On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:18:24 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:07:42 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:39:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:09:26 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It occurs to me that Putin has badly misjudged the situation overall.
>>>> By withdrawing the Russian troops from the Ukraine border and
>>>> presumably from the Crimea, all he has achieved is to provoke Ukraine
>>>> into forming a professional army, which has always been a prerequisite
>>>> for entry into NATO.
>>>>
>>>> NATO will not take any state which does not have a professional army -
>>>> a professional army being an army of volunteers, not an army of
>>>> conscripts. NATO wants soldiers and airmen and sailors who sign up to
>>>> defend their countries voluntarily. Those are the best types of
>>>> soldiers and utterly necessary if NATO wants to remain cohesive.
>>>>
>>>> Putin has now accomplished this with Ukraine, basically playing into
>>>> NATO's hands. It must be an age related thing - Putin is losing his
>>>> touch and losing his nerve.
>>>
>>> ### - see? it's fun to speculate isn't it hehehe :)))
>>>
>>> what you're perhaps not taking into account though, is that am not
>>> worshiping anybody or anything, that am not on anyone's side, that am
>>> totally objective & detached about all this (and everything else they do
>>> in wallyworld) and as such couldn't give a rats-arse about putin or
>>> russia
>>> or nato either because they all seem/look completely insane to me
>>> anyway... am merely an 'observer' only!
>>>
>>> otoh, i've been observing wallyworld for nearly 70 years and am familiar
>>> with the way things tend to go in crazyville and the kinds of shit they
>>> typically get up to, so i can pit what i've seen in the past against
>>> current affairs and intelligently speculate about what's maybe
>>> happening...
>>>
>>> that i understand humanity quite well because of that and have seen all
>>> their crap before a dozen times over...
>>>
>>> and yes russia is pulling back and that's a good thing! only am not
>>> convinced it's over by a long chalk, at least not yet! :)
>>>
>>> grandstanding it may in fact have been, although just why + completely
>>> out
>>> of the blue they should do so to such a degree is another matter... as
>>> russia never does anything for nada!
>>>
>>> and that accordingly, there's a good reason why this has happened and is
>>> happening!
>>>
>>> e.g., ukraine isn't at all happy about having lost crimea nor about
>>> having
>>> its southern regions occupied in which case they may well be planning an
>>> attempt to regain them, that russia wont tolerate ukraine joining nato
>>> for
>>> obvious reasons, that ukraine wont be welcomed into nato if there's any
>>> kind of conflict going on as per nato's policy...
>>>
>>> and russia grandstanding is just part of it...
>>>
>>> am personally not convinced it's all over though just because russia is
>>> pulling back from such a massive show of 'force', mainly because
>>> 'ukraine'
>>> isn't done with all this yet!
>>>
>>> the best we can hope for is that it all goes back to the stalemate it
>>> was,
>>> only we also know ukraine isn't at all happy with the situation the way
>>> it
>>> currently is and may well be planning something!
>>>
>>> that nato itself may well be planning something!
>>>
>>> obama's words again ringing in my ears about "it's not a done deal"
>>> after
>>> they annexed crimea leading me to consider just what then they're ever
>>> gonna do about it!
>>>
>>> that defeating russia, china & islam is 'still' the west's last
>>> concern/obstacle in the world domination stakes, and as such that it
>>> will
>>> never BE over until they've either won the day OR learn to change their
>>> thinking!
>>>
>>> am personally hopeful for the latter eventully being/becoming the case,
>>> it's just highly unlikely is all because imho (and observation) they're
>>> all completely insane anyway! :)
>>>
>>> anyway, russia has clearly signaled a willingness to pull back and to
>>> drop
>>> the matter, and if ukraine (and the west) does the same then that's
>>> fine...
>>>
>>> that is until the next time ;)
>>
>>
>> Slider you haven't responded to the appropriate threads. Therefore,
>> your response here is not appropriate (ie off topic) to my post. You
>> should respond to the appropriate topics, that's courtesy.
>>
>> All I posted here, my topic, was the effect of what Putin has played.
>> And my supposition that the outcome was unplanned by Putin and perhaps
>> even a spasm or involutary response to the crowding of Russia's
>> borders by Nato and unfriendly former-slave-states like Ukraine.
>>
>> Can you please respond to the appropriate threads? I don't do this
>> sort of thing and neither should you.
>
>### - wtf are you talking about now??
>
>have responded to this same thread and the points you've raised in it
>while considering everything that's gone before...
>
>i do things the way i like and want, just as do you...
>
>if you can't follow what am saying and/or why am saying it then that's
>your problem not mine.
>
>you're just making shit up now to make trouble that doesn't even exist??
>
>just stick to the subject matter ffs!
>
>and stop telling people what to do!
>
>geez...
>
>'another' conversation done/ruined!

Nope, another prediction of war, doom and gloom by Brian, done/ruined.

I just wanted to see you eat crow :)

But, as usual, when proven completely wrong (imagine, Putin, fearing
increased sanctions and perhaps the end of Nordstream as well, packs
up and scurries off) - Slider changes the subject, fails to
acknowledge his error, fails to acknowledge his failed worldview, and
doesn't respond to the appropriate post.

*That's* what the fuck I'm talking about lol

On Mon, 03 May 2021 11:27:31 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:18:24 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:07:42 +0100, o'Mahoney
>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:39:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:09:26 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It occurs to me that Putin has badly misjudged the situation overall.
>>>>> By withdrawing the Russian troops from the Ukraine border and
>>>>> presumably from the Crimea, all he has achieved is to provoke Ukraine
>>>>> into forming a professional army, which has always been a
>>>>> prerequisite
>>>>> for entry into NATO.
>>>>>
>>>>> NATO will not take any state which does not have a professional army
>>>>> -
>>>>> a professional army being an army of volunteers, not an army of
>>>>> conscripts. NATO wants soldiers and airmen and sailors who sign up
>>>>> to
>>>>> defend their countries voluntarily. Those are the best types of
>>>>> soldiers and utterly necessary if NATO wants to remain cohesive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Putin has now accomplished this with Ukraine, basically playing into
>>>>> NATO's hands. It must be an age related thing - Putin is losing his
>>>>> touch and losing his nerve.
>>>>
>>>> ### - see? it's fun to speculate isn't it hehehe :)))
>>>>
>>>> what you're perhaps not taking into account though, is that am not
>>>> worshiping anybody or anything, that am not on anyone's side, that am
>>>> totally objective & detached about all this (and everything else they
>>>> do
>>>> in wallyworld) and as such couldn't give a rats-arse about putin or
>>>> russia
>>>> or nato either because they all seem/look completely insane to me
>>>> anyway... am merely an 'observer' only!
>>>>
>>>> otoh, i've been observing wallyworld for nearly 70 years and am
>>>> familiar
>>>> with the way things tend to go in crazyville and the kinds of shit
>>>> they
>>>> typically get up to, so i can pit what i've seen in the past against
>>>> current affairs and intelligently speculate about what's maybe
>>>> happening...
>>>>
>>>> that i understand humanity quite well because of that and have seen
>>>> all
>>>> their crap before a dozen times over...
>>>>
>>>> and yes russia is pulling back and that's a good thing! only am not
>>>> convinced it's over by a long chalk, at least not yet! :)
>>>>
>>>> grandstanding it may in fact have been, although just why + completely
>>>> out
>>>> of the blue they should do so to such a degree is another matter... as
>>>> russia never does anything for nada!
>>>>
>>>> and that accordingly, there's a good reason why this has happened and
>>>> is
>>>> happening!
>>>>
>>>> e.g., ukraine isn't at all happy about having lost crimea nor about
>>>> having
>>>> its southern regions occupied in which case they may well be planning
>>>> an
>>>> attempt to regain them, that russia wont tolerate ukraine joining nato
>>>> for
>>>> obvious reasons, that ukraine wont be welcomed into nato if there's
>>>> any
>>>> kind of conflict going on as per nato's policy...
>>>>
>>>> and russia grandstanding is just part of it...
>>>>
>>>> am personally not convinced it's all over though just because russia
>>>> is
>>>> pulling back from such a massive show of 'force', mainly because
>>>> 'ukraine'
>>>> isn't done with all this yet!
>>>>
>>>> the best we can hope for is that it all goes back to the stalemate it
>>>> was,
>>>> only we also know ukraine isn't at all happy with the situation the
>>>> way
>>>> it
>>>> currently is and may well be planning something!
>>>>
>>>> that nato itself may well be planning something!
>>>>
>>>> obama's words again ringing in my ears about "it's not a done deal"
>>>> after
>>>> they annexed crimea leading me to consider just what then they're ever
>>>> gonna do about it!
>>>>
>>>> that defeating russia, china & islam is 'still' the west's last
>>>> concern/obstacle in the world domination stakes, and as such that it
>>>> will
>>>> never BE over until they've either won the day OR learn to change
>>>> their
>>>> thinking!
>>>>
>>>> am personally hopeful for the latter eventully being/becoming the
>>>> case,
>>>> it's just highly unlikely is all because imho (and observation)
>>>> they're
>>>> all completely insane anyway! :)
>>>>
>>>> anyway, russia has clearly signaled a willingness to pull back and to
>>>> drop
>>>> the matter, and if ukraine (and the west) does the same then that's
>>>> fine...
>>>>
>>>> that is until the next time ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Slider you haven't responded to the appropriate threads. Therefore,
>>> your response here is not appropriate (ie off topic) to my post. You
>>> should respond to the appropriate topics, that's courtesy.
>>>
>>> All I posted here, my topic, was the effect of what Putin has played.
>>> And my supposition that the outcome was unplanned by Putin and perhaps
>>> even a spasm or involutary response to the crowding of Russia's
>>> borders by Nato and unfriendly former-slave-states like Ukraine.
>>>
>>> Can you please respond to the appropriate threads? I don't do this
>>> sort of thing and neither should you.
>>
>> ### - wtf are you talking about now??
>>
>> have responded to this same thread and the points you've raised in it
>> while considering everything that's gone before...
>>
>> i do things the way i like and want, just as do you...
>>
>> if you can't follow what am saying and/or why am saying it then that's
>> your problem not mine.
>>
>> you're just making shit up now to make trouble that doesn't even exist??
>>
>> just stick to the subject matter ffs!
>>
>> and stop telling people what to do!
>>
>> geez...
>>
>> 'another' conversation done/ruined!
>
> Nope, another prediction of war, doom and gloom by Brian, done/ruined.
>
> I just wanted to see you eat crow :)

### - you were just complaining then haha... i mean, am allowed to say
anything i want really in any way i want to say it... which, i suggested,
was actually more along the lines of 'speculation' rather than assertion
(i.e., i wasn't saying it 'would' or 'will' happen for certain, only that
it potentially 'risked' such a confrontation)

> But, as usual, when proven completely wrong (imagine, Putin, fearing
> increased sanctions and perhaps the end of Nordstream as well, packs
> up and scurries off) - Slider changes the subject, fails to
> acknowledge his error, fails to acknowledge his failed worldview, and
> doesn't respond to the appropriate post.
>
> *That's* what the fuck I'm talking about lol

### - your remarks suggested an 'assertion' on my part which you took
exception to, only that's not quite where i was coming from... coz i was
only suggesting that it 'could' lead to a confrontation, that it risked
that... there IS a difference!

and that's not enough for you to start telling me off, which is what *i*
then took exception to haha :)))

i.e., i was actually only speculating on what 'could' happen, i wasn't
saying it 'would' happen for sure... and thus you had no real right to get
annoyed and start calling me names haha :)))

On Mon, 03 May 2021 12:42:04 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 03 May 2021 11:27:31 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:18:24 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:07:42 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:39:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:09:26 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It occurs to me that Putin has badly misjudged the situation overall.
>>>>>> By withdrawing the Russian troops from the Ukraine border and
>>>>>> presumably from the Crimea, all he has achieved is to provoke Ukraine
>>>>>> into forming a professional army, which has always been a
>>>>>> prerequisite
>>>>>> for entry into NATO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NATO will not take any state which does not have a professional army
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> a professional army being an army of volunteers, not an army of
>>>>>> conscripts. NATO wants soldiers and airmen and sailors who sign up
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> defend their countries voluntarily. Those are the best types of
>>>>>> soldiers and utterly necessary if NATO wants to remain cohesive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putin has now accomplished this with Ukraine, basically playing into
>>>>>> NATO's hands. It must be an age related thing - Putin is losing his
>>>>>> touch and losing his nerve.
>>>>>
>>>>> ### - see? it's fun to speculate isn't it hehehe :)))
>>>>>
>>>>> what you're perhaps not taking into account though, is that am not
>>>>> worshiping anybody or anything, that am not on anyone's side, that am
>>>>> totally objective & detached about all this (and everything else they
>>>>> do
>>>>> in wallyworld) and as such couldn't give a rats-arse about putin or
>>>>> russia
>>>>> or nato either because they all seem/look completely insane to me
>>>>> anyway... am merely an 'observer' only!
>>>>>
>>>>> otoh, i've been observing wallyworld for nearly 70 years and am
>>>>> familiar
>>>>> with the way things tend to go in crazyville and the kinds of shit
>>>>> they
>>>>> typically get up to, so i can pit what i've seen in the past against
>>>>> current affairs and intelligently speculate about what's maybe
>>>>> happening...
>>>>>
>>>>> that i understand humanity quite well because of that and have seen
>>>>> all
>>>>> their crap before a dozen times over...
>>>>>
>>>>> and yes russia is pulling back and that's a good thing! only am not
>>>>> convinced it's over by a long chalk, at least not yet! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> grandstanding it may in fact have been, although just why + completely
>>>>> out
>>>>> of the blue they should do so to such a degree is another matter... as
>>>>> russia never does anything for nada!
>>>>>
>>>>> and that accordingly, there's a good reason why this has happened and
>>>>> is
>>>>> happening!
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g., ukraine isn't at all happy about having lost crimea nor about
>>>>> having
>>>>> its southern regions occupied in which case they may well be planning
>>>>> an
>>>>> attempt to regain them, that russia wont tolerate ukraine joining nato
>>>>> for
>>>>> obvious reasons, that ukraine wont be welcomed into nato if there's
>>>>> any
>>>>> kind of conflict going on as per nato's policy...
>>>>>
>>>>> and russia grandstanding is just part of it...
>>>>>
>>>>> am personally not convinced it's all over though just because russia
>>>>> is
>>>>> pulling back from such a massive show of 'force', mainly because
>>>>> 'ukraine'
>>>>> isn't done with all this yet!
>>>>>
>>>>> the best we can hope for is that it all goes back to the stalemate it
>>>>> was,
>>>>> only we also know ukraine isn't at all happy with the situation the
>>>>> way
>>>>> it
>>>>> currently is and may well be planning something!
>>>>>
>>>>> that nato itself may well be planning something!
>>>>>
>>>>> obama's words again ringing in my ears about "it's not a done deal"
>>>>> after
>>>>> they annexed crimea leading me to consider just what then they're ever
>>>>> gonna do about it!
>>>>>
>>>>> that defeating russia, china & islam is 'still' the west's last
>>>>> concern/obstacle in the world domination stakes, and as such that it
>>>>> will
>>>>> never BE over until they've either won the day OR learn to change
>>>>> their
>>>>> thinking!
>>>>>
>>>>> am personally hopeful for the latter eventully being/becoming the
>>>>> case,
>>>>> it's just highly unlikely is all because imho (and observation)
>>>>> they're
>>>>> all completely insane anyway! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> anyway, russia has clearly signaled a willingness to pull back and to
>>>>> drop
>>>>> the matter, and if ukraine (and the west) does the same then that's
>>>>> fine...
>>>>>
>>>>> that is until the next time ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Slider you haven't responded to the appropriate threads. Therefore,
>>>> your response here is not appropriate (ie off topic) to my post. You
>>>> should respond to the appropriate topics, that's courtesy.
>>>>
>>>> All I posted here, my topic, was the effect of what Putin has played.
>>>> And my supposition that the outcome was unplanned by Putin and perhaps
>>>> even a spasm or involutary response to the crowding of Russia's
>>>> borders by Nato and unfriendly former-slave-states like Ukraine.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please respond to the appropriate threads? I don't do this
>>>> sort of thing and neither should you.
>>>
>>> ### - wtf are you talking about now??
>>>
>>> have responded to this same thread and the points you've raised in it
>>> while considering everything that's gone before...
>>>
>>> i do things the way i like and want, just as do you...
>>>
>>> if you can't follow what am saying and/or why am saying it then that's
>>> your problem not mine.
>>>
>>> you're just making shit up now to make trouble that doesn't even exist??
>>>
>>> just stick to the subject matter ffs!
>>>
>>> and stop telling people what to do!
>>>
>>> geez...
>>>
>>> 'another' conversation done/ruined!
>>
>> Nope, another prediction of war, doom and gloom by Brian, done/ruined.
>>
>> I just wanted to see you eat crow :)
>
>### - you were just complaining then haha... i mean, am allowed to say
>anything i want really in any way i want to say it... which, i suggested,
>was actually more along the lines of 'speculation' rather than assertion
>(i.e., i wasn't saying it 'would' or 'will' happen for certain, only that
>it potentially 'risked' such a confrontation)
>
>
>
>> But, as usual, when proven completely wrong (imagine, Putin, fearing
>> increased sanctions and perhaps the end of Nordstream as well, packs
>> up and scurries off) - Slider changes the subject, fails to
>> acknowledge his error, fails to acknowledge his failed worldview, and
>> doesn't respond to the appropriate post.
>>
>> *That's* what the fuck I'm talking about lol
>
>### - your remarks suggested an 'assertion' on my part which you took
>exception to, only that's not quite where i was coming from... coz i was
>only suggesting that it 'could' lead to a confrontation, that it risked
>that... there IS a difference!
>
>and that's not enough for you to start telling me off, which is what *i*
>then took exception to haha :)))
>
>i.e., i was actually only speculating on what 'could' happen, i wasn't
>saying it 'would' happen for sure... and thus you had no real right to get
>annoyed and start calling me names haha :)))
>
>(basically, you got annoyed at the subject matter per se and jumped down
>my throat for nada when i was actually only being completely objective
>about the whole thing)
>
>there was no 'proof' either way :)

On Fri, 07 May 2021 06:15:52 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 03 May 2021 12:42:04 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 May 2021 11:27:31 +0100, o'Mahoney
>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:18:24 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:07:42 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:39:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:09:26 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It occurs to me that Putin has badly misjudged the situation
>>>>>>> overall.
>>>>>>> By withdrawing the Russian troops from the Ukraine border and
>>>>>>> presumably from the Crimea, all he has achieved is to provoke
>>>>>>> Ukraine
>>>>>>> into forming a professional army, which has always been a
>>>>>>> prerequisite
>>>>>>> for entry into NATO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NATO will not take any state which does not have a professional
>>>>>>> army
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> a professional army being an army of volunteers, not an army of
>>>>>>> conscripts. NATO wants soldiers and airmen and sailors who sign up
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> defend their countries voluntarily. Those are the best types of
>>>>>>> soldiers and utterly necessary if NATO wants to remain cohesive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Putin has now accomplished this with Ukraine, basically playing
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> NATO's hands. It must be an age related thing - Putin is losing
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> touch and losing his nerve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ### - see? it's fun to speculate isn't it hehehe :)))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what you're perhaps not taking into account though, is that am not
>>>>>> worshiping anybody or anything, that am not on anyone's side, that
>>>>>> am
>>>>>> totally objective & detached about all this (and everything else
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> in wallyworld) and as such couldn't give a rats-arse about putin or
>>>>>> russia
>>>>>> or nato either because they all seem/look completely insane to me
>>>>>> anyway... am merely an 'observer' only!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> otoh, i've been observing wallyworld for nearly 70 years and am
>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>> with the way things tend to go in crazyville and the kinds of shit
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> typically get up to, so i can pit what i've seen in the past against
>>>>>> current affairs and intelligently speculate about what's maybe
>>>>>> happening...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that i understand humanity quite well because of that and have seen
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> their crap before a dozen times over...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and yes russia is pulling back and that's a good thing! only am not
>>>>>> convinced it's over by a long chalk, at least not yet! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> grandstanding it may in fact have been, although just why +
>>>>>> completely
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> of the blue they should do so to such a degree is another matter...
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> russia never does anything for nada!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and that accordingly, there's a good reason why this has happened
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> happening!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e.g., ukraine isn't at all happy about having lost crimea nor about
>>>>>> having
>>>>>> its southern regions occupied in which case they may well be
>>>>>> planning
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> attempt to regain them, that russia wont tolerate ukraine joining
>>>>>> nato
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> obvious reasons, that ukraine wont be welcomed into nato if there's
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> kind of conflict going on as per nato's policy...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and russia grandstanding is just part of it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> am personally not convinced it's all over though just because russia
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> pulling back from such a massive show of 'force', mainly because
>>>>>> 'ukraine'
>>>>>> isn't done with all this yet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the best we can hope for is that it all goes back to the stalemate
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> was,
>>>>>> only we also know ukraine isn't at all happy with the situation the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> currently is and may well be planning something!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that nato itself may well be planning something!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> obama's words again ringing in my ears about "it's not a done deal"
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> they annexed crimea leading me to consider just what then they're
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>> gonna do about it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that defeating russia, china & islam is 'still' the west's last
>>>>>> concern/obstacle in the world domination stakes, and as such that it
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> never BE over until they've either won the day OR learn to change
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> thinking!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> am personally hopeful for the latter eventully being/becoming the
>>>>>> case,
>>>>>> it's just highly unlikely is all because imho (and observation)
>>>>>> they're
>>>>>> all completely insane anyway! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> anyway, russia has clearly signaled a willingness to pull back and
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> drop
>>>>>> the matter, and if ukraine (and the west) does the same then that's
>>>>>> fine...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that is until the next time ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Slider you haven't responded to the appropriate threads. Therefore,
>>>>> your response here is not appropriate (ie off topic) to my post. You
>>>>> should respond to the appropriate topics, that's courtesy.
>>>>>
>>>>> All I posted here, my topic, was the effect of what Putin has played.
>>>>> And my supposition that the outcome was unplanned by Putin and
>>>>> perhaps
>>>>> even a spasm or involutary response to the crowding of Russia's
>>>>> borders by Nato and unfriendly former-slave-states like Ukraine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please respond to the appropriate threads? I don't do this
>>>>> sort of thing and neither should you.
>>>>
>>>> ### - wtf are you talking about now??
>>>>
>>>> have responded to this same thread and the points you've raised in it
>>>> while considering everything that's gone before...
>>>>
>>>> i do things the way i like and want, just as do you...
>>>>
>>>> if you can't follow what am saying and/or why am saying it then that's
>>>> your problem not mine.
>>>>
>>>> you're just making shit up now to make trouble that doesn't even
>>>> exist??
>>>>
>>>> just stick to the subject matter ffs!
>>>>
>>>> and stop telling people what to do!
>>>>
>>>> geez...
>>>>
>>>> 'another' conversation done/ruined!
>>>
>>> Nope, another prediction of war, doom and gloom by Brian, done/ruined.
>>>
>>> I just wanted to see you eat crow :)
>>
>> ### - you were just complaining then haha... i mean, am allowed to say
>> anything i want really in any way i want to say it... which, i
>> suggested,
>> was actually more along the lines of 'speculation' rather than assertion
>> (i.e., i wasn't saying it 'would' or 'will' happen for certain, only
>> that
>> it potentially 'risked' such a confrontation)
>>
>>
>>
>>> But, as usual, when proven completely wrong (imagine, Putin, fearing
>>> increased sanctions and perhaps the end of Nordstream as well, packs
>>> up and scurries off) - Slider changes the subject, fails to
>>> acknowledge his error, fails to acknowledge his failed worldview, and
>>> doesn't respond to the appropriate post.
>>>
>>> *That's* what the fuck I'm talking about lol
>>
>> ### - your remarks suggested an 'assertion' on my part which you took
>> exception to, only that's not quite where i was coming from... coz i was
>> only suggesting that it 'could' lead to a confrontation, that it risked
>> that... there IS a difference!
>>
>> and that's not enough for you to start telling me off, which is what *i*
>> then took exception to haha :)))
>>
>> i.e., i was actually only speculating on what 'could' happen, i wasn't
>> saying it 'would' happen for sure... and thus you had no real right to
>> get
>> annoyed and start calling me names haha :)))
>>
>> (basically, you got annoyed at the subject matter per se and jumped down
>> my throat for nada when i was actually only being completely objective
>> about the whole thing)
>>
>> there was no 'proof' either way :)
>
> Pretty civil response there, you've changed your ways somewhat. Good
> to see.
>
> Perhaps we can have a more focused discussion on the political and
> economic reality of 21st century warfare and the probabilities thereof
> at some point. I'm always willing to concede a point when proven.
> Seems you're coming around to that as well.

On Fri, 07 May 2021 06:15:52 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 03 May 2021 12:42:04 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 May 2021 11:27:31 +0100, o'Mahoney
>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:18:24 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:07:42 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:39:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:09:26 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It occurs to me that Putin has badly misjudged the situation
>>>>>>> overall.
>>>>>>> By withdrawing the Russian troops from the Ukraine border and
>>>>>>> presumably from the Crimea, all he has achieved is to provoke
>>>>>>> Ukraine
>>>>>>> into forming a professional army, which has always been a
>>>>>>> prerequisite
>>>>>>> for entry into NATO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NATO will not take any state which does not have a professional
>>>>>>> army
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> a professional army being an army of volunteers, not an army of
>>>>>>> conscripts. NATO wants soldiers and airmen and sailors who sign up
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> defend their countries voluntarily. Those are the best types of
>>>>>>> soldiers and utterly necessary if NATO wants to remain cohesive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Putin has now accomplished this with Ukraine, basically playing
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> NATO's hands. It must be an age related thing - Putin is losing
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> touch and losing his nerve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ### - see? it's fun to speculate isn't it hehehe :)))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what you're perhaps not taking into account though, is that am not
>>>>>> worshiping anybody or anything, that am not on anyone's side, that
>>>>>> am
>>>>>> totally objective & detached about all this (and everything else
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> in wallyworld) and as such couldn't give a rats-arse about putin or
>>>>>> russia
>>>>>> or nato either because they all seem/look completely insane to me
>>>>>> anyway... am merely an 'observer' only!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> otoh, i've been observing wallyworld for nearly 70 years and am
>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>> with the way things tend to go in crazyville and the kinds of shit
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> typically get up to, so i can pit what i've seen in the past against
>>>>>> current affairs and intelligently speculate about what's maybe
>>>>>> happening...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that i understand humanity quite well because of that and have seen
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> their crap before a dozen times over...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and yes russia is pulling back and that's a good thing! only am not
>>>>>> convinced it's over by a long chalk, at least not yet! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> grandstanding it may in fact have been, although just why +
>>>>>> completely
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> of the blue they should do so to such a degree is another matter....
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> russia never does anything for nada!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and that accordingly, there's a good reason why this has happened
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> happening!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e.g., ukraine isn't at all happy about having lost crimea nor about
>>>>>> having
>>>>>> its southern regions occupied in which case they may well be
>>>>>> planning
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> attempt to regain them, that russia wont tolerate ukraine joining
>>>>>> nato
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> obvious reasons, that ukraine wont be welcomed into nato if there's
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> kind of conflict going on as per nato's policy...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and russia grandstanding is just part of it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> am personally not convinced it's all over though just because russia
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> pulling back from such a massive show of 'force', mainly because
>>>>>> 'ukraine'
>>>>>> isn't done with all this yet!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the best we can hope for is that it all goes back to the stalemate
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> was,
>>>>>> only we also know ukraine isn't at all happy with the situation the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> currently is and may well be planning something!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that nato itself may well be planning something!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> obama's words again ringing in my ears about "it's not a done deal"
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> they annexed crimea leading me to consider just what then they're
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>> gonna do about it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that defeating russia, china & islam is 'still' the west's last
>>>>>> concern/obstacle in the world domination stakes, and as such that it
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> never BE over until they've either won the day OR learn to change
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> thinking!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> am personally hopeful for the latter eventully being/becoming the
>>>>>> case,
>>>>>> it's just highly unlikely is all because imho (and observation)
>>>>>> they're
>>>>>> all completely insane anyway! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> anyway, russia has clearly signaled a willingness to pull back and
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> drop
>>>>>> the matter, and if ukraine (and the west) does the same then that's
>>>>>> fine...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that is until the next time ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Slider you haven't responded to the appropriate threads. Therefore,
>>>>> your response here is not appropriate (ie off topic) to my post. You
>>>>> should respond to the appropriate topics, that's courtesy.
>>>>>
>>>>> All I posted here, my topic, was the effect of what Putin has played.
>>>>> And my supposition that the outcome was unplanned by Putin and
>>>>> perhaps
>>>>> even a spasm or involutary response to the crowding of Russia's
>>>>> borders by Nato and unfriendly former-slave-states like Ukraine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please respond to the appropriate threads? I don't do this
>>>>> sort of thing and neither should you.
>>>>
>>>> ### - wtf are you talking about now??
>>>>
>>>> have responded to this same thread and the points you've raised in it
>>>> while considering everything that's gone before...
>>>>
>>>> i do things the way i like and want, just as do you...
>>>>
>>>> if you can't follow what am saying and/or why am saying it then that's
>>>> your problem not mine.
>>>>
>>>> you're just making shit up now to make trouble that doesn't even
>>>> exist??
>>>>
>>>> just stick to the subject matter ffs!
>>>>
>>>> and stop telling people what to do!
>>>>
>>>> geez...
>>>>
>>>> 'another' conversation done/ruined!
>>>
>>> Nope, another prediction of war, doom and gloom by Brian, done/ruined.
>>>
>>> I just wanted to see you eat crow :)
>>
>> ### - you were just complaining then haha... i mean, am allowed to say
>> anything i want really in any way i want to say it... which, i
>> suggested,
>> was actually more along the lines of 'speculation' rather than assertion
>> (i.e., i wasn't saying it 'would' or 'will' happen for certain, only
>> that
>> it potentially 'risked' such a confrontation)
>>
>>
>>
>>> But, as usual, when proven completely wrong (imagine, Putin, fearing
>>> increased sanctions and perhaps the end of Nordstream as well, packs
>>> up and scurries off) - Slider changes the subject, fails to
>>> acknowledge his error, fails to acknowledge his failed worldview, and
>>> doesn't respond to the appropriate post.
>>>
>>> *That's* what the fuck I'm talking about lol
>>
>> ### - your remarks suggested an 'assertion' on my part which you took
>> exception to, only that's not quite where i was coming from... coz i was
>> only suggesting that it 'could' lead to a confrontation, that it risked
>> that... there IS a difference!
>>
>> and that's not enough for you to start telling me off, which is what *i*
>> then took exception to haha :)))
>>
>> i.e., i was actually only speculating on what 'could' happen, i wasn't
>> saying it 'would' happen for sure... and thus you had no real right to
>> get
>> annoyed and start calling me names haha :)))
>>
>> (basically, you got annoyed at the subject matter per se and jumped down
>> my throat for nada when i was actually only being completely objective
>> about the whole thing)
>>
>> there was no 'proof' either way :)
>
> Pretty civil response there, you've changed your ways somewhat. Good
> to see.
>
> Perhaps we can have a more focused discussion on the political and
> economic reality of 21st century warfare and the probabilities thereof
> at some point. I'm always willing to concede a point when proven.
> Seems you're coming around to that as well.

On Sat, 08 May 2021 14:23:11 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 07 May 2021 06:15:52 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 03 May 2021 12:42:04 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 May 2021 11:27:31 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:18:24 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:07:42 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:39:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:09:26 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It occurs to me that Putin has badly misjudged the situation
>>>>>>>> overall.
>>>>>>>> By withdrawing the Russian troops from the Ukraine border and
>>>>>>>> presumably from the Crimea, all he has achieved is to provoke
>>>>>>>> Ukraine
>>>>>>>> into forming a professional army, which has always been a
>>>>>>>> prerequisite
>>>>>>>> for entry into NATO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NATO will not take any state which does not have a professional
>>>>>>>> army
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> a professional army being an army of volunteers, not an army of
>>>>>>>> conscripts. NATO wants soldiers and airmen and sailors who sign up
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> defend their countries voluntarily. Those are the best types of
>>>>>>>> soldiers and utterly necessary if NATO wants to remain cohesive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Putin has now accomplished this with Ukraine, basically playing
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> NATO's hands. It must be an age related thing - Putin is losing
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> touch and losing his nerve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ### - see? it's fun to speculate isn't it hehehe :)))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> what you're perhaps not taking into account though, is that am not
>>>>>>> worshiping anybody or anything, that am not on anyone's side, that
>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>> totally objective & detached about all this (and everything else
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> in wallyworld) and as such couldn't give a rats-arse about putin or
>>>>>>> russia
>>>>>>> or nato either because they all seem/look completely insane to me
>>>>>>> anyway... am merely an 'observer' only!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> otoh, i've been observing wallyworld for nearly 70 years and am
>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>> with the way things tend to go in crazyville and the kinds of shit
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> typically get up to, so i can pit what i've seen in the past against
>>>>>>> current affairs and intelligently speculate about what's maybe
>>>>>>> happening...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that i understand humanity quite well because of that and have seen
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> their crap before a dozen times over...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and yes russia is pulling back and that's a good thing! only am not
>>>>>>> convinced it's over by a long chalk, at least not yet! :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> grandstanding it may in fact have been, although just why +
>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>> of the blue they should do so to such a degree is another matter...
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> russia never does anything for nada!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and that accordingly, there's a good reason why this has happened
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> happening!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> e.g., ukraine isn't at all happy about having lost crimea nor about
>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>> its southern regions occupied in which case they may well be
>>>>>>> planning
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> attempt to regain them, that russia wont tolerate ukraine joining
>>>>>>> nato
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> obvious reasons, that ukraine wont be welcomed into nato if there's
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> kind of conflict going on as per nato's policy...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and russia grandstanding is just part of it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> am personally not convinced it's all over though just because russia
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> pulling back from such a massive show of 'force', mainly because
>>>>>>> 'ukraine'
>>>>>>> isn't done with all this yet!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the best we can hope for is that it all goes back to the stalemate
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> was,
>>>>>>> only we also know ukraine isn't at all happy with the situation the
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> currently is and may well be planning something!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that nato itself may well be planning something!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> obama's words again ringing in my ears about "it's not a done deal"
>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>> they annexed crimea leading me to consider just what then they're
>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>> gonna do about it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that defeating russia, china & islam is 'still' the west's last
>>>>>>> concern/obstacle in the world domination stakes, and as such that it
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> never BE over until they've either won the day OR learn to change
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> thinking!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> am personally hopeful for the latter eventully being/becoming the
>>>>>>> case,
>>>>>>> it's just highly unlikely is all because imho (and observation)
>>>>>>> they're
>>>>>>> all completely insane anyway! :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> anyway, russia has clearly signaled a willingness to pull back and
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>> the matter, and if ukraine (and the west) does the same then that's
>>>>>>> fine...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that is until the next time ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Slider you haven't responded to the appropriate threads. Therefore,
>>>>>> your response here is not appropriate (ie off topic) to my post. You
>>>>>> should respond to the appropriate topics, that's courtesy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All I posted here, my topic, was the effect of what Putin has played.
>>>>>> And my supposition that the outcome was unplanned by Putin and
>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>> even a spasm or involutary response to the crowding of Russia's
>>>>>> borders by Nato and unfriendly former-slave-states like Ukraine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please respond to the appropriate threads? I don't do this
>>>>>> sort of thing and neither should you.
>>>>>
>>>>> ### - wtf are you talking about now??
>>>>>
>>>>> have responded to this same thread and the points you've raised in it
>>>>> while considering everything that's gone before...
>>>>>
>>>>> i do things the way i like and want, just as do you...
>>>>>
>>>>> if you can't follow what am saying and/or why am saying it then that's
>>>>> your problem not mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> you're just making shit up now to make trouble that doesn't even
>>>>> exist??
>>>>>
>>>>> just stick to the subject matter ffs!
>>>>>
>>>>> and stop telling people what to do!
>>>>>
>>>>> geez...
>>>>>
>>>>> 'another' conversation done/ruined!
>>>>
>>>> Nope, another prediction of war, doom and gloom by Brian, done/ruined.
>>>>
>>>> I just wanted to see you eat crow :)
>>>
>>> ### - you were just complaining then haha... i mean, am allowed to say
>>> anything i want really in any way i want to say it... which, i
>>> suggested,
>>> was actually more along the lines of 'speculation' rather than assertion
>>> (i.e., i wasn't saying it 'would' or 'will' happen for certain, only
>>> that
>>> it potentially 'risked' such a confrontation)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But, as usual, when proven completely wrong (imagine, Putin, fearing
>>>> increased sanctions and perhaps the end of Nordstream as well, packs
>>>> up and scurries off) - Slider changes the subject, fails to
>>>> acknowledge his error, fails to acknowledge his failed worldview, and
>>>> doesn't respond to the appropriate post.
>>>>
>>>> *That's* what the fuck I'm talking about lol
>>>
>>> ### - your remarks suggested an 'assertion' on my part which you took
>>> exception to, only that's not quite where i was coming from... coz i was
>>> only suggesting that it 'could' lead to a confrontation, that it risked
>>> that... there IS a difference!
>>>
>>> and that's not enough for you to start telling me off, which is what *i*
>>> then took exception to haha :)))
>>>
>>> i.e., i was actually only speculating on what 'could' happen, i wasn't
>>> saying it 'would' happen for sure... and thus you had no real right to
>>> get
>>> annoyed and start calling me names haha :)))
>>>
>>> (basically, you got annoyed at the subject matter per se and jumped down
>>> my throat for nada when i was actually only being completely objective
>>> about the whole thing)
>>>
>>> there was no 'proof' either way :)
>>
>> Pretty civil response there, you've changed your ways somewhat. Good
>> to see.
>>
>> Perhaps we can have a more focused discussion on the political and
>> economic reality of 21st century warfare and the probabilities thereof
>> at some point. I'm always willing to concede a point when proven.
>> Seems you're coming around to that as well.
>
>### - sounds good to moi :)
>
>so let's see how you/we handle this one then ok?
>
>i.e., try to keep your own personal biases aside enough to discuss this
>completely objectively regardless of the source (have picked this one
>because it covers all the salient points & facts from all sides, which in
>this instance i reckon is actually fairly accurate/inclusive...)
>
>
>The end of strategic ambiguity? America has finally stopped pretending it
>would risk war with Russia over supposed ‘ally’ Ukraine
>
>https://www.rt.com/russia/523253-ukraine-usa-strategic-ambiguity/
>
>Would the US go to war with Russia over Ukraine? As tensions escalate
>between Moscow and Kiev, some have warned that the latter’s ‘alliance’
>with Washington could spiral into a conflict between the two main nuclear
>superpowers.
>
>Except, of course, there is no alliance between the US and Ukraine. This
>week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken effectively ended the notion
>that Ukraine has Western backers ready to step in at a moment’s notice if
>it finds itself under attack.
>
>Pressed on whether American forces could be sent into battle against
>Russian troops to support Kiev in the event of war in an interview with
>MSNBC, he answered only that Washington is committed to “helping Ukraine
>defend itself.”
>
>In other words, no. Indeed, with these words, Blinken backed up suspicions
>in Moscow that Washington stands ready to fight Moscow down to the very
>last Ukrainian, but would never risk its own troops.
>
>It is difficult to overstate the importance of the secretary of state’s
>response, which has effectively ended a calculated policy of strategic
>ambiguity over Ukraine. For years, the State Department has been reluctant
>to be drawn on just how far it would go for the Eastern European nation,
>and whether it would send its own soldiers into battle for its supposed
>ally.
>
>The fact that mask has slipped now fundamentally changes the nature of the
>situation. It comes as the White House has also seemingly pivoted its
>foreign policy in the region by revising a section in an official
>transcript to play down the prospect of Ukraine joining the NATO military
>bloc. After turning to the West following the 2014 Maidan, Kiev has played
>up its credentials with the EU and US, emphasizing the importance of its
>‘alliances’ and its role as a vanguard against supposed Russian aggression
>towards Central Europe. That argument is now based on less and less
>evidence.
>
>The gamble of strategic ambiguity
>
>Strategic ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying your red lines and
>potential responses, is often an ideal approach when it concerns the
>defense of an ally or partner such as Ukraine. Most notably, the US has
>applied a similar approach to Taiwan.
>
>Suggesting that Washington may provide direct support intends to deter
>adversarial states like Russia and China, as the added uncertainty about
>the US response makes it hard to predict how a situation might escalate.
>
>Strategic ambiguity is preferable to making firm commitments to defend its
>partners for two main reasons – first, the US would lose its credibility
>in the arena of global security if a war broke out and it decided at the
>last minute to not live up to its commitments. Second, offering firm
>promises of support could encourage states like Ukraine or Taiwan to
>pursue bolder and more aggressive strategies.
>
>(see above link for the full article which is much longer/extensive and
>covers all the salient points in depth...)
>
>(slider thus knocks the ball over the net to thang, underarm-style, in
>order to first test thang's backhand return...)
>
>anyone for tennis? ;)

On Wed, 12 May 2021 11:51:34 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 08 May 2021 14:23:11 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 07 May 2021 06:15:52 +0100, o'Mahoney
>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 03 May 2021 12:42:04 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 03 May 2021 11:27:31 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:18:24 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:07:42 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:39:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:09:26 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>>>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It occurs to me that Putin has badly misjudged the situation
>>>>>>>>> overall.
>>>>>>>>> By withdrawing the Russian troops from the Ukraine border and
>>>>>>>>> presumably from the Crimea, all he has achieved is to provoke
>>>>>>>>> Ukraine
>>>>>>>>> into forming a professional army, which has always been a
>>>>>>>>> prerequisite
>>>>>>>>> for entry into NATO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NATO will not take any state which does not have a professional
>>>>>>>>> army
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> a professional army being an army of volunteers, not an army of
>>>>>>>>> conscripts. NATO wants soldiers and airmen and sailors who sign
>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> defend their countries voluntarily. Those are the best types of
>>>>>>>>> soldiers and utterly necessary if NATO wants to remain cohesive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Putin has now accomplished this with Ukraine, basically playing
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> NATO's hands. It must be an age related thing - Putin is losing
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> touch and losing his nerve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ### - see? it's fun to speculate isn't it hehehe :)))
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what you're perhaps not taking into account though, is that am not
>>>>>>>> worshiping anybody or anything, that am not on anyone's side, that
>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>> totally objective & detached about all this (and everything else
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> in wallyworld) and as such couldn't give a rats-arse about putin
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> russia
>>>>>>>> or nato either because they all seem/look completely insane to me
>>>>>>>> anyway... am merely an 'observer' only!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> otoh, i've been observing wallyworld for nearly 70 years and am
>>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>>> with the way things tend to go in crazyville and the kinds of shit
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> typically get up to, so i can pit what i've seen in the past
>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>> current affairs and intelligently speculate about what's maybe
>>>>>>>> happening...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that i understand humanity quite well because of that and have
>>>>>>>> seen
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> their crap before a dozen times over...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and yes russia is pulling back and that's a good thing! only am
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> convinced it's over by a long chalk, at least not yet! :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> grandstanding it may in fact have been, although just why +
>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> of the blue they should do so to such a degree is another
>>>>>>>> matter...
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> russia never does anything for nada!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and that accordingly, there's a good reason why this has happened
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> happening!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> e.g., ukraine isn't at all happy about having lost crimea nor
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>> its southern regions occupied in which case they may well be
>>>>>>>> planning
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> attempt to regain them, that russia wont tolerate ukraine joining
>>>>>>>> nato
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> obvious reasons, that ukraine wont be welcomed into nato if
>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> kind of conflict going on as per nato's policy...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and russia grandstanding is just part of it...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> am personally not convinced it's all over though just because
>>>>>>>> russia
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> pulling back from such a massive show of 'force', mainly because
>>>>>>>> 'ukraine'
>>>>>>>> isn't done with all this yet!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the best we can hope for is that it all goes back to the stalemate
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> was,
>>>>>>>> only we also know ukraine isn't at all happy with the situation
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> currently is and may well be planning something!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that nato itself may well be planning something!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> obama's words again ringing in my ears about "it's not a done
>>>>>>>> deal"
>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>> they annexed crimea leading me to consider just what then they're
>>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>>> gonna do about it!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that defeating russia, china & islam is 'still' the west's last
>>>>>>>> concern/obstacle in the world domination stakes, and as such that
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> never BE over until they've either won the day OR learn to change
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> thinking!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> am personally hopeful for the latter eventully being/becoming the
>>>>>>>> case,
>>>>>>>> it's just highly unlikely is all because imho (and observation)
>>>>>>>> they're
>>>>>>>> all completely insane anyway! :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> anyway, russia has clearly signaled a willingness to pull back and
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>> the matter, and if ukraine (and the west) does the same then
>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>> fine...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that is until the next time ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slider you haven't responded to the appropriate threads.
>>>>>>> Therefore,
>>>>>>> your response here is not appropriate (ie off topic) to my post.
>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>> should respond to the appropriate topics, that's courtesy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All I posted here, my topic, was the effect of what Putin has
>>>>>>> played.
>>>>>>> And my supposition that the outcome was unplanned by Putin and
>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>> even a spasm or involutary response to the crowding of Russia's
>>>>>>> borders by Nato and unfriendly former-slave-states like Ukraine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you please respond to the appropriate threads? I don't do this
>>>>>>> sort of thing and neither should you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ### - wtf are you talking about now??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> have responded to this same thread and the points you've raised in
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> while considering everything that's gone before...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i do things the way i like and want, just as do you...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if you can't follow what am saying and/or why am saying it then
>>>>>> that's
>>>>>> your problem not mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you're just making shit up now to make trouble that doesn't even
>>>>>> exist??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> just stick to the subject matter ffs!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and stop telling people what to do!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> geez...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'another' conversation done/ruined!
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, another prediction of war, doom and gloom by Brian,
>>>>> done/ruined.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just wanted to see you eat crow :)
>>>>
>>>> ### - you were just complaining then haha... i mean, am allowed to say
>>>> anything i want really in any way i want to say it... which, i
>>>> suggested,
>>>> was actually more along the lines of 'speculation' rather than
>>>> assertion
>>>> (i.e., i wasn't saying it 'would' or 'will' happen for certain, only
>>>> that
>>>> it potentially 'risked' such a confrontation)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But, as usual, when proven completely wrong (imagine, Putin, fearing
>>>>> increased sanctions and perhaps the end of Nordstream as well, packs
>>>>> up and scurries off) - Slider changes the subject, fails to
>>>>> acknowledge his error, fails to acknowledge his failed worldview, and
>>>>> doesn't respond to the appropriate post.
>>>>>
>>>>> *That's* what the fuck I'm talking about lol
>>>>
>>>> ### - your remarks suggested an 'assertion' on my part which you took
>>>> exception to, only that's not quite where i was coming from... coz i
>>>> was
>>>> only suggesting that it 'could' lead to a confrontation, that it
>>>> risked
>>>> that... there IS a difference!
>>>>
>>>> and that's not enough for you to start telling me off, which is what
>>>> *i*
>>>> then took exception to haha :)))
>>>>
>>>> i.e., i was actually only speculating on what 'could' happen, i wasn't
>>>> saying it 'would' happen for sure... and thus you had no real right to
>>>> get
>>>> annoyed and start calling me names haha :)))
>>>>
>>>> (basically, you got annoyed at the subject matter per se and jumped
>>>> down
>>>> my throat for nada when i was actually only being completely objective
>>>> about the whole thing)
>>>>
>>>> there was no 'proof' either way :)
>>>
>>> Pretty civil response there, you've changed your ways somewhat. Good
>>> to see.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can have a more focused discussion on the political and
>>> economic reality of 21st century warfare and the probabilities thereof
>>> at some point. I'm always willing to concede a point when proven.
>>> Seems you're coming around to that as well.
>>
>> ### - sounds good to moi :)
>>
>> so let's see how you/we handle this one then ok?
>>
>> i.e., try to keep your own personal biases aside enough to discuss this
>> completely objectively regardless of the source (have picked this one
>> because it covers all the salient points & facts from all sides, which
>> in
>> this instance i reckon is actually fairly accurate/inclusive...)
>>
>>
>> The end of strategic ambiguity? America has finally stopped pretending
>> it
>> would risk war with Russia over supposed ‘ally’ Ukraine
>>
>> https://www.rt.com/russia/523253-ukraine-usa-strategic-ambiguity/
>>
>> Would the US go to war with Russia over Ukraine? As tensions escalate
>> between Moscow and Kiev, some have warned that the latter’s ‘alliance’
>> with Washington could spiral into a conflict between the two main
>> nuclear
>> superpowers.
>>
>> Except, of course, there is no alliance between the US and Ukraine. This
>> week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken effectively ended the notion
>> that Ukraine has Western backers ready to step in at a moment’s notice
>> if
>> it finds itself under attack.
>>
>> Pressed on whether American forces could be sent into battle against
>> Russian troops to support Kiev in the event of war in an interview with
>> MSNBC, he answered only that Washington is committed to “helping Ukraine
>> defend itself.”
>>
>> In other words, no. Indeed, with these words, Blinken backed up
>> suspicions
>> in Moscow that Washington stands ready to fight Moscow down to the very
>> last Ukrainian, but would never risk its own troops.
>>
>> It is difficult to overstate the importance of the secretary of state’s
>> response, which has effectively ended a calculated policy of strategic
>> ambiguity over Ukraine. For years, the State Department has been
>> reluctant
>> to be drawn on just how far it would go for the Eastern European nation,
>> and whether it would send its own soldiers into battle for its supposed
>> ally.
>>
>> The fact that mask has slipped now fundamentally changes the nature of
>> the
>> situation. It comes as the White House has also seemingly pivoted its
>> foreign policy in the region by revising a section in an official
>> transcript to play down the prospect of Ukraine joining the NATO
>> military
>> bloc. After turning to the West following the 2014 Maidan, Kiev has
>> played
>> up its credentials with the EU and US, emphasizing the importance of its
>> ‘alliances’ and its role as a vanguard against supposed Russian
>> aggression
>> towards Central Europe. That argument is now based on less and less
>> evidence.
>>
>> The gamble of strategic ambiguity
>>
>> Strategic ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying your red lines and
>> potential responses, is often an ideal approach when it concerns the
>> defense of an ally or partner such as Ukraine. Most notably, the US has
>> applied a similar approach to Taiwan.
>>
>> Suggesting that Washington may provide direct support intends to deter
>> adversarial states like Russia and China, as the added uncertainty about
>> the US response makes it hard to predict how a situation might escalate.
>>
>> Strategic ambiguity is preferable to making firm commitments to defend
>> its
>> partners for two main reasons – first, the US would lose its credibility
>> in the arena of global security if a war broke out and it decided at the
>> last minute to not live up to its commitments. Second, offering firm
>> promises of support could encourage states like Ukraine or Taiwan to
>> pursue bolder and more aggressive strategies.
>>
>> (see above link for the full article which is much longer/extensive and
>> covers all the salient points in depth...)
>>
>> (slider thus knocks the ball over the net to thang, underarm-style, in
>> order to first test thang's backhand return...)
>>
>> anyone for tennis? ;)
>
> My opinion is that there will be no need for the US to fight Russia
> should Russia attempt a large scale offensive against the Donbass
> region and/or a landbridge between the Crimean Peninsula and Ukraine.
> The Ukrainians are outmatched but will fight Russia with vigour and
> the entirety of NATO (with the possible exception of the US) will
> assist.
>
> This so called "strategic ambiguity" is a very old concept - keep the
> enemy guessing, make feints, smoke and fog, do whatever is necessary
> to keep the enemy off balance and to win! Clausewicz and Sun Tzu, all
> the others, all state "win by any means, fair or foul" and this so
> called "strategic ambiguity" is part of that deadly serious game.
>
> I can't predict what Putin will do but I do know this - the US
> military stands alone on the planet as the single most powerful force
> not only now, but ever in human history. The Russians would be no
> match for the US and they know it. It's therefore unlikely, as Putin
> intends to be around for the next 30 years, that he will foment a war
> or RISK a war with the most powerful military on earth. He's not that
> stupid.
>
> So, in that sense, "strategic ambiguity" makes perfect sense. Keep
> Putin guessing and there is no way that he will risk everything he has
> worked for, his own billions and his oligarchic friends' billions, in
> a war with the one and only superpower.
>
> That's my 2 dollars' worth...

On Wed, 12 May 2021 15:08:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 May 2021 11:51:34 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 May 2021 14:23:11 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 07 May 2021 06:15:52 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 03 May 2021 12:42:04 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 03 May 2021 11:27:31 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 05:18:24 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:07:42 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:39:18 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 01:09:26 +0100, o'Mahoney
>>>>>>>>> <libertidad@south.south.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It occurs to me that Putin has badly misjudged the situation
>>>>>>>>>> overall.
>>>>>>>>>> By withdrawing the Russian troops from the Ukraine border and
>>>>>>>>>> presumably from the Crimea, all he has achieved is to provoke
>>>>>>>>>> Ukraine
>>>>>>>>>> into forming a professional army, which has always been a
>>>>>>>>>> prerequisite
>>>>>>>>>> for entry into NATO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NATO will not take any state which does not have a professional
>>>>>>>>>> army
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> a professional army being an army of volunteers, not an army of
>>>>>>>>>> conscripts. NATO wants soldiers and airmen and sailors who sign
>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> defend their countries voluntarily. Those are the best types of
>>>>>>>>>> soldiers and utterly necessary if NATO wants to remain cohesive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Putin has now accomplished this with Ukraine, basically playing
>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> NATO's hands. It must be an age related thing - Putin is losing
>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>> touch and losing his nerve.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ### - see? it's fun to speculate isn't it hehehe :)))
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what you're perhaps not taking into account though, is that am not
>>>>>>>>> worshiping anybody or anything, that am not on anyone's side, that
>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>> totally objective & detached about all this (and everything else
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> in wallyworld) and as such couldn't give a rats-arse about putin
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> russia
>>>>>>>>> or nato either because they all seem/look completely insane to me
>>>>>>>>> anyway... am merely an 'observer' only!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> otoh, i've been observing wallyworld for nearly 70 years and am
>>>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>>>> with the way things tend to go in crazyville and the kinds of shit
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> typically get up to, so i can pit what i've seen in the past
>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>> current affairs and intelligently speculate about what's maybe
>>>>>>>>> happening...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that i understand humanity quite well because of that and have
>>>>>>>>> seen
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> their crap before a dozen times over...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and yes russia is pulling back and that's a good thing! only am
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> convinced it's over by a long chalk, at least not yet! :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> grandstanding it may in fact have been, although just why +
>>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>> of the blue they should do so to such a degree is another
>>>>>>>>> matter...
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> russia never does anything for nada!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and that accordingly, there's a good reason why this has happened
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> happening!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> e.g., ukraine isn't at all happy about having lost crimea nor
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>> its southern regions occupied in which case they may well be
>>>>>>>>> planning
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> attempt to regain them, that russia wont tolerate ukraine joining
>>>>>>>>> nato
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> obvious reasons, that ukraine wont be welcomed into nato if
>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> kind of conflict going on as per nato's policy...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and russia grandstanding is just part of it...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> am personally not convinced it's all over though just because
>>>>>>>>> russia
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> pulling back from such a massive show of 'force', mainly because
>>>>>>>>> 'ukraine'
>>>>>>>>> isn't done with all this yet!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the best we can hope for is that it all goes back to the stalemate
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> was,
>>>>>>>>> only we also know ukraine isn't at all happy with the situation
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> currently is and may well be planning something!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that nato itself may well be planning something!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> obama's words again ringing in my ears about "it's not a done
>>>>>>>>> deal"
>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>> they annexed crimea leading me to consider just what then they're
>>>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>>>> gonna do about it!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that defeating russia, china & islam is 'still' the west's last
>>>>>>>>> concern/obstacle in the world domination stakes, and as such that
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> never BE over until they've either won the day OR learn to change
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> thinking!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> am personally hopeful for the latter eventully being/becoming the
>>>>>>>>> case,
>>>>>>>>> it's just highly unlikely is all because imho (and observation)
>>>>>>>>> they're
>>>>>>>>> all completely insane anyway! :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> anyway, russia has clearly signaled a willingness to pull back and
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>> the matter, and if ukraine (and the west) does the same then
>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>> fine...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that is until the next time ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Slider you haven't responded to the appropriate threads.
>>>>>>>> Therefore,
>>>>>>>> your response here is not appropriate (ie off topic) to my post.
>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>> should respond to the appropriate topics, that's courtesy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All I posted here, my topic, was the effect of what Putin has
>>>>>>>> played.
>>>>>>>> And my supposition that the outcome was unplanned by Putin and
>>>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>>>> even a spasm or involutary response to the crowding of Russia's
>>>>>>>> borders by Nato and unfriendly former-slave-states like Ukraine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you please respond to the appropriate threads? I don't do this
>>>>>>>> sort of thing and neither should you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ### - wtf are you talking about now??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have responded to this same thread and the points you've raised in
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> while considering everything that's gone before...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i do things the way i like and want, just as do you...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if you can't follow what am saying and/or why am saying it then
>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>> your problem not mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you're just making shit up now to make trouble that doesn't even
>>>>>>> exist??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> just stick to the subject matter ffs!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and stop telling people what to do!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> geez...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'another' conversation done/ruined!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, another prediction of war, doom and gloom by Brian,
>>>>>> done/ruined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just wanted to see you eat crow :)
>>>>>
>>>>> ### - you were just complaining then haha... i mean, am allowed to say
>>>>> anything i want really in any way i want to say it... which, i
>>>>> suggested,
>>>>> was actually more along the lines of 'speculation' rather than
>>>>> assertion
>>>>> (i.e., i wasn't saying it 'would' or 'will' happen for certain, only
>>>>> that
>>>>> it potentially 'risked' such a confrontation)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, as usual, when proven completely wrong (imagine, Putin, fearing
>>>>>> increased sanctions and perhaps the end of Nordstream as well, packs
>>>>>> up and scurries off) - Slider changes the subject, fails to
>>>>>> acknowledge his error, fails to acknowledge his failed worldview, and
>>>>>> doesn't respond to the appropriate post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *That's* what the fuck I'm talking about lol
>>>>>
>>>>> ### - your remarks suggested an 'assertion' on my part which you took
>>>>> exception to, only that's not quite where i was coming from... coz i
>>>>> was
>>>>> only suggesting that it 'could' lead to a confrontation, that it
>>>>> risked
>>>>> that... there IS a difference!
>>>>>
>>>>> and that's not enough for you to start telling me off, which is what
>>>>> *i*
>>>>> then took exception to haha :)))
>>>>>
>>>>> i.e., i was actually only speculating on what 'could' happen, i wasn't
>>>>> saying it 'would' happen for sure... and thus you had no real right to
>>>>> get
>>>>> annoyed and start calling me names haha :)))
>>>>>
>>>>> (basically, you got annoyed at the subject matter per se and jumped
>>>>> down
>>>>> my throat for nada when i was actually only being completely objective
>>>>> about the whole thing)
>>>>>
>>>>> there was no 'proof' either way :)
>>>>
>>>> Pretty civil response there, you've changed your ways somewhat. Good
>>>> to see.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we can have a more focused discussion on the political and
>>>> economic reality of 21st century warfare and the probabilities thereof
>>>> at some point. I'm always willing to concede a point when proven.
>>>> Seems you're coming around to that as well.
>>>
>>> ### - sounds good to moi :)
>>>
>>> so let's see how you/we handle this one then ok?
>>>
>>> i.e., try to keep your own personal biases aside enough to discuss this
>>> completely objectively regardless of the source (have picked this one
>>> because it covers all the salient points & facts from all sides, which
>>> in
>>> this instance i reckon is actually fairly accurate/inclusive...)
>>>
>>>
>>> The end of strategic ambiguity? America has finally stopped pretending
>>> it
>>> would risk war with Russia over supposed ‘ally’ Ukraine
>>>
>>> https://www.rt.com/russia/523253-ukraine-usa-strategic-ambiguity/
>>>
>>> Would the US go to war with Russia over Ukraine? As tensions escalate
>>> between Moscow and Kiev, some have warned that the latter’s ‘alliance’
>>> with Washington could spiral into a conflict between the two main
>>> nuclear
>>> superpowers.
>>>
>>> Except, of course, there is no alliance between the US and Ukraine. This
>>> week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken effectively ended the notion
>>> that Ukraine has Western backers ready to step in at a moment’s notice
>>> if
>>> it finds itself under attack.
>>>
>>> Pressed on whether American forces could be sent into battle against
>>> Russian troops to support Kiev in the event of war in an interview with
>>> MSNBC, he answered only that Washington is committed to “helping Ukraine
>>> defend itself.”
>>>
>>> In other words, no. Indeed, with these words, Blinken backed up
>>> suspicions
>>> in Moscow that Washington stands ready to fight Moscow down to the very
>>> last Ukrainian, but would never risk its own troops.
>>>
>>> It is difficult to overstate the importance of the secretary of state’s
>>> response, which has effectively ended a calculated policy of strategic
>>> ambiguity over Ukraine. For years, the State Department has been
>>> reluctant
>>> to be drawn on just how far it would go for the Eastern European nation,
>>> and whether it would send its own soldiers into battle for its supposed
>>> ally.
>>>
>>> The fact that mask has slipped now fundamentally changes the nature of
>>> the
>>> situation. It comes as the White House has also seemingly pivoted its
>>> foreign policy in the region by revising a section in an official
>>> transcript to play down the prospect of Ukraine joining the NATO
>>> military
>>> bloc. After turning to the West following the 2014 Maidan, Kiev has
>>> played
>>> up its credentials with the EU and US, emphasizing the importance of its
>>> ‘alliances’ and its role as a vanguard against supposed Russian
>>> aggression
>>> towards Central Europe. That argument is now based on less and less
>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> The gamble of strategic ambiguity
>>>
>>> Strategic ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying your red lines and
>>> potential responses, is often an ideal approach when it concerns the
>>> defense of an ally or partner such as Ukraine. Most notably, the US has
>>> applied a similar approach to Taiwan.
>>>
>>> Suggesting that Washington may provide direct support intends to deter
>>> adversarial states like Russia and China, as the added uncertainty about
>>> the US response makes it hard to predict how a situation might escalate.
>>>
>>> Strategic ambiguity is preferable to making firm commitments to defend
>>> its
>>> partners for two main reasons – first, the US would lose its credibility
>>> in the arena of global security if a war broke out and it decided at the
>>> last minute to not live up to its commitments. Second, offering firm
>>> promises of support could encourage states like Ukraine or Taiwan to
>>> pursue bolder and more aggressive strategies.
>>>
>>> (see above link for the full article which is much longer/extensive and
>>> covers all the salient points in depth...)
>>>
>>> (slider thus knocks the ball over the net to thang, underarm-style, in
>>> order to first test thang's backhand return...)
>>>
>>> anyone for tennis? ;)
>>
>> My opinion is that there will be no need for the US to fight Russia
>> should Russia attempt a large scale offensive against the Donbass
>> region and/or a landbridge between the Crimean Peninsula and Ukraine.
>> The Ukrainians are outmatched but will fight Russia with vigour and
>> the entirety of NATO (with the possible exception of the US) will
>> assist.
>>
>> This so called "strategic ambiguity" is a very old concept - keep the
>> enemy guessing, make feints, smoke and fog, do whatever is necessary
>> to keep the enemy off balance and to win! Clausewicz and Sun Tzu, all
>> the others, all state "win by any means, fair or foul" and this so
>> called "strategic ambiguity" is part of that deadly serious game.
>>
>> I can't predict what Putin will do but I do know this - the US
>> military stands alone on the planet as the single most powerful force
>> not only now, but ever in human history. The Russians would be no
>> match for the US and they know it. It's therefore unlikely, as Putin
>> intends to be around for the next 30 years, that he will foment a war
>> or RISK a war with the most powerful military on earth. He's not that
>> stupid.
>>
>> So, in that sense, "strategic ambiguity" makes perfect sense. Keep
>> Putin guessing and there is no way that he will risk everything he has
>> worked for, his own billions and his oligarchic friends' billions, in
>> a war with the one and only superpower.
>>
>> That's my 2 dollars' worth...
>
>### - it's too easy to just blame it all on the russians though no?

(had to trim this to get it past my server's limitation...)

>>> My opinion is that there will be no need for the US to fight Russia
>>> should Russia attempt a large scale offensive against the Donbass
>>> region and/or a landbridge between the Crimean Peninsula and Ukraine.
>>> The Ukrainians are outmatched but will fight Russia with vigour and
>>> the entirety of NATO (with the possible exception of the US) will
>>> assist.
>>>
>>> This so called "strategic ambiguity" is a very old concept - keep the
>>> enemy guessing, make feints, smoke and fog, do whatever is necessary
>>> to keep the enemy off balance and to win! Clausewicz and Sun Tzu, all
>>> the others, all state "win by any means, fair or foul" and this so
>>> called "strategic ambiguity" is part of that deadly serious game.
>>>
>>> I can't predict what Putin will do but I do know this - the US
>>> military stands alone on the planet as the single most powerful force
>>> not only now, but ever in human history. The Russians would be no
>>> match for the US and they know it. It's therefore unlikely, as Putin
>>> intends to be around for the next 30 years, that he will foment a war
>>> or RISK a war with the most powerful military on earth. He's not that
>>> stupid.
>>>
>>> So, in that sense, "strategic ambiguity" makes perfect sense. Keep
>>> Putin guessing and there is no way that he will risk everything he has
>>> worked for, his own billions and his oligarchic friends' billions, in
>>> a war with the one and only superpower.
>>>
>>> That's my 2 dollars' worth...
>>
>> ### - it's too easy to just blame it all on the russians though no?
>
> Well I'm not blaming the Russians in this case. For instance, *half*
> the entire Russian BUDGET comes from energy supplies to Europe. There
> is no way that Putin would risk Nordstream 2, which is almost
> completed anyway, and the pragmatic Biden admin has therefore resisted
> pressure to sanction the oligarch(s) who are funding the construction
> of this massive pipeline. There's simply no need when Putin relies so
> much, and will continue to rely so much, on energy sales to several
> hundre million wealthy Europeans.
>
> There will be no war with Russia and therefore no need to blame
> Russia. The war will be with China.

### - looks like russia's main interest has been to keep ukraine out of
nato for all the obvious reasons...

>> truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west i
>> mean)
>> that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china AND
>> islam!
>
> Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in the
> Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours and
> mine.

### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are capable
of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta hand...
if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we (the
west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep growing
and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via economic
growth...

the future thus looks chinese? ;)

>> and because i don't agree that 'might is right', mainly because that's
>> precisely how ya end up with the 'rule-of-fist' as opposed to the rule
>> of
>> reason!
>
> But might is right has always been the way. Can I refer you to the
> Melian Dialogues? You can read them here - they are simply astounding
> (although Thucydides did not actually witness the negotiations):
>
> Here it is in pdf:
>
> http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Thucydides/Melian%20Dialogues.pdf
>
> Read the logic of the Greeks in full force as a power of war between
> non-equals...

### - might being right only goes so far before it always disappears up
its own dirtbox, it sows the seeds of its own destruction every time...
imho, we either evolve now beyond all that old thinking or we wont get
much farther...

>> no one 'wants' global annihilation! (no one sane does anyway) and yet
>> that's precisely what we increasingly risk at every turn by insisting
>> that
>> 'our' way is better than any other way instead of intelligently taking
>> the
>> best bits from all of them and coming up with something less
>> competitive?
>
> Hitler and Stalin would have detonated nukes all over the place if
> they had gotten to them first. We have saner people in power now,
> even in Russia.

### - 'mutually assured destruction' (the MAD treaty) is the clear
realisation that no one can ever win a nuclear war, the old thinking ends
right there... with ever-dwindling resources we either learn to share or
stagnate...

>> iow: live and LET live, as opposed to: do things OUR way fucker or we'll
>> blast ya off the face of the earth! ;)
>
> I don't agree. Rather, don't try to blast US off the face of the
> earth or we will do the same to YOU.

### - either way it would be collective suicide, so new thinking is
required ;)

On Thu, 20 May 2021 06:51:15 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:

>(had to trim this to get it past my server's limitation...)
>
>
>>>> My opinion is that there will be no need for the US to fight Russia
>>>> should Russia attempt a large scale offensive against the Donbass
>>>> region and/or a landbridge between the Crimean Peninsula and Ukraine.
>>>> The Ukrainians are outmatched but will fight Russia with vigour and
>>>> the entirety of NATO (with the possible exception of the US) will
>>>> assist.
>>>>
>>>> This so called "strategic ambiguity" is a very old concept - keep the
>>>> enemy guessing, make feints, smoke and fog, do whatever is necessary
>>>> to keep the enemy off balance and to win! Clausewicz and Sun Tzu, all
>>>> the others, all state "win by any means, fair or foul" and this so
>>>> called "strategic ambiguity" is part of that deadly serious game.
>>>>
>>>> I can't predict what Putin will do but I do know this - the US
>>>> military stands alone on the planet as the single most powerful force
>>>> not only now, but ever in human history. The Russians would be no
>>>> match for the US and they know it. It's therefore unlikely, as Putin
>>>> intends to be around for the next 30 years, that he will foment a war
>>>> or RISK a war with the most powerful military on earth. He's not that
>>>> stupid.
>>>>
>>>> So, in that sense, "strategic ambiguity" makes perfect sense. Keep
>>>> Putin guessing and there is no way that he will risk everything he has
>>>> worked for, his own billions and his oligarchic friends' billions, in
>>>> a war with the one and only superpower.
>>>>
>>>> That's my 2 dollars' worth...
>>>
>>> ### - it's too easy to just blame it all on the russians though no?
>>
>> Well I'm not blaming the Russians in this case. For instance, *half*
>> the entire Russian BUDGET comes from energy supplies to Europe. There
>> is no way that Putin would risk Nordstream 2, which is almost
>> completed anyway, and the pragmatic Biden admin has therefore resisted
>> pressure to sanction the oligarch(s) who are funding the construction
>> of this massive pipeline. There's simply no need when Putin relies so
>> much, and will continue to rely so much, on energy sales to several
>> hundre million wealthy Europeans.
>>
>> There will be no war with Russia and therefore no need to blame
>> Russia. The war will be with China.
>
>### - looks like russia's main interest has been to keep ukraine out of
>nato for all the obvious reasons...

No Russia's main interest is to correlate absolutely with the will and
desires of the dictator, Putin. That may change as poverty and
jealousy of the west infiltrates the hardy people of that land.
>
>
>
>
>>> truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west i
>>> mean)
>>> that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china AND
>>> islam!
>>
>> Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in the
>> Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours and
>> mine.
>
>### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are capable
>of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta hand...
>if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we (the
>west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep growing
>and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via economic
>growth...
>
>the future thus looks chinese? ;)

No because Xi wants it all and he wants it now. Can you even imagine
how many literal corpses this cunt has clambered over to get to the
top of the CCP?

In 100 years as you say, he will be dead and that is of no use to him
at all. He is atheist so no afterlife for him. He wants it now and
that mean, war. And he knows it.

So does Biden and even Trump knew that. Even the American Johnson,
who by the way is part Jew and therefore has an allegiance with the
Zionists, is sending warships to the Pacific pending what he knows
will happen.

>
>
>
>
>
>>> and because i don't agree that 'might is right', mainly because that's
>>> precisely how ya end up with the 'rule-of-fist' as opposed to the rule
>>> of
>>> reason!
>>
>> But might is right has always been the way. Can I refer you to the
>> Melian Dialogues? You can read them here - they are simply astounding
>> (although Thucydides did not actually witness the negotiations):
>>
>> Here it is in pdf:
>>
>> http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Thucydides/Melian%20Dialogues.pdf
>>
>> Read the logic of the Greeks in full force as a power of war between
>> non-equals...
>
>### - might being right only goes so far before it always disappears up
>its own dirtbox, it sows the seeds of its own destruction every time...
>imho, we either evolve now beyond all that old thinking or we wont get
>much farther...

You didn't read the Dialogues, did you? It won't take long. Just
focus for a little while and you will definitely be rewarded by how
callous the cruel equations of dominance and aggression can be.

>
>
>
>
>>> no one 'wants' global annihilation! (no one sane does anyway) and yet
>>> that's precisely what we increasingly risk at every turn by insisting
>>> that
>>> 'our' way is better than any other way instead of intelligently taking
>>> the
>>> best bits from all of them and coming up with something less
>>> competitive?
>>
>> Hitler and Stalin would have detonated nukes all over the place if
>> they had gotten to them first. We have saner people in power now,
>> even in Russia.
>
>### - 'mutually assured destruction' (the MAD treaty) is the clear
>realisation that no one can ever win a nuclear war, the old thinking ends
>right there... with ever-dwindling resources we either learn to share or
>stagnate...

MAD is no longer in vogue nor has been for quite a while. Now it is
thinkable. Some nations reserve the right to strike first, like
Russia.

>
>
>
>>> iow: live and LET live, as opposed to: do things OUR way fucker or we'll
>>> blast ya off the face of the earth! ;)
>>
>> I don't agree. Rather, don't try to blast US off the face of the
>> earth or we will do the same to YOU.
>
>### - either way it would be collective suicide, so new thinking is
>required ;)

Well we don't know if destruction of cities etc will kill everyone.
That in fact is doubtful. It would be a very big setback but I think
we will adapt. It's hardly likely that nukes will be wasted on Tierra
del Fuego, Hobart or Wellington, for instance.

But big cities like London and NY and St Petersburg will be toast.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Tue, 25 May 2021 11:30:58 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 20 May 2021 06:51:15 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
> wrote:
>
>> (had to trim this to get it past my server's limitation...)
>>
>>
>>>>> My opinion is that there will be no need for the US to fight Russia
>>>>> should Russia attempt a large scale offensive against the Donbass
>>>>> region and/or a landbridge between the Crimean Peninsula and Ukraine.
>>>>> The Ukrainians are outmatched but will fight Russia with vigour and
>>>>> the entirety of NATO (with the possible exception of the US) will
>>>>> assist.
>>>>>
>>>>> This so called "strategic ambiguity" is a very old concept - keep the
>>>>> enemy guessing, make feints, smoke and fog, do whatever is necessary
>>>>> to keep the enemy off balance and to win! Clausewicz and Sun Tzu,
>>>>> all
>>>>> the others, all state "win by any means, fair or foul" and this so
>>>>> called "strategic ambiguity" is part of that deadly serious game.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't predict what Putin will do but I do know this - the US
>>>>> military stands alone on the planet as the single most powerful force
>>>>> not only now, but ever in human history. The Russians would be no
>>>>> match for the US and they know it. It's therefore unlikely, as Putin
>>>>> intends to be around for the next 30 years, that he will foment a war
>>>>> or RISK a war with the most powerful military on earth. He's not
>>>>> that
>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in that sense, "strategic ambiguity" makes perfect sense. Keep
>>>>> Putin guessing and there is no way that he will risk everything he
>>>>> has
>>>>> worked for, his own billions and his oligarchic friends' billions, in
>>>>> a war with the one and only superpower.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's my 2 dollars' worth...
>>>>
>>>> ### - it's too easy to just blame it all on the russians though no?
>>>
>>> Well I'm not blaming the Russians in this case. For instance, *half*
>>> the entire Russian BUDGET comes from energy supplies to Europe. There
>>> is no way that Putin would risk Nordstream 2, which is almost
>>> completed anyway, and the pragmatic Biden admin has therefore resisted
>>> pressure to sanction the oligarch(s) who are funding the construction
>>> of this massive pipeline. There's simply no need when Putin relies so
>>> much, and will continue to rely so much, on energy sales to several
>>> hundre million wealthy Europeans.
>>>
>>> There will be no war with Russia and therefore no need to blame
>>> Russia. The war will be with China.
>>
>> ### - looks like russia's main interest has been to keep ukraine out of
>> nato for all the obvious reasons...
>
> No Russia's main interest is to correlate absolutely with the will and
> desires of the dictator, Putin. That may change as poverty and
> jealousy of the west infiltrates the hardy people of that land.

### - that too haha... but i was really talking about russia's position on
the chessboard in terms of balancing (and having to continually
re-balance) itself against the pressing forces & pressure of nato being
right on its doorstep?

>>>> truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west i
>>>> mean)
>>>> that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china AND
>>>> islam!
>>>
>>> Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in the
>>> Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours and
>>> mine.
>>
>> ### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are
>> capable
>> of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta
>> hand...
>> if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we (the
>> west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep
>> growing
>> and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via economic
>> growth...
>>
>> the future thus looks chinese? ;)
>
> No because Xi wants it all and he wants it now. Can you even imagine
> how many literal corpses this cunt has clambered over to get to the
> top of the CCP?

### - i certainly can lol :))) ya don't get that 'big' without clambering
over a few bodies and robbing everyone blind in the process haha - he's
the big boss! plus where's bruce lee when ya needs him to come and kick
his feckin' arse outta that big tower and down the stairs?? ;)

> In 100 years as you say, he will be dead and that is of no use to him
> at all. He is atheist so no afterlife for him. He wants it now and
> that mean, war. And he knows it.

### - don't get that feeling from him m'self... he's a modern (almost
western thinking) man?

thus imho, he'd prolly be only too open to doing a deal with the west,
only the west don't want no stinkin' deals coz they'd only lose-out in the
end when china economically out-grows them...

china wont thus 'start' any war... it's us (the west) who'll start it,
knowing that we don't really have any other option than ending up as
china's bitch otherwise...

nope, IF there's a war with china (and i sincerely hope there isn't coz
that would be not only dumb but disastrous) then we're the ones limbering
up to starting it, and thus publicly we're already branding them and
calling them names + throwing horrible accusations at them while also
having a trade-war with them...

this is how it usually starts anyway... that, or a: 'look what they've
done!' type-scenario that instantly inflames all the trump-type supporters
to instantly start chanting: down with the enemy! down with the enemy!
(they don't give a damn whom that 'enemy is haha, just so long as there is
one lol, something they can finally relate to haha :))))

> So does Biden and even Trump knew that. Even the American Johnson,
> who by the way is part Jew and therefore has an allegiance with the
> Zionists, is sending warships to the Pacific pending what he knows
> will happen.

### - this 'sabre-rattling' has been going on since obama left office, him
saying that the south china seas is to be the next big area of interest
for western forces and ships, that we're all going 'over-there' now...

>>>> and because i don't agree that 'might is right', mainly because that's
>>>> precisely how ya end up with the 'rule-of-fist' as opposed to the rule
>>>> of
>>>> reason!
>>>
>>> But might is right has always been the way. Can I refer you to the
>>> Melian Dialogues? You can read them here - they are simply astounding
>>> (although Thucydides did not actually witness the negotiations):
>>>
>>> Here it is in pdf:
>>>
>>> http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Thucydides/Melian%20Dialogues.pdf
>>>
>>> Read the logic of the Greeks in full force as a power of war between
>>> non-equals...
>>
>> ### - might being right only goes so far before it always disappears up
>> its own dirtbox, it sows the seeds of its own destruction every time...
>> imho, we either evolve now beyond all that old thinking or we wont get
>> much farther...
>
> You didn't read the Dialogues, did you? It won't take long. Just
> focus for a little while and you will definitely be rewarded by how
> callous the cruel equations of dominance and aggression can be.

### - didn't feel the need to read it as am fairly familiar with the
going-arguments for the rule of fist etc, i mean, all ya have to do is
look at modern hitler for a near perfect example of what 'that' shit is
really all about no? he even explains it quite well, not only though his
words but also his actions... and ya don't really get much more of a
'creep' than that?? (creep, in the sense that he was all-too-willing to go
put such a horrible barbarous plan into action and screw the consequences!
- yeah, a few millions will necessarily have to die, he grinned, but we'll
all be better off in the end??? yeah well he can fuck off with that!? lol)

On Wed, 26 May 2021 09:02:46 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 25 May 2021 11:30:58 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 May 2021 06:51:15 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (had to trim this to get it past my server's limitation...)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> My opinion is that there will be no need for the US to fight Russia
>>>>>> should Russia attempt a large scale offensive against the Donbass
>>>>>> region and/or a landbridge between the Crimean Peninsula and Ukraine.
>>>>>> The Ukrainians are outmatched but will fight Russia with vigour and
>>>>>> the entirety of NATO (with the possible exception of the US) will
>>>>>> assist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This so called "strategic ambiguity" is a very old concept - keep the
>>>>>> enemy guessing, make feints, smoke and fog, do whatever is necessary
>>>>>> to keep the enemy off balance and to win! Clausewicz and Sun Tzu,
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> the others, all state "win by any means, fair or foul" and this so
>>>>>> called "strategic ambiguity" is part of that deadly serious game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't predict what Putin will do but I do know this - the US
>>>>>> military stands alone on the planet as the single most powerful force
>>>>>> not only now, but ever in human history. The Russians would be no
>>>>>> match for the US and they know it. It's therefore unlikely, as Putin
>>>>>> intends to be around for the next 30 years, that he will foment a war
>>>>>> or RISK a war with the most powerful military on earth. He's not
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, in that sense, "strategic ambiguity" makes perfect sense. Keep
>>>>>> Putin guessing and there is no way that he will risk everything he
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> worked for, his own billions and his oligarchic friends' billions, in
>>>>>> a war with the one and only superpower.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's my 2 dollars' worth...
>>>>>
>>>>> ### - it's too easy to just blame it all on the russians though no?
>>>>
>>>> Well I'm not blaming the Russians in this case. For instance, *half*
>>>> the entire Russian BUDGET comes from energy supplies to Europe. There
>>>> is no way that Putin would risk Nordstream 2, which is almost
>>>> completed anyway, and the pragmatic Biden admin has therefore resisted
>>>> pressure to sanction the oligarch(s) who are funding the construction
>>>> of this massive pipeline. There's simply no need when Putin relies so
>>>> much, and will continue to rely so much, on energy sales to several
>>>> hundre million wealthy Europeans.
>>>>
>>>> There will be no war with Russia and therefore no need to blame
>>>> Russia. The war will be with China.
>>>
>>> ### - looks like russia's main interest has been to keep ukraine out of
>>> nato for all the obvious reasons...
>>
>> No Russia's main interest is to correlate absolutely with the will and
>> desires of the dictator, Putin. That may change as poverty and
>> jealousy of the west infiltrates the hardy people of that land.
>
>### - that too haha... but i was really talking about russia's position on
>the chessboard in terms of balancing (and having to continually
>re-balance) itself against the pressing forces & pressure of nato being
>right on its doorstep?

So, you agree with me. That's a good start :)

>
>
>
>
>>>>> truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west i
>>>>> mean)
>>>>> that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china AND
>>>>> islam!
>>>>
>>>> Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in the
>>>> Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours and
>>>> mine.
>>>
>>> ### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are
>>> capable
>>> of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta
>>> hand...
>>> if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we (the
>>> west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep
>>> growing
>>> and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via economic
>>> growth...
>>>
>>> the future thus looks chinese? ;)
>>
>> No because Xi wants it all and he wants it now. Can you even imagine
>> how many literal corpses this cunt has clambered over to get to the
>> top of the CCP?
>
>### - i certainly can lol :))) ya don't get that 'big' without clambering
>over a few bodies and robbing everyone blind in the process haha - he's
>the big boss! plus where's bruce lee when ya needs him to come and kick
>his feckin' arse outta that big tower and down the stairs?? ;)

I don't think money is a big issue with this guy, nor was it with most
dictators - the sheer lust for absolute power over their fellow man
was practically all there was (and is) to it.

Life and death, the power thereof. It's a heady brew for some.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> In 100 years as you say, he will be dead and that is of no use to him
>> at all. He is atheist so no afterlife for him. He wants it now and
>> that mean, war. And he knows it.
>
>### - don't get that feeling from him m'self... he's a modern (almost
>western thinking) man?

When have you stood next to him - in order to get your "feeling". You
can do better than that Slider.

Nyet. He is ex-KGB of the Soviet era, and imbued with atheism and low
value views of his somewhat disposable compatriots. Putin is a very
evil person, if you haven't noticed. Old style evil, the type of evil
which would feed you alive and feet first into the ovens which
probably still line the basements of the Lubianka.

His idol is Joe Steel and don't forget, Joe Steel is the man who
publicly stated that Beria was his "own little Himmler". That is the
man and ideal who Putin still worships.

>
>thus imho, he'd prolly be only too open to doing a deal with the west,
>only the west don't want no stinkin' deals coz they'd only lose-out in the
>end when china economically out-grows them...

Fuck off. He is the enemy of the west and vice versa. And how does
China suddenly feed into your diatribe when we were talking about
Putin?

Have you been drinking?

>
>china wont thus 'start' any war... it's us (the west) who'll start it,
>knowing that we don't really have any other option than ending up as
>china's bitch otherwise...

I think the west (US) regrets not letting McArthur have his way and
having kept on going after knocking off the North Koreans. China had
no nuclear weapons then, the US could have (should have) dropped a few
and kept the fuckers close to the stone age. We would all be safer.

Don't forget, your lovely big aircraft carrier is on the way to the
Pacific to shore the US up there. Expect many, many casualties if the
war gets HOT.

>
>nope, IF there's a war with china (and i sincerely hope there isn't coz
>that would be not only dumb but disastrous) then we're the ones limbering
>up to starting it, and thus publicly we're already branding them and
>calling them names + throwing horrible accusations at them while also
>having a trade-war with them...

I reckon, great, bring it on. Fucking China will have thousands of
nukes if we let them keep on going the way they are and only ONE CUNT
AT THE TOP to start a conflagration.

Hit em now, and HARD. Take out a few large cities, use neutron bombs
to depopulate large industrial areas and yes, DO A DEAL with Russia in
which Russia can have some sort of strong economic and political
elationship with Mongolia, which has always longed for strong Russian
relations and detested the people it once defeated under the Khans,
the Chinese.

>
>this is how it usually starts anyway... that, or a: 'look what they've
>done!' type-scenario that instantly inflames all the trump-type supporters
>to instantly start chanting: down with the enemy! down with the enemy!
>(they don't give a damn whom that 'enemy is haha, just so long as there is
>one lol, something they can finally relate to haha :))))

On Fri, 28 May 2021 05:44:35 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:

>>>> ### - looks like russia's main interest has been to keep ukraine out
>>>> of
>>>> nato for all the obvious reasons...
>>>
>>> No Russia's main interest is to correlate absolutely with the will and
>>> desires of the dictator, Putin. That may change as poverty and
>>> jealousy of the west infiltrates the hardy people of that land.
>>
>> ### - that too haha... but i was really talking about russia's position
>> on
>> the chessboard in terms of balancing (and having to continually
>> re-balance) itself against the pressing forces & pressure of nato being
>> right on its doorstep?
>
> So, you agree with me. That's a good start :)

###- i agree with many things you say but not always in the way you
say/spin them ;)

>>>>>> truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west i
>>>>>> mean)
>>>>>> that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china AND
>>>>>> islam!
>>>>>
>>>>> Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in the
>>>>> Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours and
>>>>> mine.
>>>>
>>>> ### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are
>>>> capable
>>>> of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta
>>>> hand...
>>>> if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we
>>>> (the
>>>> west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep
>>>> growing
>>>> and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via economic
>>>> growth...
>>>>
>>>> the future thus looks chinese? ;)
>>>
>>> No because Xi wants it all and he wants it now. Can you even imagine
>>> how many literal corpses this cunt has clambered over to get to the
>>> top of the CCP?
>>
>> ### - i certainly can lol :))) ya don't get that 'big' without
>> clambering
>> over a few bodies and robbing everyone blind in the process haha - he's
>> the big boss! plus where's bruce lee when ya needs him to come and kick
>> his feckin' arse outta that big tower and down the stairs?? ;)
>
> I don't think money is a big issue with this guy, nor was it with most
> dictators - the sheer lust for absolute power over their fellow man
> was practically all there was (and is) to it.
>
> Life and death, the power thereof. It's a heady brew for some.

### - we're talking about xi and china here aren't we?? so i dunno why you
switch to putin in the next line and then accuse me of changing the
subject haha ;)))

>>> In 100 years as you say, he will be dead and that is of no use to him
>>> at all. He is atheist so no afterlife for him. He wants it now and
>>> that mean, war. And he knows it.
>>
>> ### - don't get that feeling from him m'self... he's a modern (almost
>> western thinking) man?
>
> When have you stood next to him - in order to get your "feeling". You
> can do better than that Slider.
>
> Nyet. He is ex-KGB of the Soviet era, and imbued with atheism and low
> value views of his somewhat disposable compatriots. Putin is a very
> evil person, if you haven't noticed. Old style evil, the type of evil
> which would feed you alive and feet first into the ovens which
> probably still line the basements of the Lubianka.
>
> His idol is Joe Steel and don't forget, Joe Steel is the man who
> publicly stated that Beria was his "own little Himmler". That is the
> man and ideal who Putin still worships.
>
>
>>
>> thus imho, he'd prolly be only too open to doing a deal with the west,
>> only the west don't want no stinkin' deals coz they'd only lose-out in
>> the
>> end when china economically out-grows them...
>
> Fuck off. He is the enemy of the west and vice versa. And how does
> China suddenly feed into your diatribe when we were talking about
> Putin?
>
> Have you been drinking?

### - nope, but apparently you have haha :)

i.e., we were discussing Xi and you've suddenly switched to putin, so none
of my remarks apply...

read the above again in terms of Xi and it'll make more sense, putin's a
different kettle of fish altogether...

>> china wont thus 'start' any war... it's us (the west) who'll start it,
>> knowing that we don't really have any other option than ending up as
>> china's bitch otherwise...
>
> I think the west (US) regrets not letting McArthur have his way and
> having kept on going after knocking off the North Koreans. China had
> no nuclear weapons then, the US could have (should have) dropped a few
> and kept the fuckers close to the stone age. We would all be safer.
>
> Don't forget, your lovely big aircraft carrier is on the way to the
> Pacific to shore the US up there. Expect many, many casualties if the
> war gets HOT.

### - it's too late for all that wishful thinking... things 'are' the way
they currently are no?

and the way things 'are' is that we either come to some intelligent
'arrangement' with china, or go to war with them and THAT would be
disastrous for all concerned!

and yet, i fear, they (the west) will probably DO exactly that in the vain
glorious hope that their/our western ideology will come out the overall
winner, duh!

and when, in truth, all they'll actually succeed in doing that way is
smashing everything up and sending us all back to the middle ages whereby
it'll ALL just start over again (coz china will have their survivors too)
and nada will have changed!

>> nope, IF there's a war with china (and i sincerely hope there isn't coz
>> that would be not only dumb but disastrous) then we're the ones
>> limbering
>> up to starting it, and thus publicly we're already branding them and
>> calling them names + throwing horrible accusations at them while also
>> having a trade-war with them...
>
> I reckon, great, bring it on. Fucking China will have thousands of
> nukes if we let them keep on going the way they are and only ONE CUNT
> AT THE TOP to start a conflagration.
>
> Hit em now, and HARD. Take out a few large cities, use neutron bombs
> to depopulate large industrial areas and yes, DO A DEAL with Russia in
> which Russia can have some sort of strong economic and political
> elationship with Mongolia, which has always longed for strong Russian
> relations and detested the people it once defeated under the Khans,
> the Chinese.

### - they've already got 1000's just like every other fucker has haha...

some of them so BIG it would only take one of them to take out the whole
of the uk!

50 megaton yields being nothing these days?

and please don't say/suggest that they don't have the delivery systems;
they've just landed probes on both the moon AND mars recently - believe me
they've got the systems!

for some reason though you seem to like to indulge in such reckless
thoughts? either you're just trolling or are actually being quite naive?

basically because what you're suggesting is... unthinkable!?

that you really must step just a little bit farther back and so
see/take-in the bigger picture here?

millions! possibly even billions! would die virtually overnight!

is that what you really... want?

poor old planet wallyworld doesn't need THAT on top of everything ELSE
it's struggling with currently!

i.e., it's like anarchy... looks good on paper, but never works out to
being more than just more people suffering than would ordinarily be the
case if they hadn't bothered...

ditto revolution! one bunch of 'pigs' is replaced by another bunch of
people who soon turn INTO pigs!

and then we're all right back to where we started minus, of course, the
few millions that got mangled in the process??

ditto then too a war with china! it's, it's... ridiculous! lol

sheer insanity being the only possible reason we'd ever go there! (the
proof of insanity thereof!)

>> this is how it usually starts anyway... that, or a: 'look what they've
>> done!' type-scenario that instantly inflames all the trump-type
>> supporters
>> to instantly start chanting: down with the enemy! down with the enemy!
>> (they don't give a damn whom that 'enemy is haha, just so long as there
>> is
>> one lol, something they can finally relate to haha :))))
>
> In this case, China needs to go and quick, fucking pronto. It's now
> mainstream knowledge that China was not only the vector for the plague
> which has killed probably close to 10 million now but also the origin
> of an engineered disease. Strange these cunts have evaded the worst
> economic effects of the plague they started...

On Fri, 28 May 2021 14:29:07 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2021 05:44:35 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>> ### - looks like russia's main interest has been to keep ukraine out
>>>>> of
>>>>> nato for all the obvious reasons...
>>>>
>>>> No Russia's main interest is to correlate absolutely with the will and
>>>> desires of the dictator, Putin. That may change as poverty and
>>>> jealousy of the west infiltrates the hardy people of that land.
>>>
>>> ### - that too haha... but i was really talking about russia's position
>>> on
>>> the chessboard in terms of balancing (and having to continually
>>> re-balance) itself against the pressing forces & pressure of nato being
>>> right on its doorstep?
>>
>> So, you agree with me. That's a good start :)
>
>###- i agree with many things you say but not always in the way you
>say/spin them ;)

I try to avoid spin having used what the inventor Herr Goebbels
inflicted on Germany almost a century ago liberally in several of my
past careers (eg "always be selling" and such nonsense which
admittedly made me nice $$$ but required a certain amorality).

Please advise which of my future posts contain spin and if you have
evidence, I'll curtail and condition immediately. Spin is bullshit
and I have no futher use for it.

>
>
>
>>>>>>> truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west i
>>>>>>> mean)
>>>>>>> that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china AND
>>>>>>> islam!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in the
>>>>>> Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours and
>>>>>> mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> ### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are
>>>>> capable
>>>>> of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta
>>>>> hand...
>>>>> if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we
>>>>> (the
>>>>> west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep
>>>>> growing
>>>>> and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via economic
>>>>> growth...
>>>>>
>>>>> the future thus looks chinese? ;)
>>>>
>>>> No because Xi wants it all and he wants it now. Can you even imagine
>>>> how many literal corpses this cunt has clambered over to get to the
>>>> top of the CCP?
>>>
>>> ### - i certainly can lol :))) ya don't get that 'big' without
>>> clambering
>>> over a few bodies and robbing everyone blind in the process haha - he's
>>> the big boss! plus where's bruce lee when ya needs him to come and kick
>>> his feckin' arse outta that big tower and down the stairs?? ;)
>>
>> I don't think money is a big issue with this guy, nor was it with most
>> dictators - the sheer lust for absolute power over their fellow man
>> was practically all there was (and is) to it.
>>
>> Life and death, the power thereof. It's a heady brew for some.
>
>### - we're talking about xi and china here aren't we?? so i dunno why you
>switch to putin in the next line and then accuse me of changing the
>subject haha ;)))

Nice try but no ceegar :)

Have a look at the original post - I should know, I'm the OP. It was
titled "Putin losing it". **That's** why we're talking about Putin
and why your changing of the topic to Xi veered off course, not me.

>
>
>
>>>> In 100 years as you say, he will be dead and that is of no use to him
>>>> at all. He is atheist so no afterlife for him. He wants it now and
>>>> that mean, war. And he knows it.
>>>
>>> ### - don't get that feeling from him m'self... he's a modern (almost
>>> western thinking) man?
>>
>> When have you stood next to him - in order to get your "feeling". You
>> can do better than that Slider.
>>
>> Nyet. He is ex-KGB of the Soviet era, and imbued with atheism and low
>> value views of his somewhat disposable compatriots. Putin is a very
>> evil person, if you haven't noticed. Old style evil, the type of evil
>> which would feed you alive and feet first into the ovens which
>> probably still line the basements of the Lubianka.
>>
>> His idol is Joe Steel and don't forget, Joe Steel is the man who
>> publicly stated that Beria was his "own little Himmler". That is the
>> man and ideal who Putin still worships.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> thus imho, he'd prolly be only too open to doing a deal with the west,
>>> only the west don't want no stinkin' deals coz they'd only lose-out in
>>> the
>>> end when china economically out-grows them...
>>
>> Fuck off. He is the enemy of the west and vice versa. And how does
>> China suddenly feed into your diatribe when we were talking about
>> Putin?
>>
>> Have you been drinking?
>
>### - nope, but apparently you have haha :)

I drink on three nights of the week and totally abstain from Monday
through to Thursday. Just 'cos I can. Willpower has brought me
everything I wanted in life except for genetics and bad luck.

I won't ask you about your drug imbibation and habitualities. All I
need to know is mine. I do smoke most nights though, it has a calming
effect on me - pot, that is, not tobacco. I don't smoke tobacco.

>
>i.e., we were discussing Xi and you've suddenly switched to putin, so none
>of my remarks apply...
>
>read the above again in terms of Xi and it'll make more sense, putin's a
>different kettle of fish altogether...

Read the original post heading. It was (and still is) about Putin
losing control.

>
>
>
>
>>> china wont thus 'start' any war... it's us (the west) who'll start it,
>>> knowing that we don't really have any other option than ending up as
>>> china's bitch otherwise...
>>
>> I think the west (US) regrets not letting McArthur have his way and
>> having kept on going after knocking off the North Koreans. China had
>> no nuclear weapons then, the US could have (should have) dropped a few
>> and kept the fuckers close to the stone age. We would all be safer.
>>
>> Don't forget, your lovely big aircraft carrier is on the way to the
>> Pacific to shore the US up there. Expect many, many casualties if the
>> war gets HOT.
>
>### - it's too late for all that wishful thinking... things 'are' the way
>they currently are no?
>
>and the way things 'are' is that we either come to some intelligent
>'arrangement' with china, or go to war with them and THAT would be
>disastrous for all concerned!

No. They stand for dictatorship, curtailment of freedom, communism
and world empire.

https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/index.htm

Best to die on your feet than serve on your knees. Fuck the ChiCom
choag cunts. I would rather be dead than make your sucking, cowardly
"intelligent arrangement with china".

Where's your spine, Brian?

>
>and yet, i fear, they (the west) will probably DO exactly that in the vain
>glorious hope that their/our western ideology will come out the overall
>winner, duh!

America - 2000 advanced nuclear warheads and gravity bombs

China = <300 untested, primitive " " " "

Elementary, my dear Watson :)

>
>and when, in truth, all they'll actually succeed in doing that way is
>smashing everything up and sending us all back to the middle ages whereby
>it'll ALL just start over again (coz china will have their survivors too)
>and nada will have changed!

Hell we'll be fine down here in Oz and NZ. Don't know about Europe
though. I think the US can lose a few cities and be quite ok though,
the US is capable of marvellous feats when they are riled up.

>
>
>
>
>>> nope, IF there's a war with china (and i sincerely hope there isn't coz
>>> that would be not only dumb but disastrous) then we're the ones
>>> limbering
>>> up to starting it, and thus publicly we're already branding them and
>>> calling them names + throwing horrible accusations at them while also
>>> having a trade-war with them...
>>
>> I reckon, great, bring it on. Fucking China will have thousands of
>> nukes if we let them keep on going the way they are and only ONE CUNT
>> AT THE TOP to start a conflagration.
>>
>> Hit em now, and HARD. Take out a few large cities, use neutron bombs
>> to depopulate large industrial areas and yes, DO A DEAL with Russia in
>> which Russia can have some sort of strong economic and political
>> elationship with Mongolia, which has always longed for strong Russian
>> relations and detested the people it once defeated under the Khans,
>> the Chinese.
>
>### - they've already got 1000's just like every other fucker has haha...

On Mon, 31 May 2021 06:17:59 +0100, o'Mahoney <libertidad@south.south.com>
wrote:

>>>>>>>> truth is, they're just a competing ideology and it's us (the west
>>>>>>>> i
>>>>>>>> mean)
>>>>>>>> that's actually waging an ideological war upon THEM! ditto china
>>>>>>>> AND
>>>>>>>> islam!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Forget Russia and Islam. Peanuts. The real conflict will be in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Pacific with China and a heap of other countries, including yours
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ### - wouldn't call russian and islam peanuts exactly, as both are
>>>>>> capable
>>>>>> of delivering us all into a ww3 situation if things ever got outta
>>>>>> hand...
>>>>>> if there's war with china (which i doubt) it'll only be because we
>>>>>> (the
>>>>>> west) starts it, coz all china has to do is to sit tight and keep
>>>>>> growing
>>>>>> and wait until they literally own everything in 100 years via
>>>>>> economic
>>>>>> growth...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the future thus looks chinese? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> No because Xi wants it all and he wants it now. Can you even imagine
>>>>> how many literal corpses this cunt has clambered over to get to the
>>>>> top of the CCP?
>>>>
>>>> ### - i certainly can lol :))) ya don't get that 'big' without
>>>> clambering
>>>> over a few bodies and robbing everyone blind in the process haha -
>>>> he's
>>>> the big boss! plus where's bruce lee when ya needs him to come and
>>>> kick
>>>> his feckin' arse outta that big tower and down the stairs?? ;)
>>>
>>> I don't think money is a big issue with this guy, nor was it with most
>>> dictators - the sheer lust for absolute power over their fellow man
>>> was practically all there was (and is) to it.
>>>
>>> Life and death, the power thereof. It's a heady brew for some.
>>
>> ### - we're talking about xi and china here aren't we?? so i dunno why
>> you
>> switch to putin in the next line and then accuse me of changing the
>> subject haha ;)))
>
> Nice try but no ceegar :)
>
> Have a look at the original post - I should know, I'm the OP. It was
> titled "Putin losing it". **That's** why we're talking about Putin
> and why your changing of the topic to Xi veered off course, not me.

### - all i know is that i made those comments directly related to xi not
putin.

>>>>> In 100 years as you say, he will be dead and that is of no use to him
>>>>> at all. He is atheist so no afterlife for him. He wants it now and
>>>>> that mean, war. And he knows it.
>>>>
>>>> ### - don't get that feeling from him m'self... he's a modern (almost
>>>> western thinking) man?
>>>
>>> When have you stood next to him - in order to get your "feeling". You
>>> can do better than that Slider.
>>>
>>> Nyet. He is ex-KGB of the Soviet era, and imbued with atheism and low
>>> value views of his somewhat disposable compatriots. Putin is a very
>>> evil person, if you haven't noticed. Old style evil, the type of evil
>>> which would feed you alive and feet first into the ovens which
>>> probably still line the basements of the Lubianka.
>>>
>>> His idol is Joe Steel and don't forget, Joe Steel is the man who
>>> publicly stated that Beria was his "own little Himmler". That is the
>>> man and ideal who Putin still worships.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> thus imho, he'd prolly be only too open to doing a deal with the west,
>>>> only the west don't want no stinkin' deals coz they'd only lose-out in
>>>> the
>>>> end when china economically out-grows them...
>>>
>>> Fuck off. He is the enemy of the west and vice versa. And how does
>>> China suddenly feed into your diatribe when we were talking about
>>> Putin?
>>>
>>> Have you been drinking?
>>
>> ### - nope, but apparently you have haha :)
>
> I drink on three nights of the week and totally abstain from Monday
> through to Thursday. Just 'cos I can. Willpower has brought me
> everything I wanted in life except for genetics and bad luck.
>
> I won't ask you about your drug imbibation and habitualities. All I
> need to know is mine. I do smoke most nights though, it has a calming
> effect on me - pot, that is, not tobacco. I don't smoke tobacco.

### - i don't drink at all + smoke all the time since age 17 haha, a weed
& tobacco mix works fine for moi, the tobacco acting as a useful brake ;)

>> i.e., we were discussing Xi and you've suddenly switched to putin, so
>> none
>> of my remarks apply...
>>
>> read the above again in terms of Xi and it'll make more sense, putin's a
>> different kettle of fish altogether...
>
> Read the original post heading. It was (and still is) about Putin
> losing control.

### - let's not get lost on this, my comments re him being a mostly
western man etc in his thinking were directed to xi...

>>>> china wont thus 'start' any war... it's us (the west) who'll start it,
>>>> knowing that we don't really have any other option than ending up as
>>>> china's bitch otherwise...
>>>
>>> I think the west (US) regrets not letting McArthur have his way and
>>> having kept on going after knocking off the North Koreans. China had
>>> no nuclear weapons then, the US could have (should have) dropped a few
>>> and kept the fuckers close to the stone age. We would all be safer.
>>>
>>> Don't forget, your lovely big aircraft carrier is on the way to the
>>> Pacific to shore the US up there. Expect many, many casualties if the
>>> war gets HOT.
>>
>> ### - it's too late for all that wishful thinking... things 'are' the
>> way
>> they currently are no?
>>
>> and the way things 'are' is that we either come to some intelligent
>> 'arrangement' with china, or go to war with them and THAT would be
>> disastrous for all concerned!
>
> No. They stand for dictatorship, curtailment of freedom, communism
> and world empire.
>
> https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/index.htm
>
> Best to die on your feet than serve on your knees. Fuck the ChiCom
> choag cunts. I would rather be dead than make your sucking, cowardly
> "intelligent arrangement with china".
>
> Where's your spine, Brian?

### - i don't see things that way, i see only a confused humanity as
demonstrated in various competing cultures & beliefs, the cultures/beliefs
themselves don't matter except to them personally, ALL their beliefs &
cultures are nonsense afaic, are completely arbitrary...

>> and yet, i fear, they (the west) will probably DO exactly that in the
>> vain
>> glorious hope that their/our western ideology will come out the overall
>> winner, duh!
>
> America - 2000 advanced nuclear warheads and gravity bombs
>
> China = <300 untested, primitive " " " "
>
> Elementary, my dear Watson :)

### - nah they gots a lot more than that by now... besides all those
icbm's there's field and submarine weapons as well + who-knows what else
we don't even know about, maybe even satellite weapons, who knows...

>> and when, in truth, all they'll actually succeed in doing that way is
>> smashing everything up and sending us all back to the middle ages
>> whereby
>> it'll ALL just start over again (coz china will have their survivors
>> too)
>> and nada will have changed!
>
> Hell we'll be fine down here in Oz and NZ. Don't know about Europe
> though. I think the US can lose a few cities and be quite ok though,
> the US is capable of marvellous feats when they are riled up.