Interesting that you got a lot more comments for a Ukraine post. Just raising it for dialogue gives it power. Best not to talk about it, if it's a superficial problem?
What would have happened had Europe already been on safe cheap Generation IV nuclear power, assuming it worked?
I'm not saying things would now be perfect. I'm guessing the problems would just have shifted the lies, backed by the democratic of people of every nation, to somewhere else. Much like we see with money laundering. Solve that somehow the money will be laundered in some other way. And that this is inevitable. While The People remain liars.
Isn't the real problem, that no one is willing to confess that we all lie. You and I too?
Also, How do you think MAD has affected the war in Ukraine?
I think that would have changed a great deal. Obviously without a reliance on imported Russian gas the US would have fewer worries about Russia having political leverage on Europe. Maybe the war might have been avoided. Of course nuclear would also massively shift all sorts of other power balances. The Middle East would be shaken up that's for sure.
And of course depending on what fuel was used that would bring new dependancies.
By MAD I assume you mean the old Mutual Assured Destruction? I don't really think it has been part of the analysis. I don't think anyone, not even Putin, has really thought about an escalation to that level. But perhaps I am just being naive.
One thing it's important to remember re the Ukrainians, and having worked with a few of them I'm not especially sympathetic, is that they were primarily concerned with allying themselves with Europe because they were tired of the Russian way of doing things. They told me that Russia had too much control over their economy, there was too much corruption and they saw what EU subsidies and FDI had done for Poland, Czech etc. Putin seemed to confirm that Russia had significant interests in the State owned companies in Ukraine during his interview with Tucker Carlson.
The problem then does seem to be America and those of its lackey's determined to not only stymie Russia's attempts to develop itself but reinstall the oligarchs from the 90s.
Russia certainly did have control over the Gas that's for sure. There has been a lot of friction and deposing of one president after another as Russia, Europe and America all jostled for influence and control. I wonder how it might have played out if instead of making Ukraine part of NATO they had expedited membership in Europe? Would that have been less provocative for Russia. But I don't think America wanted that. And I don't think it will do Europe any good either. But that's a whole other discussion. The real losers in all this have been the ordinary Ukrainians.
I wondered the same and do think the Ukrainian government have been foolish to seek what they must have known was a total red line for Russia.
Ordinary Ukrainians have indeed suffered but I have to say I am not aware of any political movements which have opposed the general trend. And to be frank, having worked with some of them and having visited that country and seen the situation facing, for example, poor pensioners, I sense that Ukrainian culture has a few problems in it. It's a stereotype but Ukrainian women have a reputation for being highly transactional and not especially loyal. The group I've been working with contained some of the rudest and to my mind stupidest people I've taught in 16 years of teaching. More than a few opportunists.
Re Russia saying "we saved you from the Nazis", I think it's important to remember that Stalin was planning to invade Germany / Europe himself and hoped that while the British, French and Germans were distracted in the West, his armies could roll in from behind in the East. The reason the German Bliztkrieg was so successful was because the Soviet forces were in attack formation on their side of the new Polish border. And Stalin feinted not because Hitler had betrayed him but that he had beat him to the punch. Hitler later said his own attack had been brought forward precisely because they'd found out the Russian plans and he and his high command were dismayed as they moved through Russia discovering just how much war materiel the Soviets had built up.
I say this because there is huge moral triumphalism in various countries about WW2 which I'm personally not sure is warranted. It's certainly been used to justify a lot of other morally dubious actions since then. The Russians and the British see themselves as the great moral victors while Germans have had relentless psychological warfare waged on them for decades.
If states are in competition with each other then where is the morality exactly? Britain sought a war with Germany to head off the threat to her empire. The Germans sought to make their own empire. The Russians to expand their's... What does this have to do with the standard tale of fighting for freedom and democracy? The British and Americans allied with the least democratic, most repressive country in the world.
Personally I think there is almost zero morality involved in geopolitics and we should just start being honest about that fact.
I was unaware of most of what you tell me concerning Russian invasion intentions. A lot of food for thought. I would be interested to read something further on it if you couid recommend something.
There are a few books on this topic, the most famous being "Icebreaker" by Victor Suvorov - you will note that the paperback has been made excruciatingly expensive. Remember that I mentioned previously that Churchill's favourite historian, Arthur Bryant, had bought up all the copies of his book "Unfinished victory" after the war ended.
Alternatively, a friend of mine has produced a series of videos which can be listened to passively about the background of World War 2 based on reading books which are less publicised in the British book market
Interesting that you got a lot more comments for a Ukraine post. Just raising it for dialogue gives it power. Best not to talk about it, if it's a superficial problem?
I agree about the idiotic nonsense in the media. But who is paying to read that. It's the people. Right?
What would have happened had Europe already been on safe cheap Generation IV nuclear power, assuming it worked?
I'm not saying things would now be perfect. I'm guessing the problems would just have shifted the lies, backed by the democratic of people of every nation, to somewhere else. Much like we see with money laundering. Solve that somehow the money will be laundered in some other way. And that this is inevitable. While The People remain liars.
Isn't the real problem, that no one is willing to confess that we all lie. You and I too?
Also, How do you think MAD has affected the war in Ukraine?
Hello Robin,
I think that would have changed a great deal. Obviously without a reliance on imported Russian gas the US would have fewer worries about Russia having political leverage on Europe. Maybe the war might have been avoided. Of course nuclear would also massively shift all sorts of other power balances. The Middle East would be shaken up that's for sure.
And of course depending on what fuel was used that would bring new dependancies.
By MAD I assume you mean the old Mutual Assured Destruction? I don't really think it has been part of the analysis. I don't think anyone, not even Putin, has really thought about an escalation to that level. But perhaps I am just being naive.
Agreed on MAD. But it's not "old". It might be the very fact it still is in play that it has not gone any further. It's working! By pure accident!
One thing it's important to remember re the Ukrainians, and having worked with a few of them I'm not especially sympathetic, is that they were primarily concerned with allying themselves with Europe because they were tired of the Russian way of doing things. They told me that Russia had too much control over their economy, there was too much corruption and they saw what EU subsidies and FDI had done for Poland, Czech etc. Putin seemed to confirm that Russia had significant interests in the State owned companies in Ukraine during his interview with Tucker Carlson.
The problem then does seem to be America and those of its lackey's determined to not only stymie Russia's attempts to develop itself but reinstall the oligarchs from the 90s.
Russia certainly did have control over the Gas that's for sure. There has been a lot of friction and deposing of one president after another as Russia, Europe and America all jostled for influence and control. I wonder how it might have played out if instead of making Ukraine part of NATO they had expedited membership in Europe? Would that have been less provocative for Russia. But I don't think America wanted that. And I don't think it will do Europe any good either. But that's a whole other discussion. The real losers in all this have been the ordinary Ukrainians.
I wondered the same and do think the Ukrainian government have been foolish to seek what they must have known was a total red line for Russia.
Ordinary Ukrainians have indeed suffered but I have to say I am not aware of any political movements which have opposed the general trend. And to be frank, having worked with some of them and having visited that country and seen the situation facing, for example, poor pensioners, I sense that Ukrainian culture has a few problems in it. It's a stereotype but Ukrainian women have a reputation for being highly transactional and not especially loyal. The group I've been working with contained some of the rudest and to my mind stupidest people I've taught in 16 years of teaching. More than a few opportunists.
Re Russia saying "we saved you from the Nazis", I think it's important to remember that Stalin was planning to invade Germany / Europe himself and hoped that while the British, French and Germans were distracted in the West, his armies could roll in from behind in the East. The reason the German Bliztkrieg was so successful was because the Soviet forces were in attack formation on their side of the new Polish border. And Stalin feinted not because Hitler had betrayed him but that he had beat him to the punch. Hitler later said his own attack had been brought forward precisely because they'd found out the Russian plans and he and his high command were dismayed as they moved through Russia discovering just how much war materiel the Soviets had built up.
I say this because there is huge moral triumphalism in various countries about WW2 which I'm personally not sure is warranted. It's certainly been used to justify a lot of other morally dubious actions since then. The Russians and the British see themselves as the great moral victors while Germans have had relentless psychological warfare waged on them for decades.
If states are in competition with each other then where is the morality exactly? Britain sought a war with Germany to head off the threat to her empire. The Germans sought to make their own empire. The Russians to expand their's... What does this have to do with the standard tale of fighting for freedom and democracy? The British and Americans allied with the least democratic, most repressive country in the world.
Personally I think there is almost zero morality involved in geopolitics and we should just start being honest about that fact.
Hello Gerry,
I was unaware of most of what you tell me concerning Russian invasion intentions. A lot of food for thought. I would be interested to read something further on it if you couid recommend something.
There are a few books on this topic, the most famous being "Icebreaker" by Victor Suvorov - you will note that the paperback has been made excruciatingly expensive. Remember that I mentioned previously that Churchill's favourite historian, Arthur Bryant, had bought up all the copies of his book "Unfinished victory" after the war ended.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Icebreaker-Who-Started-Second-World-ebook/dp/B07NRV2XRZ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1SV7Y3VOAJEB9&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Go3g5iPoFjetG_Rv6KZHL8ZHnMMPiG1n3bwmJ5gTKNPGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.XInWZKyHZVkAIdS91rfxvNa2rEzD_byVxzAulMaz4Os&dib_tag=se&keywords=viktor+suvorov+icebreaker&qid=1708542449&sprefix=icebreaker+su%2Caps%2C102&sr=8-1
https://www.unz.com/book/arthur_bryant__unfinished-victory/
Alternatively, a friend of mine has produced a series of videos which can be listened to passively about the background of World War 2 based on reading books which are less publicised in the British book market
https://www.bitchute.com/video/o2lW08tYh63y/