quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

The companies that use those India-based call centers already know those call-centers are not popular with Americans.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
They lose business because of it.

Correct.

I can think of two instances, in fairly recent memory, where just that occurred. In one case I refused delivery and in another I simply gave up trying to get any useful results out of foreign call center people and returned the product--on the seller's dime.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Script reading has got to go as well.

Damn straight!

Amazon is a perfect example. Their foreign call centers' inability to actually accomplish anything useful is one reason we're no longer Amazon Prime members and why Amazon is now a vendor of last resort, rather than the vendor of first resort they once were.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

The companies that use those India-based call centers already know those call-centers are not popular with Americans.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
They lose business because of it. That is not cost effective. Companies need to look at the WHOLE picture. I will go with Canadians, rural Americans and the Phillipines. Most all of those folks are polite. Script reading has got to go as well.

I am sure the companies that use these off-shore call centers lose business because of it.

These companies though have made the cold calculation that the money they are giving up by using these things is less than the cost savings they get by outsourcing these things.

These large companies are typically pretty good at figuring stuff like that out.

If they are not good at figuring it out, they go out of business.

Things won't change until more companies can make the calculation that the customers they are losing are worth more than the cost savings.

This gets even more complicated when you include outsourced IT work in general. Many, many US companies have off-shored programming and other IT work for the supposed cost savings.

As a consumer, you probably don't know that software you are counting on was built by off-shored labor or people in the USA on some sort of work-visa.

People like Bill Gates will tell you this paradigm is necessary and lobby Congress that this needs to remain so.

They say the talent does not exist here but that is BS.

Zelensky is constantly talking about a no-fly zone, but honestly I don’t think it will help much. It won’t stop artillery, armored vehicles, or any attacks from Russian ground forces, which are what’s doing a lot of the damage to civilian targets. Also won’t stop cruise or long range missiles launched from outside Ukraine. Might stop direct attacks from warplanes and helicopters, but I suspect those are relatively few compared to the other threats that a no-fly zone won’t stop. Also stop Ukraine from flying those Turkish drones that are popping Russian tanks.

I believe that Zelensky knows that it won’t help Ukraine much from a pure military standpoint, and he’s mostly calling for it so a direct conflict with the US and NATO against Russia will start, and that what will actually help Ukraine most.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
Zelensky is constantly talking about a no-fly zone, but honestly I don’t think it will help much. It won’t stop artillery, armored vehicles, or any attacks from Russian ground forces, which are what’s doing a lot of the damage to civilian targets. Also won’t stop cruise or long range missiles launched from outside Ukraine. Might stop direct attacks from warplanes and helicopters, but I suspect those are relatively few compared to the other threats that a no-fly zone won’t stop. Also stop Ukraine from flying those Turkish drones that are popping Russian tanks.

I believe that Zelensky knows that it won’t help Ukraine much from a pure military standpoint, and he’s mostly calling for it so a direct conflict with the US and NATO against Russia will start, and that what will actually help Ukraine most.

I read some where that the Russian Airforce is flying about 200 sortes a day.

The Ukrainians somewhere around 5 to 10.

The no-fly zone would help. If the Russians did not have helicopters overhead flying overwatch their conveys would be even more vulnerable than they are now. They would have even less ability to move troops from sector to sector.

I see your point though. Very soon, Russian artillery will be the primary method used to destroy Ukranian cities.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
Zelensky is constantly talking about a no-fly zone, but honestly I don’t think it will help much. It won’t stop artillery, armored vehicles, or any attacks from Russian ground forces, which are what’s doing a lot of the damage to civilian targets.

Those are what have been doing the bulk of the damage because Putin's air assets have been hindered by poor weather (rain, snow, low cloud cover).

Once the weather clears up, as I think I read it's supposed to this week or next, that may change.

Then again: We gave the Ukrainians a bunch of Stinger MANPADs (Man-Portable Air-Defense), so there's that

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
Zelensky is constantly talking about a no-fly zone, but honestly I don’t think it will help much. It won’t stop artillery, armored vehicles, or any attacks from Russian ground forces, which are what’s doing a lot of the damage to civilian targets.

Those are what have been doing the bulk of the damage because Putin's air assets have been hindered by poor weather (rain, snow, low cloud cover).

Once the weather clears up, as I think I read it's supposed to this week or next, that may change.

Then again: We gave the Ukrainians a bunch of Stinger MANPADs (Man-Portable Air-Defense), so there's that

The problem is the MANPADs are only effective against aircraft flying at low altitudes.

Aircraft doing bombing runs at medium altitude are not very vulnerable to MANPADs.

The Ukrainians badly need longer range SAMs and systems capable of taking out Russian cruise missiles and rockets.

The Ukrainians are in a tough spot no doubt but so are the Russians. The Russians are overextended and are not deep in reserves.

It's a matter of which side will get exhausted first.

https://hotair.com/ed-morrisse...all-me-maybe-n455442

Alexander Lukashenko owes a massive debt to the Kremlin, and that check might be coming due.

The authoritarian leader of Belarus only survived in power thanks to financial and military support from Russia, which allowed him to ride out massive public protests following 2020’s fraudulent presidential election. But now Russian President Vladimir Putin is hunting for more troops as his invasion runs into growing trouble thanks to determined Ukrainian resistance. …

Lukashenko visited Moscow on Friday, where he was promised updated military equipment. The Belarusian military has also said that it is beefing up its troops along the border. But despite growing alarm from Ukraine that Belarus will join in the Russian attack, so far the 48,000-man-strong Belarusian military is standing pat.

“The movement of troops is in no way connected with the preparation, let alone participation of the Belarusian military in a special military operation in Ukraine,” said Viktor Gulevich, chief of the General Staff of the Belarusian military and deputy defense minister.

“I warned you that they would push us into this operation, into this war,” Lukashenko told Belarusian soldiers, according to the state news agency BelTA.

“There’s nothing for us to do there, and we haven’t been invited,” Lukashenko was quoted as saying. “I want to emphasise again … We are not going to become involved in this operation that Russia is conducting in Ukraine.”

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:...

...“I want to emphasise again … We are not going to become involved in this operation that Russia is conducting in Ukraine.”

"This ain't no party, this ain't no disco,
This ain't no fooling around
There’s nothing for us to do there, we haven’t been invited!!!
I ain't got time for that now"

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmo952:
The problem is the MANPADs are only effective against aircraft flying at low altitudes.

Aircraft doing bombing runs at medium altitude are not very vulnerable to MANPADs.

The Ukrainians badly need longer range SAMs and systems capable of taking out Russian cruise missiles and rockets.

The Ukrainians are in a tough spot no doubt but so are the Russians. The Russians are overextended and are not deep in reserves.

It's a matter of which side will get exhausted first.

A few videos have been posted about the VKS(Russian Airforce) in this thread. below is another one...a bit dated...but
either its a grand illusion/deception that Russians are rather talented at...or their air force is not what they appear to be on paper.

so far many of their sorties are at low altitude with unguided munitions. reasons vary. training, coordination, friendly fire, supply of precision guided munitions, or fear of remaining SAM systems in Ukrainian hands etc.
https://youtu.be/_WGcfkqzUI4

whatever the reasons, no American pilots enforcing nothing anywhere near that hell hole. let someone else deliver portable weapon systems too.

There are reports of other Russian drones entering NATO airspace and one report that a Russian drone crashed in Croatia and when it was inspected an explosive was found attached.

[Note: multiple photos and hyperlinks at linked website article.]

=======================

Russian drone enters NATO airspace

Britta Zeltmann
22:51, 14 Mar 2022Updated: 23:40, 14 Mar 2022

A RUSSIAN drone was reportedly shot down in Ukraine today after claims it flew into Polish airspace.

The drone is claimed to have first circled over the Ukrainian city of Yavoriv before flying over Poland where it was in breach of Nato territory.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces said the drone appeared to be assessing damage caused to the Yavoriv military base near Lviv over the weekend, after missile strikes killed at least 35 people, 24 TV reports.

It was then said to have flown over Poland before returning to Ukrainian airspace where it was shot down by the country's air defence.

A spokesperson for the Ukrainian forces said: "As we can see, the occupiers continue to carry out their provocative actions without hesitation, flying into the airspace of Nato member states."

Putin's forces launched missile strikes just 12 miles from the Polish border with Ukraine in the early hours of Sunday morning.

The airstrike, which blasted the Yavoriv military base near Lviv, killed at least 35 people and injured another 134.

Russian forces fired more than 30 cruise missiles at the base, prompting authorities to warn Vladimir Putin could start "provoking" Nato countries.

Poland belongs to the 30-strong defensive military alliance which also includes the UK, US, France, and Germany.

And Britain's health secretary Sajid Javid yesterday vowed Britain will go to war against Russia if Putin attacks a Nato country.

Mr Javid said: "We've been very clear from the start, with our Nato allies, that if there is any kind of attack on Nato territory then it will be war with Nato and there will be a severe response.

"Even if just a single toecap of a Russian soldier steps into Nato territory, then it will be war with Russia and Nato would respond.

"That hasn't changed throughout this conflict and there would be a significant response from Nato if there was any kind of attack from Russia.

"Our message has been very clear from the start. Any kind of attack, anything that touches Nato territory or impacts Nato in any significant way, then we would respond."

His comments follow a huge bolstering of deployment to Eastern Europe by Nato allies in recent months.

Russia has lost more than 12,000 troops in almost three weeks of fighting so far - as well as hundreds of tanks and aircraft, according to Ukrainian estimates.

There have been widespread reports that morale is incredibly low, with kit repeatedly breaking down and shortages of food and fuel.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
And Britain's health secretary Sajid Javid yesterday vowed Britain will go to war against Russia if Putin attacks a Nato country.

Mr Javid said: "We've been very clear from the start, with our Nato allies, that if there is any kind of attack on Nato territory then it will be war with Nato and there will be a severe response.

"Even if just a single toecap of a Russian soldier steps into Nato territory, then it will be war with Russia and Nato would respond.

"That hasn't changed throughout this conflict and there would be a significant response from Nato if there was any kind of attack from Russia.

"Our message has been very clear from the start. Any kind of attack, anything that touches Nato territory or impacts Nato in any significant way, then we would respond."

His comments follow a huge bolstering of deployment to Eastern Europe by Nato allies in recent months.

My, if only we had an administration that could convey such a "don't even think of fucking with us" warning.

Even better, it came from their "Secretary of Health and Social Care".

"Secretary of Healthcare? Yeah, and I'm tellin' you, if you screw with NATO you're gonna fuckin' need some healthcare, buddy..."

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmo952:
The Ukrainians are in a tough spot no doubt but so are the Russians. The Russians are overextended and are not deep in reserves.

It's a matter of which side will get exhausted first.

We know the answer to that question.

quote:

Originally posted by alteon180e:
A few videos have been posted about the VKS(Russian Airforce) in this thread. below is another one...a bit dated...but
either its a grand illusion/deception that Russians are rather talented at...or their air force is not what they appear to be on paper.

so far many of their sorties are at low altitude with unguided munitions. reasons vary. training, coordination, friendly fire, supply of precision guided munitions, or fear of remaining SAM systems in Ukrainian hands etc.

There's a lot of speculating about the reasons for how underwhelming Russian forces are performing. What many of these 'analysis' are not taking into account is how Russia's military and security services are structured, tasked and organized. The Rosgvardiya or Nat'l Guard of Russia is a Praetorian Guard type unit, a paramilitary police force that acts more like shock troops that only answers to the Russian president. The top-tier of the Russian army is its Airborne forces, the VDV, professional soldiers not conscripts like the regular army, they also only answer to their chain-of-command which at every level is nearly separate from the army itself. There's several other sub-organizations that are both military and paramilitary that have separate branches with little intersection.

What we know is that all these different organizations do not do exercises together, their staffs are not integrated or, what we would call joint exercises/work-ups. The Rosgvardiya have conducted missions that at times run counter to the overall mission objectives leaving them exposed or, without support. The VDV, an airborne mechanized force, doesn't conduct many exercises to integrate close air support with the Air Force. Russian pilots barely get 100-hrs of flight time a year, most of the time it hovers closer to 50-hrs, hardly enough time to master their own aircraft let alone the difficult mission like CAS; US and many Western pilots are closer to 200-hrs a year. The Russian Air Force has very little electronic warfare platforms, they have anti-radiation missiles however the firing aircraft are not set-up for mission specifics.

All of these shortcomings, is coming to a head, as any invasion requires coordination, integration and a level of communication that Russia hasn't practiced before. There's little experience on the military General Staff on integrating and organizing the various elements and now we're seeing the gaps in their doctrine. We know Russia has mass, they'll throw brigade after brigade against the wall until it cracks. They've limited their use of strategic bombers for stand-off firing platforms, we're likely going to see them used for bombing raids WWII style on some of the cities once the Army completes encirclement.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
There are reports of other Russian drones entering NATO airspace and one report that a Russian drone crashed in Croatia and when it was inspected an explosive was found attached.

[Note: multiple photos and hyperlinks at linked website article.]

The title of this thread is about Biden et.al. getting us into a global war. My question is would it matter who was in office right now? Does anyone really think that any European power including Britain can take on the Russians without using nuclear weapons? What happens if Britain starts fighting the Russians? We will be right there beside them. I for one think that twice in a little over 100 years is quite enough and we should sit this one out.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
The Rosgvardiya or Nat'l Guard of Russia is a Praetorian Guard type unit, a paramilitary police force that acts more like shock troops that only answers to the Russian president.

Modern day Cossacks.

[Note: Multiple hyperlinks found at linked website article.]

===================

Russia accused of attack on Ukraine using illegal phosphorus bombs

Moscow used white phosphorus munitions – which can cause horrendous injuries – in an illegal overnight attack on the town of Popasna, Ukraine’s human rights chief says


Ukrainian artillerymen hold position in Luhansk region in eastern Ukraine (Photo: Anatolii Stepanov/AFP)

By Emma Reynolds
March 13, 2022 5:22 pm (Updated March 14, 2022 10:35 am)

Russia has been accused of launching illegal phosphorus bomb attacks on civilians in eastern Ukraine.

Liudmila Denisova, Ukraine’s human rights ombudswoman, claimed on Sunday that Moscow had used banned phosphorus munitions in an overnight attack on the town of Popasna in eastern Luhansk region.

She shared a photograph purporting to show the alleged attack, but did not reveal further evidence that would confirm it. “The bombing of a civilian city by the Russian attackers with these weapons is a war crime and a crime against humanity according to the Rome Convention,” she said in a statement.

Oleksi Biloshytsky, head of police in Popasna, around 60 miles west of Luhansk city, said late on Saturday that Russian forces had used phosphorus shells in the region, but the claims have not yet been independently verified.

White phosphorus munitions are not considered a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and their primary aim is to create thick smoke that can hide military forces or mark targets. However, the substance burns fiercely and can cause horrendous injuries, and international law prohibits the use of white phosphorus shells in heavily populated civilian areas.

On Sunday, Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned that Russia could use chemical weapons following its invasion of Ukraine and that such a move would be a war crime.

Mr Stoltenberg suggested that Russia’s recent “absurd claims about chemical and biological weapons laboratories” in Ukraine could indicate that Vladimir Putin is planning to use these as a pretext for such attacks.

It echoed fears raised by the UK and US this week that the Kremlin could be setting the stage to use chemical weapons in Ukraine after officials alleged without evidence that the US had been supporting a bioweapons programme in the country.

“In recent days, we have heard absurd claims about chemical and biological weapons laboratories,” Mr Stoltenberg told German newspaper Welt am Sonntag. “Now that these false claims have been made, we must remain vigilant because it is possible that Russia itself could plan chemical weapons operations under this fabrication of lies. That would be a war crime.”

James Heappey, the UK armed forces minister, hit out at the Kremlin for its “insulting” attempt to blame Ukraine for the use of chemical weapons which in fact Russia itself was considering.

UK technology minister Chris Philp told Times Radio that the use of chemical weapons “would be an outrage against humanity and would trigger a “dramatic increased response” from the West.

A senior Government source told i on Friday that the UK could ramp up sanctions in response to any chemical attack.

Western officials said at a briefing this week that they had “good reason to be concerned” about possible use of non-conventional weapons by Russia, after chemical weapons were allegedly used by the Russia-backed Syrian regime during the country’s civil war.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki tweeted on Wednesday that “we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false-flag operation using them”, following Moscow’s false propaganda, which she said was seemingly endorsed by China.

Earlier on Wednesday, Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova had claimed Russia had evidence that the US had supported a bioweapons programme in Ukraine, involving plague, cholera and anthrax. Ms Psaki described the claims as “preposterous”.

Russia’s defence ministry also accused “Ukrainian nationalists” of preparing a chemical weapons “provocation” in a village north-west of Kharkiv in order to falsely accuse Russian forces of using them.

Poland’s President Andrzej Duda said on Sunday that the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine by Russia would be a “game-changer” and Nato would have to think seriously about how to respond.

“For sure, the North Atlantic alliance and its leaders led by the United States will have to sit at the table and they will really have to think seriously what to do because then it starts to be dangerous,” he told the BBC.

quote:

Originally posted by Rev. A. J. Forsyth:

The title of this thread is about Biden et.al. getting us into a global war. My question is would it matter who was in office right now?

I recently caught a radio interview on the war in Ukraine with a guest who relayed a story about President Putin. The story was told to him by a friend who is a political science professor. The professor said he had a very bright young student who, soon after getting his graduate degree was quickly recruited into the U.S. State Department during the Obama administration. There were talks between the U.S. and Russia, taking place in Russia and the young man was there as a mid-level member of the U.S. delegation.

During a break in the talks the young man was standing around a large ornate foyer with a couple other members of the U.S. delegation when a side door opened and President Putin suddenly emerged, walked towards but past him, and said "come with me". Although caught off guard, to his credit, he realized that he just received an order from the president of Russia, and instantly instructed the others to follow them. President Putin said nothing but led them down several stair cases, deep into the building, until they reached a large basement. There were several fenced-in kennels filled with perhaps 12-15 large ferocious looking dogs, all barking and growling.

U.S. media had recently run stories on the Obama family dogs, Portuguese Water dogs named Bo and Sunny. While showing off his hounds, President Putin told the young man something to the effect of "tell President Obama that these are real dogs."
The intention behind that message was obvious.

In another story shared by the same radio guest, apparently it was well known in political circles that former German Chancellor Angela Merkel had some sort of traumatizing event as a child involving a dog, and was afraid of them. During one of their first meetings together, President Putin arrived at the meeting with one of his large dogs on a leash. Again, the intention was obvious.

To answer your question, yes, I believe it does matter who the president in the White House is, for a number of reasons. Russia didn't invade Ukraine in a vacuum. The timing of the invasion isn't accidental.
Before invading Georgia, annexing Crimea, overthrowing the government of Belarus, and invading Ukraine he first waited and watched the West's leaders, and especially the U.S. presidents in office to see what sort of domestic and foreign issues they were preoccupied by, and what their reactions would be.

After each invasion or act of interference, when the West and the U.S. failed to act, it was a greenlight for him to continue the next step in his plan to reunite some or all of the old Soviet empire's satellite countries. There is an old adage when referring to Russian policy... they continue to thrust the bayonet in until they hit steel.

Strong leaders help to avoid conflict, while weak leaders invite it.

quote:

Does anyone really think that any European power including Britain can take on the Russians without using nuclear weapons? What happens if Britain starts fighting the Russians? We will be right there beside them. I for one think that twice in a little over 100 years is quite enough and we should sit this one out.

No one can say for certain whether Europe could or Britain could match up to Russia. On the one hand, Europe's military forces have been allowed to shrink and are a fraction of what they were during the Cold War. On the other hand, while Russia's military has the edge in sheer size and quantity, so far they haven't acquitted themselves well in this war and seem to be lacking in quality and effectiveness.

The U.S. sitting out a war in which out European allies and NATO partners were attacked not only would mean the end of NATO, but would put the U.S. at a serious strategic disadvantage both in this potential war, as well as future ones.

There is a short but excellent scene in the movie Zero Dark Thirty that I'm often reminded of when the topic of isolationism and sitting out wars comes up. I'd post the video clip, but I've checked several times over the years, and no one has ever uploaded it to YouTube or any other hosting site that I can find, so I'll do my best to describe it. The CIA believes they have located Osama bin Laden with a high degree of confidence and they are trying to convince the White House to authorize action. After several White House updated briefings over weeks, President Obama's Chief of Staff and NSC team are hesitant and continue to push for %100 ID confirmation, and the CIA briefer explains the various reasons why they can't get it. After one briefing the CIA briefer corners the Chief of Staff and accuses him of sandbagging the decision for political reasons. The Chief of Staff bristles at the suggestion, explains that the White House hesitancy in action isn't politically motivated, but after the WMDs in Iraq Intel failure (not really a failure but a topic best saved for another discussion) that President Obama was supposedly a thoughtful man who required facts before acting. The CIA briefer backs off his original assertion, but then asks the question how do you evaluate the consequences of NOT taking action? with the implication of how would the Obama administration handle a circumstance in which they failed to act and allowed bin Laden to escape...or worse yet, if bin Laden went on to order and fund additional terrorist acts. How would they justify not taking action to the world or to the American people?

Many arguing against US intervention can list the potential consequences of taking action in Ukraine or, God forbid, if other non-NATO or NATO countries are attacked. But what are the consequences of the US not taking action when there was an opportunity to? What if US intervention now prevented the war from expanding into a regional or world war?

I've already made the moral, ethical, and strategic geo-political and military arguments for why US intervention may be the best course of action in this crisis, previously in this thread, so I won't go into it again.

Trotsky once wrote "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.".

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said, “The only thing worse than having allies is not having them.”

and I'm not sure who said "The only thing worse than war is losing one."

The alternative to war isn't always peace.

I'd far and away prefer peace to war and to avoid US intervention if possible, but if diplomacy and economic sanctions fail I believe it would be a fatal mistake to allow Ukraine or any other countries in the region to be attacked or occupied by Russia without opposition.

[Note: Additional photos and hyperlinks found at linked website article.]

===================

Russian lawmaker demands return of Alaska, California fort and reparations amid U.S.-led sanctions

Parliament member Oleg Matveychev listed his demands during a Sunday interview on a state-owned news program

By Louis Casiano | Fox News
March 15, 2022 6:35pm EDT

A Russian lawmaker made an outlandish demand over the weekend that the United States return Alaska and a historic settlement in California, in addition to paying reparations to Russia over crippling American-led sanctions that have put Moscow's economy in a tailspin.

Oleg Matveychev, a member of the state Duma, outlined on Russian state television a set of demands for the U.S. and Ukraine after Kiv's "demilitarization is completed," the Express newspaper in the United Kingdom reported.

The demands include the return of Alaska, which the U.S. purchased from the Russian Empire in 1867 as part of the Alaska Purchase, and the former Russian settlement of Fort Ross, California, 90miles north of San Francisco.

"We should be thinking about reparations from the damage that was caused by the sanctions and the war itself, because that too costs money and we should get it back," Matveychev said during a Sunday interview.

He also called for the "return of all Russian properties, those of the Russian empire, the Soviet Union and current Russia, which has been seized in the United States, and so on."

Afterward, he was asked if he meant Alaska and Fort Ross.

"That was my next point. As well as the Antarctic," he said. "We discovered it, so it belongs to us."

The sale of Alaska marked the end of the Russian Empire's trade expansion and settlement efforts to the Pacific coast of the U.S., according to the State Department. The territory was sold to the U.S. government for $7.2 million.

Opponents of the sale labeled it "Seward’s Folly," referring then-Secretary of State William H. Seward, who was a proponent of American expansion.


A canceled check in the amount of $7.2 million, for the purchase of Alaska, issued on August 1, 1868. (National Archives)

The label failed to stick after 1896 when hundreds of thousands of people migrated to the territory in search of gold.

A Russian colony was established Fort Ross on California's Sonoma coast in 1812. After several years of struggling to grow crops and tensions with Americans in the area, the property was sold in 1841 after it became clear the area was a financial liability, according to the Fort Ross Conservancy.

The demands made by Matveychev are likely to be ignored as the U.S. ratchets up sanctions on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine. On Monday, the State Department announced fresh sanctions on President Alexander Lukashenko, the Kremlin's ally in Belarus, and 11 other Russian officials.

On Tuesday, Moscow imposed retaliatory sanctions against President Biden and administration officials. White House press secretary Jen Psaki brushed off the potential impact the measures could have.

"I would say, is that won't surprise any of you, that none of us are planning tourist trips to Russia," she said. "None of us have bank accounts that we won't be able to access. So we will forge ahead."

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
[Note: Additional photos and hyperlinks found at linked website article.]

===================

Russian lawmaker demands return of Alaska, California fort and reparations amid U.S.-led sanctions

Parliament member Oleg Matveychev listed his demands during a Sunday interview on a state-owned news program

By Louis Casiano | Fox News
March 15, 2022 6:35pm EDT

A Russian lawmaker made an outlandish demand over the weekend that the United States return Alaska and a historic settlement in California, in addition to paying reparations to Russia over crippling American-led sanctions that have put Moscow's economy in a tailspin.

Oleg Matveychev, a member of the state Duma, outlined on Russian state television a set of demands for the U.S. and Ukraine after Kiv's "demilitarization is completed," the Express newspaper in the United Kingdom reported.

The demands include the return of Alaska, which the U.S. purchased from the Russian Empire in 1867 as part of the Alaska Purchase, and the former Russian settlement of Fort Ross, California, 90miles north of San Francisco.

"We should be thinking about reparations from the damage that was caused by the sanctions and the war itself, because that too costs money and we should get it back," Matveychev said during a Sunday interview.

He also called for the "return of all Russian properties, those of the Russian empire, the Soviet Union and current Russia, which has been seized in the United States, and so on."

Afterward, he was asked if he meant Alaska and Fort Ross.

"That was my next point. As well as the Antarctic," he said. "We discovered it, so it belongs to us."

The sale of Alaska marked the end of the Russian Empire's trade expansion and settlement efforts to the Pacific coast of the U.S., according to the State Department. The territory was sold to the U.S. government for $7.2 million.

Opponents of the sale labeled it "Seward’s Folly," referring then-Secretary of State William H. Seward, who was a proponent of American expansion.


A canceled check in the amount of $7.2 million, for the purchase of Alaska, issued on August 1, 1868. (National Archives)

The label failed to stick after 1896 when hundreds of thousands of people migrated to the territory in search of gold.

A Russian colony was established Fort Ross on California's Sonoma coast in 1812. After several years of struggling to grow crops and tensions with Americans in the area, the property was sold in 1841 after it became clear the area was a financial liability, according to the Fort Ross Conservancy.

The demands made by Matveychev are likely to be ignored as the U.S. ratchets up sanctions on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine. On Monday, the State Department announced fresh sanctions on President Alexander Lukashenko, the Kremlin's ally in Belarus, and 11 other Russian officials.

On Tuesday, Moscow imposed retaliatory sanctions against President Biden and administration officials. White House press secretary Jen Psaki brushed off the potential impact the measures could have.

"I would say, is that won't surprise any of you, that none of us are planning tourist trips to Russia," she said. "None of us have bank accounts that we won't be able to access. So we will forge ahead."

LOL, come and get them, Oleg.

So what you're saying is that, Russia is going to be sanctioning corrupt U.S. government officials? So far, that's the only good thing that has come out of this war.