/asia/asia104.htm

    Whites are already a minority of newborn in New Zealand
    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/whites-are-becoming-a-minority-in-new-zealand/

    Non-whites are 39 % of newborn in France
    http://diversitymachtfrei.blogspot.com/2016/09/sickle-cell-data-shows-genocide-of.html

    More than one in 3 people of the world population will be muslim in 2100, while Islam will become the world’s largest religion in 2070.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3023597/Muslims-outnumber-Christians-worldwide-2070-Islam-major-religion-increase-faster-worlds-population.html


    Blacks in Africa are to become 4 billion people and to comprise 35,7 % of the world population in 2100.

    https://imgur.com/a/MHE0yI7

    There will be more arabs than whites, nearly 1 billion vs probably 700 – 800 million (very old) whites in 2100.

    White numbers are declining in Latin America too.

    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/white-people-are-declining-in-latin-america-too/

    It is important to note that whites becoming 50 % of the population in a certain country underestimates the real situation, as those 50 % whites will be mostly old people compared to 50 % non-whites comprised of mostly young people who will be already the majority in schools.

    In other words, the world in 2100 is projected to be mostly black, muslim and indian. This will be very different world from today.

    , @reiner Tor
    I guess you haven't read Frank Salter's On Genetic Interests.

    Basically, for territorial human groups, genetic interests are best served by controlling as large a territory as possible. They can always increase their numbers to the carrying capacity of the land, or decrease it to provide nicer living standards for themselves. (Western Europeans and to a lesser extent even Central and perhaps Eastern Europeans did that, by delaying marriage, and/or preventing the poor from marrying, by not providing for bastards or the very poor, etc.)

    Once you let others into your territory and even start providing for their children, it's game over for you, if you're a K-selected population and the other groups you let in are R-selected. Even if you won't completely disappear from the gene pool (it's a stretch to say that Slavs would've disappeared, had Hitler won - the most extreme plans for mass murder were very difficult to implement and required a commitment from the political leadership which was likely to decrease after the death of Hitler), you will greatly diminish in such a situation. And it's difficult to see what will stop the migration other than a complete disintegration of the Western European states (Lebanon-style), because their political elites are hell-bent on implementing multiculturalism and the debates are usually only about the speed (should there be an annual cap of 0.5% of the population?) and direction (e.g. refugees or workers?), but never the basic tenets of the ideology like blank slate HBD-denial or the "right" of foreigners to settle in Western Europe or the need of Western Europe to settle them "to provide for the graying population" and similar things.

    But let's just put Slavs aside. For a Frenchman, assuming France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century (far from impossible, in fact, the most likely outcome), do you think it's better in our real timeline, or would it be better if Hitler won and France would be subordinate to Germany, it'd lose maybe a fifth of its territory, but the rest would continue to be settled by Frenchmen? You have to admit that the answer is not obvious. The same is even more true of the British (whose empire might've been artificially propped up with German help, because Hitler's ideology actually supported its existence, unlike the American ideology which was opposed to it), who probably wouldn't even have lost any territories at all.

    other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.
     
    Somewhat is shooting from an assault rifle at you. Other than this one bullet, all the other bullets will miss your vital organs. Well, this means you're still going to be dead from this one bullet.

    I don't think the 2060 timeline (what others wrote) is realistic, especially not for the last white holdouts (Ukraine, Belarus, the three Baltic countries, Poland, maybe Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, some Balkan countries - though for example Hungary and Slovakia have very bad Gypsy infestations), but 2150 is not impossible even for these. Immigration has momentum, and once it gets in motion, it never completely stops.
  129. @reiner Tor
    I don't like that scenario much (though there are some nationalistic squabbles with Ukraine, so I wouldn't be totally unhappy either), but anyway, from a purely Russian perspective, I think it makes sense.

    It also needs to be done more openly, to build up "street cred." Israel or the US never deny their illegal aggressions.

    Depends on how extreme these strikes would be. Ukraine is not completely defenseless anymore. If it comes to complete destruction of Ukraine’s military – several large Russian cities and bases are within range of Ukrainian missiles, not to mention the possibility of all sorts of asymmetrical retaliation (if Russia were to bomb to death 10,000s of Ukrainian soldiers who can guarantee that a dirty bomb won’t erase central Moscow or St. Petersburg). I suspect that some among Russia’s Western “partners”, as Putin calls them, would not mind such an endgame.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    That's why I wrote they shouldn't even try to occupy Ukraine. Using a nuclear bomb would certainly invite extreme retaliation, basically Felix Keverich on steroids.

    dirty bomb
     
    To my knowledge, contrary to the hype, dirty bombs are not really possible. Basically you can have highly radioactive material, and it's very dangerous to the people carrying it and trying to use it (and also easily detectable by the authorities, unless we're talking about a warhead of a missile), but then a conventional explosion won't do much to spread it - basically the effect won't be much different from simply carrying the radioactive material without explosives into a public square and leaving it there. Assuming the terrorists survived, there's every reason to assume that the passers-by will survive as well. Or it kills the terrorists themselves before they could take it to the target area.

    Anyway, if such a dirty bomb (more likely a low-yield inefficient nuclear bomb..? but it's still difficult to carry without being noticed) was possible, it'd invite retaliation. Since the attack would target specifically Ukraine's military and military industries (but not its other industries or population centers), there's no reason to assume such a suicidal response from Ukraine.

    The context of what I wrote was that Russia needs to create "street cred" vis-à-vis the US (similarly how Ukraine would need the same vis-à-vis Russia - the situations are comparable), and it could create it by acting in a somewhat crazy manner. What would be the safest such action, which would not lead to WW3? (And it also needs to be cheap in the sense of not preventing Russia from further military actions the way the Iraq War made it difficult for the US to credibly threaten with force other regimes elsewhere.) A large-scale military action against Ukraine, which would nevertheless not lead to a costly occupation regime against a hostile population, might be such an action. (As I wrote, though probably I'd be less unhappy about as you would be, nevertheless I don't like the idea of further military action in Europe, so close to Hungary.)

    One positive outcome for Ukraine would be that if Russia destroyed the Ukrainian military, but then didn't occupy further Ukrainian territories, then at least this would mean that Ukraine is basically safe from Russian expansionism. (Except of course Donbas and Crimea.)
  130. @Swedish Family

    3) respond militarily elsewhere – most notably, Ukraine (I think occupying Ukraine would be a mistake – the population is hostile, so Russia would get bogged down without any big benefit; however, airstrikes on Ukraine’s blossoming military and military industry, or even fully destroying it before it could be strong enough to retaliate, might be an option; perhaps annexing a few border regions with friendlier population, if there’s any such region) (full disclosure: I don’t really like the idea from my own perspective, it’d obviously be bad for Hungary, but from a purely Russian perspective it might make sense to arrest and reverse the modernization and growth of Ukraine’s military, while also making good PR for Russian weapons and bad PR for Americans); this option contains some risks of its own (e.g. it can only be a response to an American, but not an Israeli attack; the perception might be of a separate aggression as opposed to a response to events in Syria)
     
    I'm interested to hear what our Russian commenters think of this scenario. To my mind, Russia will be forced to start bombing, sooner rather than later, critical Ukrainian military infrastructure the way Israel is bombing Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Anything less would be negligence on Kremlin's part.

    i don’t think they should do anything in Ukraine cos the neocons don’t care about Ukraine. imo the only reason they made a coup was to grab the naval base and then offer to give it back in exchange for Russia ditching Syria.

    i think they would be better off looking for ways to squeeze the financial assets of the US elite – tit for tat.

    (longer term they should also be looking into creating a samizdat internet where Swedes can talk to Swedes without censorship and Germans can talk to Germans etc as this is largely an information war and the bad guys are trying to shut down all sources of information they don’t control.)

  131. @reiner Tor
    I think the difference is that after the downing of the Su-24 Russia was winning, and winning hard. There was very little Turkey (or NATO, or anyone else) was going to do about it (with Obama being more risk-averse than Trump, and his relationship with Netanyahu strained to the extreme), the Russians and Assad were going to slowly destroy the American/Israeli/Turkish/Saudi proxies in Syria.

    Now the situation is different: with most of the rebel strongholds destroyed, and the fragile alliance with Turkey, it's now difficult for Russia to gain further ground. Therefore, you cannot simply respond with the usual "well, they managed to down one airplane, but we're winning the war" answer. Because that is only true if Idlib is destroyed, but that is likely going to push Turkey back into the NATO fold.

    This is good on one hand (it means Russia now has much stronger hands - Turkey might be lost for the US as an ally, the Syrian war is almost fully won), but it's also bad on the other hand - Russia's lack of response now looks like weakness, and I'd argue looking weak is worse to Russia than an objective strength. If war breaks out with the US, or even with only Israel, it won't matter how many Syrian provinces will be under Assad's control. It might not even matter if Turkey will stay neutral in that. Realistically, it won't be an ally.

    So Russia cannot leave Syria without showing significant weakness. It cannot respond to Israeli or American strikes by destroying further jihadi groupings.

    Therefore, now it now has the following options:

    1) respond militarily against Israel or the US or other NATO members in theater; this is highly unappealing and risky
    2) start shooting down Israeli (American, etc.) planes participating in strikes; risky, and highly unappealing, too
    3) respond militarily elsewhere - most notably, Ukraine (I think occupying Ukraine would be a mistake - the population is hostile, so Russia would get bogged down without any big benefit; however, airstrikes on Ukraine's blossoming military and military industry, or even fully destroying it before it could be strong enough to retaliate, might be an option; perhaps annexing a few border regions with friendlier population, if there's any such region) (full disclosure: I don't really like the idea from my own perspective, it'd obviously be bad for Hungary, but from a purely Russian perspective it might make sense to arrest and reverse the modernization and growth of Ukraine's military, while also making good PR for Russian weapons and bad PR for Americans); this option contains some risks of its own (e.g. it can only be a response to an American, but not an Israeli attack; the perception might be of a separate aggression as opposed to a response to events in Syria)
    4) no response (what it's doing right now), but it risks a nuclear war later down the road (because the neocons will keep pushing against what they perceive to be Russian weakness)

    Is there anything else?

    In relation to response, it’s not clear quite what their private position of the cause of this incident is.

    We know two different public ones. So far Shoigu says publicly one thing, and Putin says publicly a different one. Shoigu says it’s Israel’s blame, and Putin says it’s not Israel’s blame.

    Which of the two is what they actually think happened in the incident, and which is for public consumption? Or is the private position a synthesis of the two statements, or something different. This probably we can’t really know, but maybe will learn by watching what happens in the next year.


    .
    As for Ukraine, Hungary, etc, – I don’t see your large connection to the topics. But then I do not read the kind of websites which want to place everything into a large narrative of superpower conflict.

    Unlike Ukraine, which was outside of control and damage limitation – the Syria mission was conceived to be simple and cost-effective mission abroad. But it was promised to be short. As I remember, it was only bombing jihadists and becoming a more respected international partner.

    A lot of this was following a law of diminishing returns. In the first year there was a huge rise in military prestige in that region, and demonstration of military technology. But since those opening months, there are diminishing returns.

    So far, the numbers of dead are still very small by war standards , even including the Tu-154 crash. But the potential benefit of the conflict, also not seeming not large or exciting.

    As for Israel’s position, obviously this is a miniature disaster as their operations over this area depend on Russian generosity and permission.

    But it’s Yom Kippur in Israel today. And I think their offices don’t open until next Sunday (I could be wrong). So not much information will be released from them, until their holiday is over.

    As for Syria’s position. This could either be good, or bad from their view, depending on whether privately they are seen as innocent for the shooting down, or blamed for shooting down. (Although in the end there is no utility in blaming them from Putin’s view).

  132. The loss of the spy plane was awful. However, Putin is winning diplomatically in Syria overall.
    And who knows if Erdogan might want out soon as his economy goes downhill.

    Much the same goes for the US generally. I’d like to see an analysis as to whether there could be a sudden tipping point for dollar use globally as more nations escape US financial hegemony.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    The US budget deficit is expected to be USD900bn this fiscal year, during a strong economic period. The deficit will explode during the next downturn, and the debt level is already elevated. As Goldman Suchs noted this is unprecedented during peace time, and the US is too politically dysfunctional and corrupted to stop it.
  133. @reiner Tor
    I think the difference is that after the downing of the Su-24 Russia was winning, and winning hard. There was very little Turkey (or NATO, or anyone else) was going to do about it (with Obama being more risk-averse than Trump, and his relationship with Netanyahu strained to the extreme), the Russians and Assad were going to slowly destroy the American/Israeli/Turkish/Saudi proxies in Syria.

    Now the situation is different: with most of the rebel strongholds destroyed, and the fragile alliance with Turkey, it's now difficult for Russia to gain further ground. Therefore, you cannot simply respond with the usual "well, they managed to down one airplane, but we're winning the war" answer. Because that is only true if Idlib is destroyed, but that is likely going to push Turkey back into the NATO fold.

    This is good on one hand (it means Russia now has much stronger hands - Turkey might be lost for the US as an ally, the Syrian war is almost fully won), but it's also bad on the other hand - Russia's lack of response now looks like weakness, and I'd argue looking weak is worse to Russia than an objective strength. If war breaks out with the US, or even with only Israel, it won't matter how many Syrian provinces will be under Assad's control. It might not even matter if Turkey will stay neutral in that. Realistically, it won't be an ally.

    So Russia cannot leave Syria without showing significant weakness. It cannot respond to Israeli or American strikes by destroying further jihadi groupings.

    Therefore, now it now has the following options:

    1) respond militarily against Israel or the US or other NATO members in theater; this is highly unappealing and risky
    2) start shooting down Israeli (American, etc.) planes participating in strikes; risky, and highly unappealing, too
    3) respond militarily elsewhere - most notably, Ukraine (I think occupying Ukraine would be a mistake - the population is hostile, so Russia would get bogged down without any big benefit; however, airstrikes on Ukraine's blossoming military and military industry, or even fully destroying it before it could be strong enough to retaliate, might be an option; perhaps annexing a few border regions with friendlier population, if there's any such region) (full disclosure: I don't really like the idea from my own perspective, it'd obviously be bad for Hungary, but from a purely Russian perspective it might make sense to arrest and reverse the modernization and growth of Ukraine's military, while also making good PR for Russian weapons and bad PR for Americans); this option contains some risks of its own (e.g. it can only be a response to an American, but not an Israeli attack; the perception might be of a separate aggression as opposed to a response to events in Syria)
    4) no response (what it's doing right now), but it risks a nuclear war later down the road (because the neocons will keep pushing against what they perceive to be Russian weakness)

    Is there anything else?

    3) respond militarily elsewhere – most notably, Ukraine

    In Ukraine, at a minimum Russia should do what it should have done years ago: Recognize the DLNR, and stop Kiev’s terror-shelling, either by allowing the DLNR to join Russia, or by airstrikes against Ukrainian artillery.

    • Replies: @AP
    According to the OSCE there were 29 civilian deaths in the first 6 months of 2018 in Donbas (I assume mostly caused by Kiev's forces, but not all). So about 2 per month. DNR and LNR according to ru-wiki have 3.6 million people combined.

    The state of Connecticut has about the same population as DNR/LNR. There were 293 traffic fatalities in 2016. One is five times more likely to due in a car crash in Connecticut, as die by being shelled by Kiev forces in Donbas. Bosnia has about the same population as DNR/LNR. Traffic fatalities in 2017 were over 633 in Bosnia. So one is ten times more likely to due in a car crash in Bosnia, as die by being shelled by Kiev forces in Donbas.

    You want Russia to openly go to war against Ukraine by launching airstrikes against its artillery positions (resulting on increased sanctions, and incurring Russian casualties also, as Ukraine does have air defenses, it is not ISIS) in order to stop what has become a rather low grade military conflict.
  134. @reiner Tor
    Needless to say, none of the four options look particularly appealing to Putin, who would really be happy with a Cold War Two, where he would have his own sphere of influence. But the Americans won't let him have it - so he needs to make the Americans (and of course Israelis) respect him, so he needs to create a perception of a combination of strength and craziness, all that without blowing up himself and the world in a nuclear war.

    Basically the big problem is neocon craziness and ideology, which doesn't allow American diplomats and politicians think and talk in terms of interests (except those of America), spheres of influence (except perhaps for American allies, otherwise the whole world is considered an American sphere of influence), rules (except when it comes to America's adversaries who should abide by them, but never America or its allies when acting with American permission), etc.

    spheres of influence (except perhaps for American allies, otherwise the whole world is considered an American sphere of influence), rules (except when it comes to America’s adversaries who should abide by them, but never America or its allies when acting with American permission), etc.

    Agree.

  135. @notanon
    as an ultra-anglo i kind of agree we messed up - creating the most powerful nations in world history and then letting them be hijacked by a banking mafia who want to turn all the most impressive nations into 85 IQ slave cattle. personally i see it as a duty to make things right but i understand if people are mad.

    however you're not going to survive without us cos we're the only people who are both smart enough and savage enough to out play the bad guys.

    Yawn

  136. @reiner Tor
    Needless to say, none of the four options look particularly appealing to Putin, who would really be happy with a Cold War Two, where he would have his own sphere of influence. But the Americans won't let him have it - so he needs to make the Americans (and of course Israelis) respect him, so he needs to create a perception of a combination of strength and craziness, all that without blowing up himself and the world in a nuclear war.

    Basically the big problem is neocon craziness and ideology, which doesn't allow American diplomats and politicians think and talk in terms of interests (except those of America), spheres of influence (except perhaps for American allies, otherwise the whole world is considered an American sphere of influence), rules (except when it comes to America's adversaries who should abide by them, but never America or its allies when acting with American permission), etc.

    Why didn’t you get into the comments on the Johnstone piece?

  137. @Eighthman
    The loss of the spy plane was awful. However, Putin is winning diplomatically in Syria overall.
    And who knows if Erdogan might want out soon as his economy goes downhill.

    Much the same goes for the US generally. I'd like to see an analysis as to whether there could be a sudden tipping point for dollar use globally as more nations escape US financial hegemony.

    The US budget deficit is expected to be USD900bn this fiscal year, during a strong economic period. The deficit will explode during the next downturn, and the debt level is already elevated. As Goldman Suchs noted this is unprecedented during peace time, and the US is too politically dysfunctional and corrupted to stop it.

    • Replies: @Eighthman
    I think most level headed people (a very tiny minority these days) realize that the US is headed for disaster. The quandary is when. This is why I wonder about a coming tipping point for global use of the dollar.

    Putin has an astonishing "godlike" attitude of patient determination. With only 10% of US defense expenditures, the challenge is incredible. He has no choice but to follow a Fabian strategy and hope to outlast the US. He is forced to avoid traps that could trigger WW3 while madness runs rampant in the West.
  138. @iffen

    H. saved the Bolsheviks
     
    Mind explaining this one?

    They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them.

    this is deranged.

    surely if X can survive war, X can survive peacetime.

    wartime tightening of the crews, circling of the wagons (if that’s the argument) is a plus for stability, but one could likewise argue that having all your sh** bombed and millions of your people killed is a huge, huge minus.

    >running on fumes

    no, they weren’t. all industrial indicators were going up. standards of living were going up. nor was there any crisis of legitimacy looming.

    • Replies: @iffen
    surely if X can survive war, X can survive peacetime.

    ass-backwards

    running on fumes

    The supply of Stakhanovites was limited and had been exhausted.
  139. @Jon0815

    3) respond militarily elsewhere – most notably, Ukraine
     
    In Ukraine, at a minimum Russia should do what it should have done years ago: Recognize the DLNR, and stop Kiev's terror-shelling, either by allowing the DLNR to join Russia, or by airstrikes against Ukrainian artillery.

    According to the OSCE there were 29 civilian deaths in the first 6 months of 2018 in Donbas (I assume mostly caused by Kiev’s forces, but not all). So about 2 per month. DNR and LNR according to ru-wiki have 3.6 million people combined.

    The state of Connecticut has about the same population as DNR/LNR. There were 293 traffic fatalities in 2016. One is five times more likely to due in a car crash in Connecticut, as die by being shelled by Kiev forces in Donbas. Bosnia has about the same population as DNR/LNR. Traffic fatalities in 2017 were over 633 in Bosnia. So one is ten times more likely to due in a car crash in Bosnia, as die by being shelled by Kiev forces in Donbas.

    You want Russia to openly go to war against Ukraine by launching airstrikes against its artillery positions (resulting on increased sanctions, and incurring Russian casualties also, as Ukraine does have air defenses, it is not ISIS) in order to stop what has become a rather low grade military conflict.

    • Replies: @Jon0815

    According to the OSCE there were 29 civilian deaths in the first 6 months of 2018 in Donbas (I assume mostly caused by Kiev’s forces, but not all). So about 2 per month. DNR and LNR according to ru-wiki have 3.6 million people combined.
     
    It's not just about the number dead (and injured), but the ongoing physical damage to buildings and infrastructure, the many thousands who have to regularly take shelter and live without power or water, or who have fled leaving their homes behind.

    And failing to prevent Kiev from terrorizing and murdering ethnic Russians literally on its doorstep, endangers Russia by sending a message of weakness to the West.


    You want Russia to openly go to war against Ukraine by launching airstrikes against its artillery positions (resulting on increased sanctions,
     
    There isn't much appetite in Europe for putting more sanctions on Russia, so it will probably take more to trigger them, than a brief action, limited to near the front line, which follows a spike in Ukrainian shelling such as that of Gorlovka earlier this year, and doesn't result in any changes in territory. Russia can cite the precedent of NATO bombing to stop Serb shelling of civilians in Bosnia. And the USA will always find some excuse for more sanctions anyway.

    Actual airstrikes may not even be necessary. Right now, Kiev is shelling Donbass civilians because it knows there is no cost to to doing so. If Russia recognizes the separatist territories and warns Kiev it will not tolerate continued aggression against them, Kiev may stop.

    and incurring Russian casualties also, as Ukraine does have air defenses, it is not ISIS)
     

    I doubt Ukraine would be able to shoot down any Russian planes. If they do, that's at most a handful of casualties. This wouldn't be a major air campaign deep inside Ukraine. Strikes would be limited to within 20 km or so of the DLNR border.
  140. @ussr andy
    this is deranged.

    surely if X can survive war, X can survive peacetime.

    wartime tightening of the crews, circling of the wagons (if that's the argument) is a plus for stability, but one could likewise argue that having all your sh** bombed and millions of your people killed is a huge, huge minus.

    >running on fumes

    no, they weren't. all industrial indicators were going up. standards of living were going up. nor was there any crisis of legitimacy looming.

    surely if X can survive war, X can survive peacetime.

    ass-backwards

    running on fumes

    The supply of Stakhanovites was limited and had been exhausted.

    • Replies: @ussr andy

    ass-backwards
     
    why?

    "They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them."

    war=good for stability and political continuity.


    The supply of Stakhanovites was limited and had been exhausted.
     
    and war made that better that how?

    how do you know they wouldn't have held on to power for much longer (than 1992 - although I believe the Perestroika was a top-down thing and a culmination of what began in 1956), with all the sh** still intact and 30 million more people?

  141. @iffen
    surely if X can survive war, X can survive peacetime.

    ass-backwards

    running on fumes

    The supply of Stakhanovites was limited and had been exhausted.

    ass-backwards

    why?

    “They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them.”

    war=good for stability and political continuity.

    The supply of Stakhanovites was limited and had been exhausted.

    and war made that better that how?

    how do you know they wouldn’t have held on to power for much longer (than 1992 – although I believe the Perestroika was a top-down thing and a culmination of what began in 1956), with all the sh** still intact and 30 million more people?

    • Replies: @iffen
    My assertion is simple. The Bolshevik/communist system fell. It would have fallen sooner had H not attacked the USSR.
  142. @LondonBob
    The US budget deficit is expected to be USD900bn this fiscal year, during a strong economic period. The deficit will explode during the next downturn, and the debt level is already elevated. As Goldman Suchs noted this is unprecedented during peace time, and the US is too politically dysfunctional and corrupted to stop it.

    I think most level headed people (a very tiny minority these days) realize that the US is headed for disaster. The quandary is when. This is why I wonder about a coming tipping point for global use of the dollar.

    Putin has an astonishing “godlike” attitude of patient determination. With only 10% of US defense expenditures, the challenge is incredible. He has no choice but to follow a Fabian strategy and hope to outlast the US. He is forced to avoid traps that could trigger WW3 while madness runs rampant in the West.

  143. @ussr andy

    ass-backwards
     
    why?

    "They could never have held on to power for as long as they did had he not attacked them."

    war=good for stability and political continuity.


    The supply of Stakhanovites was limited and had been exhausted.
     
    and war made that better that how?

    how do you know they wouldn't have held on to power for much longer (than 1992 - although I believe the Perestroika was a top-down thing and a culmination of what began in 1956), with all the sh** still intact and 30 million more people?

    My assertion is simple. The Bolshevik/communist system fell. It would have fallen sooner had H not attacked the USSR.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    so Hillary was attacking the USSR way back then also?
  144. @reiner Tor
    Locking a target is not magic. The missile's computer is also not particularly smart. For all sorts of reasons it might mistake a target several kilometers away for a nearby target. (In a very bad case, especially with an obsolete missile, the new, false target might even be hundreds of kilometers away, like with the missile in your example.) It's not very smart, so it'll "think" that it's still pursuing its original target. (It won't think anything at all, it's just a shorthand. It'll just behave as if it was still pursuing the original target, even though it isn't.)

    If all else is equal, more modern missiles will make such mistakes much less frequently than older missiles.

    I agree.

    Now would be a great time for Russia to help Syria upgrade their anti-aircraft missile systems.

  145. @AP
    According to the OSCE there were 29 civilian deaths in the first 6 months of 2018 in Donbas (I assume mostly caused by Kiev's forces, but not all). So about 2 per month. DNR and LNR according to ru-wiki have 3.6 million people combined.

    The state of Connecticut has about the same population as DNR/LNR. There were 293 traffic fatalities in 2016. One is five times more likely to due in a car crash in Connecticut, as die by being shelled by Kiev forces in Donbas. Bosnia has about the same population as DNR/LNR. Traffic fatalities in 2017 were over 633 in Bosnia. So one is ten times more likely to due in a car crash in Bosnia, as die by being shelled by Kiev forces in Donbas.

    You want Russia to openly go to war against Ukraine by launching airstrikes against its artillery positions (resulting on increased sanctions, and incurring Russian casualties also, as Ukraine does have air defenses, it is not ISIS) in order to stop what has become a rather low grade military conflict.

    According to the OSCE there were 29 civilian deaths in the first 6 months of 2018 in Donbas (I assume mostly caused by Kiev’s forces, but not all). So about 2 per month. DNR and LNR according to ru-wiki have 3.6 million people combined.

    It’s not just about the number dead (and injured), but the ongoing physical damage to buildings and infrastructure, the many thousands who have to regularly take shelter and live without power or water, or who have fled leaving their homes behind.

    And failing to prevent Kiev from terrorizing and murdering ethnic Russians literally on its doorstep, endangers Russia by sending a message of weakness to the West.

    You want Russia to openly go to war against Ukraine by launching airstrikes against its artillery positions (resulting on increased sanctions,

    There isn’t much appetite in Europe for putting more sanctions on Russia, so it will probably take more to trigger them, than a brief action, limited to near the front line, which follows a spike in Ukrainian shelling such as that of Gorlovka earlier this year, and doesn’t result in any changes in territory. Russia can cite the precedent of NATO bombing to stop Serb shelling of civilians in Bosnia. And the USA will always find some excuse for more sanctions anyway.

    Actual airstrikes may not even be necessary. Right now, Kiev is shelling Donbass civilians because it knows there is no cost to to doing so. If Russia recognizes the separatist territories and warns Kiev it will not tolerate continued aggression against them, Kiev may stop.

    and incurring Russian casualties also, as Ukraine does have air defenses, it is not ISIS)

    I doubt Ukraine would be able to shoot down any Russian planes. If they do, that’s at most a handful of casualties. This wouldn’t be a major air campaign deep inside Ukraine. Strikes would be limited to within 20 km or so of the DLNR border.

    • Replies: @AP

    It’s not just about the number dead (and injured), but the ongoing physical damage to buildings and infrastructure, the many thousands who have to regularly take shelter and live without power or water, or who have fled leaving their homes behind.
     
    This damage seems to have mostly been done. Kiev isn't expanding its area of operations and shelling "fresh" areas.

    And failing to prevent Kiev from terrorizing and murdering ethnic Russians literally on its doorstep
     
    Russian media may portray this as some sort of "Sarajevo" situation, but at this point it is pretty low grade.

    Donbas (population 3.6 million) is on track to have 60 dead from shelling in 2018. Sarajevo (population 300,000) had 5,000 dead during the 4 year long siege, about 1, 250 a year.

    Russia can cite the precedent of NATO bombing to stop Serb shelling of civilians in Bosnia
     
    Situations aren't comparable (see above).

    Actual airstrikes may not even be necessary. Right now, Kiev is shelling Donbass civilians because it knows there is no cost to to doing so. If Russia recognizes the separatist territories and warns Kiev it will not tolerate continued aggression against them, Kiev may stop.
     
    Very possible.

    I doubt Ukraine would be able to shoot down any Russian planes.
     
    It depends on where Ukraine's S-300 systems are deployed. If near Donbas, they probably will. Has any modern air force gone against an S-300 system? Ukraine is closer to parity with Russia than Yugoslavia or Iraq were with NATO, and Yugoslavia and Iraq managed to down some planes.

    So to stop what is now a very low grade war, Russia would risk more and worse sanctions (or limit the chances of ending those sanctions), lose some men and some expensive planes to take out some random artillery positions.
  146. @neutral
    Enough is enough, either Russia responds by declaring war on Israel or else it shows that is nothing more than a pathetic puppet to Israel tolerating the fact that Israel can kill Russians without consequence.

    Russia declare war on Israel? Israel is full of Russians. Most Russian Mafia bosses hold Israeli citizenship. The Russian and Israeli power networks are completely intertwined. If you are an Israel-hater, you should not be so stupid as to expect Russia to be the white knight that will defeat your enemy. Actually, you should not be so stupid as to be an Israel-hater. Just saying.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Well, Israel is full (20%) of jews who were born and raised in Russia, which is a far cry from “Russians.” Their identity and loyalty is typically not Russian but Jewish first.

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians — not just the user, which would be more understandable. She personally resents and takes pleasure in the misfortune of the Russian people. She’s the girlfriend of a friend, and very pleasant and sociable to me, but she just doesn’t identify with Russia to say the least. This, I’m gathering, is not atypical.

    Conversely, do you think the average Russian has affection for, identifies with, wants to sacrifice to protect, Jews who used to live in Russia? Russians, please weigh in here.

    On one hand, I’ve read that today’s Russians aren’t nearly as antiSemitic as they should be given who was so disproportionately in charge of the vicious parts of the USSR regime at the beginning and for much of the time thereafter. But I doubt they’d shrink in horror at the prospect of destroying the belligerent, disloyal wiseasses in Israel whose government just murdered fourteen Russians in syria.

    , @RadicalCenter
    So, what’s the logic there. Destroying Israel would eliminate many of the people who rip off, threaten, and terrorize regular Russian people, so Russians should be against it? Huh?

    Seems like “killing two birds with one stone” to me.
  147. @iffen
    My assertion is simple. The Bolshevik/communist system fell. It would have fallen sooner had H not attacked the USSR.

    so Hillary was attacking the USSR way back then also?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Lots of evil people have H as the initial letter in their name.
  148. @iffen
    Grave external threat. They were running on fumes by this time.

    Doesn’t this assume that the Bolsheviks were more likely than not to come out of the Second World War alive?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Counterfactual history is just that.

    Suppose that H. had not seized power. That would have left the social democrats and communists in power in Germany. This would have made Russia’s brand of communism even more unattractive. If the German/Russian economic cooperation had continued, how would the capitalist Anglo world have responded? Serious support for civil war in Russia?
  149. @AP

    It’s possible that there’ll be no more countries with a majority white population by 2150
     
    Very doubtful, because other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Moreover in this case it is not that none of us has descendants at all, rather that our descendants, while still existing, will simply be outnumbered by other peoples' descendants. Or will be mixed with them so they don't look a lot like us, while nevertheless still being our descendants.

    If Nazis dominated the globe, there would be far fewer European people - tens of millions of Slavs would be gone; taking onto account them not having descendants, this would probably be over 200 million fewer Europeans in the 21st century than in our current reality. Would that price be worth it, to contain Arabs and Africans in their own homelands?

    If Bolshevism took over, the death rates would be lower. But fertility would still decline in that oppressive grey reality , and Bolshevism loved the Third World so who knows how it would have been with immigration, wealth transfers, etc.

    If Bolshevism took over, the death rates would be lower. But fertility would still decline in that oppressive grey reality , and Bolshevism loved the Third World so who knows how it would have been with immigration, wealth transfers, etc.

    It is hard to know how the Communist regimes would have reacted to things further in the future, but it should be noted that while they spent a lot of money on hopeless revolutionary regimes abroad there was very little permanent immigration to the USSR and its satellites and the popular opinion of Europeans would in this hypothetical future be a lot less positive towards immigration.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @AP

    there was very little permanent immigration to the USSR and its satellites
     
    Because there were much better places to be. Soviets had fences to keep people in. But if the whole West went Communist, this would no longer be the case. Particularly if the incoming ones were amenable to Communism, I don't see why they wouldn't be welcomed at the expense of native bourgeoisie.

    But you are correct that it is hard to know what would have happened.
  150. @Cato
    Russia declare war on Israel? Israel is full of Russians. Most Russian Mafia bosses hold Israeli citizenship. The Russian and Israeli power networks are completely intertwined. If you are an Israel-hater, you should not be so stupid as to expect Russia to be the white knight that will defeat your enemy. Actually, you should not be so stupid as to be an Israel-hater. Just saying.

    Well, Israel is full (20%) of jews who were born and raised in Russia, which is a far cry from “Russians.” Their identity and loyalty is typically not Russian but Jewish first.

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians — not just the user, which would be more understandable. She personally resents and takes pleasure in the misfortune of the Russian people. She’s the girlfriend of a friend, and very pleasant and sociable to me, but she just doesn’t identify with Russia to say the least. This, I’m gathering, is not atypical.

    Conversely, do you think the average Russian has affection for, identifies with, wants to sacrifice to protect, Jews who used to live in Russia? Russians, please weigh in here.

    On one hand, I’ve read that today’s Russians aren’t nearly as antiSemitic as they should be given who was so disproportionately in charge of the vicious parts of the USSR regime at the beginning and for much of the time thereafter. But I doubt they’d shrink in horror at the prospect of destroying the belligerent, disloyal wiseasses in Israel whose government just murdered fourteen Russians in syria.

    • Replies: @Mikhail

    Well, Israel is full (20%) of jews who were born and raised in Russia, which is a far cry from “Russians.” Their identity and loyalty is typically not Russian but Jewish first.

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians — not just the user, which would be more understandable. She personally resents and takes pleasure in the misfortune of the Russian people. She’s the girlfriend of a friend, and very pleasant and sociable to me, but she just doesn’t identify with Russia to say the least. This, I’m gathering, is not atypical.

    Conversely, do you think the average Russian has affection for, identifies with, wants to sacrifice to protect, Jews who used to live in Russia? Russians, please weigh in here.

    On one hand, I’ve read that today’s Russians aren’t nearly as antiSemitic as they should be given who was so disproportionately in charge of the vicious parts of the USSR regime at the beginning and for much of the time thereafter. But I doubt they’d shrink in horror at the prospect of destroying the belligerent, disloyal wiseasses in Israel whose government just murdered fourteen Russians in syria.

     

    I know the kind you make mention of. Not all of them are like that. Keep in mind that there're a good number of folks with Jewish and Russian Orthodox Christian backgrounds - many of them taking an eclectically measured stance.

    At one of these threads, someone linked a prominent Russian TV talk show with Zhirinovsky railing against a Jewish MP in the Duma. The host Vladimir Solovyov chimed in noting his Jewish background, after which, Zhirinovsky said something along the lines of you're okay, you stay put in Russia.

    On the subject of Zhirinovsky:

    http://www.ari-kagan.com/russians-zhirinovsky-1005.html

    I know a New York based Belarusian Orthodox Jewish doctor whose father remains in Belarus, even though he can leave. This doctor who is pro-Israeli and not so pro-Russian said that he'd pay to see Zhirinovsky speak, adding that he's amused by him.

    On another point that you raise, Natan Sharansky said that Russia isn't worse than Western European countries regarding anti-Jewish sentiment.

    , @Dmitry
    In Israel you can take a lot of photos of Russia flags, as well as Ukraine flags, hanging from peoples' balconies. Some people wearing yarussia type clothing, although less common than seeing people wearing clothing with British and American flags.

    On my phone I have photos of all this from when I was there most recently this year.

    As for racism (including against Russian immigrants) it's clearly going to be higher (more racist) in Israel than it is in Russia. But it's still very "passive" discrimination. The racism level is not like in America. Probably it is more at a healthy level (small racism is not necessarily unhealthy). Everything about these topics exaggerated by media and people with various complicated agendas - if you remove this topic, then this website would not have anything to write about.

    Israeli elite itself is very liberal, but this is far distant from the views of the average Israeli cattle.

  151. @Cato
    Russia declare war on Israel? Israel is full of Russians. Most Russian Mafia bosses hold Israeli citizenship. The Russian and Israeli power networks are completely intertwined. If you are an Israel-hater, you should not be so stupid as to expect Russia to be the white knight that will defeat your enemy. Actually, you should not be so stupid as to be an Israel-hater. Just saying.

    So, what’s the logic there. Destroying Israel would eliminate many of the people who rip off, threaten, and terrorize regular Russian people, so Russians should be against it? Huh?

    Seems like “killing two birds with one stone” to me.

  152. @AP

    It’s possible that there’ll be no more countries with a majority white population by 2150
     
    Very doubtful, because other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Moreover in this case it is not that none of us has descendants at all, rather that our descendants, while still existing, will simply be outnumbered by other peoples' descendants. Or will be mixed with them so they don't look a lot like us, while nevertheless still being our descendants.

    If Nazis dominated the globe, there would be far fewer European people - tens of millions of Slavs would be gone; taking onto account them not having descendants, this would probably be over 200 million fewer Europeans in the 21st century than in our current reality. Would that price be worth it, to contain Arabs and Africans in their own homelands?

    If Bolshevism took over, the death rates would be lower. But fertility would still decline in that oppressive grey reality , and Bolshevism loved the Third World so who knows how it would have been with immigration, wealth transfers, etc.

    If it’s doubtful that there will be no countries with a majority of people who are white Anglos or Europeans — even broadly construing white to include “mostly white” and broadly construing Europe — which country seems unlikely to be majority nonwhite 40 years from now?

    England or the UK? Certainly not.
    France? No way.
    Germany? Changing fast, and pace of Change likely to be faster soon.
    Sweden?
    Netherlands? Belgium? Greece?

    Canada is well on its way to being a mess of Chinese (five percent and rising, especially in BC but in several other provinces too), Indians and Punjabis and Pakistanis (four percent and rising, especially in BC), Filipinos (approaching three percent amid BOOMING growth), and a minority of whites. Outside BC, Toronto, and Montreal, Canada is still pretty white, but ALL the of the rapid net population growth nationally comes from nonwhites. ALL.

    Australia looks to be headed for a terribly Chinese and Indian demographic future.

    Perhaps some small Eastern European countries and perhaps Russia (though Russia has long been mixed, if predominantly white euro, different from the others). But that’s uncertain too.

    • Replies: @AP

    which country seems unlikely to be majority nonwhite 40 years from now?
     
    In 2060? Probably no European country will be majority non-white (if you consider Arabs or Turks to be non-white). Sweden may be the sole exception.

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/map-europe-future-muslim-demographics.png

    In the high-Muslim scenario, by 2050 the most Muslim country will be Sweden with 30%, followed by Germany, Austria, France and the UK with 20%. Add perhaps 10% to include non-Muslim Africans plus Asians (maybe 15% for the UK, with its Hindus and Caribbeans). Ten years after 2050 Sweden may be at the tipping point. The other high Muslim areas will still be over 50% European. Note that this is the highest Muslim scenario - numbers may very well be lower.

    Perhaps some small Eastern European countries
     
    Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia, Ukraine, Ireland, Belarus, and Portugal are projected to be under 5% Muslim in 2050. I doubt there will be many non-Muslim Africans here either. That's like 150 million people worth of European countries living in places with populations that are overwhelmingly European.

    Furthermore, Spain will be at 7.4%, Greece 9.7%, Italy 14.1%, Finland and Netherlands 15%. These places won't be European-minority ten years later.
  153. @Jon0815

    According to the OSCE there were 29 civilian deaths in the first 6 months of 2018 in Donbas (I assume mostly caused by Kiev’s forces, but not all). So about 2 per month. DNR and LNR according to ru-wiki have 3.6 million people combined.
     
    It's not just about the number dead (and injured), but the ongoing physical damage to buildings and infrastructure, the many thousands who have to regularly take shelter and live without power or water, or who have fled leaving their homes behind.

    And failing to prevent Kiev from terrorizing and murdering ethnic Russians literally on its doorstep, endangers Russia by sending a message of weakness to the West.


    You want Russia to openly go to war against Ukraine by launching airstrikes against its artillery positions (resulting on increased sanctions,
     
    There isn't much appetite in Europe for putting more sanctions on Russia, so it will probably take more to trigger them, than a brief action, limited to near the front line, which follows a spike in Ukrainian shelling such as that of Gorlovka earlier this year, and doesn't result in any changes in territory. Russia can cite the precedent of NATO bombing to stop Serb shelling of civilians in Bosnia. And the USA will always find some excuse for more sanctions anyway.

    Actual airstrikes may not even be necessary. Right now, Kiev is shelling Donbass civilians because it knows there is no cost to to doing so. If Russia recognizes the separatist territories and warns Kiev it will not tolerate continued aggression against them, Kiev may stop.

    and incurring Russian casualties also, as Ukraine does have air defenses, it is not ISIS)
     

    I doubt Ukraine would be able to shoot down any Russian planes. If they do, that's at most a handful of casualties. This wouldn't be a major air campaign deep inside Ukraine. Strikes would be limited to within 20 km or so of the DLNR border.

    It’s not just about the number dead (and injured), but the ongoing physical damage to buildings and infrastructure, the many thousands who have to regularly take shelter and live without power or water, or who have fled leaving their homes behind.

    This damage seems to have mostly been done. Kiev isn’t expanding its area of operations and shelling “fresh” areas.

    And failing to prevent Kiev from terrorizing and murdering ethnic Russians literally on its doorstep

    Russian media may portray this as some sort of “Sarajevo” situation, but at this point it is pretty low grade.

    Donbas (population 3.6 million) is on track to have 60 dead from shelling in 2018. Sarajevo (population 300,000) had 5,000 dead during the 4 year long siege, about 1, 250 a year.

    Russia can cite the precedent of NATO bombing to stop Serb shelling of civilians in Bosnia

    Situations aren’t comparable (see above).

    Actual airstrikes may not even be necessary. Right now, Kiev is shelling Donbass civilians because it knows there is no cost to to doing so. If Russia recognizes the separatist territories and warns Kiev it will not tolerate continued aggression against them, Kiev may stop.

    Very possible.

    I doubt Ukraine would be able to shoot down any Russian planes.

    It depends on where Ukraine’s S-300 systems are deployed. If near Donbas, they probably will. Has any modern air force gone against an S-300 system? Ukraine is closer to parity with Russia than Yugoslavia or Iraq were with NATO, and Yugoslavia and Iraq managed to down some planes.

    So to stop what is now a very low grade war, Russia would risk more and worse sanctions (or limit the chances of ending those sanctions), lose some men and some expensive planes to take out some random artillery positions.

    • Replies: @Jon0815

    This damage seems to have mostly been done. Kiev isn’t expanding its area of operations and shelling “fresh” areas.
     
    This year, shelling has destroyed hundreds of homes in the DNR. Tens of thousands still live in areas that regularly experience heavy shelling. Residential areas in the center of Gorlovka were being heavily shelled as recently as 4 months ago.

    Situations aren’t comparable (see above).
     
    Not in the scale of casualties, but the principle is the same. And the duration/scale of the military intervention would be lesser as well.

    It depends on where Ukraine’s S-300 systems are deployed.
     
    I'm no expert on air defense hardware, but I'd be surprised if Russia couldn't quickly overwhelm any S-300 systems deployed within threatening range.

    Has any modern air force gone against an S-300 system? Ukraine is closer to parity with Russia than Yugoslavia or Iraq were with NATO, and Yugoslavia and Iraq managed to down some planes.
     
    In the Kosovo conflict, NATO lost two planes (and had zero casualties) out of nearly 40,000 combat sorties. The operation I'm describing could last less than a day and involve only hundreds of sorties. So even if Ukraine's defenses are 100 times more effective per sortie than Yugoslavia's, losses would be similar.

    So to stop what is now a very low grade war, Russia would risk more and worse sanctions (or limit the chances of ending those sanctions), lose some men and some expensive planes to take out some random artillery positions.
     
    The purpose wouldn't be just be to take out the artillery, but also to symbolically push back against the West, which could simply order Kiev to stop the shelling at any time, but doesn't do so because it humiliates Russia. If any of the US-supplied Javelin systems are near the front line, it might be a good idea to take out those too.

    Ideally though, no airstrikes would be necessary because the DLNR would be allowed to join Russia, in which case all Ukrainian attacks on that territory would immediately stop, for the same reason that Ukraine never attacks Crimea.

  154. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @Spisarevski
    The Syrian and Russian air defenses are integrated, so even if an F-16 was hiding behind the IL-20, the AA operators should have known not to shoot near it.

    Mimi is a bit too passionate and not a military expert, but I agree with her takes here 100%:

    https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1041971525753036800
    https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1041957578123530240
    https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1041960273572114432
    https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1041962992072646656

    The Syrian and Russian air defenses are integrated, so even if an F-16 was hiding behind the IL-20, the AA operators should have known not to shoot near it.

    Mimi is a bit too passionate and not a military expert, but I agree with her takes here 100%:

    This is exactly wrong. As Martyanov explains, “ …fact of Russia not providing Syrian AD (and with a good reason) with own IFF technology and codes–things become much more clearer. This was confirmed today. Of course military counter-intelligence still has to do its due diligence but it increasingly begins to look more as FUBAR rather than some “special” operations. Most likely, in fact highly likely, IAF F-16s were detected and tracked (and even possibly locked on) by Syrian S-200 and they “masked” (the oldest trick in the book) by descending IL-20.”

  155. @RadicalCenter
    If it’s doubtful that there will be no countries with a majority of people who are white Anglos or Europeans — even broadly construing white to include “mostly white” and broadly construing Europe — which country seems unlikely to be majority nonwhite 40 years from now?

    England or the UK? Certainly not.
    France? No way.
    Germany? Changing fast, and pace of Change likely to be faster soon.
    Sweden?
    Netherlands? Belgium? Greece?

    Canada is well on its way to being a mess of Chinese (five percent and rising, especially in BC but in several other provinces too), Indians and Punjabis and Pakistanis (four percent and rising, especially in BC), Filipinos (approaching three percent amid BOOMING growth), and a minority of whites. Outside BC, Toronto, and Montreal, Canada is still pretty white, but ALL the of the rapid net population growth nationally comes from nonwhites. ALL.

    Australia looks to be headed for a terribly Chinese and Indian demographic future.

    Perhaps some small Eastern European countries and perhaps Russia (though Russia has long been mixed, if predominantly white euro, different from the others). But that’s uncertain too.

    which country seems unlikely to be majority nonwhite 40 years from now?

    In 2060? Probably no European country will be majority non-white (if you consider Arabs or Turks to be non-white). Sweden may be the sole exception.

    In the high-Muslim scenario, by 2050 the most Muslim country will be Sweden with 30%, followed by Germany, Austria, France and the UK with 20%. Add perhaps 10% to include non-Muslim Africans plus Asians (maybe 15% for the UK, with its Hindus and Caribbeans). Ten years after 2050 Sweden may be at the tipping point. The other high Muslim areas will still be over 50% European. Note that this is the highest Muslim scenario – numbers may very well be lower.

    Perhaps some small Eastern European countries

    Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia, Ukraine, Ireland, Belarus, and Portugal are projected to be under 5% Muslim in 2050. I doubt there will be many non-Muslim Africans here either. That’s like 150 million people worth of European countries living in places with populations that are overwhelmingly European.

    Furthermore, Spain will be at 7.4%, Greece 9.7%, Italy 14.1%, Finland and Netherlands 15%. These places won’t be European-minority ten years later.

    • Replies: @notanon
    the younger half of the population will be minority white much sooner - people who focus on the percentage of the total population are either deluding themselves or others.
    , @neutral
    The first problem is that map only contains Muslim populations, the mass immigration of Africans is a far bigger problem as not every African is a Muslim. Then there is the issue with the EU that is hell bent on pushing from ever more to enter, even wanting to punish the likes of Hungary for resisting it. Finally one needs to factor in miscegenation rates. With all of these variables it is safer to say that by 2060 all of Europe will be non white, I am not just talking about France or Germany, but Poland, Ukraine, Hungary will be majority non white in 2060.
  156. @RadicalCenter
    Well, Israel is full (20%) of jews who were born and raised in Russia, which is a far cry from “Russians.” Their identity and loyalty is typically not Russian but Jewish first.

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians — not just the user, which would be more understandable. She personally resents and takes pleasure in the misfortune of the Russian people. She’s the girlfriend of a friend, and very pleasant and sociable to me, but she just doesn’t identify with Russia to say the least. This, I’m gathering, is not atypical.

    Conversely, do you think the average Russian has affection for, identifies with, wants to sacrifice to protect, Jews who used to live in Russia? Russians, please weigh in here.

    On one hand, I’ve read that today’s Russians aren’t nearly as antiSemitic as they should be given who was so disproportionately in charge of the vicious parts of the USSR regime at the beginning and for much of the time thereafter. But I doubt they’d shrink in horror at the prospect of destroying the belligerent, disloyal wiseasses in Israel whose government just murdered fourteen Russians in syria.

    Well, Israel is full (20%) of jews who were born and raised in Russia, which is a far cry from “Russians.” Their identity and loyalty is typically not Russian but Jewish first.

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians — not just the user, which would be more understandable. She personally resents and takes pleasure in the misfortune of the Russian people. She’s the girlfriend of a friend, and very pleasant and sociable to me, but she just doesn’t identify with Russia to say the least. This, I’m gathering, is not atypical.

    Conversely, do you think the average Russian has affection for, identifies with, wants to sacrifice to protect, Jews who used to live in Russia? Russians, please weigh in here.

    On one hand, I’ve read that today’s Russians aren’t nearly as antiSemitic as they should be given who was so disproportionately in charge of the vicious parts of the USSR regime at the beginning and for much of the time thereafter. But I doubt they’d shrink in horror at the prospect of destroying the belligerent, disloyal wiseasses in Israel whose government just murdered fourteen Russians in syria.

    I know the kind you make mention of. Not all of them are like that. Keep in mind that there’re a good number of folks with Jewish and Russian Orthodox Christian backgrounds – many of them taking an eclectically measured stance.

    At one of these threads, someone linked a prominent Russian TV talk show with Zhirinovsky railing against a Jewish MP in the Duma. The host Vladimir Solovyov chimed in noting his Jewish background, after which, Zhirinovsky said something along the lines of you’re okay, you stay put in Russia.

    On the subject of Zhirinovsky:

    http://www.ari-kagan.com/russians-zhirinovsky-1005.html

    I know a New York based Belarusian Orthodox Jewish doctor whose father remains in Belarus, even though he can leave. This doctor who is pro-Israeli and not so pro-Russian said that he’d pay to see Zhirinovsky speak, adding that he’s amused by him.

    On another point that you raise, Natan Sharansky said that Russia isn’t worse than Western European countries regarding anti-Jewish sentiment.

    • Replies: @utu

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians
     
    Is it possible because she is in LA, in diaspora not in Israel? I would imagine that Russian Jews in Israel might be less Russophobic because they had opportunity to get to know Jews up close and in large quantities and the reality of this experience might be not as rosy as they expected while still back in Russia.
  157. @Mikhail

    Well, Israel is full (20%) of jews who were born and raised in Russia, which is a far cry from “Russians.” Their identity and loyalty is typically not Russian but Jewish first.

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians — not just the user, which would be more understandable. She personally resents and takes pleasure in the misfortune of the Russian people. She’s the girlfriend of a friend, and very pleasant and sociable to me, but she just doesn’t identify with Russia to say the least. This, I’m gathering, is not atypical.

    Conversely, do you think the average Russian has affection for, identifies with, wants to sacrifice to protect, Jews who used to live in Russia? Russians, please weigh in here.

    On one hand, I’ve read that today’s Russians aren’t nearly as antiSemitic as they should be given who was so disproportionately in charge of the vicious parts of the USSR regime at the beginning and for much of the time thereafter. But I doubt they’d shrink in horror at the prospect of destroying the belligerent, disloyal wiseasses in Israel whose government just murdered fourteen Russians in syria.

     

    I know the kind you make mention of. Not all of them are like that. Keep in mind that there're a good number of folks with Jewish and Russian Orthodox Christian backgrounds - many of them taking an eclectically measured stance.

    At one of these threads, someone linked a prominent Russian TV talk show with Zhirinovsky railing against a Jewish MP in the Duma. The host Vladimir Solovyov chimed in noting his Jewish background, after which, Zhirinovsky said something along the lines of you're okay, you stay put in Russia.

    On the subject of Zhirinovsky:

    http://www.ari-kagan.com/russians-zhirinovsky-1005.html

    I know a New York based Belarusian Orthodox Jewish doctor whose father remains in Belarus, even though he can leave. This doctor who is pro-Israeli and not so pro-Russian said that he'd pay to see Zhirinovsky speak, adding that he's amused by him.

    On another point that you raise, Natan Sharansky said that Russia isn't worse than Western European countries regarding anti-Jewish sentiment.

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians

    Is it possible because she is in LA, in diaspora not in Israel? I would imagine that Russian Jews in Israel might be less Russophobic because they had opportunity to get to know Jews up close and in large quantities and the reality of this experience might be not as rosy as they expected while still back in Russia.

    • Replies: @AP
    I know of one Jewish person, friend of a friend, from Russia who became antisemitic after living in Israel for a couple of years (she later moved to the USA).
    , @Mikhail
    Interesting. Note that Netanyahu's frequent visits to Russia contrast from how US situated neocon and neolib Jews are prone to seeing Russia.

    Deep down and without probably admitting it, this latest Israeli action in Syria is something that Russia hating Jews and some others likely desire.

  158. @Hyperborean

    If Bolshevism took over, the death rates would be lower. But fertility would still decline in that oppressive grey reality , and Bolshevism loved the Third World so who knows how it would have been with immigration, wealth transfers, etc.
     
    It is hard to know how the Communist regimes would have reacted to things further in the future, but it should be noted that while they spent a lot of money on hopeless revolutionary regimes abroad there was very little permanent immigration to the USSR and its satellites and the popular opinion of Europeans would in this hypothetical future be a lot less positive towards immigration.

    there was very little permanent immigration to the USSR and its satellites

    Because there were much better places to be. Soviets had fences to keep people in. But if the whole West went Communist, this would no longer be the case. Particularly if the incoming ones were amenable to Communism, I don’t see why they wouldn’t be welcomed at the expense of native bourgeoisie.

    But you are correct that it is hard to know what would have happened.

  159. @utu

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians
     
    Is it possible because she is in LA, in diaspora not in Israel? I would imagine that Russian Jews in Israel might be less Russophobic because they had opportunity to get to know Jews up close and in large quantities and the reality of this experience might be not as rosy as they expected while still back in Russia.

    I know of one Jewish person, friend of a friend, from Russia who became antisemitic after living in Israel for a couple of years (she later moved to the USA).

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    A few years ago, a US mass media newscast had a segment on former Soviet Jews who left Israel for Germany. One of them saying that he didn't like the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. Israel Shamir isn't alone.

    Some years back, A NY area Zionist fanatic had denounced on radio former Soviet Jews for not being (as he put it Zionist enough. He was intellectually bitch slapped well by a caller who identified himself as part Jewish and Orthodox Christian.

    , @utu
    Israel for Soviet Jews was never their first choice. When the US was beginning to pressure the USSR (Jackson-Vanik) Israel was always complaining because it was getting Jews of the second sort. At some point Israel lobbied that future operations of exodus from USSR/Russia Jews would be flown directly to Israel w/o having a chance of making up their mind while in Vienna.

    I know many Jewish stories of departure form Israel for various reasons. They are well understood by the diaspora Jews who deep down do not like Israel and Israelis as they are different kind of Jews with a lack of sophistication, appreciation for high culture and so on and too pushy and arrogant.

    Diaspora Jews are particularly ticked off by young Israelis who come to the US instead of staying in Israel. "We keep sending money and lobby on their behalf so they stay in Israel but rather live here in Los Angeles."

    How many Israeli citizens who were born in Israel live outside Israel? I am interest in native born Israelis not in the wanna be neophytes like Dmitri. I suspect that the number is really big and not talked about. Some say 500k in the US. I heard this number already 30 year ago.
  160. A classic example of establishment realism:

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/who-really-shot-down-russias-plane-31502?page=0%2C1\

    Reminded of how the word illegal is used when mentioning Crimea’s reunification with Russia. On the other hand, some consider it okay for others to violate the airspace against the wishes of internationally recognized countries.

    This story has really been downplayed. By the 6 PM news cycle of Monday 9/17, CNN, DW and the BBC were paying more attention to the Pussy Riot prankster who is in as German hospital.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    This story was disappeared quickly on British telly.
  161. @AP
    I know of one Jewish person, friend of a friend, from Russia who became antisemitic after living in Israel for a couple of years (she later moved to the USA).

    A few years ago, a US mass media newscast had a segment on former Soviet Jews who left Israel for Germany. One of them saying that he didn’t like the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. Israel Shamir isn’t alone.

    Some years back, A NY area Zionist fanatic had denounced on radio former Soviet Jews for not being (as he put it Zionist enough. He was intellectually bitch slapped well by a caller who identified himself as part Jewish and Orthodox Christian.

  162. @utu

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians
     
    Is it possible because she is in LA, in diaspora not in Israel? I would imagine that Russian Jews in Israel might be less Russophobic because they had opportunity to get to know Jews up close and in large quantities and the reality of this experience might be not as rosy as they expected while still back in Russia.

    Interesting. Note that Netanyahu’s frequent visits to Russia contrast from how US situated neocon and neolib Jews are prone to seeing Russia.

    Deep down and without probably admitting it, this latest Israeli action in Syria is something that Russia hating Jews and some others likely desire.

    • Replies: @utu
    Whatever is going on between Netanyahu and Putin is a mystery to me and thus it is very fascinating. I did not pay attention to Israel-Russia axis until 2013 and then 2015 when Putin decided to move to Syria. How come Netanyahu did not sabotage Putin's move to Syria? Why did he OKed it? Just to piss off Obama? Or to suck Putin into a trap?

    The Chabad angle is very interesting particularly when we saw it manifested in the Trump circle. We saw conservative Chabad Zionists instead of liberal Trostkyist Jews in their neoconservative incarnation. Still it was all about Israel and Jews but from a different angle.

    I was very much taken by 2015 Putin UN speech. And since then I wanted to believe that he was a force of good in this world. But the strength of this force is as we are learning every few months is limited. After Netanyahu on May 9 in Moscow one may really wonder what is going on. Is Russia so entangled with Netanyahu that she can't make Israel to stop bombing Syria? Is Israel so sure of its impunity that it will keep humiliating Russia every few days? Are they sure that Russia will not snap?Basically my question to Mr. Putin: WTF is going on, Mr. Putin? Do you have a plan?
  163. @AP
    I know of one Jewish person, friend of a friend, from Russia who became antisemitic after living in Israel for a couple of years (she later moved to the USA).

    Israel for Soviet Jews was never their first choice. When the US was beginning to pressure the USSR (Jackson-Vanik) Israel was always complaining because it was getting Jews of the second sort. At some point Israel lobbied that future operations of exodus from USSR/Russia Jews would be flown directly to Israel w/o having a chance of making up their mind while in Vienna.

    I know many Jewish stories of departure form Israel for various reasons. They are well understood by the diaspora Jews who deep down do not like Israel and Israelis as they are different kind of Jews with a lack of sophistication, appreciation for high culture and so on and too pushy and arrogant.

    Diaspora Jews are particularly ticked off by young Israelis who come to the US instead of staying in Israel. “We keep sending money and lobby on their behalf so they stay in Israel but rather live here in Los Angeles.”

    How many Israeli citizens who were born in Israel live outside Israel? I am interest in native born Israelis not in the wanna be neophytes like Dmitri. I suspect that the number is really big and not talked about. Some say 500k in the US. I heard this number already 30 year ago.

    • Replies: @Cato
    I doubt if you can find statistics for Israeli immigrants broken down by religion/ethny. The guy who came to fix my garage door was an Arab Israeli citizen, as was the professor my son had in his robotics course last semester, as was the owner of a restaurant we ate at last week. I know a couple of Israeli Jewish immigrants, but I seem to know more Arabs. And the official statistics will not differentiate between them.
  164. @Mikhail
    Interesting. Note that Netanyahu's frequent visits to Russia contrast from how US situated neocon and neolib Jews are prone to seeing Russia.

    Deep down and without probably admitting it, this latest Israeli action in Syria is something that Russia hating Jews and some others likely desire.

    Whatever is going on between Netanyahu and Putin is a mystery to me and thus it is very fascinating. I did not pay attention to Israel-Russia axis until 2013 and then 2015 when Putin decided to move to Syria. How come Netanyahu did not sabotage Putin’s move to Syria? Why did he OKed it? Just to piss off Obama? Or to suck Putin into a trap?

    The Chabad angle is very interesting particularly when we saw it manifested in the Trump circle. We saw conservative Chabad Zionists instead of liberal Trostkyist Jews in their neoconservative incarnation. Still it was all about Israel and Jews but from a different angle.

    I was very much taken by 2015 Putin UN speech. And since then I wanted to believe that he was a force of good in this world. But the strength of this force is as we are learning every few months is limited. After Netanyahu on May 9 in Moscow one may really wonder what is going on. Is Russia so entangled with Netanyahu that she can’t make Israel to stop bombing Syria? Is Israel so sure of its impunity that it will keep humiliating Russia every few days? Are they sure that Russia will not snap?Basically my question to Mr. Putin: WTF is going on, Mr. Putin? Do you have a plan?

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    What was said about that back in 2015:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/10/09/answering-russia-critics-on-syria.html

    Your end questions underscore the complexities.

    At play is a dramatic difference of emphasis. The Sunni based terrorism of Al Qaeda (its successor names and all) and ISIS doesn't pertain to Hezbollah and Iran. The latter two support the Russian and Syrian government position in Syria, while being at loggerheads with Israel. Al Qaeda and ISIS constitute definite threats to Syria and Russia. In comparison, some in Israel (and for that matter the US) see Iran and Hezbollah as greater threats. Conversely, the Israelis can't feel to comfy with Al Qaeda and ISIS.
    , @Dmitry
    There's no need for typical Utu excursion onto Chabad Lubavitch, connection between Jews and human sacrifice, or relation with Moon landing and Kennedy assassination.

    Considering the response from the Kremlin.

    It seems publicly they blamed Israel for the incident, while privately probably a large portion blamed on Syria.

    Israel's F-16s created the dangerous situation, while Syria for some incompetence shotdown turboprop in the other direction.

    Compare to Turkey (which is a much more important ally than Israel). They shot down a plane with one death, and there was months of overt-top anger against Turkey, with media completely obsessed on the topic.

    Whereas incident yesterday (with 15 deaths and actual tragedy) is already not much in the media today. Probably it could be considered politically inconvenient, if the story does not really fit together.

    Browsing the news sites, I read today two articles on the subject, attacking Israel in the media today, from "court Jews" Satanovsky and Kedmi. From Eskin, it hasn't been heard yet (I guess he will write something tomorrow when Yom Kippur is over).
  165. @utu
    Whatever is going on between Netanyahu and Putin is a mystery to me and thus it is very fascinating. I did not pay attention to Israel-Russia axis until 2013 and then 2015 when Putin decided to move to Syria. How come Netanyahu did not sabotage Putin's move to Syria? Why did he OKed it? Just to piss off Obama? Or to suck Putin into a trap?

    The Chabad angle is very interesting particularly when we saw it manifested in the Trump circle. We saw conservative Chabad Zionists instead of liberal Trostkyist Jews in their neoconservative incarnation. Still it was all about Israel and Jews but from a different angle.

    I was very much taken by 2015 Putin UN speech. And since then I wanted to believe that he was a force of good in this world. But the strength of this force is as we are learning every few months is limited. After Netanyahu on May 9 in Moscow one may really wonder what is going on. Is Russia so entangled with Netanyahu that she can't make Israel to stop bombing Syria? Is Israel so sure of its impunity that it will keep humiliating Russia every few days? Are they sure that Russia will not snap?Basically my question to Mr. Putin: WTF is going on, Mr. Putin? Do you have a plan?

    What was said about that back in 2015:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/10/09/answering-russia-critics-on-syria.html

    Your end questions underscore the complexities.

    At play is a dramatic difference of emphasis. The Sunni based terrorism of Al Qaeda (its successor names and all) and ISIS doesn’t pertain to Hezbollah and Iran. The latter two support the Russian and Syrian government position in Syria, while being at loggerheads with Israel. Al Qaeda and ISIS constitute definite threats to Syria and Russia. In comparison, some in Israel (and for that matter the US) see Iran and Hezbollah as greater threats. Conversely, the Israelis can’t feel to comfy with Al Qaeda and ISIS.

  166. “Reserve the right to retaliate”… pshhh…. dune coons have been saying that since 1947. A motto for the weak.

    Did you hear? Netanyahu was invited to the Federation Council to receive a 7 minute standing ovation. This is preceded by a 3 minute standing ovation as he walks to the podium.

    Bigger-er and better-er than America!

    It’s gonna be great.

  167. @AP

    which country seems unlikely to be majority nonwhite 40 years from now?
     
    In 2060? Probably no European country will be majority non-white (if you consider Arabs or Turks to be non-white). Sweden may be the sole exception.

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/map-europe-future-muslim-demographics.png

    In the high-Muslim scenario, by 2050 the most Muslim country will be Sweden with 30%, followed by Germany, Austria, France and the UK with 20%. Add perhaps 10% to include non-Muslim Africans plus Asians (maybe 15% for the UK, with its Hindus and Caribbeans). Ten years after 2050 Sweden may be at the tipping point. The other high Muslim areas will still be over 50% European. Note that this is the highest Muslim scenario - numbers may very well be lower.

    Perhaps some small Eastern European countries
     
    Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia, Ukraine, Ireland, Belarus, and Portugal are projected to be under 5% Muslim in 2050. I doubt there will be many non-Muslim Africans here either. That's like 150 million people worth of European countries living in places with populations that are overwhelmingly European.

    Furthermore, Spain will be at 7.4%, Greece 9.7%, Italy 14.1%, Finland and Netherlands 15%. These places won't be European-minority ten years later.

    the younger half of the population will be minority white much sooner – people who focus on the percentage of the total population are either deluding themselves or others.

    • Replies: @AP
    Sure. The point is that by 2060, even under worst case scenario, every European country will still be majority-European, with the possible exception of Sweden. By 2100 it may be different but even then eastern and southern Europe will still be so. Not that the reality will be wonderful (it's too bad major cities like Paris or London will be solidly non-European), but there is a lot of hysteria here.

    Those maps were done in the midst of the migrant crisis, which has faded somewhat. So the worst-case scenario is not even that likely.
  168. @notanon
    as an ultra-anglo i kind of agree we messed up - creating the most powerful nations in world history and then letting them be hijacked by a banking mafia who want to turn all the most impressive nations into 85 IQ slave cattle. personally i see it as a duty to make things right but i understand if people are mad.

    however you're not going to survive without us cos we're the only people who are both smart enough and savage enough to out play the bad guys.

    we’re the only people who are both smart enough and savage enough to out play the bad guys

    The twist: you are the bad guys.

    • Replies: @notanon
    then i guess we'll just have to play the evil sidekick who helps the good guys out of self-interest. i don't mind.
  169. @Mikhail
    A classic example of establishment realism:

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/who-really-shot-down-russias-plane-31502?page=0%2C1\

    Reminded of how the word illegal is used when mentioning Crimea's reunification with Russia. On the other hand, some consider it okay for others to violate the airspace against the wishes of internationally recognized countries.

    This story has really been downplayed. By the 6 PM news cycle of Monday 9/17, CNN, DW and the BBC were paying more attention to the Pussy Riot prankster who is in as German hospital.

    This story was disappeared quickly on British telly.

    • Replies: @notanon
    pretty significant imo

    seems to me the two possibilities are:

    1) Israeli jets were using the French ship as a human shield when they launched their missiles knowing the Syrians wouldn't fire back - in which case the NATO captains in the region may be reluctantly colluding under orders.

    or

    2) same thing but trying to get the Syrians to attack a NATO ship to bring the US into the war - in which case you'd think with all those radars in the vicinity people are gonna notice and be mad.

    or maybe

    3) the neocons got the attack on Idbil postponed so they decided to take a break?
  170. @The Scalpel
    so Hillary was attacking the USSR way back then also?

    Lots of evil people have H as the initial letter in their name.

  171. @AP

    which country seems unlikely to be majority nonwhite 40 years from now?
     
    In 2060? Probably no European country will be majority non-white (if you consider Arabs or Turks to be non-white). Sweden may be the sole exception.

    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/map-europe-future-muslim-demographics.png

    In the high-Muslim scenario, by 2050 the most Muslim country will be Sweden with 30%, followed by Germany, Austria, France and the UK with 20%. Add perhaps 10% to include non-Muslim Africans plus Asians (maybe 15% for the UK, with its Hindus and Caribbeans). Ten years after 2050 Sweden may be at the tipping point. The other high Muslim areas will still be over 50% European. Note that this is the highest Muslim scenario - numbers may very well be lower.

    Perhaps some small Eastern European countries
     
    Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia, Ukraine, Ireland, Belarus, and Portugal are projected to be under 5% Muslim in 2050. I doubt there will be many non-Muslim Africans here either. That's like 150 million people worth of European countries living in places with populations that are overwhelmingly European.

    Furthermore, Spain will be at 7.4%, Greece 9.7%, Italy 14.1%, Finland and Netherlands 15%. These places won't be European-minority ten years later.

    The first problem is that map only contains Muslim populations, the mass immigration of Africans is a far bigger problem as not every African is a Muslim. Then there is the issue with the EU that is hell bent on pushing from ever more to enter, even wanting to punish the likes of Hungary for resisting it. Finally one needs to factor in miscegenation rates. With all of these variables it is safer to say that by 2060 all of Europe will be non white, I am not just talking about France or Germany, but Poland, Ukraine, Hungary will be majority non white in 2060.

    • Replies: @AP

    The first problem is that map only contains Muslim populations, the mass immigration of Africans is a far bigger problem as not every African is a Muslim.
     
    I took that into account when I stated to add another 10% for the non-African Muslims (the map already includes Somalis, northern Nigerians, Sudanese, etc.).

    Then there is the issue with the EU that is hell bent on pushing from ever more to enter
     
    Not really. It is pushing to spread them around but the tide has shifted.

    Finally one needs to factor in miscegenation rates. With all of these variables it is safer to say that by 2060 all of Europe will be non white, I am not just talking about France or Germany, but Poland, Ukraine, Hungary will be majority non white in 2060
     
    Lol no.
  172. @anonymous coward

    we’re the only people who are both smart enough and savage enough to out play the bad guys
     
    The twist: you are the bad guys.

    then i guess we’ll just have to play the evil sidekick who helps the good guys out of self-interest. i don’t mind.

  173. @LondonBob
    This story was disappeared quickly on British telly.

    pretty significant imo

    seems to me the two possibilities are:

    1) Israeli jets were using the French ship as a human shield when they launched their missiles knowing the Syrians wouldn’t fire back – in which case the NATO captains in the region may be reluctantly colluding under orders.

    or

    2) same thing but trying to get the Syrians to attack a NATO ship to bring the US into the war – in which case you’d think with all those radars in the vicinity people are gonna notice and be mad.

    or maybe

    3) the neocons got the attack on Idbil postponed so they decided to take a break?

  174. @Hyperborean
    Doesn't this assume that the Bolsheviks were more likely than not to come out of the Second World War alive?

    Counterfactual history is just that.

    Suppose that H. had not seized power. That would have left the social democrats and communists in power in Germany. This would have made Russia’s brand of communism even more unattractive. If the German/Russian economic cooperation had continued, how would the capitalist Anglo world have responded? Serious support for civil war in Russia?

    • Replies: @notanon

    That would have left the social democrats and communists in power in Germany. This would have made Russia’s brand of communism even more unattractive.
     
    or...

    combined russo-german bolshevik army invading western Europe
    , @Hyperborean

    Counterfactual history is just that.
     
    But isn't stating that the USSR would have fallen earlier without victory in the Great Patriotic War also counterfactual history?

    That would have left the social democrats and communists in power in Germany. This would have made Russia’s brand of communism even more unattractive.
     
    The Weimar Regime was a Centrist/Social Democratic regime and the distinction is important.

    German Communists were able to retain a loyal core of 10% of the population even during the Weimar Regime's 'flower era'.


    If the German/Russian economic cooperation had continued, how would the capitalist Anglo world have responded? Serious support for civil war in Russia?
     
    How would this scenario realistically look like?
  175. @utu
    Whatever is going on between Netanyahu and Putin is a mystery to me and thus it is very fascinating. I did not pay attention to Israel-Russia axis until 2013 and then 2015 when Putin decided to move to Syria. How come Netanyahu did not sabotage Putin's move to Syria? Why did he OKed it? Just to piss off Obama? Or to suck Putin into a trap?

    The Chabad angle is very interesting particularly when we saw it manifested in the Trump circle. We saw conservative Chabad Zionists instead of liberal Trostkyist Jews in their neoconservative incarnation. Still it was all about Israel and Jews but from a different angle.

    I was very much taken by 2015 Putin UN speech. And since then I wanted to believe that he was a force of good in this world. But the strength of this force is as we are learning every few months is limited. After Netanyahu on May 9 in Moscow one may really wonder what is going on. Is Russia so entangled with Netanyahu that she can't make Israel to stop bombing Syria? Is Israel so sure of its impunity that it will keep humiliating Russia every few days? Are they sure that Russia will not snap?Basically my question to Mr. Putin: WTF is going on, Mr. Putin? Do you have a plan?

    There’s no need for typical Utu excursion onto Chabad Lubavitch, connection between Jews and human sacrifice, or relation with Moon landing and Kennedy assassination.

    Considering the response from the Kremlin.

    It seems publicly they blamed Israel for the incident, while privately probably a large portion blamed on Syria.

    Israel’s F-16s created the dangerous situation, while Syria for some incompetence shotdown turboprop in the other direction.

    Compare to Turkey (which is a much more important ally than Israel). They shot down a plane with one death, and there was months of overt-top anger against Turkey, with media completely obsessed on the topic.

    Whereas incident yesterday (with 15 deaths and actual tragedy) is already not much in the media today. Probably it could be considered politically inconvenient, if the story does not really fit together.

    Browsing the news sites, I read today two articles on the subject, attacking Israel in the media today, from “court Jews” Satanovsky and Kedmi. From Eskin, it hasn’t been heard yet (I guess he will write something tomorrow when Yom Kippur is over).

    • Replies: @utu
    Wow. What is happening, Dmitri? Are you having a bad day? How did you get from these three sentences


    The Chabad angle is very interesting particularly when we saw it manifested in the Trump circle. We saw conservative Chabad Zionists instead of liberal Trostkyist Jews in their neoconservative incarnation. Still it was all about Israel and Jews but from a different angle.

     

    to this straw men and ad hominem nonsense

    There’s no need for typical Utu excursion onto Chabad Lubavitch, connection between Jews and human sacrifice, or relation with Moon landing and Kennedy assassination.
     
    I think you would agree that the increasing political role of Chabad Lubavitch that everybody can see in the US, Israel and Russia should be scrutinized. Furthermore any political influence of hermetic religious sect in ostensively transparent society should be of some concern.
  176. @AP

    It’s not just about the number dead (and injured), but the ongoing physical damage to buildings and infrastructure, the many thousands who have to regularly take shelter and live without power or water, or who have fled leaving their homes behind.
     
    This damage seems to have mostly been done. Kiev isn't expanding its area of operations and shelling "fresh" areas.

    And failing to prevent Kiev from terrorizing and murdering ethnic Russians literally on its doorstep
     
    Russian media may portray this as some sort of "Sarajevo" situation, but at this point it is pretty low grade.

    Donbas (population 3.6 million) is on track to have 60 dead from shelling in 2018. Sarajevo (population 300,000) had 5,000 dead during the 4 year long siege, about 1, 250 a year.

    Russia can cite the precedent of NATO bombing to stop Serb shelling of civilians in Bosnia
     
    Situations aren't comparable (see above).

    Actual airstrikes may not even be necessary. Right now, Kiev is shelling Donbass civilians because it knows there is no cost to to doing so. If Russia recognizes the separatist territories and warns Kiev it will not tolerate continued aggression against them, Kiev may stop.
     
    Very possible.

    I doubt Ukraine would be able to shoot down any Russian planes.
     
    It depends on where Ukraine's S-300 systems are deployed. If near Donbas, they probably will. Has any modern air force gone against an S-300 system? Ukraine is closer to parity with Russia than Yugoslavia or Iraq were with NATO, and Yugoslavia and Iraq managed to down some planes.

    So to stop what is now a very low grade war, Russia would risk more and worse sanctions (or limit the chances of ending those sanctions), lose some men and some expensive planes to take out some random artillery positions.

    This damage seems to have mostly been done. Kiev isn’t expanding its area of operations and shelling “fresh” areas.

    This year, shelling has destroyed hundreds of homes in the DNR. Tens of thousands still live in areas that regularly experience heavy shelling. Residential areas in the center of Gorlovka were being heavily shelled as recently as 4 months ago.

    Situations aren’t comparable (see above).

    Not in the scale of casualties, but the principle is the same. And the duration/scale of the military intervention would be lesser as well.

    It depends on where Ukraine’s S-300 systems are deployed.

    I’m no expert on air defense hardware, but I’d be surprised if Russia couldn’t quickly overwhelm any S-300 systems deployed within threatening range.

    Has any modern air force gone against an S-300 system? Ukraine is closer to parity with Russia than Yugoslavia or Iraq were with NATO, and Yugoslavia and Iraq managed to down some planes.

    In the Kosovo conflict, NATO lost two planes (and had zero casualties) out of nearly 40,000 combat sorties. The operation I’m describing could last less than a day and involve only hundreds of sorties. So even if Ukraine’s defenses are 100 times more effective per sortie than Yugoslavia’s, losses would be similar.

    So to stop what is now a very low grade war, Russia would risk more and worse sanctions (or limit the chances of ending those sanctions), lose some men and some expensive planes to take out some random artillery positions.

    The purpose wouldn’t be just be to take out the artillery, but also to symbolically push back against the West, which could simply order Kiev to stop the shelling at any time, but doesn’t do so because it humiliates Russia. If any of the US-supplied Javelin systems are near the front line, it might be a good idea to take out those too.

    Ideally though, no airstrikes would be necessary because the DLNR would be allowed to join Russia, in which case all Ukrainian attacks on that territory would immediately stop, for the same reason that Ukraine never attacks Crimea.

    • Replies: @AP

    This damage seems to have mostly been done. Kiev isn’t expanding its area of operations and shelling “fresh” areas.

    This year, shelling has destroyed hundreds of homes in the DNR. Tens of thousands still live in areas that regularly experience heavy shelling. Residential areas in the center of Gorlovka were being heavily shelled as recently as 4 months ago.

     

    Most of these areas were abandoned years ago, otherwise the destruction of hundreds of buildings woulds not be accompanied by only 29 deaths.

    Has any modern air force gone against an S-300 system? Ukraine is closer to parity with Russia than Yugoslavia or Iraq were with NATO, and Yugoslavia and Iraq managed to down some planes.

    In the Kosovo conflict, NATO lost two planes (and had zero casualties) out of nearly 40,000 combat sorties. The operation I’m describing could last less than a day and involve only hundreds of sorties. So even if Ukraine’s defenses are 100 times more effective per sortie than Yugoslavia’s, losses would be similar.
     
    Yugo system IIIRC was from the 1960s (but manned by very skilled people). Syria using S-200 (still inferior to Ukraine's S-300 systems, plus manned by Syrians) took down an Israeli jet recently (confirmed) and allegedly took down two others. Presumably Russian actions would be most comparable or analogous to Israeli ones in Syria. Yet Ukraine's air defenses are much better than Syria's and the Russian air force, "pound for pound", is probably worse than Israel's. So a limited Israeli-style strike would be much riskier for Russia over Ukrainian skies.

    Russia would probably have to first engage in large-scale cruise missile strikes across large areas of eastern Ukraine to take out these systems, before sending planes in to take out the artillery positions. At that point Ukraine would have nothing to lose and would probably launch its own missiles into Russian positions near the border (are Ukraine's newest Neptune missiles deployed yet? Sevastopol would be within range of them). All of this, to stop what at this point is a very low grade conflict that is claiming an average of 2 civilian lives, none of whom even Russian citizens, per month.

    Ideally though, no airstrikes would be necessary because the DLNR would be allowed to join Russia, in which case all Ukrainian attacks on that territory would immediately stop, for the same reason that Ukraine never attacks Crimea.
     
    Probably the best solution not only for Donbas residents but also for Ukraine, which is a reason why the Russian state isn't pushing for it.
  177. OT: Some potentially negative news for CRISPR.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06642-4

    AnonFromTN, the article didn’t mention how often or how “important” such target sites are. Would you know?

  178. @iffen
    Counterfactual history is just that.

    Suppose that H. had not seized power. That would have left the social democrats and communists in power in Germany. This would have made Russia’s brand of communism even more unattractive. If the German/Russian economic cooperation had continued, how would the capitalist Anglo world have responded? Serious support for civil war in Russia?

    That would have left the social democrats and communists in power in Germany. This would have made Russia’s brand of communism even more unattractive.

    or…

    combined russo-german bolshevik army invading western Europe

  179. @RadicalCenter
    Well, Israel is full (20%) of jews who were born and raised in Russia, which is a far cry from “Russians.” Their identity and loyalty is typically not Russian but Jewish first.

    I know a Russian Jew here in LA who hates, and I mean hates Russia and Russians — not just the user, which would be more understandable. She personally resents and takes pleasure in the misfortune of the Russian people. She’s the girlfriend of a friend, and very pleasant and sociable to me, but she just doesn’t identify with Russia to say the least. This, I’m gathering, is not atypical.

    Conversely, do you think the average Russian has affection for, identifies with, wants to sacrifice to protect, Jews who used to live in Russia? Russians, please weigh in here.

    On one hand, I’ve read that today’s Russians aren’t nearly as antiSemitic as they should be given who was so disproportionately in charge of the vicious parts of the USSR regime at the beginning and for much of the time thereafter. But I doubt they’d shrink in horror at the prospect of destroying the belligerent, disloyal wiseasses in Israel whose government just murdered fourteen Russians in syria.

    In Israel you can take a lot of photos of Russia flags, as well as Ukraine flags, hanging from peoples’ balconies. Some people wearing yarussia type clothing, although less common than seeing people wearing clothing with British and American flags.

    On my phone I have photos of all this from when I was there most recently this year.

    As for racism (including against Russian immigrants) it’s clearly going to be higher (more racist) in Israel than it is in Russia. But it’s still very “passive” discrimination. The racism level is not like in America. Probably it is more at a healthy level (small racism is not necessarily unhealthy). Everything about these topics exaggerated by media and people with various complicated agendas – if you remove this topic, then this website would not have anything to write about.

    Israeli elite itself is very liberal, but this is far distant from the views of the average Israeli cattle.

  180. @iffen
    Counterfactual history is just that.

    Suppose that H. had not seized power. That would have left the social democrats and communists in power in Germany. This would have made Russia’s brand of communism even more unattractive. If the German/Russian economic cooperation had continued, how would the capitalist Anglo world have responded? Serious support for civil war in Russia?

    Counterfactual history is just that.

    But isn’t stating that the USSR would have fallen earlier without victory in the Great Patriotic War also counterfactual history?

    That would have left the social democrats and communists in power in Germany. This would have made Russia’s brand of communism even more unattractive.

    The Weimar Regime was a Centrist/Social Democratic regime and the distinction is important.

    German Communists were able to retain a loyal core of 10% of the population even during the Weimar Regime’s ‘flower era’.

    If the German/Russian economic cooperation had continued, how would the capitalist Anglo world have responded? Serious support for civil war in Russia?

    How would this scenario realistically look like?

  181. @Dmitry
    There's no need for typical Utu excursion onto Chabad Lubavitch, connection between Jews and human sacrifice, or relation with Moon landing and Kennedy assassination.

    Considering the response from the Kremlin.

    It seems publicly they blamed Israel for the incident, while privately probably a large portion blamed on Syria.

    Israel's F-16s created the dangerous situation, while Syria for some incompetence shotdown turboprop in the other direction.

    Compare to Turkey (which is a much more important ally than Israel). They shot down a plane with one death, and there was months of overt-top anger against Turkey, with media completely obsessed on the topic.

    Whereas incident yesterday (with 15 deaths and actual tragedy) is already not much in the media today. Probably it could be considered politically inconvenient, if the story does not really fit together.

    Browsing the news sites, I read today two articles on the subject, attacking Israel in the media today, from "court Jews" Satanovsky and Kedmi. From Eskin, it hasn't been heard yet (I guess he will write something tomorrow when Yom Kippur is over).

    Wow. What is happening, Dmitri? Are you having a bad day? How did you get from these three sentences

    The Chabad angle is very interesting particularly when we saw it manifested in the Trump circle. We saw conservative Chabad Zionists instead of liberal Trostkyist Jews in their neoconservative incarnation. Still it was all about Israel and Jews but from a different angle.

    to this straw men and ad hominem nonsense

    There’s no need for typical Utu excursion onto Chabad Lubavitch, connection between Jews and human sacrifice, or relation with Moon landing and Kennedy assassination.

    I think you would agree that the increasing political role of Chabad Lubavitch that everybody can see in the US, Israel and Russia should be scrutinized. Furthermore any political influence of hermetic religious sect in ostensively transparent society should be of some concern.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I expect your "associative" thought process, so we should be talking about Kennedy within a few posts.

    I don't really see relation of Chabad to shooting down of Il-20.

    Kremlin finds them useful decoration in Russian Federation. Some kind of simpleton Jews which wear costumes and refuse to sit next to women in the plane.

  182. @notanon
    the younger half of the population will be minority white much sooner - people who focus on the percentage of the total population are either deluding themselves or others.

    Sure. The point is that by 2060, even under worst case scenario, every European country will still be majority-European, with the possible exception of Sweden. By 2100 it may be different but even then eastern and southern Europe will still be so. Not that the reality will be wonderful (it’s too bad major cities like Paris or London will be solidly non-European), but there is a lot of hysteria here.

    Those maps were done in the midst of the migrant crisis, which has faded somewhat. So the worst-case scenario is not even that likely.

  183. @Jon0815

    This damage seems to have mostly been done. Kiev isn’t expanding its area of operations and shelling “fresh” areas.
     
    This year, shelling has destroyed hundreds of homes in the DNR. Tens of thousands still live in areas that regularly experience heavy shelling. Residential areas in the center of Gorlovka were being heavily shelled as recently as 4 months ago.

    Situations aren’t comparable (see above).
     
    Not in the scale of casualties, but the principle is the same. And the duration/scale of the military intervention would be lesser as well.

    It depends on where Ukraine’s S-300 systems are deployed.
     
    I'm no expert on air defense hardware, but I'd be surprised if Russia couldn't quickly overwhelm any S-300 systems deployed within threatening range.

    Has any modern air force gone against an S-300 system? Ukraine is closer to parity with Russia than Yugoslavia or Iraq were with NATO, and Yugoslavia and Iraq managed to down some planes.
     
    In the Kosovo conflict, NATO lost two planes (and had zero casualties) out of nearly 40,000 combat sorties. The operation I'm describing could last less than a day and involve only hundreds of sorties. So even if Ukraine's defenses are 100 times more effective per sortie than Yugoslavia's, losses would be similar.

    So to stop what is now a very low grade war, Russia would risk more and worse sanctions (or limit the chances of ending those sanctions), lose some men and some expensive planes to take out some random artillery positions.
     
    The purpose wouldn't be just be to take out the artillery, but also to symbolically push back against the West, which could simply order Kiev to stop the shelling at any time, but doesn't do so because it humiliates Russia. If any of the US-supplied Javelin systems are near the front line, it might be a good idea to take out those too.

    Ideally though, no airstrikes would be necessary because the DLNR would be allowed to join Russia, in which case all Ukrainian attacks on that territory would immediately stop, for the same reason that Ukraine never attacks Crimea.

    This damage seems to have mostly been done. Kiev isn’t expanding its area of operations and shelling “fresh” areas.

    This year, shelling has destroyed hundreds of homes in the DNR. Tens of thousands still live in areas that regularly experience heavy shelling. Residential areas in the center of Gorlovka were being heavily shelled as recently as 4 months ago.

    Most of these areas were abandoned years ago, otherwise the destruction of hundreds of buildings woulds not be accompanied by only 29 deaths.

    Has any modern air force gone against an S-300 system? Ukraine is closer to parity with Russia than Yugoslavia or Iraq were with NATO, and Yugoslavia and Iraq managed to down some planes.

    In the Kosovo conflict, NATO lost two planes (and had zero casualties) out of nearly 40,000 combat sorties. The operation I’m describing could last less than a day and involve only hundreds of sorties. So even if Ukraine’s defenses are 100 times more effective per sortie than Yugoslavia’s, losses would be similar.

    Yugo system IIIRC was from the 1960s (but manned by very skilled people). Syria using S-200 (still inferior to Ukraine’s S-300 systems, plus manned by Syrians) took down an Israeli jet recently (confirmed) and allegedly took down two others. Presumably Russian actions would be most comparable or analogous to Israeli ones in Syria. Yet Ukraine’s air defenses are much better than Syria’s and the Russian air force, “pound for pound”, is probably worse than Israel’s. So a limited Israeli-style strike would be much riskier for Russia over Ukrainian skies.

    Russia would probably have to first engage in large-scale cruise missile strikes across large areas of eastern Ukraine to take out these systems, before sending planes in to take out the artillery positions. At that point Ukraine would have nothing to lose and would probably launch its own missiles into Russian positions near the border (are Ukraine’s newest Neptune missiles deployed yet? Sevastopol would be within range of them). All of this, to stop what at this point is a very low grade conflict that is claiming an average of 2 civilian lives, none of whom even Russian citizens, per month.

    Ideally though, no airstrikes would be necessary because the DLNR would be allowed to join Russia, in which case all Ukrainian attacks on that territory would immediately stop, for the same reason that Ukraine never attacks Crimea.

    Probably the best solution not only for Donbas residents but also for Ukraine, which is a reason why the Russian state isn’t pushing for it.

    • Replies: @Jon0815

    Syria using S-200 (still inferior to Ukraine’s S-300 systems, plus manned by Syrians)
     
    S-200 recently upgraded by Russia. And despite average IQ differences in the general population, I don't think its safe to assume that Ukrainian officers are currently much more competent than their Syrian counterparts.


    and the Russian air force, “pound for pound”, is probably worse than Israel’s.

     

    Not sure this is true. The RuAF has performed extremely well in Syria, with results far exceeding what was widely predicted by experts when the intervention began. Whereas Israel has blamed the loss of its F-16 to Syrian air defense on pilot incompetence.

    Russia would probably have to first engage in large-scale cruise missile strikes across large areas of eastern Ukraine to take out these systems, before sending planes in to take out the artillery positions. At that point Ukraine would have nothing to lose and would probably launch its own missiles into Russian positions near the border (are Ukraine’s newest Neptune missiles deployed yet? Sevastopol would be within range of them).
     
    What would Ukraine gain by doing this, except more punishment? Russia has air defense systems of its own, which are a lot better than Ukraine's. So there would be no guarantee of any damage to Russia, but Russian retaliation would be guaranteed. If Ukraine did manage to kill some Russian soldiers, Russia would just hit back even harder. And if you mean Ukraine should target the city of Sevastopol, that would be completely nuts from a PR standpoint.
  184. @neutral
    The first problem is that map only contains Muslim populations, the mass immigration of Africans is a far bigger problem as not every African is a Muslim. Then there is the issue with the EU that is hell bent on pushing from ever more to enter, even wanting to punish the likes of Hungary for resisting it. Finally one needs to factor in miscegenation rates. With all of these variables it is safer to say that by 2060 all of Europe will be non white, I am not just talking about France or Germany, but Poland, Ukraine, Hungary will be majority non white in 2060.

    The first problem is that map only contains Muslim populations, the mass immigration of Africans is a far bigger problem as not every African is a Muslim.

    I took that into account when I stated to add another 10% for the non-African Muslims (the map already includes Somalis, northern Nigerians, Sudanese, etc.).

    Then there is the issue with the EU that is hell bent on pushing from ever more to enter

    Not really. It is pushing to spread them around but the tide has shifted.

    Finally one needs to factor in miscegenation rates. With all of these variables it is safer to say that by 2060 all of Europe will be non white, I am not just talking about France or Germany, but Poland, Ukraine, Hungary will be majority non white in 2060

    Lol no.

    • Replies: @notanon

    Not really. It is pushing to spread them around but the tide has shifted.
     
    google "does europe need more immigrants" and you'll get scores of msm articles saying yes - and in unlimited numbers

    one needs to factor in miscegenation rates
     
    a lot of people don't understand how much anti-white violence (especially sexual related violence) there is in and around white minority schools (cos teens are effectively chimps)

    so white minoritisation among the young + integrated schools + teen gang violence greatly speeds up the rate of white extinction once the tipping point is reached in the schools
  185. The point is that by 2060, even under worst case scenario, every European country will still be majority-European

    except they won’t

    70% of the total population but only 30% of the young population = white minority

    the only percentage that matters is the percentage of the young

    • Replies: @AP

    70% of the total population but only 30% of the young population = white minority
     
    Not in 2060. Keep in mind that non-Sub-Saharan African Muslim fertility rates are collapsing. By 2050 if not sooner they probably will have converged with European native levels. So by then, young % wouldn't be very much different from overall percentage. So 70% of total population European might be 60% or 55% of young population (factoring in sub-Saharan Africans).

    And note that "Radical Center" claimed that all of Europe would be gone in 40 years. But eastern and southern Europe wouldn't even be close. Spain - 7% Muslim in 2050. So maybe young would be 10% Muslim.

    the only percentage that matters is the percentage of the young
     
    Sure, but then use the right year.
  186. If there was any doubt left in any intelligent mind that the right-wing hipster pseudointellectual Anatoly Karlin is/always was a disinfo agent and psy-ops operative working for the Anglo-Zionist side and against the Russian state and its allies, the title and content of this blog post should dispel that doubt for good. In a post supposedly dealing with the shooting down of a Russian military plane directly caused by Israeli actions and most probably planned carefully in advance by them, there isn’t a SINGLE MENTION of Israeli culpability in the incident – instead it’s “Syria shot down the Russian plane”, as if it was an ordinary friendly fire incident due to incompetence, or as if the Syrians shot it down intentionally.

    The Russian plane was shot down by Syrian anti-aircraft missiles because Israeli jets that were carrying out unprovoked aggression against Syria by bombing Syrian coastal installations near the Russian base in Latakia from the sea, DELIBERATELY HID BEHIND the larger radar signature of the unsuspecting and un-forewarned, bigger and slower Russian military plane which was flying in the vicinity, causing the defensive Syrian missiles to mistakenly hit the Russian plane instead. The Israelis knew what they were doing – they DELIBERATELY put the Russian plane between themselves and the Syrian anti-aircraft batteries, EXACTLY in the same manner as an armed robber hastily grabbing a human shield and putting him in between himself and the bullets from a homeowner’s gun. It is premeditated and deliberate murder of 15 non-hostile Russian servicemen by the Israeli criminals – as clearly stated yesterday by the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who put the blame squarely on the Israelis. It is a heinous action on par with the USS Liberty incident of 1967 – but you wouldn’t know that from reading the treacherous Anatoly Karlin’s disingenuous blog post.

    Obviously, Karlin is either a long-trained subversive operative sent to Russia with a purpose and agenda; or he has fallen in line with and become a stooge of the treasonous pro-Anglo Zionist Fifth Column and liberasts in Russia (notice how he never criticizes them in his writings anymore). Anybody who still reads this guy and takes him seriously as an “objective commentator” or a “Russian nationalist”, is an idiot.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    If there was any doubt left in any intelligent mind that the right-wing hipster pseudointellectual Anatoly Karlin is/always was a disinfo agent and psy-ops operative working for the Anglo-Zionist side and against the Russian state and its allies, the title and content of this blog post should dispel that doubt for good
     
    Sounds like you should add this to his RationalWiki entry.
  187. @AP

    The first problem is that map only contains Muslim populations, the mass immigration of Africans is a far bigger problem as not every African is a Muslim.
     
    I took that into account when I stated to add another 10% for the non-African Muslims (the map already includes Somalis, northern Nigerians, Sudanese, etc.).

    Then there is the issue with the EU that is hell bent on pushing from ever more to enter
     
    Not really. It is pushing to spread them around but the tide has shifted.

    Finally one needs to factor in miscegenation rates. With all of these variables it is safer to say that by 2060 all of Europe will be non white, I am not just talking about France or Germany, but Poland, Ukraine, Hungary will be majority non white in 2060
     
    Lol no.

    Not really. It is pushing to spread them around but the tide has shifted.

    google “does europe need more immigrants” and you’ll get scores of msm articles saying yes – and in unlimited numbers

    one needs to factor in miscegenation rates

    a lot of people don’t understand how much anti-white violence (especially sexual related violence) there is in and around white minority schools (cos teens are effectively chimps)

    so white minoritisation among the young + integrated schools + teen gang violence greatly speeds up the rate of white extinction once the tipping point is reached in the schools

    • Replies: @AP

    google “does europe need more immigrants” and you’ll get scores of msm articles saying yes – and in unlimited numbers
     
    Articles written when? Politicians and voters' will count, and immigration has indeed been scaled back now. You haven't noticed?

    Migrants peaked in 2015:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/European_migrant_crisis/0/fa24bc4cb398cf588ad92e770461a7d202bf9472.png
    , @LatW

    google “does europe need more immigrants” and you’ll get scores of msm articles saying yes – and in unlimited numbers
     
    While I agree that third country illegal immigration should be stopped (non-selective legal immigration should also be stopped), it should be noted in the context of labor shortages - the immigration lobby is indeed asking for more people, but only for employable people.
  188. @Parbes
    If there was any doubt left in any intelligent mind that the right-wing hipster pseudointellectual Anatoly Karlin is/always was a disinfo agent and psy-ops operative working for the Anglo-Zionist side and against the Russian state and its allies, the title and content of this blog post should dispel that doubt for good. In a post supposedly dealing with the shooting down of a Russian military plane directly caused by Israeli actions and most probably planned carefully in advance by them, there isn't a SINGLE MENTION of Israeli culpability in the incident - instead it's "Syria shot down the Russian plane", as if it was an ordinary friendly fire incident due to incompetence, or as if the Syrians shot it down intentionally.

    The Russian plane was shot down by Syrian anti-aircraft missiles because Israeli jets that were carrying out unprovoked aggression against Syria by bombing Syrian coastal installations near the Russian base in Latakia from the sea, DELIBERATELY HID BEHIND the larger radar signature of the unsuspecting and un-forewarned, bigger and slower Russian military plane which was flying in the vicinity, causing the defensive Syrian missiles to mistakenly hit the Russian plane instead. The Israelis knew what they were doing - they DELIBERATELY put the Russian plane between themselves and the Syrian anti-aircraft batteries, EXACTLY in the same manner as an armed robber hastily grabbing a human shield and putting him in between himself and the bullets from a homeowner's gun. It is premeditated and deliberate murder of 15 non-hostile Russian servicemen by the Israeli criminals - as clearly stated yesterday by the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who put the blame squarely on the Israelis. It is a heinous action on par with the USS Liberty incident of 1967 - but you wouldn't know that from reading the treacherous Anatoly Karlin's disingenuous blog post.

    Obviously, Karlin is either a long-trained subversive operative sent to Russia with a purpose and agenda; or he has fallen in line with and become a stooge of the treasonous pro-Anglo Zionist Fifth Column and liberasts in Russia (notice how he never criticizes them in his writings anymore). Anybody who still reads this guy and takes him seriously as an "objective commentator" or a "Russian nationalist", is an idiot.

    If there was any doubt left in any intelligent mind that the right-wing hipster pseudointellectual Anatoly Karlin is/always was a disinfo agent and psy-ops operative working for the Anglo-Zionist side and against the Russian state and its allies, the title and content of this blog post should dispel that doubt for good

    Sounds like you should add this to his RationalWiki entry.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    And add the same description to Putin, by this "logic".



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENUPV6x0Htk
    , @Nznz
    How come nobody seems to point out that Karlin, is basically the Russian version of Bliss? Basically someone who allegedly claims to be a Russian nationalist, but whose thinking process is wholly American in nature.
  189. @utu
    Wow. What is happening, Dmitri? Are you having a bad day? How did you get from these three sentences


    The Chabad angle is very interesting particularly when we saw it manifested in the Trump circle. We saw conservative Chabad Zionists instead of liberal Trostkyist Jews in their neoconservative incarnation. Still it was all about Israel and Jews but from a different angle.

     

    to this straw men and ad hominem nonsense

    There’s no need for typical Utu excursion onto Chabad Lubavitch, connection between Jews and human sacrifice, or relation with Moon landing and Kennedy assassination.
     
    I think you would agree that the increasing political role of Chabad Lubavitch that everybody can see in the US, Israel and Russia should be scrutinized. Furthermore any political influence of hermetic religious sect in ostensively transparent society should be of some concern.

    I expect your “associative” thought process, so we should be talking about Kennedy within a few posts.

    I don’t really see relation of Chabad to shooting down of Il-20.

    Kremlin finds them useful decoration in Russian Federation. Some kind of simpleton Jews which wear costumes and refuse to sit next to women in the plane.

    • Replies: @utu
    Why are you obsessed with Kennedy? You mentioned him twice. I think you should control your own associative process. But if you want talk about Kennedy and whether there is a circumstantial evidence that Mossad could have something to do with his assassination we can.

    Obviously Chabad had nothing to do with what happened to Il-20. But we must understand why Putin decided to intervene in Syria. W/o the 2015 decision we would not be talking about the Il-20.

    Why Netanyahu in 2015 did not throw a fit or did not sabotage Putin earlier in Syria? What is really the objective of Russia in Syria. Was it really to prop up Assad's regime? It is not out of question that Chabad had something to do with Putin and Netanyahu bromance in 2015/16, that Chabad facilitated communication between Putin and Netanyahu in 2015 that lead to high risk decision by Putin to intervene in Syria. If we can figure out what were the parameters that Putin and Netanyahu agreed on and what mutual promises they made to each other we may understand current situation including the shooting down of Il-20.

    I suspect that you are reacting to the phrase 'the wanna be neophytes like Dmitri' from my preceding comment which upset you. And now after your irrational and out of proportion reaction to my mentioning Chabad I begin to toy with an idea that you are associated with them. This perhaps could explain you being so well travelled though your interests in luxuries of life and expensive tastes speak against it. I need to check out whether Chabad employs civilians who like to dress well and wear expensive shoes for some special missions.
  190. @Daniel Chieh

    If there was any doubt left in any intelligent mind that the right-wing hipster pseudointellectual Anatoly Karlin is/always was a disinfo agent and psy-ops operative working for the Anglo-Zionist side and against the Russian state and its allies, the title and content of this blog post should dispel that doubt for good
     
    Sounds like you should add this to his RationalWiki entry.

    And add the same description to Putin, by this “logic”.

  191. @notanon

    The point is that by 2060, even under worst case scenario, every European country will still be majority-European
     
    except they won't

    70% of the total population but only 30% of the young population = white minority

    the only percentage that matters is the percentage of the young

    70% of the total population but only 30% of the young population = white minority

    Not in 2060. Keep in mind that non-Sub-Saharan African Muslim fertility rates are collapsing. By 2050 if not sooner they probably will have converged with European native levels. So by then, young % wouldn’t be very much different from overall percentage. So 70% of total population European might be 60% or 55% of young population (factoring in sub-Saharan Africans).

    And note that “Radical Center” claimed that all of Europe would be gone in 40 years. But eastern and southern Europe wouldn’t even be close. Spain – 7% Muslim in 2050. So maybe young would be 10% Muslim.

    the only percentage that matters is the percentage of the young

    Sure, but then use the right year.

  192. @notanon

    Not really. It is pushing to spread them around but the tide has shifted.
     
    google "does europe need more immigrants" and you'll get scores of msm articles saying yes - and in unlimited numbers

    one needs to factor in miscegenation rates
     
    a lot of people don't understand how much anti-white violence (especially sexual related violence) there is in and around white minority schools (cos teens are effectively chimps)

    so white minoritisation among the young + integrated schools + teen gang violence greatly speeds up the rate of white extinction once the tipping point is reached in the schools

    google “does europe need more immigrants” and you’ll get scores of msm articles saying yes – and in unlimited numbers

    Articles written when? Politicians and voters’ will count, and immigration has indeed been scaled back now. You haven’t noticed?

    Migrants peaked in 2015:

    • Replies: @notanon
    so only 705,000 fighting age men every year - cool
    , @German_reader
    That's naive, the EU's political establishment is hell-bent on facilitating mass immigration; the leader of the "conservative" EVP group in the European parliament Manfred Weber (from the Bavarian CSU, just in case anybody still had illusions about them) just recently spoke of the need for large-scale resettlement of Africans and that Europe couldn't wall itself off against Africa's misery; and he's a likely successor to president of the European commission Juncker after the EU elections next year.
    There's also the UN global compact for migration, which is set to be signed, with almost no public discussion, by most European countries:
    https://www.iom.int/global-compact-migration
    It's true that there has been some pushback in a few European countries, most notably Italy, and of course by the Visegrad group. But the situation is still basically unchanged in European core countries. In Germany there are still about 200 000 new asylum seekers every year which only looks not that much when compared to 2015/16. Record levels of immigration by historical standards have become normalized. And Merkel's government shows again and again that they want it that way. They've now negotiated a deal with Italy: Italy is to take back "refugees" from Germany who already had applied for asylum in Italy before coming to Germany...but for every such "refugee", Germany will take in one of the new African arrivals who are barred from landing in Italy.
    Unless there's a drastic change in political elites (which looks unlikely in much of Western/Northern Europe given the cowardly voting behaviour of large parts of the population), mass migration will continue and probably even escalate.
  193. Keep in mind that non-Sub-Saharan African Muslim fertility rates are collapsing.

    dishonest straw man – the relevant metric is not the fertility rate of their source region but the fertility rate of first generation immigrants which will always be higher than the TFR of their source region cos of their age distribution (mostly 18-30).

    plus

    non-Sub-Saharan African Muslim

    is enough to do the job.

    • Replies: @AP

    the relevant metric is not the fertility rate of their source region but the fertility rate of first generation immigrants which will always be higher than the TFR of their source region cos of their age distribution (mostly 18-30).
     
    You are confusing birth rate with TFR. TFR is specifically number of children expected to be born to women in their child-bearing years. Since it is dropping with each generation, those who are 18-30 might be expected to have lower TFRs than older ones from the same country.

    I quickly googled TFR of immigrants in Germany. From 1991 to 2010 TFR of German women increased from 1.26 to 1.36. TFR of non-German women decreased from 2.04 to 1.61. The 2015 flood produced another wave of higher TFR people, but its TFR will also decline.
  194. @AP

    google “does europe need more immigrants” and you’ll get scores of msm articles saying yes – and in unlimited numbers
     
    Articles written when? Politicians and voters' will count, and immigration has indeed been scaled back now. You haven't noticed?

    Migrants peaked in 2015:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/European_migrant_crisis/0/fa24bc4cb398cf588ad92e770461a7d202bf9472.png

    so only 705,000 fighting age men every year – cool

    • Replies: @AP
    I didn't say it was good or cool, I was simply contradicting the hysteria that results in wild claims like European minority in every European country by 2060.
  195. @AP

    google “does europe need more immigrants” and you’ll get scores of msm articles saying yes – and in unlimited numbers
     
    Articles written when? Politicians and voters' will count, and immigration has indeed been scaled back now. You haven't noticed?

    Migrants peaked in 2015:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/European_migrant_crisis/0/fa24bc4cb398cf588ad92e770461a7d202bf9472.png

    That’s naive, the EU’s political establishment is hell-bent on facilitating mass immigration; the leader of the “conservative” EVP group in the European parliament Manfred Weber (from the Bavarian CSU, just in case anybody still had illusions about them) just recently spoke of the need for large-scale resettlement of Africans and that Europe couldn’t wall itself off against Africa’s misery; and he’s a likely successor to president of the European commission Juncker after the EU elections next year.
    There’s also the UN global compact for migration, which is set to be signed, with almost no public discussion, by most European countries:
    https://www.iom.int/global-compact-migration
    It’s true that there has been some pushback in a few European countries, most notably Italy, and of course by the Visegrad group. But the situation is still basically unchanged in European core countries. In Germany there are still about 200 000 new asylum seekers every year which only looks not that much when compared to 2015/16. Record levels of immigration by historical standards have become normalized. And Merkel’s government shows again and again that they want it that way. They’ve now negotiated a deal with Italy: Italy is to take back “refugees” from Germany who already had applied for asylum in Italy before coming to Germany…but for every such “refugee”, Germany will take in one of the new African arrivals who are barred from landing in Italy.
    Unless there’s a drastic change in political elites (which looks unlikely in much of Western/Northern Europe given the cowardly voting behaviour of large parts of the population), mass migration will continue and probably even escalate.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Welcome back, German_Reader. We missed you.
    , @AP
    The point is that the massive 2015 wave did not last and the numbers have been reduced dramatically, even though they are not at near zero as they should be. So the "high migration" scenario is unlikely.
  196. @German_reader
    That's naive, the EU's political establishment is hell-bent on facilitating mass immigration; the leader of the "conservative" EVP group in the European parliament Manfred Weber (from the Bavarian CSU, just in case anybody still had illusions about them) just recently spoke of the need for large-scale resettlement of Africans and that Europe couldn't wall itself off against Africa's misery; and he's a likely successor to president of the European commission Juncker after the EU elections next year.
    There's also the UN global compact for migration, which is set to be signed, with almost no public discussion, by most European countries:
    https://www.iom.int/global-compact-migration
    It's true that there has been some pushback in a few European countries, most notably Italy, and of course by the Visegrad group. But the situation is still basically unchanged in European core countries. In Germany there are still about 200 000 new asylum seekers every year which only looks not that much when compared to 2015/16. Record levels of immigration by historical standards have become normalized. And Merkel's government shows again and again that they want it that way. They've now negotiated a deal with Italy: Italy is to take back "refugees" from Germany who already had applied for asylum in Italy before coming to Germany...but for every such "refugee", Germany will take in one of the new African arrivals who are barred from landing in Italy.
    Unless there's a drastic change in political elites (which looks unlikely in much of Western/Northern Europe given the cowardly voting behaviour of large parts of the population), mass migration will continue and probably even escalate.

    Welcome back, German_Reader. We missed you.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    Thanks!
    , @iffen
    Agree!

    Used up my allotment of Old Maid cookies.
  197. @notanon

    Keep in mind that non-Sub-Saharan African Muslim fertility rates are collapsing.
     
    dishonest straw man - the relevant metric is not the fertility rate of their source region but the fertility rate of first generation immigrants which will always be higher than the TFR of their source region cos of their age distribution (mostly 18-30).

    plus

    non-Sub-Saharan African Muslim
     
    is enough to do the job.

    the relevant metric is not the fertility rate of their source region but the fertility rate of first generation immigrants which will always be higher than the TFR of their source region cos of their age distribution (mostly 18-30).

    You are confusing birth rate with TFR. TFR is specifically number of children expected to be born to women in their child-bearing years. Since it is dropping with each generation, those who are 18-30 might be expected to have lower TFRs than older ones from the same country.

    I quickly googled TFR of immigrants in Germany. From 1991 to 2010 TFR of German women increased from 1.26 to 1.36. TFR of non-German women decreased from 2.04 to 1.61. The 2015 flood produced another wave of higher TFR people, but its TFR will also decline.

    • Replies: @notanon

    Since it is dropping with each generation, those who are 18-30 might be expected to have lower TFRs than older ones from the same country.

     

    i'll put it another way - if a million women aged 18-30 from country A immigrate to country B then they'll be having their babies in country A and not country B.

    From 1991 to 2010 TFR of German women increased from 1.26 to 1.36.
     
    dishonest strawman: German-born != German.

    The 2015 flood produced another wave of higher TFR people, but its TFR will also decline.
     
    right - generally the 1st generation have lots of kids and the 2nd+ generations have fewer - which wouldn't be another dishonest straw man if there wasn't a constant stream of 1st generation immigrants.
  198. @notanon
    so only 705,000 fighting age men every year - cool

    I didn’t say it was good or cool, I was simply contradicting the hysteria that results in wild claims like European minority in every European country by 2060.

    • Replies: @notanon

    I was simply
     
    engaged in stealth tribal warfare.
    , @LatW
    There is a bit of a hysteria in the comments (although I agree that the situation is simply terrible in many ways, mostly politically... it might be that some posters who have mated out of their race are projecting). 2060 is just 40 years away, just two generations (many of us will still be around and our kids will be in their productive years still). At least when it comes to Eastern Europe, the population will most likely be predominantly white (unless something truly radical happens). In the core of EE, hundreds of thousands of girls are born each year, all white. Hundreds of thousands of migrants are not being imported. So the 2060 timeline is completely off, at least for the EE.
  199. @German_reader
    That's naive, the EU's political establishment is hell-bent on facilitating mass immigration; the leader of the "conservative" EVP group in the European parliament Manfred Weber (from the Bavarian CSU, just in case anybody still had illusions about them) just recently spoke of the need for large-scale resettlement of Africans and that Europe couldn't wall itself off against Africa's misery; and he's a likely successor to president of the European commission Juncker after the EU elections next year.
    There's also the UN global compact for migration, which is set to be signed, with almost no public discussion, by most European countries:
    https://www.iom.int/global-compact-migration
    It's true that there has been some pushback in a few European countries, most notably Italy, and of course by the Visegrad group. But the situation is still basically unchanged in European core countries. In Germany there are still about 200 000 new asylum seekers every year which only looks not that much when compared to 2015/16. Record levels of immigration by historical standards have become normalized. And Merkel's government shows again and again that they want it that way. They've now negotiated a deal with Italy: Italy is to take back "refugees" from Germany who already had applied for asylum in Italy before coming to Germany...but for every such "refugee", Germany will take in one of the new African arrivals who are barred from landing in Italy.
    Unless there's a drastic change in political elites (which looks unlikely in much of Western/Northern Europe given the cowardly voting behaviour of large parts of the population), mass migration will continue and probably even escalate.

    The point is that the massive 2015 wave did not last and the numbers have been reduced dramatically, even though they are not at near zero as they should be. So the “high migration” scenario is unlikely.

    • Replies: @notanon
    705,000 is a continuing massive wave - especially given the age distribution
  200. @AP

    This damage seems to have mostly been done. Kiev isn’t expanding its area of operations and shelling “fresh” areas.

    This year, shelling has destroyed hundreds of homes in the DNR. Tens of thousands still live in areas that regularly experience heavy shelling. Residential areas in the center of Gorlovka were being heavily shelled as recently as 4 months ago.

     

    Most of these areas were abandoned years ago, otherwise the destruction of hundreds of buildings woulds not be accompanied by only 29 deaths.

    Has any modern air force gone against an S-300 system? Ukraine is closer to parity with Russia than Yugoslavia or Iraq were with NATO, and Yugoslavia and Iraq managed to down some planes.

    In the Kosovo conflict, NATO lost two planes (and had zero casualties) out of nearly 40,000 combat sorties. The operation I’m describing could last less than a day and involve only hundreds of sorties. So even if Ukraine’s defenses are 100 times more effective per sortie than Yugoslavia’s, losses would be similar.
     
    Yugo system IIIRC was from the 1960s (but manned by very skilled people). Syria using S-200 (still inferior to Ukraine's S-300 systems, plus manned by Syrians) took down an Israeli jet recently (confirmed) and allegedly took down two others. Presumably Russian actions would be most comparable or analogous to Israeli ones in Syria. Yet Ukraine's air defenses are much better than Syria's and the Russian air force, "pound for pound", is probably worse than Israel's. So a limited Israeli-style strike would be much riskier for Russia over Ukrainian skies.

    Russia would probably have to first engage in large-scale cruise missile strikes across large areas of eastern Ukraine to take out these systems, before sending planes in to take out the artillery positions. At that point Ukraine would have nothing to lose and would probably launch its own missiles into Russian positions near the border (are Ukraine's newest Neptune missiles deployed yet? Sevastopol would be within range of them). All of this, to stop what at this point is a very low grade conflict that is claiming an average of 2 civilian lives, none of whom even Russian citizens, per month.

    Ideally though, no airstrikes would be necessary because the DLNR would be allowed to join Russia, in which case all Ukrainian attacks on that territory would immediately stop, for the same reason that Ukraine never attacks Crimea.
     
    Probably the best solution not only for Donbas residents but also for Ukraine, which is a reason why the Russian state isn't pushing for it.

    Syria using S-200 (still inferior to Ukraine’s S-300 systems, plus manned by Syrians)

    S-200 recently upgraded by Russia. And despite average IQ differences in the general population, I don’t think its safe to assume that Ukrainian officers are currently much more competent than their Syrian counterparts.

    and the Russian air force, “pound for pound”, is probably worse than Israel’s.

    Not sure this is true. The RuAF has performed extremely well in Syria, with results far exceeding what was widely predicted by experts when the intervention began. Whereas Israel has blamed the loss of its F-16 to Syrian air defense on pilot incompetence.

    Russia would probably have to first engage in large-scale cruise missile strikes across large areas of eastern Ukraine to take out these systems, before sending planes in to take out the artillery positions. At that point Ukraine would have nothing to lose and would probably launch its own missiles into Russian positions near the border (are Ukraine’s newest Neptune missiles deployed yet? Sevastopol would be within range of them).

    What would Ukraine gain by doing this, except more punishment? Russia has air defense systems of its own, which are a lot better than Ukraine’s. So there would be no guarantee of any damage to Russia, but Russian retaliation would be guaranteed. If Ukraine did manage to kill some Russian soldiers, Russia would just hit back even harder. And if you mean Ukraine should target the city of Sevastopol, that would be completely nuts from a PR standpoint.

    • Replies: @AP

    Syria using S-200 (still inferior to Ukraine’s S-300 systems, plus manned by Syrians)

    S-200 recently upgraded by Russia.
     
    And Ukraine has upgraded its S-300 systems since 2014. It is a class ahead of what the Syrians have. No modern air force has yet faced the S-300.

    I don’t think its safe to assume that Ukrainian officers are currently much more competent than their Syrian counterparts
     
    Judging by training casualties and such, Ukraine's military has improved roughly to where Russia's was in about 2004. I doubt Syrian Arabs are on that level.

    and the Russian air force, “pound for pound”, is probably worse than Israel’s.

    Not sure this is true. The RuAF has performed extremely well in Syria
     
    It has been fighting ISIS bands in Syria, not modern armies with modern air defenses.

    Russia would probably have to first engage in large-scale cruise missile strikes across large areas of eastern Ukraine to take out these systems, before sending planes in to take out the artillery positions. At that point Ukraine would have nothing to lose and would probably launch its own missiles into Russian positions near the border (are Ukraine’s newest Neptune missiles deployed yet? Sevastopol would be within range of them).

    What would Ukraine gain by doing this, except more punishment?
     
    If Russia attacked Ukraine, Ukraine would almost certainly retaliate against Russian forward positions, as it is now capable of doing. Even in 2014 it mistakenly bombed some Russian positions at the border.

    Ukraine did nothing when Crimea was seized, and problems ensued in Donbas. Broad consensus would be to retaliate.

    And if you mean Ukraine should target the city of Sevastopol, that would be completely nuts from a PR standpoint.
     
    There is a huge base in Sevastopol, from which Russian planes or missiles would be sent to bomb Ukrainian forces all over Eastern Ukraine. If Ukrainian rockets and missiles can reach it, there is a high chance they will be tried out on this base. It is full of expensive ships, and Russia's own new defenses will be put to the test. Quite a gamble for the sake of sparing 2 lives of non-Russian citizens a month.
  201. @Dmitry
    I expect your "associative" thought process, so we should be talking about Kennedy within a few posts.

    I don't really see relation of Chabad to shooting down of Il-20.

    Kremlin finds them useful decoration in Russian Federation. Some kind of simpleton Jews which wear costumes and refuse to sit next to women in the plane.

    Why are you obsessed with Kennedy? You mentioned him twice. I think you should control your own associative process. But if you want talk about Kennedy and whether there is a circumstantial evidence that Mossad could have something to do with his assassination we can.

    Obviously Chabad had nothing to do with what happened to Il-20. But we must understand why Putin decided to intervene in Syria. W/o the 2015 decision we would not be talking about the Il-20.

    Why Netanyahu in 2015 did not throw a fit or did not sabotage Putin earlier in Syria? What is really the objective of Russia in Syria. Was it really to prop up Assad’s regime? It is not out of question that Chabad had something to do with Putin and Netanyahu bromance in 2015/16, that Chabad facilitated communication between Putin and Netanyahu in 2015 that lead to high risk decision by Putin to intervene in Syria. If we can figure out what were the parameters that Putin and Netanyahu agreed on and what mutual promises they made to each other we may understand current situation including the shooting down of Il-20.

    I suspect that you are reacting to the phrase ‘the wanna be neophytes like Dmitri’ from my preceding comment which upset you. And now after your irrational and out of proportion reaction to my mentioning Chabad I begin to toy with an idea that you are associated with them. This perhaps could explain you being so well travelled though your interests in luxuries of life and expensive tastes speak against it. I need to check out whether Chabad employs civilians who like to dress well and wear expensive shoes for some special missions.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's nothing out of proportion or written to be offensive to you. You must developed some self-awareness of how you seem to me now. Actually you're happy certain poster has given you attention again, so I probably should not do it.

    I was going to say on other topics, you seemed more normal recently.

    I automatically expect an unusual associative, lateral process when scanning past Utu posts. I predicted maybe today will be something about Kennedy assassination and connection of Jews and human sacrifice.

    Perhaps a little rude of me to write my prediction on the top of the post.


    I need to check out whether Chabad employs civilians who like to dress well and wear expensive shoes for some special missions.

     

    And prediction of this associative pattern, confirmed. Secret Chabad agents apparently talking to you on the internet forum.

    really the objective of Russia in Syria.
     
    It was said all over television at the beginning of mission they would increase their status as anti-terrorist partners, and that it would probably even help to lift sanctions from the West.

    Then it was a moral mission protecting minorities, etc. And a mission demonstrating military technology and abilities.

    Supporting Assad was a hidden motive of the mission.

    I would say the difference was that it was easy projection of power, while Ukraine was hard. There was a vacuum in Syria, and it was an opportunity for low-cost and small-scale air operation, with no losses "on our side".

    After some years, it seems less reasonable.

    Generaly rule in life, is not do foreign military missions. If you're stupid enough to do them, then - only do airstrikes. At least with Syria, the second sentence is mostly accurate.

  202. @AP

    the relevant metric is not the fertility rate of their source region but the fertility rate of first generation immigrants which will always be higher than the TFR of their source region cos of their age distribution (mostly 18-30).
     
    You are confusing birth rate with TFR. TFR is specifically number of children expected to be born to women in their child-bearing years. Since it is dropping with each generation, those who are 18-30 might be expected to have lower TFRs than older ones from the same country.

    I quickly googled TFR of immigrants in Germany. From 1991 to 2010 TFR of German women increased from 1.26 to 1.36. TFR of non-German women decreased from 2.04 to 1.61. The 2015 flood produced another wave of higher TFR people, but its TFR will also decline.

    Since it is dropping with each generation, those who are 18-30 might be expected to have lower TFRs than older ones from the same country.

    i’ll put it another way – if a million women aged 18-30 from country A immigrate to country B then they’ll be having their babies in country A and not country B.

    From 1991 to 2010 TFR of German women increased from 1.26 to 1.36.

    dishonest strawman: German-born != German.

    The 2015 flood produced another wave of higher TFR people, but its TFR will also decline.

    right – generally the 1st generation have lots of kids and the 2nd+ generations have fewer – which wouldn’t be another dishonest straw man if there wasn’t a constant stream of 1st generation immigrants.

    • Replies: @AP

    i’ll put it another way – if a million women aged 18-30 from country A immigrate to country B then they’ll be having their babies in country A and not country B.
     
    Correct. And they will be bringing their declining fertility rate to Country B when they arrive.

    From 1991 to 2010 TFR of German women increased from 1.26 to 1.36.

    dishonest strawman: German-born != German.
     
    Article stated "German" not "German-born" and contrasted German with 2nd generation immigrants.

    The 2015 flood produced another wave of higher TFR people, but its TFR will also decline.

    right – generally the 1st generation have lots of kids and the 2nd+ generations have fewer – which wouldn’t be another dishonest straw man if there wasn’t a constant stream of 1st generation immigrants.
     
    No dishonesty and no strawman. Someone made an outlandish claim that by 2060 there would be no majority-white countries.
  203. @AP
    I didn't say it was good or cool, I was simply contradicting the hysteria that results in wild claims like European minority in every European country by 2060.

    I was simply

    engaged in stealth tribal warfare.

  204. @AP
    The point is that the massive 2015 wave did not last and the numbers have been reduced dramatically, even though they are not at near zero as they should be. So the "high migration" scenario is unlikely.

    705,000 is a continuing massive wave – especially given the age distribution

    • Replies: @AP
    705,000 was 2017, it looks to be much lower in 2018. Still too much, but again we are discussing projections for 2015, and the high figure was assuming something more like the 2015 wave.
  205. @utu
    Why are you obsessed with Kennedy? You mentioned him twice. I think you should control your own associative process. But if you want talk about Kennedy and whether there is a circumstantial evidence that Mossad could have something to do with his assassination we can.

    Obviously Chabad had nothing to do with what happened to Il-20. But we must understand why Putin decided to intervene in Syria. W/o the 2015 decision we would not be talking about the Il-20.

    Why Netanyahu in 2015 did not throw a fit or did not sabotage Putin earlier in Syria? What is really the objective of Russia in Syria. Was it really to prop up Assad's regime? It is not out of question that Chabad had something to do with Putin and Netanyahu bromance in 2015/16, that Chabad facilitated communication between Putin and Netanyahu in 2015 that lead to high risk decision by Putin to intervene in Syria. If we can figure out what were the parameters that Putin and Netanyahu agreed on and what mutual promises they made to each other we may understand current situation including the shooting down of Il-20.

    I suspect that you are reacting to the phrase 'the wanna be neophytes like Dmitri' from my preceding comment which upset you. And now after your irrational and out of proportion reaction to my mentioning Chabad I begin to toy with an idea that you are associated with them. This perhaps could explain you being so well travelled though your interests in luxuries of life and expensive tastes speak against it. I need to check out whether Chabad employs civilians who like to dress well and wear expensive shoes for some special missions.

    It’s nothing out of proportion or written to be offensive to you. You must developed some self-awareness of how you seem to me now. Actually you’re happy certain poster has given you attention again, so I probably should not do it.

    I was going to say on other topics, you seemed more normal recently.

    I automatically expect an unusual associative, lateral process when scanning past Utu posts. I predicted maybe today will be something about Kennedy assassination and connection of Jews and human sacrifice.

    Perhaps a little rude of me to write my prediction on the top of the post.

    I need to check out whether Chabad employs civilians who like to dress well and wear expensive shoes for some special missions.

    And prediction of this associative pattern, confirmed. Secret Chabad agents apparently talking to you on the internet forum.

    really the objective of Russia in Syria.

    It was said all over television at the beginning of mission they would increase their status as anti-terrorist partners, and that it would probably even help to lift sanctions from the West.

    Then it was a moral mission protecting minorities, etc. And a mission demonstrating military technology and abilities.

    Supporting Assad was a hidden motive of the mission.

    I would say the difference was that it was easy projection of power, while Ukraine was hard. There was a vacuum in Syria, and it was an opportunity for low-cost and small-scale air operation, with no losses “on our side”.

    After some years, it seems less reasonable.

    Generaly rule in life, is not do foreign military missions. If you’re stupid enough to do them, then – only do airstrikes. At least with Syria, the second sentence is mostly accurate.

    • Replies: @utu

    It was said all over television at the beginning of mission they would increase their status as anti-terrorist partners, and that it would probably even help to lift sanctions from the West.

    Then it was a moral mission protecting minorities, etc. And a mission demonstrating military technology and abilities.
     
    Do you know this joke about a Homo Sovieticus who was being interviewed about his political opinions and every time he was citing opinions from Pravda or TASS. Finally his interlocutor got exasperated and asked him whether he has opinions of his own to which the Homo Sovieticus responded: Yes, I do but I do not agree with them.

    Some degree of 'schizophrenia' in the Soviet system was healthy. Because it is worse if people do not have opinion they 'do not agree with' because they do not know that other opinions from official are even possible.

    Returning to 'your' opinion about Syria the question is what were the deeper layers behind the decision of 2015 engagement in Syria beyond what was produced for public consumption. Is it possible that Putin was not going there to save Assad's ass but to save Israel's ass from the inevitable Turkish expansion into Syria once Assad's regime collapses which was about to happen within weeks? And part of Putin's job description was to eventually have Iranians kicked out of Syria. Netanyahu by bombing Syria (200 times*targets in last 12 months) keep prodding Putting to do the thing he agreed to. The shooting down Il-20 presents an opportunities for Putin to give an ultimatum to Assad: you will get protections from Israel raids and better AA defense but Iranians must go and if not you are on your own which means Turks and Israelis will eat you before noon tomorrow.
  206. @Daniel Chieh
    Welcome back, German_Reader. We missed you.

    Thanks!

  207. Slightly OT:

    Vladimir Putin tried to kill me with RAT POISON in Salisbury restaurant, claims terrified Russian model

    Anna Shapiro, 30, and husband Alex King, 42, became violently ill in the city’s Prezzo [Restaurant]. The terrified Russian model said she found her husband collapsed in the men’s toilet and “foaming at the mouth”.

    Alex King, 42, is still fighting for his life in hospital in what security sources fear was a suspected rat poison attack.

    The horrific incident sent the city centre into lockdown on Sunday after two fellow Russians were poisoned by Novichok there in March.

    Anna believes she was targeted by Russian president Vladimir Putin’s assassins — just like the Skripals.

    The part-time model, who says her dad was a top military official under Putin, recently fled London after receiving a string of death threats.

    She told The Sun: “I was targeted by Putin’s henchmen. They want me dead as I oppose Putin and have turned my back on my country. Russia is capable of anything.”

    . . .

    Anna was born in Nizhny Novgorod but became an Israeli citizen in 2006.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7291372/anna-shapiro-salisbury-poisoning-vladmir-putin/

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    This is so Sun.
    , @LondonBob
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5e5GjnyMHI

    It was a top GRU assassination team.
  208. @for-the-record
    Slightly OT:

    Vladimir Putin tried to kill me with RAT POISON in Salisbury restaurant, claims terrified Russian model

    Anna Shapiro, 30, and husband Alex King, 42, became violently ill in the city’s Prezzo [Restaurant]. The terrified Russian model said she found her husband collapsed in the men’s toilet and “foaming at the mouth”.

    Alex King, 42, is still fighting for his life in hospital in what security sources fear was a suspected rat poison attack.

    The horrific incident sent the city centre into lockdown on Sunday after two fellow Russians were poisoned by Novichok there in March.

    Anna believes she was targeted by Russian president Vladimir Putin’s assassins — just like the Skripals.

    The part-time model, who says her dad was a top military official under Putin, recently fled London after receiving a string of death threats.

    She told The Sun: “I was targeted by Putin’s henchmen. They want me dead as I oppose Putin and have turned my back on my country. Russia is capable of anything.”

    . . .

    Anna was born in Nizhny Novgorod but became an Israeli citizen in 2006.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7291372/anna-shapiro-salisbury-poisoning-vladmir-putin/
     

    This is so Sun.

  209. @for-the-record
    Slightly OT:

    Vladimir Putin tried to kill me with RAT POISON in Salisbury restaurant, claims terrified Russian model

    Anna Shapiro, 30, and husband Alex King, 42, became violently ill in the city’s Prezzo [Restaurant]. The terrified Russian model said she found her husband collapsed in the men’s toilet and “foaming at the mouth”.

    Alex King, 42, is still fighting for his life in hospital in what security sources fear was a suspected rat poison attack.

    The horrific incident sent the city centre into lockdown on Sunday after two fellow Russians were poisoned by Novichok there in March.

    Anna believes she was targeted by Russian president Vladimir Putin’s assassins — just like the Skripals.

    The part-time model, who says her dad was a top military official under Putin, recently fled London after receiving a string of death threats.

    She told The Sun: “I was targeted by Putin’s henchmen. They want me dead as I oppose Putin and have turned my back on my country. Russia is capable of anything.”

    . . .

    Anna was born in Nizhny Novgorod but became an Israeli citizen in 2006.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7291372/anna-shapiro-salisbury-poisoning-vladmir-putin/
     

    It was a top GRU assassination team.

  210. @Jon0815

    Syria using S-200 (still inferior to Ukraine’s S-300 systems, plus manned by Syrians)
     
    S-200 recently upgraded by Russia. And despite average IQ differences in the general population, I don't think its safe to assume that Ukrainian officers are currently much more competent than their Syrian counterparts.


    and the Russian air force, “pound for pound”, is probably worse than Israel’s.

     

    Not sure this is true. The RuAF has performed extremely well in Syria, with results far exceeding what was widely predicted by experts when the intervention began. Whereas Israel has blamed the loss of its F-16 to Syrian air defense on pilot incompetence.

    Russia would probably have to first engage in large-scale cruise missile strikes across large areas of eastern Ukraine to take out these systems, before sending planes in to take out the artillery positions. At that point Ukraine would have nothing to lose and would probably launch its own missiles into Russian positions near the border (are Ukraine’s newest Neptune missiles deployed yet? Sevastopol would be within range of them).
     
    What would Ukraine gain by doing this, except more punishment? Russia has air defense systems of its own, which are a lot better than Ukraine's. So there would be no guarantee of any damage to Russia, but Russian retaliation would be guaranteed. If Ukraine did manage to kill some Russian soldiers, Russia would just hit back even harder. And if you mean Ukraine should target the city of Sevastopol, that would be completely nuts from a PR standpoint.

    Syria using S-200 (still inferior to Ukraine’s S-300 systems, plus manned by Syrians)

    S-200 recently upgraded by Russia.

    And Ukraine has upgraded its S-300 systems since 2014. It is a class ahead of what the Syrians have. No modern air force has yet faced the S-300.

    I don’t think its safe to assume that Ukrainian officers are currently much more competent than their Syrian counterparts

    Judging by training casualties and such, Ukraine’s military has improved roughly to where Russia’s was in about 2004. I doubt Syrian Arabs are on that level.

    and the Russian air force, “pound for pound”, is probably worse than Israel’s.

    Not sure this is true. The RuAF has performed extremely well in Syria

    It has been fighting ISIS bands in Syria, not modern armies with modern air defenses.

    Russia would probably have to first engage in large-scale cruise missile strikes across large areas of eastern Ukraine to take out these systems, before sending planes in to take out the artillery positions. At that point Ukraine would have nothing to lose and would probably launch its own missiles into Russian positions near the border (are Ukraine’s newest Neptune missiles deployed yet? Sevastopol would be within range of them).

    What would Ukraine gain by doing this, except more punishment?

    If Russia attacked Ukraine, Ukraine would almost certainly retaliate against Russian forward positions, as it is now capable of doing. Even in 2014 it mistakenly bombed some Russian positions at the border.

    Ukraine did nothing when Crimea was seized, and problems ensued in Donbas. Broad consensus would be to retaliate.

    And if you mean Ukraine should target the city of Sevastopol, that would be completely nuts from a PR standpoint.

    There is a huge base in Sevastopol, from which Russian planes or missiles would be sent to bomb Ukrainian forces all over Eastern Ukraine. If Ukrainian rockets and missiles can reach it, there is a high chance they will be tried out on this base. It is full of expensive ships, and Russia’s own new defenses will be put to the test. Quite a gamble for the sake of sparing 2 lives of non-Russian citizens a month.

    • Replies: @Jon0815

    Judging by training casualties and such, Ukraine’s military has improved roughly to where Russia’s was in about 2004. I doubt Syrian Arabs are on that level.
     
    After seven years of experience with high-intensity, very high-casualty war, which has tended to kill off the incompetent (as well as three years of Russian training), yes they probably are, particularly among officers.

    It has been fighting ISIS bands in Syria, not modern armies with modern air defenses.
     
    It has been fighting not only ISIS, but also Western and Gulf Arab proxy forces that were being supplied with billions of dollars worth of weaponry. Completely reversing the momentum of a great power proxy war involving around 200,000 combatants, in which the other side has already nearly won, with only about 40 aircraft, is an impressive feat. Of course it's a different type of challenge than dealing with modern air defenses, but we don't have any way to compare the performance of the RuAF and Israeli Air force in that regard. My point was just that Syria is evidence that the RuAF is quite proficient in general, so I'm not sure what the basis is for assuming that "pound for pound it is probably worse than Israel".

    There is a huge base in Sevastopol, from which Russian planes or missiles would be sent to bomb Ukrainian forces all over Eastern Ukraine.
     
    Yes, I wasn't sure if you meant the city too, since you've previously suggested that Ukraine might respond to a Russian attack by targeting Russian civilians (by melting down its own nuclear reactor!).

    Quite a gamble for the sake of sparing 2 lives of non-Russian citizens a month.
     
    As I've said, there's more at stake than that.
  211. @notanon
    705,000 is a continuing massive wave - especially given the age distribution

    705,000 was 2017, it looks to be much lower in 2018. Still too much, but again we are discussing projections for 2015, and the high figure was assuming something more like the 2015 wave.

  212. @Daniel Chieh
    Welcome back, German_Reader. We missed you.

    Agree!

    Used up my allotment of Old Maid cookies.

  213. @Dmitry
    It's nothing out of proportion or written to be offensive to you. You must developed some self-awareness of how you seem to me now. Actually you're happy certain poster has given you attention again, so I probably should not do it.

    I was going to say on other topics, you seemed more normal recently.

    I automatically expect an unusual associative, lateral process when scanning past Utu posts. I predicted maybe today will be something about Kennedy assassination and connection of Jews and human sacrifice.

    Perhaps a little rude of me to write my prediction on the top of the post.


    I need to check out whether Chabad employs civilians who like to dress well and wear expensive shoes for some special missions.

     

    And prediction of this associative pattern, confirmed. Secret Chabad agents apparently talking to you on the internet forum.

    really the objective of Russia in Syria.
     
    It was said all over television at the beginning of mission they would increase their status as anti-terrorist partners, and that it would probably even help to lift sanctions from the West.

    Then it was a moral mission protecting minorities, etc. And a mission demonstrating military technology and abilities.

    Supporting Assad was a hidden motive of the mission.

    I would say the difference was that it was easy projection of power, while Ukraine was hard. There was a vacuum in Syria, and it was an opportunity for low-cost and small-scale air operation, with no losses "on our side".

    After some years, it seems less reasonable.

    Generaly rule in life, is not do foreign military missions. If you're stupid enough to do them, then - only do airstrikes. At least with Syria, the second sentence is mostly accurate.

    It was said all over television at the beginning of mission they would increase their status as anti-terrorist partners, and that it would probably even help to lift sanctions from the West.

    Then it was a moral mission protecting minorities, etc. And a mission demonstrating military technology and abilities.

    Do you know this joke about a Homo Sovieticus who was being interviewed about his political opinions and every time he was citing opinions from Pravda or TASS. Finally his interlocutor got exasperated and asked him whether he has opinions of his own to which the Homo Sovieticus responded: Yes, I do but I do not agree with them.

    Some degree of ‘schizophrenia’ in the Soviet system was healthy. Because it is worse if people do not have opinion they ‘do not agree with’ because they do not know that other opinions from official are even possible.

    Returning to ‘your’ opinion about Syria the question is what were the deeper layers behind the decision of 2015 engagement in Syria beyond what was produced for public consumption. Is it possible that Putin was not going there to save Assad’s ass but to save Israel’s ass from the inevitable Turkish expansion into Syria once Assad’s regime collapses which was about to happen within weeks? And part of Putin’s job description was to eventually have Iranians kicked out of Syria. Netanyahu by bombing Syria (200 times*targets in last 12 months) keep prodding Putting to do the thing he agreed to. The shooting down Il-20 presents an opportunities for Putin to give an ultimatum to Assad: you will get protections from Israel raids and better AA defense but Iranians must go and if not you are on your own which means Turks and Israelis will eat you before noon tomorrow.

  214. @AP
    I didn't say it was good or cool, I was simply contradicting the hysteria that results in wild claims like European minority in every European country by 2060.

    There is a bit of a hysteria in the comments (although I agree that the situation is simply terrible in many ways, mostly politically… it might be that some posters who have mated out of their race are projecting). 2060 is just 40 years away, just two generations (many of us will still be around and our kids will be in their productive years still). At least when it comes to Eastern Europe, the population will most likely be predominantly white (unless something truly radical happens). In the core of EE, hundreds of thousands of girls are born each year, all white. Hundreds of thousands of migrants are not being imported. So the 2060 timeline is completely off, at least for the EE.

    • Agree: AP
  215. @notanon

    Since it is dropping with each generation, those who are 18-30 might be expected to have lower TFRs than older ones from the same country.

     

    i'll put it another way - if a million women aged 18-30 from country A immigrate to country B then they'll be having their babies in country A and not country B.

    From 1991 to 2010 TFR of German women increased from 1.26 to 1.36.
     
    dishonest strawman: German-born != German.

    The 2015 flood produced another wave of higher TFR people, but its TFR will also decline.
     
    right - generally the 1st generation have lots of kids and the 2nd+ generations have fewer - which wouldn't be another dishonest straw man if there wasn't a constant stream of 1st generation immigrants.

    i’ll put it another way – if a million women aged 18-30 from country A immigrate to country B then they’ll be having their babies in country A and not country B.

    Correct. And they will be bringing their declining fertility rate to Country B when they arrive.

    From 1991 to 2010 TFR of German women increased from 1.26 to 1.36.

    dishonest strawman: German-born != German.

    Article stated “German” not “German-born” and contrasted German with 2nd generation immigrants.

    The 2015 flood produced another wave of higher TFR people, but its TFR will also decline.

    right – generally the 1st generation have lots of kids and the 2nd+ generations have fewer – which wouldn’t be another dishonest straw man if there wasn’t a constant stream of 1st generation immigrants.

    No dishonesty and no strawman. Someone made an outlandish claim that by 2060 there would be no majority-white countries.

    • Replies: @notanon

    No dishonesty and no strawman. Someone made an outlandish claim that by 2060 there would be no majority-white countries.
     
    i think you'll find it's both as your reply to that comment was

    The point is that by 2060, even under worst case scenario, every European country will still be majority-European
     
    which is 1) not true literally and 2) much more not true fundamentally cos age distribution matters more than absolute numbers and 3) the line you're promoting is "don't worry about replacement level immigration until it's too late" aka

    stealth tribal warfare.
    , @neutral

    Someone made an outlandish claim that by 2060 there would be no majority-white countries.
     
    Look at the demographics of France and UK in 1960 and look at them now. Now factor in the acceleration of mass immigration, mass miscegenation and the collapse of white birth rates compare to 1960, 2060 is a safe assumption to make.
  216. @notanon

    Not really. It is pushing to spread them around but the tide has shifted.
     
    google "does europe need more immigrants" and you'll get scores of msm articles saying yes - and in unlimited numbers

    one needs to factor in miscegenation rates
     
    a lot of people don't understand how much anti-white violence (especially sexual related violence) there is in and around white minority schools (cos teens are effectively chimps)

    so white minoritisation among the young + integrated schools + teen gang violence greatly speeds up the rate of white extinction once the tipping point is reached in the schools

    google “does europe need more immigrants” and you’ll get scores of msm articles saying yes – and in unlimited numbers

    While I agree that third country illegal immigration should be stopped (non-selective legal immigration should also be stopped), it should be noted in the context of labor shortages – the immigration lobby is indeed asking for more people, but only for employable people.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    the immigration lobby is indeed asking for more people, but only for employable people.
     
    Very few 'refugees', who currently comprise the majority of non-EU migration to Germany, are actually either able or willing to hold a job.

    https://www.moz.de/artikel-ansicht/dg/0/1/1627155

    And a lot of this will be low-skilled and make-work jobs.

    It shouldn't be all that different from other European countries.

    , @notanon

    the immigration lobby is indeed asking for more people, but only for employable people
     
    that would be a valid and honest point if the the immigration lobby didn't claim all immigrants are employable
  217. @LatW

    google “does europe need more immigrants” and you’ll get scores of msm articles saying yes – and in unlimited numbers
     
    While I agree that third country illegal immigration should be stopped (non-selective legal immigration should also be stopped), it should be noted in the context of labor shortages - the immigration lobby is indeed asking for more people, but only for employable people.

    the immigration lobby is indeed asking for more people, but only for employable people.

    Very few ‘refugees’, who currently comprise the majority of non-EU migration to Germany, are actually either able or willing to hold a job.

    https://www.moz.de/artikel-ansicht/dg/0/1/1627155

    And a lot of this will be low-skilled and make-work jobs.

    It shouldn’t be all that different from other European countries.

  218. @Daniel Chieh

    If there was any doubt left in any intelligent mind that the right-wing hipster pseudointellectual Anatoly Karlin is/always was a disinfo agent and psy-ops operative working for the Anglo-Zionist side and against the Russian state and its allies, the title and content of this blog post should dispel that doubt for good
     
    Sounds like you should add this to his RationalWiki entry.

    How come nobody seems to point out that Karlin, is basically the Russian version of Bliss? Basically someone who allegedly claims to be a Russian nationalist, but whose thinking process is wholly American in nature.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Apparently there's a hidden clone factory for Russian brains hidden in the Urals that I never knew of, assuring that every Russian has similar thinking processes.
  219. @utu
    Israel for Soviet Jews was never their first choice. When the US was beginning to pressure the USSR (Jackson-Vanik) Israel was always complaining because it was getting Jews of the second sort. At some point Israel lobbied that future operations of exodus from USSR/Russia Jews would be flown directly to Israel w/o having a chance of making up their mind while in Vienna.

    I know many Jewish stories of departure form Israel for various reasons. They are well understood by the diaspora Jews who deep down do not like Israel and Israelis as they are different kind of Jews with a lack of sophistication, appreciation for high culture and so on and too pushy and arrogant.

    Diaspora Jews are particularly ticked off by young Israelis who come to the US instead of staying in Israel. "We keep sending money and lobby on their behalf so they stay in Israel but rather live here in Los Angeles."

    How many Israeli citizens who were born in Israel live outside Israel? I am interest in native born Israelis not in the wanna be neophytes like Dmitri. I suspect that the number is really big and not talked about. Some say 500k in the US. I heard this number already 30 year ago.

    I doubt if you can find statistics for Israeli immigrants broken down by religion/ethny. The guy who came to fix my garage door was an Arab Israeli citizen, as was the professor my son had in his robotics course last semester, as was the owner of a restaurant we ate at last week. I know a couple of Israeli Jewish immigrants, but I seem to know more Arabs. And the official statistics will not differentiate between them.

    • Replies: @utu
    There is wiki entry on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerida with all kind of often contradictory estimate/

    Zvi Eisenbach, working from Israeli data, has calculated that about 74 percent of American Israelis are Jews.

    Statistics from the United States Department of Homeland Security show that between 1949 and 2015, about 250,000 Israelis gained permanent residency in the United States, although they did not track those who later returned to Israel.

    Between 1948 and 1958, over 100,000 Jews emigrated from Israel.

    In 2009, a study by the University of British Columbia concluded that there were 45,000 Israelis living in Canada, while other estimates put the figure at 60,000. Of them, about 26,000 were found to live in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area. Overall, Israeli expatriates were estimated to make up 14% of Canadian Jewry.

    Between 40,000 and 60,000 Israelis have either emigrated to or established long-term residency in India, and live primarily in Goa and Maharashtra.

    The 2001 UK census recorded 11,892 Israelis living in the United Kingdom. Most of them live in London; particularly in the densely populated Jewish area of Golders Green. It has been estimated that there are up to 70,000 people of Israeli descent in the UK.

    Moscow has the largest single Israeli citizen community in the world, with 80,000 Israeli citizens living in the city as of 2014, almost all of them native Russian-speakers.

     

  220. @Nznz
    How come nobody seems to point out that Karlin, is basically the Russian version of Bliss? Basically someone who allegedly claims to be a Russian nationalist, but whose thinking process is wholly American in nature.

    Apparently there’s a hidden clone factory for Russian brains hidden in the Urals that I never knew of, assuring that every Russian has similar thinking processes.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I thought the Chinese were supposed to be first in the brave new transhumanist/clone/CRISPR world. Oh no! Siberia is just on the other side. Could they have taken over already?
  221. Joaquin Flores has an interesting take on this incident.
    The missile was French, but the Russians have maximized the incident’s geo-political utility by blaming Israel. By doing so, they’ve tossed the West’s narrative and purpose into a cocked hat.

    Worth reading.
    https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/full-analysis-russian-disinfo-campaign-blames-israel-for-il-20-plane-downing-yet-exonerates-france/

  222. @Cato
    I doubt if you can find statistics for Israeli immigrants broken down by religion/ethny. The guy who came to fix my garage door was an Arab Israeli citizen, as was the professor my son had in his robotics course last semester, as was the owner of a restaurant we ate at last week. I know a couple of Israeli Jewish immigrants, but I seem to know more Arabs. And the official statistics will not differentiate between them.

    There is wiki entry on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerida with all kind of often contradictory estimate/

    Zvi Eisenbach, working from Israeli data, has calculated that about 74 percent of American Israelis are Jews.

    Statistics from the United States Department of Homeland Security show that between 1949 and 2015, about 250,000 Israelis gained permanent residency in the United States, although they did not track those who later returned to Israel.

    Between 1948 and 1958, over 100,000 Jews emigrated from Israel.

    In 2009, a study by the University of British Columbia concluded that there were 45,000 Israelis living in Canada, while other estimates put the figure at 60,000. Of them, about 26,000 were found to live in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area. Overall, Israeli expatriates were estimated to make up 14% of Canadian Jewry.

    Between 40,000 and 60,000 Israelis have either emigrated to or established long-term residency in India, and live primarily in Goa and Maharashtra.

    The 2001 UK census recorded 11,892 Israelis living in the United Kingdom. Most of them live in London; particularly in the densely populated Jewish area of Golders Green. It has been estimated that there are up to 70,000 people of Israeli descent in the UK.

    Moscow has the largest single Israeli citizen community in the world, with 80,000 Israeli citizens living in the city as of 2014, almost all of them native Russian-speakers.

  223. @AP

    It’s possible that there’ll be no more countries with a majority white population by 2150
     
    Very doubtful, because other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Moreover in this case it is not that none of us has descendants at all, rather that our descendants, while still existing, will simply be outnumbered by other peoples' descendants. Or will be mixed with them so they don't look a lot like us, while nevertheless still being our descendants.

    If Nazis dominated the globe, there would be far fewer European people - tens of millions of Slavs would be gone; taking onto account them not having descendants, this would probably be over 200 million fewer Europeans in the 21st century than in our current reality. Would that price be worth it, to contain Arabs and Africans in their own homelands?

    If Bolshevism took over, the death rates would be lower. But fertility would still decline in that oppressive grey reality , and Bolshevism loved the Third World so who knows how it would have been with immigration, wealth transfers, etc.

    Whites are projected to drop to 5-6 percent of the world population in 2100 from near 30 percent in 1950.
    Muslim birth rate is stable and is not dropping (3,1 world wide, 2,6 in Europe). So african amd muslim population is projected to srongly increase world wide.

    White tfr is 1,6 world wide which means that whites are going away.

    Whites to become minority in the US in 2045.
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/

    Whites to drop to 20 % of Canada‘s population in 2100.
    https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/douglas-todd-almost-7-in-10-metro-residents-will-be-non-white-in-two-decades

    Almost 30 per cent of pupils in UK state primary schools and around 25 per cent of pupils at secondary schools are classified as being from a minority ethnic group.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620957/Ethnic-minorities-make-one-population-2050-Britains-melting-pot-continues-grow.html

    Whites to become minority in Britain by the 2060s
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3613682/RIP-Britain-academic-objectivity-Oxford-Professor-DAVID-COLEMAN-one-country-s-population-experts-says-white-Britons-minority-late-2060s-sooner-current-immigration-trends-continue.html

    Whites to become minority in Sweden in 2066.
    https://gefira.org/en/2018/07/27/sweden-will-remain-sweden-but-in-name/

    Whites to become minority in Italy in 2080.
    https://gefira.org/en/2018/01/18/the-incredibly-shrinking-italian-population-by-2080-italians-will-be-a-minority-in-their-own-country/

    Whites will be one third of Australia‘s population in 2090.
    http://www.ironbarkresources.com/asia/asia104.htm

    Whites are already a minority of newborn in New Zealand
    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/whites-are-becoming-a-minority-in-new-zealand/

    Non-whites are 39 % of newborn in France
    http://diversitymachtfrei.blogspot.com/2016/09/sickle-cell-data-shows-genocide-of.html

    More than one in 3 people of the world population will be muslim in 2100, while Islam will become the world’s largest religion in 2070.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3023597/Muslims-outnumber-Christians-worldwide-2070-Islam-major-religion-increase-faster-worlds-population.html

    Blacks in Africa are to become 4 billion people and to comprise 35,7 % of the world population in 2100.

    View post on imgur.com

    There will be more arabs than whites, nearly 1 billion vs probably 700 – 800 million (very old) whites in 2100.

    White numbers are declining in Latin America too.

    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/white-people-are-declining-in-latin-america-too/

    It is important to note that whites becoming 50 % of the population in a certain country underestimates the real situation, as those 50 % whites will be mostly old people compared to 50 % non-whites comprised of mostly young people who will be already the majority in schools.

    In other words, the world in 2100 is projected to be mostly black, muslim and indian. This will be very different world from today.

  224. @Daniel Chieh
    Apparently there's a hidden clone factory for Russian brains hidden in the Urals that I never knew of, assuring that every Russian has similar thinking processes.

    I thought the Chinese were supposed to be first in the brave new transhumanist/clone/CRISPR world. Oh no! Siberia is just on the other side. Could they have taken over already?

  225. @AP

    It’s possible that there’ll be no more countries with a majority white population by 2150
     
    Very doubtful, because other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Moreover in this case it is not that none of us has descendants at all, rather that our descendants, while still existing, will simply be outnumbered by other peoples' descendants. Or will be mixed with them so they don't look a lot like us, while nevertheless still being our descendants.

    If Nazis dominated the globe, there would be far fewer European people - tens of millions of Slavs would be gone; taking onto account them not having descendants, this would probably be over 200 million fewer Europeans in the 21st century than in our current reality. Would that price be worth it, to contain Arabs and Africans in their own homelands?

    If Bolshevism took over, the death rates would be lower. But fertility would still decline in that oppressive grey reality , and Bolshevism loved the Third World so who knows how it would have been with immigration, wealth transfers, etc.

    I guess you haven’t read Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests.

    Basically, for territorial human groups, genetic interests are best served by controlling as large a territory as possible. They can always increase their numbers to the carrying capacity of the land, or decrease it to provide nicer living standards for themselves. (Western Europeans and to a lesser extent even Central and perhaps Eastern Europeans did that, by delaying marriage, and/or preventing the poor from marrying, by not providing for bastards or the very poor, etc.)

    Once you let others into your territory and even start providing for their children, it’s game over for you, if you’re a K-selected population and the other groups you let in are R-selected. Even if you won’t completely disappear from the gene pool (it’s a stretch to say that Slavs would’ve disappeared, had Hitler won – the most extreme plans for mass murder were very difficult to implement and required a commitment from the political leadership which was likely to decrease after the death of Hitler), you will greatly diminish in such a situation. And it’s difficult to see what will stop the migration other than a complete disintegration of the Western European states (Lebanon-style), because their political elites are hell-bent on implementing multiculturalism and the debates are usually only about the speed (should there be an annual cap of 0.5% of the population?) and direction (e.g. refugees or workers?), but never the basic tenets of the ideology like blank slate HBD-denial or the “right” of foreigners to settle in Western Europe or the need of Western Europe to settle them “to provide for the graying population” and similar things.

    But let’s just put Slavs aside. For a Frenchman, assuming France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century (far from impossible, in fact, the most likely outcome), do you think it’s better in our real timeline, or would it be better if Hitler won and France would be subordinate to Germany, it’d lose maybe a fifth of its territory, but the rest would continue to be settled by Frenchmen? You have to admit that the answer is not obvious. The same is even more true of the British (whose empire might’ve been artificially propped up with German help, because Hitler’s ideology actually supported its existence, unlike the American ideology which was opposed to it), who probably wouldn’t even have lost any territories at all.

    other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Somewhat is shooting from an assault rifle at you. Other than this one bullet, all the other bullets will miss your vital organs. Well, this means you’re still going to be dead from this one bullet.

    I don’t think the 2060 timeline (what others wrote) is realistic, especially not for the last white holdouts (Ukraine, Belarus, the three Baltic countries, Poland, maybe Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, some Balkan countries – though for example Hungary and Slovakia have very bad Gypsy infestations), but 2150 is not impossible even for these. Immigration has momentum, and once it gets in motion, it never completely stops.

    • Replies: @AP

    Once you let others into your territory and even start providing for their children, it’s game over for you, if you’re a K-selected population and the other groups you let in are R-selected. Even if you won’t completely disappear from the gene pool
     
    You repeat the mistake however - it is not disappearance from the gene pool at all, but rather assimilation. There are no good analogies here - perhaps Mexico, except without the mass deaths to epidemics, or India when the Aryans came, except in this case the newcomers do not arrive as conquerors and become a new upper class. The Spaniards in Mexico and the native Indians in Mexico both have lots of descendants.

    This is a tragedy, of course. I value diversity and do not approve of the disappearance of the French, German, etc. people into some new people (same for African or Native American peoples in their own lands). But it isn't replacement or disappearance. Europeans, if they choose to have children, will still have descendants, they will simply likely be mixed with non-European people's descendants and will not look like current Europeans. But they very much will be the grandchildren of modern Europeans.

    If I had to choose - to be killed and have my children killed while a German and his children who look like me live on the land taken from me, or to live and with my children at peace but have them marry Arabs or whatever so that I have descendants on my lands who look less like me than would the Germans, I'd choose option #2 as a lesser evil. Wouldn't you?

    (it’s a stretch to say that Slavs would’ve disappeared, had Hitler won
     
    Hitler indeed would not have killed all Slavs, "merely" tens of millions of them (perhaps 50 million, or 60 million or whatever). Factoring in children those Slavs would never have had, it would mean about 200 million fewer Slavs today, with perhaps 100 million or so remaining. So Hitler victory equals 200 million fewer Europeans in the world.

    For a Frenchman, assuming France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century (far from impossible, in fact, the most likely outcome), do you think it’s better in our real timeline, or would it be better if Hitler won and France would be subordinate to Germany, it’d lose maybe a fifth of its territory, but the rest would continue to be settled by Frenchmen? You have to admit that the answer is not obvious.
     
    1. Your scenario, if true, would mean that from the narrow French rather than all-European perspective, a German victory would have been a lesser evil. However...

    2. This model, typical of doomsayers, assumes that current rates of fertility and births are constant over decades, leading to inevitable population replacement. However, we see fertility rates of Muslims are dropping. They are about a generation behind that of Europeans. Furthermore, native Euro fertility will rebound once more prolific people become a higher percentage of the native European gene pool (this process has already begun in France, whose fertility rate was the first to drop, in the early 19th century). This means that population ratios will settle and became stable at some point in the future. I'd guess about 30% to 40% of Charlemagne's Empire plus Scandinavia will become non-European when equilibrium is achieved (this will be much lower in eastern and southern Europe). There will mixing from all sides, so population will become more uniform and browner. It will be just another episode of mass migration and mixing in Europe, as had occurred thousands of years ago when waves of farmers from the Middle East and nomads from Asia came to Europe and added their descendants to the genetic mix.

    other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Somewhat is shooting from an assault rifle at you. Other than this one bullet, all the other bullets will miss your vital organs. Well, this means you’re still going to be dead from this one bullet.
     
    Except this bullet - Sub-Saharan Africans - are still pretty small part of the equation. It is not hitting a vital organ. It may change at some point (God forbid, global warming makes Africa literally deadly and uninhabitable, with billions of desperate people surging north to save their lives) but for now the issue is with Arabs, Turks, Afghans.
  226. @AP
    Depends on how extreme these strikes would be. Ukraine is not completely defenseless anymore. If it comes to complete destruction of Ukraine's military - several large Russian cities and bases are within range of Ukrainian missiles, not to mention the possibility of all sorts of asymmetrical retaliation (if Russia were to bomb to death 10,000s of Ukrainian soldiers who can guarantee that a dirty bomb won't erase central Moscow or St. Petersburg). I suspect that some among Russia's Western "partners", as Putin calls them, would not mind such an endgame.

    That’s why I wrote they shouldn’t even try to occupy Ukraine. Using a nuclear bomb would certainly invite extreme retaliation, basically Felix Keverich on steroids.

    dirty bomb

    To my knowledge, contrary to the hype, dirty bombs are not really possible. Basically you can have highly radioactive material, and it’s very dangerous to the people carrying it and trying to use it (and also easily detectable by the authorities, unless we’re talking about a warhead of a missile), but then a conventional explosion won’t do much to spread it – basically the effect won’t be much different from simply carrying the radioactive material without explosives into a public square and leaving it there. Assuming the terrorists survived, there’s every reason to assume that the passers-by will survive as well. Or it kills the terrorists themselves before they could take it to the target area.

    Anyway, if such a dirty bomb (more likely a low-yield inefficient nuclear bomb..? but it’s still difficult to carry without being noticed) was possible, it’d invite retaliation. Since the attack would target specifically Ukraine’s military and military industries (but not its other industries or population centers), there’s no reason to assume such a suicidal response from Ukraine.

    The context of what I wrote was that Russia needs to create “street cred” vis-à-vis the US (similarly how Ukraine would need the same vis-à-vis Russia – the situations are comparable), and it could create it by acting in a somewhat crazy manner. What would be the safest such action, which would not lead to WW3? (And it also needs to be cheap in the sense of not preventing Russia from further military actions the way the Iraq War made it difficult for the US to credibly threaten with force other regimes elsewhere.) A large-scale military action against Ukraine, which would nevertheless not lead to a costly occupation regime against a hostile population, might be such an action. (As I wrote, though probably I’d be less unhappy about as you would be, nevertheless I don’t like the idea of further military action in Europe, so close to Hungary.)

    One positive outcome for Ukraine would be that if Russia destroyed the Ukrainian military, but then didn’t occupy further Ukrainian territories, then at least this would mean that Ukraine is basically safe from Russian expansionism. (Except of course Donbas and Crimea.)

    • Replies: @notanon

    One positive outcome for Ukraine would be that if Russia destroyed the Ukrainian military
     
    thing is there is zero public support in the West or a ground war in Syria or war with Russia hence all the false flag attacks to try and drum up public support - they want to provoke Pooty into something they could spin as clear and present danger.

    i agree he has to do something but whatever it is it shouldn't be anything that the media could spin as PUTLER IS COMING!!!!!!

    (imo)

    if some member of the US elite has a money making business in Ukraine then yeah maybe an accidental artillery strike - oops sorry - but to a neocon getting the Russians to kill a bunch of Ukrainians is like free ice cream.

    1) i think Pooty has to find a way to squeeze the US elite without it effecting proles - either in US or elsewhere.

    2) they should already have a big english-language website which focuses on entertainment, games etc to draw the crowds but also has political sub-forums where euros who are being silenced by their own media can talk to each other safely.

    3) all the worst neocon cheerleaders among the US elite are going to be either bribed or blackmailed or both: graham, flake, romney, nikki haley, macron etc. you would have thought there were enough spies in the world to find this stuff out?
    , @AP

    dirty bomb

    To my knowledge, contrary to the hype, dirty bombs are not really possible. Basically you can have highly radioactive material, and it’s very dangerous to the people carrying it and trying to use it (and also easily detectable by the authorities, unless we’re talking about a warhead of a missile), but then a conventional explosion won’t do much to spread it
     

    I'm no expert on this. This is a frightening description of what such a bomb could do to New York:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/what-a-nuclear-attack-in-new-york-would-look-like.html

    Ukraine has plenty of nuclear material. Ukrainians can blend into Russia. If Russia choose to liquidate the Ukrainian military with massive strikes resulting in 10,000s casualties, the odds of a terrible thing like this happening to Russia are probably greater than zero. In this case it would be written off as rogue elements by Ukraine's western backers, or as an excuse to cut Ukraine off, the damage to Russia having been done.


    One positive outcome for Ukraine would be that if Russia destroyed the Ukrainian military, but then didn’t occupy further Ukrainian territories, then at least this would mean that Ukraine is basically safe from Russian expansionism
     
    Why? Deterrent would be gone. Do you think if the Baltics, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Hungary etc. removed their militaries that these countries would therefore all be safe from Russian expansion and interference? Is that the key to avoid any trouble from Russia - have no military?
  227. @AP

    Syria using S-200 (still inferior to Ukraine’s S-300 systems, plus manned by Syrians)

    S-200 recently upgraded by Russia.
     
    And Ukraine has upgraded its S-300 systems since 2014. It is a class ahead of what the Syrians have. No modern air force has yet faced the S-300.

    I don’t think its safe to assume that Ukrainian officers are currently much more competent than their Syrian counterparts
     
    Judging by training casualties and such, Ukraine's military has improved roughly to where Russia's was in about 2004. I doubt Syrian Arabs are on that level.

    and the Russian air force, “pound for pound”, is probably worse than Israel’s.

    Not sure this is true. The RuAF has performed extremely well in Syria
     
    It has been fighting ISIS bands in Syria, not modern armies with modern air defenses.

    Russia would probably have to first engage in large-scale cruise missile strikes across large areas of eastern Ukraine to take out these systems, before sending planes in to take out the artillery positions. At that point Ukraine would have nothing to lose and would probably launch its own missiles into Russian positions near the border (are Ukraine’s newest Neptune missiles deployed yet? Sevastopol would be within range of them).

    What would Ukraine gain by doing this, except more punishment?
     
    If Russia attacked Ukraine, Ukraine would almost certainly retaliate against Russian forward positions, as it is now capable of doing. Even in 2014 it mistakenly bombed some Russian positions at the border.

    Ukraine did nothing when Crimea was seized, and problems ensued in Donbas. Broad consensus would be to retaliate.

    And if you mean Ukraine should target the city of Sevastopol, that would be completely nuts from a PR standpoint.
     
    There is a huge base in Sevastopol, from which Russian planes or missiles would be sent to bomb Ukrainian forces all over Eastern Ukraine. If Ukrainian rockets and missiles can reach it, there is a high chance they will be tried out on this base. It is full of expensive ships, and Russia's own new defenses will be put to the test. Quite a gamble for the sake of sparing 2 lives of non-Russian citizens a month.

    Judging by training casualties and such, Ukraine’s military has improved roughly to where Russia’s was in about 2004. I doubt Syrian Arabs are on that level.

    After seven years of experience with high-intensity, very high-casualty war, which has tended to kill off the incompetent (as well as three years of Russian training), yes they probably are, particularly among officers.

    It has been fighting ISIS bands in Syria, not modern armies with modern air defenses.

    It has been fighting not only ISIS, but also Western and Gulf Arab proxy forces that were being supplied with billions of dollars worth of weaponry. Completely reversing the momentum of a great power proxy war involving around 200,000 combatants, in which the other side has already nearly won, with only about 40 aircraft, is an impressive feat. Of course it’s a different type of challenge than dealing with modern air defenses, but we don’t have any way to compare the performance of the RuAF and Israeli Air force in that regard. My point was just that Syria is evidence that the RuAF is quite proficient in general, so I’m not sure what the basis is for assuming that “pound for pound it is probably worse than Israel”.

    There is a huge base in Sevastopol, from which Russian planes or missiles would be sent to bomb Ukrainian forces all over Eastern Ukraine.

    Yes, I wasn’t sure if you meant the city too, since you’ve previously suggested that Ukraine might respond to a Russian attack by targeting Russian civilians (by melting down its own nuclear reactor!).

    Quite a gamble for the sake of sparing 2 lives of non-Russian citizens a month.

    As I’ve said, there’s more at stake than that.

    • Replies: @AP

    "Judging by training casualties and such, Ukraine’s military has improved roughly to where Russia’s was in about 2004. I doubt Syrian Arabs are on that level."

    After seven years of experience with high-intensity, very high-casualty war, which has tended to kill off the incompetent (as well as three years of Russian training), yes they probably are, particularly among officers.
     
    My impression from Russian accounts is that their opinion of Syrians is still very low. I doubt Syrian troops are better than Russian ones were in 2004 or Ukrainian ones are today. And Syrians troops, in addition to being Syrians, are simply armed much more poorly than are Ukrainian troops.

    This is from 2017, improvements have continued at a strong pace since then:

    https://informnapalm.org/en/ukraine-s-shield-and-sword-defense-industry-s-main-achievements-in-2017-part-iii/

    According to the data of the British International Institute of Strategic Studies provided in The Military Balance 2017 overview of the military and defense potential, Ukraine’s Air Force has 250 S-300 systems of various versions and 72 Buk-M1 systems. These figures might seem impressive, but many of these air defense systems were produced in the Soviet times; it is vitally important to keep overhauling and upgrading the available fleet of surface-to-air missiles (SAM)

    [IIRC about 40% were upgraded and active in 2014 with ongoing repair and replacement since then]

    Ukraine’s defense industry is capable of producing upgraded 9V55R missiles for S-300 SAM systems; in some respects, they are even better than Russia’s 48N6E2 surface-to-air guided interceptor missile designed for S-400 systems.

    In 2017, Vizar plant has been actively renovating dozens of 5V55R surface-to-air interceptor missiles with the extension of their operating life for S-300 SAM systems in order to strengthen Ukraine’s air defense capability. The efficiency of these missiles was confirmed at the joint Shabla-2017 exercises in Bulgaria where four Ukraine-made missiles hit their respective targets.

    Etc. etc.

    It's just another league from Syria (just as Russia in 2004 was another league from Syria), and yet Syria managed to down some Israeli jets.

    It has been fighting not only ISIS, but also Western and Gulf Arab proxy forces that were being supplied with billions of dollars worth of weaponry. Completely reversing the momentum of a great power proxy war involving around 200,000 combatants, in which the other side has already nearly won, with only about 40 aircraft, is an impressive feat.
     
    Sure, none of which has anti-aircraft capability comparable to Syrian military's old s-200 systems or Ukraine's newer s-300 system. In Syria one can say that Russia is an expert at efficiently wiping out huge numbers of knife-wielding warriors with a machine gun to successfully attain its goals. But it hasn't been up against someone with his own machine gun.

    There is a huge base in Sevastopol, from which Russian planes or missiles would be sent to bomb Ukrainian forces all over Eastern Ukraine.

    Yes, I wasn’t sure if you meant the city too, since you’ve previously suggested that Ukraine might respond to a Russian attack by targeting Russian civilians (by melting down its own nuclear reactor!).
     
    The latter was a doomsday scenario, if Russia was invading and eliminating Ukrainian statehood. A retaliatory missile strike on Sevastopol would be reasonable response if jets from Sevastopol were bombing military points within Ukraine. That having been said, it looks like the cruise missiles capable of reaching Sevastopol have completed a round of testing but as still a year or two away from mass production:

    https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-08-28/ukraines-neptun-missile-conducts-successful-first-launch

    (the fabulously expensive Azov bridge would be an easy target also, probably first thing to go if Ukraine is attacked)
  228. @LatW

    google “does europe need more immigrants” and you’ll get scores of msm articles saying yes – and in unlimited numbers
     
    While I agree that third country illegal immigration should be stopped (non-selective legal immigration should also be stopped), it should be noted in the context of labor shortages - the immigration lobby is indeed asking for more people, but only for employable people.

    the immigration lobby is indeed asking for more people, but only for employable people

    that would be a valid and honest point if the the immigration lobby didn’t claim all immigrants are employable

  229. @AP

    i’ll put it another way – if a million women aged 18-30 from country A immigrate to country B then they’ll be having their babies in country A and not country B.
     
    Correct. And they will be bringing their declining fertility rate to Country B when they arrive.

    From 1991 to 2010 TFR of German women increased from 1.26 to 1.36.

    dishonest strawman: German-born != German.
     
    Article stated "German" not "German-born" and contrasted German with 2nd generation immigrants.

    The 2015 flood produced another wave of higher TFR people, but its TFR will also decline.

    right – generally the 1st generation have lots of kids and the 2nd+ generations have fewer – which wouldn’t be another dishonest straw man if there wasn’t a constant stream of 1st generation immigrants.
     
    No dishonesty and no strawman. Someone made an outlandish claim that by 2060 there would be no majority-white countries.

    No dishonesty and no strawman. Someone made an outlandish claim that by 2060 there would be no majority-white countries.

    i think you’ll find it’s both as your reply to that comment was

    The point is that by 2060, even under worst case scenario, every European country will still be majority-European

    which is 1) not true literally and 2) much more not true fundamentally cos age distribution matters more than absolute numbers and 3) the line you’re promoting is “don’t worry about replacement level immigration until it’s too late” aka

    stealth tribal warfare.

    • Replies: @AP

    The point is that by 2060, even under worst case scenario, every European country will still be majority-European

    which is 1) not true literally
     
    True literally, with the possible exception of Sweden only, as I pointed out.

    2) much more not true fundamentally cos age distribution matters more than absolute numbers
     
    It is either true or not. With the possible exception of Sweden, by 2060 every European country will still have a European majority.

    It will likely be different in 2100.

    3) the line you’re promoting is “don’t worry about replacement level immigration until it’s too late” aka
     
    The line I'm promoting is don't say outlandish things because doing so erases your credibility.
  230. @reiner Tor
    I guess you haven't read Frank Salter's On Genetic Interests.

    Basically, for territorial human groups, genetic interests are best served by controlling as large a territory as possible. They can always increase their numbers to the carrying capacity of the land, or decrease it to provide nicer living standards for themselves. (Western Europeans and to a lesser extent even Central and perhaps Eastern Europeans did that, by delaying marriage, and/or preventing the poor from marrying, by not providing for bastards or the very poor, etc.)

    Once you let others into your territory and even start providing for their children, it's game over for you, if you're a K-selected population and the other groups you let in are R-selected. Even if you won't completely disappear from the gene pool (it's a stretch to say that Slavs would've disappeared, had Hitler won - the most extreme plans for mass murder were very difficult to implement and required a commitment from the political leadership which was likely to decrease after the death of Hitler), you will greatly diminish in such a situation. And it's difficult to see what will stop the migration other than a complete disintegration of the Western European states (Lebanon-style), because their political elites are hell-bent on implementing multiculturalism and the debates are usually only about the speed (should there be an annual cap of 0.5% of the population?) and direction (e.g. refugees or workers?), but never the basic tenets of the ideology like blank slate HBD-denial or the "right" of foreigners to settle in Western Europe or the need of Western Europe to settle them "to provide for the graying population" and similar things.

    But let's just put Slavs aside. For a Frenchman, assuming France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century (far from impossible, in fact, the most likely outcome), do you think it's better in our real timeline, or would it be better if Hitler won and France would be subordinate to Germany, it'd lose maybe a fifth of its territory, but the rest would continue to be settled by Frenchmen? You have to admit that the answer is not obvious. The same is even more true of the British (whose empire might've been artificially propped up with German help, because Hitler's ideology actually supported its existence, unlike the American ideology which was opposed to it), who probably wouldn't even have lost any territories at all.

    other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.
     
    Somewhat is shooting from an assault rifle at you. Other than this one bullet, all the other bullets will miss your vital organs. Well, this means you're still going to be dead from this one bullet.

    I don't think the 2060 timeline (what others wrote) is realistic, especially not for the last white holdouts (Ukraine, Belarus, the three Baltic countries, Poland, maybe Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, some Balkan countries - though for example Hungary and Slovakia have very bad Gypsy infestations), but 2150 is not impossible even for these. Immigration has momentum, and once it gets in motion, it never completely stops.

    Once you let others into your territory and even start providing for their children, it’s game over for you, if you’re a K-selected population and the other groups you let in are R-selected. Even if you won’t completely disappear from the gene pool

    You repeat the mistake however – it is not disappearance from the gene pool at all, but rather assimilation. There are no good analogies here – perhaps Mexico, except without the mass deaths to epidemics, or India when the Aryans came, except in this case the newcomers do not arrive as conquerors and become a new upper class. The Spaniards in Mexico and the native Indians in Mexico both have lots of descendants.

    This is a tragedy, of course. I value diversity and do not approve of the disappearance of the French, German, etc. people into some new people (same for African or Native American peoples in their own lands). But it isn’t replacement or disappearance. Europeans, if they choose to have children, will still have descendants, they will simply likely be mixed with non-European people’s descendants and will not look like current Europeans. But they very much will be the grandchildren of modern Europeans.

    If I had to choose – to be killed and have my children killed while a German and his children who look like me live on the land taken from me, or to live and with my children at peace but have them marry Arabs or whatever so that I have descendants on my lands who look less like me than would the Germans, I’d choose option #2 as a lesser evil. Wouldn’t you?

    (it’s a stretch to say that Slavs would’ve disappeared, had Hitler won

    Hitler indeed would not have killed all Slavs, “merely” tens of millions of them (perhaps 50 million, or 60 million or whatever). Factoring in children those Slavs would never have had, it would mean about 200 million fewer Slavs today, with perhaps 100 million or so remaining. So Hitler victory equals 200 million fewer Europeans in the world.

    For a Frenchman, assuming France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century (far from impossible, in fact, the most likely outcome), do you think it’s better in our real timeline, or would it be better if Hitler won and France would be subordinate to Germany, it’d lose maybe a fifth of its territory, but the rest would continue to be settled by Frenchmen? You have to admit that the answer is not obvious.

    1. Your scenario, if true, would mean that from the narrow French rather than all-European perspective, a German victory would have been a lesser evil. However…

    2. This model, typical of doomsayers, assumes that current rates of fertility and births are constant over decades, leading to inevitable population replacement. However, we see fertility rates of Muslims are dropping. They are about a generation behind that of Europeans. Furthermore, native Euro fertility will rebound once more prolific people become a higher percentage of the native European gene pool (this process has already begun in France, whose fertility rate was the first to drop, in the early 19th century). This means that population ratios will settle and became stable at some point in the future. I’d guess about 30% to 40% of Charlemagne’s Empire plus Scandinavia will become non-European when equilibrium is achieved (this will be much lower in eastern and southern Europe). There will mixing from all sides, so population will become more uniform and browner. It will be just another episode of mass migration and mixing in Europe, as had occurred thousands of years ago when waves of farmers from the Middle East and nomads from Asia came to Europe and added their descendants to the genetic mix.

    other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Somewhat is shooting from an assault rifle at you. Other than this one bullet, all the other bullets will miss your vital organs. Well, this means you’re still going to be dead from this one bullet.

    Except this bullet – Sub-Saharan Africans – are still pretty small part of the equation. It is not hitting a vital organ. It may change at some point (God forbid, global warming makes Africa literally deadly and uninhabitable, with billions of desperate people surging north to save their lives) but for now the issue is with Arabs, Turks, Afghans.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    If I had to choose – to be killed and have my children killed while a German and his children who look like me live on the land taken from me, or to live and with my children at peace but have them marry Arabs or whatever so that I have descendants on my lands who look less like me than would the Germans
     
    Even the Nazis thought some fraction of Slavs could be Germanized (e.g. Reinhard Heydrich, pretty much the ultimate Nazi in terms of how radical his views were, thought about 50% of Czechs would have to be deported, but the other 50% might perhaps be Germanized; of course he wanted to see Czech language and culture be completely eradicated). So the contrast isn't as absolute as you make it out to be. If at some point in the future Europe does indeed become dominated by Muslims and/or Africans, there's also no guarantee there won't be any mass killings of the Europeans resisting the new order.
    That doesn't mean a victory of Nazi Germany in WW2 would have been a good thing, and the present situation imo isn't an inevitable consequence of what happened in 1945, but rather the result of political decisions and developments that happened much later, some as late as the 1980s and 1990s. But your optimism is rather misplaced imo (or maybe it's because in the end you don't care that much about Western Europe, but are solely focused on Ukrainian and to some extent Polish interests).
    , @Hyperborean

    There will mixing from all sides, so population will become more uniform and browner. It will be just another episode of mass migration and mixing in Europe, as had occurred thousands of years ago when waves of farmers from the Middle East and nomads from Asia came to Europe and added their descendants to the genetic mix.
     
    Except that most of them act with extreme hostility towards us, the actual percentage doesn't matter as much, we will still be under constant attack in own lands.

    The situation in Europe is different from the USA.

    , @notanon

    It will be just another episode of mass migration and mixing in Europe, as had occurred thousands of years ago when waves of farmers from the Middle East and nomads from Asia...
     
    Asia? that's an odd thing for a Ukrainian nationalist to say seeing as the Indo-Europeans apparently originated in what is now Ukraine.
    , @reiner Tor

    You repeat the mistake however
     
    It wasn't a mistake at all. I made a comparison, which was exaggerated on both sides (Hitler killing all non-German whites, vs. whites going fully extinct), but you would get the point, if you tried just for one moment consider the viewpoints of people who are not Slavs. (And as I have stated previously, like most Hungarians, I'm far from anti-Polish. Even during the Second World War, pro-German pro-Nazi Hungarian nationalists kept lamenting the tragedy of Poland. So it's not like I think the extermination of the majority of Poles would be a desirable outcome.) So Hitler wouldn't have exterminated all Slavs (and wouldn't even have committed mass murder against Latins or Greeks), while whites won't probably completely disappear in our current timeline.

    But it isn’t replacement or disappearance. Europeans, if they choose to have children, will still have descendants, they will simply likely be mixed with non-European people’s descendants and will not look like current Europeans.
     
    From a genetic interests point of view, that's not all that much different from extinction at the hands of a closely related people. The genetic distance of a person of African-European mixed blood is significantly farther from pure Europeans than a Northeast German is from a Pole - the latter two are pretty similar. That's why I keep proposing that you read Frank Salter's book. (Which is far from an endorsement of Nazism. Exterminating your close relatives is not the most rational thing to do, definitely not from a genetic interests viewpoint. So mass murdering Poles was not a very smart thing for Hitler, and especially not very smart for Northeast Germans, who were genetically probably more closely related to Poles than to Bavarians and Austrians, including Hitler himself...)

    This model, typical of doomsayers
     
    The populations which are the source of immigration (Africa, mostly) have a population explosion. The Maghreb no longer, but I'm sure you're aware of the fact that Maghrebi born women in France have a significantly higher fertility rate than Maghrebis in the Maghreb. I'm also sure you're aware of the Arab/Muslim practice of bringing spouses from the old country. This ensures that as long as the Maghreb is significantly poorer than France, there will be a constant immigration from there, and with a higher fertility than the French. Black Africans don't have that practice, as far as I know, but they have a population explosion. Let me add that mass immigration depresses native fertility rates, if for nothing else, then because it inflates real estate and home rental prices.

    Doomsayer or not, it is not at all unlikely that the population of France by 2100 will trace the majority of their ancestry from outside Europe.

    if they choose to have children
     
    You know that people's choices are often not very free. In the early 1990s in Hungary something like half (could be a third or two thirds, I don't know) of all teenagers liked the music of Guns N'Roses, while in 2018 that is no longer the case. However, I'm pretty sure if we managed to move a late 1970s baby with a time machine to the early 2000s, and then see if he likes Guns N'Roses in 2018, he'd have no higher probability of liking this music than other 2018 teenagers. Listening to music is one of the most general hobbies - almost everyone does it. People are also often passionate about the music they like (especially teenage fans of Guns N'Roses in the early 1990s often wore T-shirts etc.), but apparently their choices, which they believe belong to them, are actually made by others.

    Similarly, the number of children is a decision which is not totally free.

    If I had to choose – to be killed and have my children killed while a German and his children who look like me live on the land taken from me, or to live and with my children at peace but have them marry Arabs or whatever so that I have descendants on my lands who look less like me than would the Germans, I’d choose option #2 as a lesser evil. Wouldn’t you?
     
    This is a very sterile example. "Would you choose to be murdered in the most horrible way right now, but before that, they'd take your sperm, and then inseminate millions of women with it, so that you'd have more descendants than any other living human being..?" I don't know if I'd choose that, but obviously you're never facing such choices. Of course all people would fight against their own extermination and that of their families, be it 1939-45 in Europe or some other time and place. Of course no one would choose the gruesome death of their own sons and daughters and wife.

    But usually the longer time passes, the less we care about people killed. One reason is that over time the victims would be dead anyway. The vast majority of Hitler's victims would be dead anyway by now. Do we get emotionally worked up over the people murdered by Genghis Khan or Tamerlane? No, because even the victims' great-great-grandchildren would be dead now for centuries, had they had great-great-grandchildren at all. What longer term matters is if those victims have descendants. Or if their relatives have descendants.

    Hitler indeed would not have killed all Slavs, “merely” tens of millions of them (perhaps 50 million, or 60 million or whatever). Factoring in children those Slavs would never have had, it would mean about 200 million fewer Slavs today, with perhaps 100 million or so remaining. So Hitler victory equals 200 million fewer Europeans in the world.
     
    Your calculation is strange. Slavs didn't multiply fourfold since 1945, so why assume that killing 50 million would've resulted in 200 million fewer Slavs? Moreover, you seem to be missing the other side of the equation - the German state would've put every possible incentive in place for people to have as many children as possible. This would have included low real estate and food prices (they conquered a vast empire for that explicit purpose), low gasoline and raw material prices resulting in high levels of industrial production, low prices of industrial products*, social benefits for children, big families resulting in better career opportunities (while being childless being a hindrance), etc. So maybe there'd be only 50 or at most 100 million less Slavs, but there'd be 50 or even 100 million more Germans. (Assuming Hitler's project went on after his death. If not, then maybe there'd be only 20-30 million less Slavs, and only 20-30 million more Germans. Who knows?)

    *Economies of scale was one big reason for the conquest of Lebensraum for Hitler, because he understood that having a vast and sparsely inhabited continent with lots of agricultural land, raw materials, oil, coal, etc. resulted in America being so rich; he seems to have understood that as industrial production goes up, the unit cost drops, in other words, economies of scale.
  231. @notanon

    No dishonesty and no strawman. Someone made an outlandish claim that by 2060 there would be no majority-white countries.
     
    i think you'll find it's both as your reply to that comment was

    The point is that by 2060, even under worst case scenario, every European country will still be majority-European
     
    which is 1) not true literally and 2) much more not true fundamentally cos age distribution matters more than absolute numbers and 3) the line you're promoting is "don't worry about replacement level immigration until it's too late" aka

    stealth tribal warfare.

    The point is that by 2060, even under worst case scenario, every European country will still be majority-European

    which is 1) not true literally

    True literally, with the possible exception of Sweden only, as I pointed out.

    2) much more not true fundamentally cos age distribution matters more than absolute numbers

    It is either true or not. With the possible exception of Sweden, by 2060 every European country will still have a European majority.

    It will likely be different in 2100.

    3) the line you’re promoting is “don’t worry about replacement level immigration until it’s too late” aka

    The line I’m promoting is don’t say outlandish things because doing so erases your credibility.

    • Replies: @notanon

    It is either true or not.
     
    then i guess we have a philosophical disagreement cos i think something can be literally true while concealing a greater truth and imo the concealing of a greater truth, if deliberate, makes it a lie

    hence

    "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God."
  232. @reiner Tor
    That's why I wrote they shouldn't even try to occupy Ukraine. Using a nuclear bomb would certainly invite extreme retaliation, basically Felix Keverich on steroids.

    dirty bomb
     
    To my knowledge, contrary to the hype, dirty bombs are not really possible. Basically you can have highly radioactive material, and it's very dangerous to the people carrying it and trying to use it (and also easily detectable by the authorities, unless we're talking about a warhead of a missile), but then a conventional explosion won't do much to spread it - basically the effect won't be much different from simply carrying the radioactive material without explosives into a public square and leaving it there. Assuming the terrorists survived, there's every reason to assume that the passers-by will survive as well. Or it kills the terrorists themselves before they could take it to the target area.

    Anyway, if such a dirty bomb (more likely a low-yield inefficient nuclear bomb..? but it's still difficult to carry without being noticed) was possible, it'd invite retaliation. Since the attack would target specifically Ukraine's military and military industries (but not its other industries or population centers), there's no reason to assume such a suicidal response from Ukraine.

    The context of what I wrote was that Russia needs to create "street cred" vis-à-vis the US (similarly how Ukraine would need the same vis-à-vis Russia - the situations are comparable), and it could create it by acting in a somewhat crazy manner. What would be the safest such action, which would not lead to WW3? (And it also needs to be cheap in the sense of not preventing Russia from further military actions the way the Iraq War made it difficult for the US to credibly threaten with force other regimes elsewhere.) A large-scale military action against Ukraine, which would nevertheless not lead to a costly occupation regime against a hostile population, might be such an action. (As I wrote, though probably I'd be less unhappy about as you would be, nevertheless I don't like the idea of further military action in Europe, so close to Hungary.)

    One positive outcome for Ukraine would be that if Russia destroyed the Ukrainian military, but then didn't occupy further Ukrainian territories, then at least this would mean that Ukraine is basically safe from Russian expansionism. (Except of course Donbas and Crimea.)

    One positive outcome for Ukraine would be that if Russia destroyed the Ukrainian military

    thing is there is zero public support in the West or a ground war in Syria or war with Russia hence all the false flag attacks to try and drum up public support – they want to provoke Pooty into something they could spin as clear and present danger.

    i agree he has to do something but whatever it is it shouldn’t be anything that the media could spin as PUTLER IS COMING!!!!!!

    (imo)

    if some member of the US elite has a money making business in Ukraine then yeah maybe an accidental artillery strike – oops sorry – but to a neocon getting the Russians to kill a bunch of Ukrainians is like free ice cream.

    1) i think Pooty has to find a way to squeeze the US elite without it effecting proles – either in US or elsewhere.

    2) they should already have a big english-language website which focuses on entertainment, games etc to draw the crowds but also has political sub-forums where euros who are being silenced by their own media can talk to each other safely.

    3) all the worst neocon cheerleaders among the US elite are going to be either bribed or blackmailed or both: graham, flake, romney, nikki haley, macron etc. you would have thought there were enough spies in the world to find this stuff out?

  233. @AP

    Once you let others into your territory and even start providing for their children, it’s game over for you, if you’re a K-selected population and the other groups you let in are R-selected. Even if you won’t completely disappear from the gene pool
     
    You repeat the mistake however - it is not disappearance from the gene pool at all, but rather assimilation. There are no good analogies here - perhaps Mexico, except without the mass deaths to epidemics, or India when the Aryans came, except in this case the newcomers do not arrive as conquerors and become a new upper class. The Spaniards in Mexico and the native Indians in Mexico both have lots of descendants.

    This is a tragedy, of course. I value diversity and do not approve of the disappearance of the French, German, etc. people into some new people (same for African or Native American peoples in their own lands). But it isn't replacement or disappearance. Europeans, if they choose to have children, will still have descendants, they will simply likely be mixed with non-European people's descendants and will not look like current Europeans. But they very much will be the grandchildren of modern Europeans.

    If I had to choose - to be killed and have my children killed while a German and his children who look like me live on the land taken from me, or to live and with my children at peace but have them marry Arabs or whatever so that I have descendants on my lands who look less like me than would the Germans, I'd choose option #2 as a lesser evil. Wouldn't you?

    (it’s a stretch to say that Slavs would’ve disappeared, had Hitler won
     
    Hitler indeed would not have killed all Slavs, "merely" tens of millions of them (perhaps 50 million, or 60 million or whatever). Factoring in children those Slavs would never have had, it would mean about 200 million fewer Slavs today, with perhaps 100 million or so remaining. So Hitler victory equals 200 million fewer Europeans in the world.

    For a Frenchman, assuming France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century (far from impossible, in fact, the most likely outcome), do you think it’s better in our real timeline, or would it be better if Hitler won and France would be subordinate to Germany, it’d lose maybe a fifth of its territory, but the rest would continue to be settled by Frenchmen? You have to admit that the answer is not obvious.
     
    1. Your scenario, if true, would mean that from the narrow French rather than all-European perspective, a German victory would have been a lesser evil. However...

    2. This model, typical of doomsayers, assumes that current rates of fertility and births are constant over decades, leading to inevitable population replacement. However, we see fertility rates of Muslims are dropping. They are about a generation behind that of Europeans. Furthermore, native Euro fertility will rebound once more prolific people become a higher percentage of the native European gene pool (this process has already begun in France, whose fertility rate was the first to drop, in the early 19th century). This means that population ratios will settle and became stable at some point in the future. I'd guess about 30% to 40% of Charlemagne's Empire plus Scandinavia will become non-European when equilibrium is achieved (this will be much lower in eastern and southern Europe). There will mixing from all sides, so population will become more uniform and browner. It will be just another episode of mass migration and mixing in Europe, as had occurred thousands of years ago when waves of farmers from the Middle East and nomads from Asia came to Europe and added their descendants to the genetic mix.

    other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Somewhat is shooting from an assault rifle at you. Other than this one bullet, all the other bullets will miss your vital organs. Well, this means you’re still going to be dead from this one bullet.
     
    Except this bullet - Sub-Saharan Africans - are still pretty small part of the equation. It is not hitting a vital organ. It may change at some point (God forbid, global warming makes Africa literally deadly and uninhabitable, with billions of desperate people surging north to save their lives) but for now the issue is with Arabs, Turks, Afghans.

    If I had to choose – to be killed and have my children killed while a German and his children who look like me live on the land taken from me, or to live and with my children at peace but have them marry Arabs or whatever so that I have descendants on my lands who look less like me than would the Germans

    Even the Nazis thought some fraction of Slavs could be Germanized (e.g. Reinhard Heydrich, pretty much the ultimate Nazi in terms of how radical his views were, thought about 50% of Czechs would have to be deported, but the other 50% might perhaps be Germanized; of course he wanted to see Czech language and culture be completely eradicated). So the contrast isn’t as absolute as you make it out to be. If at some point in the future Europe does indeed become dominated by Muslims and/or Africans, there’s also no guarantee there won’t be any mass killings of the Europeans resisting the new order.
    That doesn’t mean a victory of Nazi Germany in WW2 would have been a good thing, and the present situation imo isn’t an inevitable consequence of what happened in 1945, but rather the result of political decisions and developments that happened much later, some as late as the 1980s and 1990s. But your optimism is rather misplaced imo (or maybe it’s because in the end you don’t care that much about Western Europe, but are solely focused on Ukrainian and to some extent Polish interests).

    • Replies: @AP

    Even the Nazis thought some fraction of Slavs could be Germanized (e.g. Reinhard Heydrich, pretty much the ultimate Nazi in terms of how radical his views were, thought about 50% of Czechs would have to be deported, but the other 50% might perhaps be Germanized; of course he wanted to see Czech language and culture be completely eradicated).
     
    Yes, Nazis were willing to kill 50 or 60 million or so Slavs, not all of them. Some they wanted to assimilate, and others were destined to work as slaves, but they wanted to cull their number down so it was manageable. The Nazi endgame seems to have been about 30 million Slavs living east of the Urals as a buffer zone against Asia, and another 30 million or so working as slaves on plantations in fertile Ukraine and southern Russia.

    in the end you don’t care that much about Western Europe, but are solely focused on Ukrainian and to some extent Polish interests
     
    Western Europe is a tragedy, but in the end I wouldn't want to sacrifice healthy peoples with self-respect for those who hate themselves and willingly choose self-destruction. Western European nationalists would sell eastern Europe out while giving up their own countries anyways. So far only the territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Austria-Hungary (minus Austria itself, alas) are clearly viable and the first priority ought to be to keep them that way. This region ought to be strong and united, not partitioned. You want Poland or little Hungary to resist western EU encroachments? Add Ukraine with its tens of millions to their side, rather than sell Ukraine out for some scraps from Russia, given to your nationalist political parties that won't save you anyways.
    , @reiner Tor

    the present situation imo isn’t an inevitable consequence of what happened in 1945, but rather the result of political decisions and developments that happened much later
     
    Though I'd think that the anti-racism (the expression originally meant anti-Nazism) movement was a more or less logical result of the war. Though you're correct that the Western world could've chosen a different direction as late as the 1980s or 1990s (perhaps even now?), it appears that what happened or is about to happen was always the most likely outcome.
  234. @AP

    The point is that by 2060, even under worst case scenario, every European country will still be majority-European

    which is 1) not true literally
     
    True literally, with the possible exception of Sweden only, as I pointed out.

    2) much more not true fundamentally cos age distribution matters more than absolute numbers
     
    It is either true or not. With the possible exception of Sweden, by 2060 every European country will still have a European majority.

    It will likely be different in 2100.

    3) the line you’re promoting is “don’t worry about replacement level immigration until it’s too late” aka
     
    The line I'm promoting is don't say outlandish things because doing so erases your credibility.

    It is either true or not.

    then i guess we have a philosophical disagreement cos i think something can be literally true while concealing a greater truth and imo the concealing of a greater truth, if deliberate, makes it a lie

    hence

    “do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God.”

    • Replies: @AP
    Either say that Europeans will be a minority in 2100 or say that by 2060 most kids will be non-European, but don't lie and say that there won't be any European-majority countries in 2060. Doing so discredits your arguments, and that is bad.
  235. @reiner Tor
    That's why I wrote they shouldn't even try to occupy Ukraine. Using a nuclear bomb would certainly invite extreme retaliation, basically Felix Keverich on steroids.

    dirty bomb
     
    To my knowledge, contrary to the hype, dirty bombs are not really possible. Basically you can have highly radioactive material, and it's very dangerous to the people carrying it and trying to use it (and also easily detectable by the authorities, unless we're talking about a warhead of a missile), but then a conventional explosion won't do much to spread it - basically the effect won't be much different from simply carrying the radioactive material without explosives into a public square and leaving it there. Assuming the terrorists survived, there's every reason to assume that the passers-by will survive as well. Or it kills the terrorists themselves before they could take it to the target area.

    Anyway, if such a dirty bomb (more likely a low-yield inefficient nuclear bomb..? but it's still difficult to carry without being noticed) was possible, it'd invite retaliation. Since the attack would target specifically Ukraine's military and military industries (but not its other industries or population centers), there's no reason to assume such a suicidal response from Ukraine.

    The context of what I wrote was that Russia needs to create "street cred" vis-à-vis the US (similarly how Ukraine would need the same vis-à-vis Russia - the situations are comparable), and it could create it by acting in a somewhat crazy manner. What would be the safest such action, which would not lead to WW3? (And it also needs to be cheap in the sense of not preventing Russia from further military actions the way the Iraq War made it difficult for the US to credibly threaten with force other regimes elsewhere.) A large-scale military action against Ukraine, which would nevertheless not lead to a costly occupation regime against a hostile population, might be such an action. (As I wrote, though probably I'd be less unhappy about as you would be, nevertheless I don't like the idea of further military action in Europe, so close to Hungary.)

    One positive outcome for Ukraine would be that if Russia destroyed the Ukrainian military, but then didn't occupy further Ukrainian territories, then at least this would mean that Ukraine is basically safe from Russian expansionism. (Except of course Donbas and Crimea.)

    dirty bomb

    To my knowledge, contrary to the hype, dirty bombs are not really possible. Basically you can have highly radioactive material, and it’s very dangerous to the people carrying it and trying to use it (and also easily detectable by the authorities, unless we’re talking about a warhead of a missile), but then a conventional explosion won’t do much to spread it

    I’m no expert on this. This is a frightening description of what such a bomb could do to New York:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/what-a-nuclear-attack-in-new-york-would-look-like.html

    Ukraine has plenty of nuclear material. Ukrainians can blend into Russia. If Russia choose to liquidate the Ukrainian military with massive strikes resulting in 10,000s casualties, the odds of a terrible thing like this happening to Russia are probably greater than zero. In this case it would be written off as rogue elements by Ukraine’s western backers, or as an excuse to cut Ukraine off, the damage to Russia having been done.

    One positive outcome for Ukraine would be that if Russia destroyed the Ukrainian military, but then didn’t occupy further Ukrainian territories, then at least this would mean that Ukraine is basically safe from Russian expansionism

    Why? Deterrent would be gone. Do you think if the Baltics, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Hungary etc. removed their militaries that these countries would therefore all be safe from Russian expansion and interference? Is that the key to avoid any trouble from Russia – have no military?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Why? Deterrent would be gone. Do you think if the Baltics, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Hungary etc. removed their militaries that these countries would therefore all be safe from Russian expansion and interference? Is that the key to avoid any trouble from Russia – have no military?
     
    No. My point was that if Russia deliberately destroyed Ukraine's military, yet after going to all that trouble still didn't conquer any of Ukraine, then that'd be pretty good proof that it has no intention of conquering it. Similarly, Russia theoretically could've conquered all of Georgia in 2008. The fact that the Russian military victory only resulted in minor changes in the border is a relatively strong proof that Russia merely wishes to preserve the status quo there, and has no intention of going further.

    This would be an information which would come out of such a war, which we don't have now. So I don't advise Ukraine to stop arming itself right now. But such a war would change calculations in many ways.

    In this case it would be written off as rogue elements by Ukraine’s western backers, or as an excuse to cut Ukraine off, the damage to Russia having been done.
     
    My point was that it wouldn't be beneficial to Ukraine, and would make little sense if Russia didn't conquer Ukraine (or large parts thereof), and the damage to civilian infrastructure would be minimal.

    But your thinking is probably correct in that Ukraine needs to build a deterrence based on craziness: Ukraine will behave crazily if Russia attacks it. This would reduce the likelihood of a Russian attack on Ukraine. Ukraine needs to build "street cred" here.

    But my original comment was about what Russia should do to increase its "street cred" vis-à-vis the US.
  236. @notanon

    It is either true or not.
     
    then i guess we have a philosophical disagreement cos i think something can be literally true while concealing a greater truth and imo the concealing of a greater truth, if deliberate, makes it a lie

    hence

    "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God."

    Either say that Europeans will be a minority in 2100 or say that by 2060 most kids will be non-European, but don’t lie and say that there won’t be any European-majority countries in 2060. Doing so discredits your arguments, and that is bad.

    • Replies: @notanon

    Either say that Europeans will be a minority in 2100 or say that by 2060 most kids will be non-European
     
    don't worry about replacement level immigration until it's too late
  237. @AP

    Once you let others into your territory and even start providing for their children, it’s game over for you, if you’re a K-selected population and the other groups you let in are R-selected. Even if you won’t completely disappear from the gene pool
     
    You repeat the mistake however - it is not disappearance from the gene pool at all, but rather assimilation. There are no good analogies here - perhaps Mexico, except without the mass deaths to epidemics, or India when the Aryans came, except in this case the newcomers do not arrive as conquerors and become a new upper class. The Spaniards in Mexico and the native Indians in Mexico both have lots of descendants.

    This is a tragedy, of course. I value diversity and do not approve of the disappearance of the French, German, etc. people into some new people (same for African or Native American peoples in their own lands). But it isn't replacement or disappearance. Europeans, if they choose to have children, will still have descendants, they will simply likely be mixed with non-European people's descendants and will not look like current Europeans. But they very much will be the grandchildren of modern Europeans.

    If I had to choose - to be killed and have my children killed while a German and his children who look like me live on the land taken from me, or to live and with my children at peace but have them marry Arabs or whatever so that I have descendants on my lands who look less like me than would the Germans, I'd choose option #2 as a lesser evil. Wouldn't you?

    (it’s a stretch to say that Slavs would’ve disappeared, had Hitler won
     
    Hitler indeed would not have killed all Slavs, "merely" tens of millions of them (perhaps 50 million, or 60 million or whatever). Factoring in children those Slavs would never have had, it would mean about 200 million fewer Slavs today, with perhaps 100 million or so remaining. So Hitler victory equals 200 million fewer Europeans in the world.

    For a Frenchman, assuming France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century (far from impossible, in fact, the most likely outcome), do you think it’s better in our real timeline, or would it be better if Hitler won and France would be subordinate to Germany, it’d lose maybe a fifth of its territory, but the rest would continue to be settled by Frenchmen? You have to admit that the answer is not obvious.
     
    1. Your scenario, if true, would mean that from the narrow French rather than all-European perspective, a German victory would have been a lesser evil. However...

    2. This model, typical of doomsayers, assumes that current rates of fertility and births are constant over decades, leading to inevitable population replacement. However, we see fertility rates of Muslims are dropping. They are about a generation behind that of Europeans. Furthermore, native Euro fertility will rebound once more prolific people become a higher percentage of the native European gene pool (this process has already begun in France, whose fertility rate was the first to drop, in the early 19th century). This means that population ratios will settle and became stable at some point in the future. I'd guess about 30% to 40% of Charlemagne's Empire plus Scandinavia will become non-European when equilibrium is achieved (this will be much lower in eastern and southern Europe). There will mixing from all sides, so population will become more uniform and browner. It will be just another episode of mass migration and mixing in Europe, as had occurred thousands of years ago when waves of farmers from the Middle East and nomads from Asia came to Europe and added their descendants to the genetic mix.

    other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Somewhat is shooting from an assault rifle at you. Other than this one bullet, all the other bullets will miss your vital organs. Well, this means you’re still going to be dead from this one bullet.
     
    Except this bullet - Sub-Saharan Africans - are still pretty small part of the equation. It is not hitting a vital organ. It may change at some point (God forbid, global warming makes Africa literally deadly and uninhabitable, with billions of desperate people surging north to save their lives) but for now the issue is with Arabs, Turks, Afghans.

    There will mixing from all sides, so population will become more uniform and browner. It will be just another episode of mass migration and mixing in Europe, as had occurred thousands of years ago when waves of farmers from the Middle East and nomads from Asia came to Europe and added their descendants to the genetic mix.

    Except that most of them act with extreme hostility towards us, the actual percentage doesn’t matter as much, we will still be under constant attack in own lands.

    The situation in Europe is different from the USA.

  238. @German_reader

    If I had to choose – to be killed and have my children killed while a German and his children who look like me live on the land taken from me, or to live and with my children at peace but have them marry Arabs or whatever so that I have descendants on my lands who look less like me than would the Germans
     
    Even the Nazis thought some fraction of Slavs could be Germanized (e.g. Reinhard Heydrich, pretty much the ultimate Nazi in terms of how radical his views were, thought about 50% of Czechs would have to be deported, but the other 50% might perhaps be Germanized; of course he wanted to see Czech language and culture be completely eradicated). So the contrast isn't as absolute as you make it out to be. If at some point in the future Europe does indeed become dominated by Muslims and/or Africans, there's also no guarantee there won't be any mass killings of the Europeans resisting the new order.
    That doesn't mean a victory of Nazi Germany in WW2 would have been a good thing, and the present situation imo isn't an inevitable consequence of what happened in 1945, but rather the result of political decisions and developments that happened much later, some as late as the 1980s and 1990s. But your optimism is rather misplaced imo (or maybe it's because in the end you don't care that much about Western Europe, but are solely focused on Ukrainian and to some extent Polish interests).

    Even the Nazis thought some fraction of Slavs could be Germanized (e.g. Reinhard Heydrich, pretty much the ultimate Nazi in terms of how radical his views were, thought about 50% of Czechs would have to be deported, but the other 50% might perhaps be Germanized; of course he wanted to see Czech language and culture be completely eradicated).

    Yes, Nazis were willing to kill 50 or 60 million or so Slavs, not all of them. Some they wanted to assimilate, and others were destined to work as slaves, but they wanted to cull their number down so it was manageable. The Nazi endgame seems to have been about 30 million Slavs living east of the Urals as a buffer zone against Asia, and another 30 million or so working as slaves on plantations in fertile Ukraine and southern Russia.

    in the end you don’t care that much about Western Europe, but are solely focused on Ukrainian and to some extent Polish interests

    Western Europe is a tragedy, but in the end I wouldn’t want to sacrifice healthy peoples with self-respect for those who hate themselves and willingly choose self-destruction. Western European nationalists would sell eastern Europe out while giving up their own countries anyways. So far only the territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Austria-Hungary (minus Austria itself, alas) are clearly viable and the first priority ought to be to keep them that way. This region ought to be strong and united, not partitioned. You want Poland or little Hungary to resist western EU encroachments? Add Ukraine with its tens of millions to their side, rather than sell Ukraine out for some scraps from Russia, given to your nationalist political parties that won’t save you anyways.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Western European nationalists would sell eastern Europe out while giving up their own countries anyways.
     
    I think that's nonsense. You might argue that some Western European nationalists have too rosy a view of Russia (maybe they should read Karlin's articles about Russian hate speech legislation), but that's a long way from Molotov-Ribbentropp 2.0. Almost nobody on the European right thinks Poland, the Baltic states or other former Eastern bloc countries should be dominated by Russia again. Ukraine, whether you like it or not, is however seen as a special case, since it's perceived as a torn country with a significant pro-Russian population in parts of the country, so there's a perception that Russia does have some legitimate interests there (even if one disagrees with the means Russia has used). And the issue has also become linked to America's hegemonic ambitions over the entire globe which under present conditions aren't in the best interests of Europeans. There's no good reason why Western European nationalists should unconditionally support Ukraine imo (nor should they completely take Russia's side).
    , @Matra
    Western Europe is a tragedy, but in the end I wouldn’t want to sacrifice healthy peoples with self-respect for those who hate themselves and willingly choose self-destruction

    The Ukrainians who spent the other week slobbering over the death of John McCain and who want to join the multiculti European Union have self-respect? That it took them 25 years and a shooting conflict with Russia before they would tear down USSR era 'Russian imperialist' statues suggests that they are closer to being grifters with their eyes on the money than self-respecting patriots.

    Yesterday, the proud patriotic Poles were pitching a 'Fort Trump' idea to keep their country permanently under the military occupation of Globohomo. Probably the same Polish patriots who worried after the Brexit vote that their young people would no longer be able to serve Big Macs and clean hotel toilets in London. Self-respect!
  239. @AP
    Either say that Europeans will be a minority in 2100 or say that by 2060 most kids will be non-European, but don't lie and say that there won't be any European-majority countries in 2060. Doing so discredits your arguments, and that is bad.

    Either say that Europeans will be a minority in 2100 or say that by 2060 most kids will be non-European

    don’t worry about replacement level immigration until it’s too late

  240. @AP

    Once you let others into your territory and even start providing for their children, it’s game over for you, if you’re a K-selected population and the other groups you let in are R-selected. Even if you won’t completely disappear from the gene pool
     
    You repeat the mistake however - it is not disappearance from the gene pool at all, but rather assimilation. There are no good analogies here - perhaps Mexico, except without the mass deaths to epidemics, or India when the Aryans came, except in this case the newcomers do not arrive as conquerors and become a new upper class. The Spaniards in Mexico and the native Indians in Mexico both have lots of descendants.

    This is a tragedy, of course. I value diversity and do not approve of the disappearance of the French, German, etc. people into some new people (same for African or Native American peoples in their own lands). But it isn't replacement or disappearance. Europeans, if they choose to have children, will still have descendants, they will simply likely be mixed with non-European people's descendants and will not look like current Europeans. But they very much will be the grandchildren of modern Europeans.

    If I had to choose - to be killed and have my children killed while a German and his children who look like me live on the land taken from me, or to live and with my children at peace but have them marry Arabs or whatever so that I have descendants on my lands who look less like me than would the Germans, I'd choose option #2 as a lesser evil. Wouldn't you?

    (it’s a stretch to say that Slavs would’ve disappeared, had Hitler won
     
    Hitler indeed would not have killed all Slavs, "merely" tens of millions of them (perhaps 50 million, or 60 million or whatever). Factoring in children those Slavs would never have had, it would mean about 200 million fewer Slavs today, with perhaps 100 million or so remaining. So Hitler victory equals 200 million fewer Europeans in the world.

    For a Frenchman, assuming France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century (far from impossible, in fact, the most likely outcome), do you think it’s better in our real timeline, or would it be better if Hitler won and France would be subordinate to Germany, it’d lose maybe a fifth of its territory, but the rest would continue to be settled by Frenchmen? You have to admit that the answer is not obvious.
     
    1. Your scenario, if true, would mean that from the narrow French rather than all-European perspective, a German victory would have been a lesser evil. However...

    2. This model, typical of doomsayers, assumes that current rates of fertility and births are constant over decades, leading to inevitable population replacement. However, we see fertility rates of Muslims are dropping. They are about a generation behind that of Europeans. Furthermore, native Euro fertility will rebound once more prolific people become a higher percentage of the native European gene pool (this process has already begun in France, whose fertility rate was the first to drop, in the early 19th century). This means that population ratios will settle and became stable at some point in the future. I'd guess about 30% to 40% of Charlemagne's Empire plus Scandinavia will become non-European when equilibrium is achieved (this will be much lower in eastern and southern Europe). There will mixing from all sides, so population will become more uniform and browner. It will be just another episode of mass migration and mixing in Europe, as had occurred thousands of years ago when waves of farmers from the Middle East and nomads from Asia came to Europe and added their descendants to the genetic mix.

    other than Africans, fertility rates are dropping among non-Europeans.

    Somewhat is shooting from an assault rifle at you. Other than this one bullet, all the other bullets will miss your vital organs. Well, this means you’re still going to be dead from this one bullet.
     
    Except this bullet - Sub-Saharan Africans - are still pretty small part of the equation. It is not hitting a vital organ. It may change at some point (God forbid, global warming makes Africa literally deadly and uninhabitable, with billions of desperate people surging north to save their lives) but for now the issue is with Arabs, Turks, Afghans.

    It will be just another episode of mass migration and mixing in Europe, as had occurred thousands of years ago when waves of farmers from the Middle East and nomads from Asia…

    Asia? that’s an odd thing for a Ukrainian nationalist to say seeing as the Indo-Europeans apparently originated in what is now Ukraine.

    • Replies: @AP
    We are talking about thousands of years ago. The first homo sapiens in Europe, the ones who replaced Neanderthals, were related to modern Asians. It was a very sparse population that was swamped by later waves coming from the middle east and Asia (these were Asians by geography, they were Caucasians).

    I'm not a Ukrainian nationalist.
  241. @Jon0815

    Judging by training casualties and such, Ukraine’s military has improved roughly to where Russia’s was in about 2004. I doubt Syrian Arabs are on that level.
     
    After seven years of experience with high-intensity, very high-casualty war, which has tended to kill off the incompetent (as well as three years of Russian training), yes they probably are, particularly among officers.

    It has been fighting ISIS bands in Syria, not modern armies with modern air defenses.
     
    It has been fighting not only ISIS, but also Western and Gulf Arab proxy forces that were being supplied with billions of dollars worth of weaponry. Completely reversing the momentum of a great power proxy war involving around 200,000 combatants, in which the other side has already nearly won, with only about 40 aircraft, is an impressive feat. Of course it's a different type of challenge than dealing with modern air defenses, but we don't have any way to compare the performance of the RuAF and Israeli Air force in that regard. My point was just that Syria is evidence that the RuAF is quite proficient in general, so I'm not sure what the basis is for assuming that "pound for pound it is probably worse than Israel".

    There is a huge base in Sevastopol, from which Russian planes or missiles would be sent to bomb Ukrainian forces all over Eastern Ukraine.
     
    Yes, I wasn't sure if you meant the city too, since you've previously suggested that Ukraine might respond to a Russian attack by targeting Russian civilians (by melting down its own nuclear reactor!).

    Quite a gamble for the sake of sparing 2 lives of non-Russian citizens a month.
     
    As I've said, there's more at stake than that.

    “Judging by training casualties and such, Ukraine’s military has improved roughly to where Russia’s was in about 2004. I doubt Syrian Arabs are on that level.”

    After seven years of experience with high-intensity, very high-casualty war, which has tended to kill off the incompetent (as well as three years of Russian training), yes they probably are, particularly among officers.

    My impression from Russian accounts is that their opinion of Syrians is still very low. I doubt Syrian troops are better than Russian ones were in 2004 or Ukrainian ones are today. And Syrians troops, in addition to being Syrians, are simply armed much more poorly than are Ukrainian troops.

    This is from 2017, improvements have continued at a strong pace since then:

    https://informnapalm.org/en/ukraine-s-shield-and-sword-defense-industry-s-main-achievements-in-2017-part-iii/

    According to the data of the British International Institute of Strategic Studies provided in The Military Balance 2017 overview of the military and defense potential, Ukraine’s Air Force has 250 S-300 systems of various versions and 72 Buk-M1 systems. These figures might seem impressive, but many of these air defense systems were produced in the Soviet times; it is vitally important to keep overhauling and upgrading the available fleet of surface-to-air missiles (SAM)

    [IIRC about 40% were upgraded and active in 2014 with ongoing repair and replacement since then]

    Ukraine’s defense industry is capable of producing upgraded 9V55R missiles for S-300 SAM systems; in some respects, they are even better than Russia’s 48N6E2 surface-to-air guided interceptor missile designed for S-400 systems.

    In 2017, Vizar plant has been actively renovating dozens of 5V55R surface-to-air interceptor missiles with the extension of their operating life for S-300 SAM systems in order to strengthen Ukraine’s air defense capability. The efficiency of these missiles was confirmed at the joint Shabla-2017 exercises in Bulgaria where four Ukraine-made missiles hit their respective targets.

    Etc. etc.

    It’s just another league from Syria (just as Russia in 2004 was another league from Syria), and yet Syria managed to down some Israeli jets.

    It has been fighting not only ISIS, but also Western and Gulf Arab proxy forces that were being supplied with billions of dollars worth of weaponry. Completely reversing the momentum of a great power proxy war involving around 200,000 combatants, in which the other side has already nearly won, with only about 40 aircraft, is an impressive feat.

    Sure, none of which has anti-aircraft capability comparable to Syrian military’s old s-200 systems or Ukraine’s newer s-300 system. In Syria one can say that Russia is an expert at efficiently wiping out huge numbers of knife-wielding warriors with a machine gun to successfully attain its goals. But it hasn’t been up against someone with his own machine gun.

    There is a huge base in Sevastopol, from which Russian planes or missiles would be sent to bomb Ukrainian forces all over Eastern Ukraine.

    Yes, I wasn’t sure if you meant the city too, since you’ve previously suggested that Ukraine might respond to a Russian attack by targeting Russian civilians (by melting down its own nuclear reactor!).

    The latter was a doomsday scenario, if Russia was invading and eliminating Ukrainian statehood. A retaliatory missile strike on Sevastopol would be reasonable response if jets from Sevastopol were bombing military points within Ukraine. That having been said, it looks like the cruise missiles capable of reaching Sevastopol have completed a round of testing but as still a year or two away from mass production:

    https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-08-28/ukraines-neptun-missile-conducts-successful-first-launch

    (the fabulously expensive Azov bridge would be an easy target also, probably first thing to go if Ukraine is attacked)

    • Replies: @DreadIlk
    You could be right but I suspect Ukraine will probably fight at 50% of what you expect.

    First its completely demoralized society split between Russia and West. They holding it together with brutal repressions and resource transfers from the west. They need another ten years just to be on the level of Poland(best estimate). They inherited a lot from USSR but now all of that is depreciating. Maintaining what they lost is becoming harder every day.

    Ukraine's heavy industry has not recovered from splitting with Russia. They lost foreign contracts they had due to lack of production. They constantly come out with wonderwaffles of new tech that looks ridiculous and does not even have working components. Sure they can modernize and mooch off of western partners. But that is still Syria/ISIS level of competence. Case in point Georgia campaign in 2008. Ukraine got wiped out with Russian special forces in Eastern Ukraine. A real Russian army would far outperform a bunch of instructors and limited amounts of forces.

    Sure they can upgrade missiles and bite back first hours of the fight. But that is all they can afford. I don't remember what started this argument but I am only interested in this to point out that people are hyping up Ukraine's readiness in my opinion.
  242. @notanon

    It will be just another episode of mass migration and mixing in Europe, as had occurred thousands of years ago when waves of farmers from the Middle East and nomads from Asia...
     
    Asia? that's an odd thing for a Ukrainian nationalist to say seeing as the Indo-Europeans apparently originated in what is now Ukraine.

    We are talking about thousands of years ago. The first homo sapiens in Europe, the ones who replaced Neanderthals, were related to modern Asians. It was a very sparse population that was swamped by later waves coming from the middle east and Asia (these were Asians by geography, they were Caucasians).

    I’m not a Ukrainian nationalist.

    • Replies: @notanon

    It was a very sparse population that was swamped by later waves coming from the middle east and Asia
     
    nope - other way round
  243. @AP

    i’ll put it another way – if a million women aged 18-30 from country A immigrate to country B then they’ll be having their babies in country A and not country B.
     
    Correct. And they will be bringing their declining fertility rate to Country B when they arrive.

    From 1991 to 2010 TFR of German women increased from 1.26 to 1.36.

    dishonest strawman: German-born != German.
     
    Article stated "German" not "German-born" and contrasted German with 2nd generation immigrants.

    The 2015 flood produced another wave of higher TFR people, but its TFR will also decline.

    right – generally the 1st generation have lots of kids and the 2nd+ generations have fewer – which wouldn’t be another dishonest straw man if there wasn’t a constant stream of 1st generation immigrants.
     
    No dishonesty and no strawman. Someone made an outlandish claim that by 2060 there would be no majority-white countries.

    Someone made an outlandish claim that by 2060 there would be no majority-white countries.

    Look at the demographics of France and UK in 1960 and look at them now. Now factor in the acceleration of mass immigration, mass miscegenation and the collapse of white birth rates compare to 1960, 2060 is a safe assumption to make.

    • Replies: @DreadIlk
    Whites are not going to always sit with thumbs up their ass. When they going to start feeling screwed they will fight back. Some will lose but some will win be white nations again. It's all over history.

    There is a chance they all lose but that's statistically not likely.
  244. @AP

    Even the Nazis thought some fraction of Slavs could be Germanized (e.g. Reinhard Heydrich, pretty much the ultimate Nazi in terms of how radical his views were, thought about 50% of Czechs would have to be deported, but the other 50% might perhaps be Germanized; of course he wanted to see Czech language and culture be completely eradicated).
     
    Yes, Nazis were willing to kill 50 or 60 million or so Slavs, not all of them. Some they wanted to assimilate, and others were destined to work as slaves, but they wanted to cull their number down so it was manageable. The Nazi endgame seems to have been about 30 million Slavs living east of the Urals as a buffer zone against Asia, and another 30 million or so working as slaves on plantations in fertile Ukraine and southern Russia.

    in the end you don’t care that much about Western Europe, but are solely focused on Ukrainian and to some extent Polish interests
     
    Western Europe is a tragedy, but in the end I wouldn't want to sacrifice healthy peoples with self-respect for those who hate themselves and willingly choose self-destruction. Western European nationalists would sell eastern Europe out while giving up their own countries anyways. So far only the territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Austria-Hungary (minus Austria itself, alas) are clearly viable and the first priority ought to be to keep them that way. This region ought to be strong and united, not partitioned. You want Poland or little Hungary to resist western EU encroachments? Add Ukraine with its tens of millions to their side, rather than sell Ukraine out for some scraps from Russia, given to your nationalist political parties that won't save you anyways.

    Western European nationalists would sell eastern Europe out while giving up their own countries anyways.

    I think that’s nonsense. You might argue that some Western European nationalists have too rosy a view of Russia (maybe they should read Karlin’s articles about Russian hate speech legislation), but that’s a long way from Molotov-Ribbentropp 2.0. Almost nobody on the European right thinks Poland, the Baltic states or other former Eastern bloc countries should be dominated by Russia again. Ukraine, whether you like it or not, is however seen as a special case, since it’s perceived as a torn country with a significant pro-Russian population in parts of the country, so there’s a perception that Russia does have some legitimate interests there (even if one disagrees with the means Russia has used). And the issue has also become linked to America’s hegemonic ambitions over the entire globe which under present conditions aren’t in the best interests of Europeans. There’s no good reason why Western European nationalists should unconditionally support Ukraine imo (nor should they completely take Russia’s side).

  245. @AP

    "Judging by training casualties and such, Ukraine’s military has improved roughly to where Russia’s was in about 2004. I doubt Syrian Arabs are on that level."

    After seven years of experience with high-intensity, very high-casualty war, which has tended to kill off the incompetent (as well as three years of Russian training), yes they probably are, particularly among officers.
     
    My impression from Russian accounts is that their opinion of Syrians is still very low. I doubt Syrian troops are better than Russian ones were in 2004 or Ukrainian ones are today. And Syrians troops, in addition to being Syrians, are simply armed much more poorly than are Ukrainian troops.

    This is from 2017, improvements have continued at a strong pace since then:

    https://informnapalm.org/en/ukraine-s-shield-and-sword-defense-industry-s-main-achievements-in-2017-part-iii/

    According to the data of the British International Institute of Strategic Studies provided in The Military Balance 2017 overview of the military and defense potential, Ukraine’s Air Force has 250 S-300 systems of various versions and 72 Buk-M1 systems. These figures might seem impressive, but many of these air defense systems were produced in the Soviet times; it is vitally important to keep overhauling and upgrading the available fleet of surface-to-air missiles (SAM)

    [IIRC about 40% were upgraded and active in 2014 with ongoing repair and replacement since then]

    Ukraine’s defense industry is capable of producing upgraded 9V55R missiles for S-300 SAM systems; in some respects, they are even better than Russia’s 48N6E2 surface-to-air guided interceptor missile designed for S-400 systems.

    In 2017, Vizar plant has been actively renovating dozens of 5V55R surface-to-air interceptor missiles with the extension of their operating life for S-300 SAM systems in order to strengthen Ukraine’s air defense capability. The efficiency of these missiles was confirmed at the joint Shabla-2017 exercises in Bulgaria where four Ukraine-made missiles hit their respective targets.

    Etc. etc.

    It's just another league from Syria (just as Russia in 2004 was another league from Syria), and yet Syria managed to down some Israeli jets.

    It has been fighting not only ISIS, but also Western and Gulf Arab proxy forces that were being supplied with billions of dollars worth of weaponry. Completely reversing the momentum of a great power proxy war involving around 200,000 combatants, in which the other side has already nearly won, with only about 40 aircraft, is an impressive feat.
     
    Sure, none of which has anti-aircraft capability comparable to Syrian military's old s-200 systems or Ukraine's newer s-300 system. In Syria one can say that Russia is an expert at efficiently wiping out huge numbers of knife-wielding warriors with a machine gun to successfully attain its goals. But it hasn't been up against someone with his own machine gun.

    There is a huge base in Sevastopol, from which Russian planes or missiles would be sent to bomb Ukrainian forces all over Eastern Ukraine.

    Yes, I wasn’t sure if you meant the city too, since you’ve previously suggested that Ukraine might respond to a Russian attack by targeting Russian civilians (by melting down its own nuclear reactor!).
     
    The latter was a doomsday scenario, if Russia was invading and eliminating Ukrainian statehood. A retaliatory missile strike on Sevastopol would be reasonable response if jets from Sevastopol were bombing military points within Ukraine. That having been said, it looks like the cruise missiles capable of reaching Sevastopol have completed a round of testing but as still a year or two away from mass production:

    https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-08-28/ukraines-neptun-missile-conducts-successful-first-launch

    (the fabulously expensive Azov bridge would be an easy target also, probably first thing to go if Ukraine is attacked)

    You could be right but I suspect Ukraine will probably fight at 50% of what you expect.

    First its completely demoralized society split between Russia and West. They holding it together with brutal repressions and resource transfers from the west. They need another ten years just to be on the level of Poland(best estimate). They inherited a lot from USSR but now all of that is depreciating. Maintaining what they lost is becoming harder every day.

    Ukraine’s heavy industry has not recovered from splitting with Russia. They lost foreign contracts they had due to lack of production. They constantly come out with wonderwaffles of new tech that looks ridiculous and does not even have working components. Sure they can modernize and mooch off of western partners. But that is still Syria/ISIS level of competence. Case in point Georgia campaign in 2008. Ukraine got wiped out with Russian special forces in Eastern Ukraine. A real Russian army would far outperform a bunch of instructors and limited amounts of forces.

    Sure they can upgrade missiles and bite back first hours of the fight. But that is all they can afford. I don’t remember what started this argument but I am only interested in this to point out that people are hyping up Ukraine’s readiness in my opinion.

    • Replies: @AP
    But the Russian nonsense news away, it isn't good for you.
    , @Dmitry
    In terms of weapons, Ukraine may still be the one who provides the strongest resistance of East Europe countries.

    For example,

    Latvia has 0 tanks.

    Lithuania has 0 tanks.

    Estonia has 0 tanks.

    Poland have 200 tanks (which include modern German Leopard 2 tanks, so Poland would perhaps be the strongest and most dangerous opponent now).

    Hungary only have 34 T-72s .

    Now with Ukraine, who it is not possible to find evidence of numbers only.

    But they do have some significant proportion of modernized T-64 .



    -

    As for comparisons to Syria. Before 2011, I think this was valid. Syria had formerly a strong army. However, now its army largely devastated from years of civil war - most of their tanks destroyed, and they are reliant on militias, non-Syrian instructors and airstrikes.

    The conflict in Ukraine was far less damaging to Ukraine. They seem a disaster, but they were still disaster before 2014. It's not really clear if they have become so much weaker than they were before the conflict.

  246. @neutral

    Someone made an outlandish claim that by 2060 there would be no majority-white countries.
     
    Look at the demographics of France and UK in 1960 and look at them now. Now factor in the acceleration of mass immigration, mass miscegenation and the collapse of white birth rates compare to 1960, 2060 is a safe assumption to make.

    Whites are not going to always sit with thumbs up their ass. When they going to start feeling screwed they will fight back. Some will lose but some will win be white nations again. It’s all over history.

    There is a chance they all lose but that’s statistically not likely.

  247. You might argue that some Western European nationalists have too rosy a view of Russia (maybe they should read Karlin’s articles about Russian hate speech legislation), but that’s a long way from Molotov-Ribbentropp 2.0. Almost nobody on the European right thinks Poland, the Baltic states or other former Eastern bloc countries should be dominated by Russia again. Ukraine, whether you like it or not, is however seen as a special case

    Ukraine is the largest eastern European country so selling it out is selling out eastern Europe in general.

    it’s perceived as a torn country with a significant pro-Russian population in parts of the country

    With the departure of Donbas and Crimea, Russian support is in the neighborhood of 20%. There is more support for Arabization of Germany in Germany, than for Russia in Ukraine.

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Ukraine is the largest eastern European country so selling it out is selling out eastern Europe in general.
     
    I doubt even most Eastern Europeans would agree with that sentiment.

    With the departure of Donbas and Crimea, Russian support is in the neighborhood of 20%.
     
    Maybe, but the issue is about whether or how Crimea and Donbas should be re-integrated into Ukraine. Now if Russian hardcore nationalists like Felix Keverich ever got their way and invaded all of Ukraine, it would be a different matter and more obviously a case of aggression against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians. But what has actually happened since 2014 (while clearly illegal under international law, I certainly don't condone all of Russia's actions) is rather less clear-cut.
    Btw, since in one of your post above you seemed to imply that mixing between Europeans and immigrants would be a peaceful process, here's a story from Britain that shows the potential for other scenarios:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6169489/Sarah-repeatedly-raped-twice-forced-marriage-EIGHT-abortions.html
    , @DreadIlk
    Not even close. Support for NATO fell. Opposition parties get a lot of vote. But more importantly if support was in 20% they wouldn't need to throw you in jail for supporting Russia publicly. Government allows nazi gang to attack pensioners, commies and pro Russian regions. Remove power from people sitting in power now and their subjects will tear them apart. They did not get put into power by their own prowess. They had west intervene on their behalf before that they were sad 40% minority. Now they are about even of whats left but they are the ones that have hybrid forces, money and political capital from the west propping them up.

    Next you will tell me Puppet government in Kabul has the support of the people.

    I enjoy reading Karlin and he shows a lot of what is wrong with Russia and their narrative. But even if 50% of their narrative is correct it spells doom for Slavic opposition in the long run.
    , @Mikhail

    With the departure of Donbas and Crimea, Russian support is in the neighborhood of 20%. There is more support for Arabization of Germany in Germany, than for Russia in Ukraine.
     
    Another one of your absurd comparisons having no factual merit.
  248. @DreadIlk
    You could be right but I suspect Ukraine will probably fight at 50% of what you expect.

    First its completely demoralized society split between Russia and West. They holding it together with brutal repressions and resource transfers from the west. They need another ten years just to be on the level of Poland(best estimate). They inherited a lot from USSR but now all of that is depreciating. Maintaining what they lost is becoming harder every day.

    Ukraine's heavy industry has not recovered from splitting with Russia. They lost foreign contracts they had due to lack of production. They constantly come out with wonderwaffles of new tech that looks ridiculous and does not even have working components. Sure they can modernize and mooch off of western partners. But that is still Syria/ISIS level of competence. Case in point Georgia campaign in 2008. Ukraine got wiped out with Russian special forces in Eastern Ukraine. A real Russian army would far outperform a bunch of instructors and limited amounts of forces.

    Sure they can upgrade missiles and bite back first hours of the fight. But that is all they can afford. I don't remember what started this argument but I am only interested in this to point out that people are hyping up Ukraine's readiness in my opinion.

    But the Russian nonsense news away, it isn’t good for you.

  249. @AP

    You might argue that some Western European nationalists have too rosy a view of Russia (maybe they should read Karlin’s articles about Russian hate speech legislation), but that’s a long way from Molotov-Ribbentropp 2.0. Almost nobody on the European right thinks Poland, the Baltic states or other former Eastern bloc countries should be dominated by Russia again. Ukraine, whether you like it or not, is however seen as a special case
     
    Ukraine is the largest eastern European country so selling it out is selling out eastern Europe in general.

    it’s perceived as a torn country with a significant pro-Russian population in parts of the country
     
    With the departure of Donbas and Crimea, Russian support is in the neighborhood of 20%. There is more support for Arabization of Germany in Germany, than for Russia in Ukraine.

    Ukraine is the largest eastern European country so selling it out is selling out eastern Europe in general.

    I doubt even most Eastern Europeans would agree with that sentiment.

    With the departure of Donbas and Crimea, Russian support is in the neighborhood of 20%.

    Maybe, but the issue is about whether or how Crimea and Donbas should be re-integrated into Ukraine. Now if Russian hardcore nationalists like Felix Keverich ever got their way and invaded all of Ukraine, it would be a different matter and more obviously a case of aggression against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians. But what has actually happened since 2014 (while clearly illegal under international law, I certainly don’t condone all of Russia’s actions) is rather less clear-cut.
    Btw, since in one of your post above you seemed to imply that mixing between Europeans and immigrants would be a peaceful process, here’s a story from Britain that shows the potential for other scenarios:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6169489/Sarah-repeatedly-raped-twice-forced-marriage-EIGHT-abortions.html

    • Replies: @AP

    Ukraine is the largest eastern European country so selling it out is selling out eastern Europe in general.

    I doubt even most Eastern Europeans would agree with that sentiment.
     
    If someone proposed selling our Germany or France it would be considered a blow to Europe in general, no?

    With the departure of Donbas and Crimea, Russian support is in the neighborhood of 20%.

    Maybe, but the issue is about whether or how Crimea and Donbas should be re-integrated into Ukraine.
     
    Ultimately Crmea will not be and Donbas probaly won't be. They are gone, like northern Cyprus.

    Btw, since in one of your post above you seemed to imply that mixing between Europeans and immigrants would be a peaceful process, here’s a story from Britain that shows the potential for other scenarios:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6169489/Sarah-repeatedly-raped-twice-forced-marriage-EIGHT-abortions.html
     
    Anecdote. I don't think most mixing will be the product of mass rapes.
  250. @AP

    You might argue that some Western European nationalists have too rosy a view of Russia (maybe they should read Karlin’s articles about Russian hate speech legislation), but that’s a long way from Molotov-Ribbentropp 2.0. Almost nobody on the European right thinks Poland, the Baltic states or other former Eastern bloc countries should be dominated by Russia again. Ukraine, whether you like it or not, is however seen as a special case
     
    Ukraine is the largest eastern European country so selling it out is selling out eastern Europe in general.

    it’s perceived as a torn country with a significant pro-Russian population in parts of the country
     
    With the departure of Donbas and Crimea, Russian support is in the neighborhood of 20%. There is more support for Arabization of Germany in Germany, than for Russia in Ukraine.

    Not even close. Support for NATO fell. Opposition parties get a lot of vote. But more importantly if support was in 20% they wouldn’t need to throw you in jail for supporting Russia publicly. Government allows nazi gang to attack pensioners, commies and pro Russian regions. Remove power from people sitting in power now and their subjects will tear them apart. They did not get put into power by their own prowess. They had west intervene on their behalf before that they were sad 40% minority. Now they are about even of whats left but they are the ones that have hybrid forces, money and political capital from the west propping them up.

    Next you will tell me Puppet government in Kabul has the support of the people.

    I enjoy reading Karlin and he shows a lot of what is wrong with Russia and their narrative. But even if 50% of their narrative is correct it spells doom for Slavic opposition in the long run.

    • Replies: @AP

    Support for NATO fell.
     
    It is polling around 40%, vs. upper teens against. So a referndum would have ~60% particuipation and NATO would win 2/3 to 1/3, in a landslide.

    Opposition parties get a lot of vote.
     
    They have about 20% of the vote. Maybe 25%.

    they wouldn’t need to throw you in jail for supporting Russia publicly
     
    Plenty of people support Russia publically and don't get asent to jail.

    Believing Russian media about Ukraine is like believing US media about Saddam Hussein, Iraq, WMDs, etc. in the early 2000s.

    Government allows nazi gang to attack pensioners, commies and pro Russian regions.
     
    And America is now havng a BLM race war.

    Remove power from people sitting in power now and their subjects will tear them apart.
     
    Nonsense.

    Are you a teenager, or adult Balkan, reading too much Russia Insider?

    A good, objective article for your education:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukrotriumph/
    , @reiner Tor

    if support was in 20% they wouldn’t need to throw you in jail for supporting Russia publicly
     
    Actually, that's roughly the level of support where I'd guess there'd already be a serious need to censor pro-Russian viewpoints, because a 20% fifth column would be pretty dangerous if it was allowed to organize itself openly. Especially because it's mostly concentrated in some relatively small parts of the country.