Withnail wrote:But he did it.
To get better food and conditions.
And sure he had secrets. Tactics, missiles, the lot.
He endangered the lives of other pilots, just as he did when he crashed a plane on a carrier.
AgentR11 wrote:By pushing Russia into their sphere of influence; we've
ennui2 wrote:What do you mean "pushing"? In what universe was Russia ever going to be on our side? Putin has been demonizing the West for many years now, over issues that really are more in his head than anything else. It's not our fault how things are playing out.AgentR11 wrote:By pushing Russia into their sphere of influence; we've
The Defence Department now says there was a low-level flight by a Russian plane over a Canadian frigate in the Black Sea but it can’t provide any details to back up the Conservative government’s contention that Russian warships confronted HMCS Fredericton.
NATO officials maintain there was no such confrontation and Russian warships stayed far away from the Canadian ship which was part of an alliance maritime task force.
James Bezan, parliamentary secretary to Minister of National Defence Jason Kenney, told the Commons Tuesday that: “Since arriving in the Black Sea, Royal Canadian Navy sailors have been confronted by Russian warships and buzzed by Russian fighter jets.”
Kenney repeated the claim the next day, stating that a Russian jet buzzed the Canadian frigate HMCS Fredericton at low altitude.

The Ottawa Citizen asked the Department of National Defence on Wednesday for details of the incidents but DND couldn’t provide those and instead referred all questions to NATO.
But NATO officials said the frigate was not buzzed and there was no confrontation with Russian warships. There were Russian overflights of the NATO maritime task force but those were at higher altitudes, they added.
AgentR11 wrote:fault fault fault fault fault fault. Who cares whose fault it is.
AgentR11 wrote:To answer the direct question, what do I mean by "pushing". I mean our steady encirclement and crippling of Russia since the break up of the USSR.
AgentR11 wrote:We broke their Mediterranean port in Syria; and we almost succeeded in stripping Russia of the right to use Sevastopol as their Black Sea naval base.
AgentR11 wrote:the only future Russia had with Europe at the point this came apart was first as slave and then as corpse.
AgentR11 wrote:So they went with the customer who wasn't trying to kill them. Rationale enough in my book.
ennui2 wrote:I never detected any desire on the West's part to make Russia "suffer" post-breakup.
The lack of Western assistance was grim and was my greatest frustration[32] during late 1991 and 1992. The early days were inauspicious to say the least. When the G-7 deputies came to Moscow in late November 1991, just a few days after Gaidar had come to power as head of Yeltsin’s economic team, the main focus of the G-7 message was the urgency that the Soviet Union should continue to service the external debts at any cost. There was no discussion of the upcoming economic reforms, and no realism among the G-7 deputies about the extreme desperation of the economic scene. Gaidar was warned by the assembled powers that day that any suspension of debt payments would result in the immediate suspension of urgent food aid, and that ships nearly arrived at the Black Sea ports would turn around. Russia in fact continued to service the debts for a few more weeks before completely running out of cash by February 1992.
In December 1991 I had continuing discussions with the IMF about Western assistance for Russia. The IMF’s point man, Mr. John Odling Smee, who lasted for a decade as the head of the IMF’s efforts, was busy telling the G-7 that Russia needed no aid, that the “balance of payments gap” as calculated by the IMF was essentially zero. I believe that the IMF was simply parroting the political decisions already decided by the United States, rather than making an independent assessment. This is just a conjecture, but I make it because of the very low quality of IMF analysis and deliberations. They seemed to be driving towards conclusions irrespective of the evidence. The IMF’s approach was in any event just what the rich countries wanted to hear. The technical methodology was primitive beyond belief.
To summarize a long saga succinctly, Russia never received much in grant aid, stabilization support,[33] or debt relief.
ennui2 wrote:AgentR11 wrote:fault fault fault fault fault fault. Who cares whose fault it is.
You do, based on how you write further down.
There is a double-standard to this rhetoric. It's okay for Russia to engage in imperialist colonial capitalism but when we edge in on their territory then it's "out with US hegemony!" BS Hypocrisy.AgentR11 wrote:We broke their Mediterranean port in Syria; and we almost succeeded in stripping Russia of the right to use Sevastopol as their Black Sea naval base.
AgentR11 wrote:the only future Russia had with Europe at the point this came apart was first as slave and then as corpse.
Useless poetic hyperbole. Excuse me for not weeping for Russia the martyrs.
AgentR11 wrote:So they went with the customer who wasn't trying to kill them. Rationale enough in my book.
If it's just a race to the bottom with cold hard capitalism then you've got nothing to whine about. Let both sides follow their selfish agendas and if it leads to WWIII then nobody really is to blame. But what I don't like is these double-standard arguments.
AgentR11 wrote:But they are slime with resources that I want
AgentR11 wrote:our policy is causing to go the other way.
ennui2 wrote:Ah, so now we now where your biases are. The spice must flow.AgentR11 wrote:But they are slime with resources that I want
The way the global economy works is, if you want to take the ball and go home, you're entitled to do it. You don't like this, too bad. You're not entitled to consume any other country's energy exports.
AgentR11 wrote:Instead, we crafted self-destructive policies that have caused the future of those resources to be locked in, and locked in for someone NOT US.
To be clear; I'm not angry at Russia; their choice was rational, even if I don't like them; they made the decisions that will best serve their interests. I'm angry at the morons in our state department that set up the scenario that permitted this result to occur. This result is catastrophic, and its negative repercussions will echo on long after I'm dust in the earth.
AgentR11 wrote:This result is catastrophic, and its negative repercussions will echo on long after I'm dust in the earth.
AgentR11 wrote:Disagreement is fine... its just a prediction. But I dunno what iran cable cut is, nor was I aware of any supervolcanos in the mid west. Yellowstone is one, but there's no guessing when suc h things erupt.
Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests