The end justifies the means. What their end goals are we don't know. The way to achieve their goals seems obvious and is happening before our eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
The alternative is to watch a series of wars break out every time Russia and China decide the US has a particularly weak government.

I don't have a crystal ball, but if you've got $100, I'll bet you this is what the eventual outcome of all of this will be....

1) The US ends up weaker both financially and in terms of our interests around the world.
2) US arms 'will' show up in places around the world where we would not want them to be, being used for things we would not want them to be used for by people who hate the US.
3) We'll see food shortages that will damage developing countries while destroying the wealth of US citizens (assuming they have any left at that point to destroy).
4) Russia will still end up with at least part of Ukraine after fully destroying the entire country and running the body counts for Ukrainian personnel much, much, higher.
5) Russia will be un-deterred in the future should they opt to pull this crap again on another non-NATO country.
6) China will be that much stronger and more motivated because of the self inflicted damage the US has done to itself.

That's my projection. Where's your money?

Well, I don't gamble, but that's not gambling. Who would you like to have hold the stakes?

You have already won based on the Afghanistan route. Blaming any of those circumstances other than deaths of Ukrainians on the current conflict is superfluous

7.) Taiwan is toast.
Or 6(a)…

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

4) Russia will still end up with at least part of Ukraine after fully destroying the entire country and running the body counts for Ukrainian personnel much, much, higher.
5) Russia will be un-deterred in the future should they opt to pull this crap again on another non-NATO country.

That's my projection. Where's your money?

0% chance of #4 in terms of casualties, I see the casualties piling up on the Russian, not Ukrainian side at this point with the weaponry provided. The only gains Russia will remain with are Crimea (which they’ve had since 2014) and perhaps a small sliver of the Donets…

Also, Russia is definitely deterred, unless you are taking about some central Asian “Stan” country. They are not fucking with Finland/Baltics after this.

Ukraine has been part of the Obama/Biden/Democrat corruption machine for a long time. Hunter, Burisma, Trump's Impeachment, and so on. All of it centering around a "2nd world" country that is economically a bit player in the world economy. Ukraine is a source of corrupt money to politicians and their family members, and a place to launder money. And all of this grift was done under the "promise" that Ukraine might become part of NATO. Why else would Ukraine, the buffer country of all buffer countries, ally with the west over the bear right next to them?

If Ukraine collapses, evidence of all this may be found and publicized by Putin. Perhaps that's one of his actual objectives. So our corrupt politicians are all throwing money at Ukraine in a desperate attempt to prevent or at least delay a Russian takeover. It's also a bribe to Zelensky to hold their water while he watches his country get destroyed. If he went public with the info he has, it could take down a ton of people, probably most of the Democrat "Elites", including Obama and the Clintons.

This is the only thing that makes any sense. There are enough clues to connect the dots.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lefty Sig,

Lefty Sig: That's right.
Ukraine has been part of the Obama/Biden/Democrat corruption machine for a long time.
Throw in a few Republicans who are in on it as well. The American citizen pays for all of it but it's the politicians, the military industrial complex, and even big pharma (3 labs in Ukraine) who benefit.

^^^ Including cray cray Nancy Pelosi, Mittens Romney and John sKerry … kid’s collecting $$$ in Ukraine

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Why else would Ukraine, the buffer country of all buffer countries, ally with the west over the bear right next to them?

You might want to look over the last hundred years or so of relations between Russia and the Ukraine, and get back to us.

To save you the trouble, I can boil it down:
Russia purposely starved a few million Ukrainians, and put in a police state that exiled hundreds of thousands more into Gulags. It was so bad that when the Nazis invaded in 1941, many Ukrainians saw them as liberators. (They weren't, of course, and the Ukrainians figured that out pretty quick.)

Having known what being under the Russian thumb means, and having gotten out in recent memory, it is entirely rational for them to want any means of deterring Russian re-domination and getting help in the event they do attack, as they have done.

Am I saying they are perfect? No. What I'm saying is that there is no way on earth Ukraine would ever ally with 'the bear right next to them.'

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Well, I don't gamble, but that's not gambling. Who would you like to have hold the stakes?

How about the transient guy I see most mornings near our HD? He's likely way more trustworthy that the government in this country.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
0% chance of #4 in terms of casualties, I see the casualties piling up on the Russian, not Ukrainian side at this point with the weaponry provided. The only gains Russia will remain with are Crimea (which they’ve had since 2014) and perhaps a small sliver of the Donets…

Also, Russia is definitely deterred, unless you are taking about some central Asian “Stan” country. They are not fucking with Finland/Baltics after this.

Only costs you $100 to get in on this pool.

bigdeal, if you can't make an argument that won't be refuted then do you honestly think that trying to get people to bet on the outcome is going to shut anyone up? Everybody knows you've maxed out on your betting money, and therefore your confidence, if you're trying to start a pool.

Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?

By misjudging the size and importance of Russia’s economy, the West might have taken steps toward its own isolation

https://www.tabletmag.com/sect...nti-russia-sanctions

Remember the claims that Russia’s economy was more or less irrelevant, merely the equivalent of a small, not very impressive European country? “Putin, who has an economy the size of Italy,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea, “[is] playing a poker game with a pair of twos and winning.” Of increasing Russian diplomatic and geopolitical influence in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, The Economist asked in 2019, “How did a country with an economy the size of Spain … achieve all this?”

Seldom has the West so grossly misjudged an economy’s global significance. French economist Jacques Sapir, a renowned specialist of the Russian economy who teaches at the Moscow and Paris schools of economics, explained recently that the war in Ukraine has “made us realize that the Russian economy is considerably more important than what we thought.” For Sapir, one big reason for this miscalculation is exchange rates. If you compare Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) by simply converting it from rubles into U.S. dollars, you indeed get an economy the size of Spain’s. But such a comparison makes no sense without adjusting for purchasing power parity (PPP), which accounts for productivity and standards of living, and thus per capita welfare and resource use. Indeed, PPP is the measure favored by most international institutions, from the IMF to the OECD. And when you measure Russia’s GDP based on PPP, it’s clear that Russia’s economy is actually more like the size of Germany’s, about $4.4 trillion for Russia versus $4.6 trillion for Germany. From the size of a small and somewhat ailing European economy to the biggest economy in Europe and one of the largest in the world—not a negligible difference.

Sapir also encourages us to ask, “What is the share of the service sector versus the share of the commodities and industrial sector?” To him, the service sector today is grossly overvalued compared with the industrial sector and commodities like oil, gas, copper, and agricultural products. If we reduce the proportional importance of services in the global economy, Sapir says that “Russia’s economy is vastly larger than that of Germany and represents probably 5% or 6% of the world economy,” more like Japan than Spain.

This makes intuitive sense. When push comes to shove, we know there is more value in providing people with the things they really need to survive like food and energy than there is in intangible things like entertainment or financial services. When a company like Netflix has a price-earnings ratio three times higher than that of Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, it’s more likely than not a reflection of market froth than of physical reality. Netflix is a great service, but as long as an estimated 800 million people in the world remain undernourished, Nestlé is still going to provide more value.

All of which is to say that the current crisis in Ukraine has helpfully clarified how much we’ve taken for granted the “antiquated” side of modern economies like industry and commodities—prices for which have surged this year—and perhaps overvalued services and “tech,” whose value has recently crashed.

The size and importance of Russia’s economy is further distorted by ignoring global trade flows, in which Sapir estimates that Russia “may account for maybe as much as 15%.” While Russia is not the largest producer of oil in the world, for example, it has been the largest exporter of it, ahead even of Saudi Arabia. The same is true for many other essential products such as wheat—the world’s most important food crop, with Russia controlling about 19.5% of global exports—nickel (20.4%), semi-finished iron (18.8%), platinum (16.6%), and frozen fishes (11.2%).

Such commanding importance in the production of so many essential commodities means that Russia, like few other countries on the planet, is in many respects a linchpin of the globalized production chain. Unlike “maximum sanctions” on a country like Iran or Venezuela, attempting to cut the Russian link has meant and will likely continue to mean a dramatic reorganization of the global economy.

Now that President Joe Biden has publicly renounced America’s decades-old policy of “strategic ambiguity” with regard to Taiwan, it’s worth thinking about what China’s economy looks like when we remove the same blinkers with which we’d always viewed Russia. If we consider the Chinese economy based on exchange rates—by simply converting China’s GDP from Chinese yuan to U.S. dollars—it is valued at about $17.7 trillion (as of 2021), compared to $23 trillion for the United States and $17 trillion for the European Union.

But if we adjust for PPP, we see that the Chinese economy reached almost $27.21 trillion in 2021, compared with $20.5 trillion for the EU and $23 trillion for the United States. In terms of PPP, in fact, China’s economy overtook America’s back as much as six years ago.

And what if we reduce the proportional importance of the service sector relative to industry and commodities? Services account for approximately 53.3% of China’s GDP, even less than in Russia (56.7%). If we roughly apply Sapir’s ratio of doubling the valuation of the nonservice sector to China, we may have to consider that in a very real and relevant way, the Chinese economy accounts for something like 25%-30% of the global economy on a PPP basis, rather than the current estimates of 18%-19%. That would put the combined Chinese and Russian economies at about 30%-35% of the global economy (again, adjusting for PPP and the overvaluation of the service sector)—a behemoth and likely unsustainable challenge for a trans-Atlantic community that looks increasingly focused on using maximalist economic sanctions to punish bad actors and achieve desired policy outcomes. That challenge becomes even more daunting when we consider that the service sector accounts for roughly 77% of the U.S. economy and 70% of the EU’s—suggesting a potentially significant degree of overvaluation in Western economic heft, and far more parity in relative economic power with China and Russia.

How much does any of this hairsplitting matter? For one, the war in Ukraine and tensions in the Pacific look to be accelerating a division of the world into Cold War-like political and economic blocs. But whereas the West accounted for over 50% of global GDP at the beginning of the Cold War—with the United States dominating global manufacturing and running huge annual trade surpluses—the West looks to be in a weaker if more entrenched position of power today, and its major adversaries stronger in certain ways than the communist bloc was in 1948.

Before we enthusiastically embrace a new Iron Curtain, therefore, it’s worth pausing to consider how many countries in the world will voluntarily place themselves on our side. The countries of what we consider “the West” will—for ideological and historical reasons, in addition to economic and military enmeshment—undoubtedly remain relatively united. But the West only accounts for about 13% of the world’s population, with China and Russia together making up about 20%. That leaves about two-thirds of humanity “nonaligned,” a position that most of them would like to maintain. If we force them to choose a side, we may be surprised by many of the results.

A tally of the countries participating in current sanctions on Russia, in fact, makes it hard to say whether a new Iron Curtain is being drawn around our adversaries or around the West itself. Countries and nominal U.S. allies as significant as India and Saudi Arabia have been particularly vocal in their refusal to take sides in the conflict in Ukraine.

One telling barometer for this dynamic is oil. With Western oil sanctions on the world’s largest oil exporter, prices have predictably skyrocketed, rising from around $75 a barrel at the beginning of the year up to over $110 today. But countries that have refused to participate in sanctions are now taking advantage of the opportunity to negotiate for Russian energy deliveries at steep discounts. If Russia is still able to sell oil around the world, countries like India are able to negotiate for below-market prices, and Western consumers are being hammered with inflated prices, who is really being sanctioned? A similar principle applies to the weaponization of the U.S. dollar and the Western financial system in general: If non-Western countries are increasingly told that access to dollars and transaction systems like SWIFT are conditional on policies made in Washington that may not necessarily be in their own self-interest, the result may be a de-dollarization of the global economy, not a strengthening of the Western order.

None of this is to say that the brutal invasion of Ukraine has been anything less than an atrocity, and that extraordinary measures may indeed be called for in order to counter Russian expansionism and its implications for global peace and stability. But it’s possible that the West, in a fit of self-righteousness and a need to satisfy various domestic demands, may be diving headlong into a future in which the global South and many others besides feel increasingly pressured to make a choice they don’t want to have to make, and which may leave the West more isolated than ever before in modern times.

quote:

Is America the Real Victim of Anti-Russia Sanctions?

The short answer is Yes.

quote:

One telling barometer for this dynamic is oil. With Western oil sanctions on the world’s largest oil exporter, prices have predictably skyrocketed, rising from around $75 a barrel at the beginning of the year up to over $110 today. But countries that have refused to participate in sanctions are now taking advantage of the opportunity to negotiate for Russian energy deliveries at steep discounts. If Russia is still able to sell oil around the world, countries like India are able to negotiate for below-market prices, and Western consumers are being hammered with inflated prices, who is really being sanctioned? A similar principle applies to the weaponization of the U.S. dollar and the Western financial system in general: If non-Western countries are increasingly told that access to dollars and transaction systems like SWIFT are conditional on policies made in Washington that may not necessarily be in their own self-interest, the result may be a de-dollarization of the global economy, not a strengthening of the Western order.

Exactly. The de-dollarization of the global economy will mark the end of our status as the world's sole Superpower.

But this is all intentional....
The West will be brought down by the WEF and globalists. The world will be divided between those committed to the Green Energy agenda and those who continue to run on oil, gas, and coal.


Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer Team Up to Expedite Finland and Sweden Entry into NATO

The preparations and proactive moves to establish the global cleaving are being carried out by Wall Street globalists, the World Economic Forum and the various western politicians who align with the objective. The opinion of the citizens within each nation are irrelevant to the decisions of the leaders.

Fundamentally, the big picture dynamic is to create a global network of allied nations based on one overarching principle, energy and human control through the carbon trading platform. There are multiple moving puzzle pieces, but one big dynamic. Western government leaders are cleaving the world into two economic systems.

One economic system will be based on traditional energy as the underpinning of the economy. One system will be based on renewable energy, with climate change agenda as the overarching basis for all of their economic shifts. Pressure from within traditional alliances like the G7, G20, NATO etc, will create the wedge. Terms like Build Back Better, Green New Deal, Paris Treaty Accords, and other reference points are part of this cleaving agenda.

https://theconservativetreehou...to-nato/#more-233406

^^^ How would the global economy be de-dollarized, and how would that necessarily be the beginning of the end of superpower status? There's a lot more to a global economy than one currency, and there's a lot more to superpower status than currency or the old Soviet Union would never have been considered a superpower.

quote:

it’s possible

"It's possible" with a lot of convoluted massaging of the numbers to argue anything.

The truth is that we could lower fuel prices dramatically here if Biden stopped posing as a green crusader. If Russia's markets are restricted so that they are forced to sell at low rates (and sell a lot more to make the same amount of money they would've otherwise) then that keeps prices down by reducing Indian demand for oil from other sources, doesn't it?

Oh, and if the Swift system is such a drag, what's stopping other countries from setting up their own systems? It's not like they'll be laboring under US sanctions.

Finally, it's absurd to argue that the "global South" is going to be pressured into making choices they don't want to. They've been under precisely the same pressures - and in many cases thrived - since the start of the Cold War, and the West was never "isolated" by that to any meaningful degree.

In the United States we have a federation of states, a constitutional republic, so we can try and combat the agenda by demanding state government draw hard boundaries from federal intervention. However, this battle is going to get increasingly difficult. Freedom is not expanding in this era, it is contracting.

Within the system being developed by the so-called “western nations,” there is going to be much more governmental control over the life of the people in each nation.

quote:

^^^ How would the global economy be de-dollarized, and how would that necessarily be the beginning of the end of superpower status?

America is great because America is good. We once stood firmly on the Declaration of Independence and limited government under our Constitution. We no longer do. The trust in the dollar was universal.

quote:

A similar principle applies to the weaponization of the U.S. dollar and the Western financial system in general: If non-Western countries are increasingly told that access to dollars and transaction systems like SWIFT are conditional on policies made in Washington that may not necessarily be in their own self-interest, the result may be a de-dollarization of the global economy

In other words, the non-Western world has reasons not to trust the U.S. dollar and the Western financial system in general. They will develop alternative systems of payment for oil.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
bigdeal, if you can't make an argument that won't be refuted then do you honestly think that trying to get people to bet on the outcome is going to shut anyone up? Everybody knows you've maxed out on your betting money, and therefore your confidence, if you're trying to start a pool.

Damn son, I simply shifted to a version of humor as I've totally given up on trying to convince anyone of anything regarding this topic. I think we're all pretty entrenched in our own personal beliefs on this topic at this point so maybe we could all just have a laugh about a silly bet? Work with me here will ya.

Someone please explain SWIFT…

Thanks…

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
Someone please explain SWIFT…

Thanks…

Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication

It's a communications network that facilitates messages about financial transactions and payment processing between banks in different countries.