The War in Europe

Who do you suggest be in charge?

Interesting. And what makes these domestic (im assuming) authoritarians so dangerous?Is it because we won't let you print money for social programs? If so, we are simply trying to preserve the value of the dollar, but we have a backup system of investments should it crash.We resist globalism. (at least I do...I dunno about the rest of the so-called authoritarians. The jury is still out. If you dont think China will be the dominant nation on earth by 2030, you have a lot of reading to do.

Phat, Phat, please think first.Yes everyone knows basing a world currency on the currency of one nation is inherently dangerous. The oil shocks of the 80s wrenched that up big time. The dollar is still the de facto world currency (store of value) until everyone, Phat, everyone, agrees otherwise.You are in no danger of waking up one morning to hear that overnight the rest of nations switched to Worldies and your $$Dollars are now worthless. Complex world-interconnected economies don't work that way. There will be years of notice, years of agreement and years of market adjustment before the hammer drops.Then the dollar will be free to float and adjust, unencumbered by the pressures as the world's currency, in accordance with our national worth, which is noticeably sliding downward.Yeah, being nothing special in a world of equals is going to take some getting used to.

Thinking about your global government, the people should be in charge. Each individual has the right to vote and a constitution lays out how the government is organized and includes a list of citizen rights that the majority cannot override.

After Russia promised to de-escalate!As it happened: UK and US urge caution on Russian pledge to reduce attacks​​ - BBC News

quote:

---

The cabinet room of Vitaliy Kim, regional governor, was destroyed, too. He said he survived because he overslept.

​

Having gained Ukraine-wide popularity thanks to his viral videos that start from a phrase “Good morning, we are from Ukraine”, today he added: “Not so good after all.”

---

Note that Mykolaiv is a key shipbuilding hub. Im telling you Russia wants control of the sea and the resources.

So what else is new, Phat. Of course the Russians want to control. That's why they manufactured this war to being with. They want control of the whole coastline and then inland to Kiev and west to the Polish border. That is what they want to control, not just a few ports.But you are not wrong. Black Sea control is why the Crimea was so necessary to Catherine the Great. That's why Putin went and took back in 2014.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Authoritarians think they can break any law, commit any crime, against individuals or humanity with impunity. You don't think that's dangerous?

That is simply absurd Phat. That is just stupid Phat, really stupid, astoundingly stupid.Name the currency that does not have global trust?Is the British Pound trusted?The French Franc?The Japanese Yen?The Chinese Yuan?Right now only one of the thousands of current currencies does not have global trust. Yes Phat, that is exactly what gives value to any currency. There is NO asset backing common agreement rather it is the common agreement itself that is the only determining factor. The agreement is made based on a mutual assessment to the relative stability of the issuing party relative to each other issuing party.

To back up what jar said;The “full faith and credit of the United States” which is the only "asset” backing the dollar, as powerful an idea as it may be, is still only a persistent ephemeral fiction as long as the world wants to believe. There is nothing there but a promise. Right now I believe you. I have confidence I can take to the bank. Next year? Maybe not so much.Thus it is with all currency. As it is with any store of value. The value is in the common perception. Even for gold.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Again Phat, that is a really really stupid thing to say.NO Nation should be in charge and no nation is in charge.It's fools that think or want a nation to be in charge that are a major threat.Look at Russia.It's the largest nation currently.And in a matter of hours a consensus of nations decided that Russia was NOT worthy of being part of the world commerce. Period. End of story.That consensus made the Ruble almost totally valueless in a matter of minutes.The world works somewhat functionally today BECAUSE no nation is in charge.The US dollar has value only because a consensus of nations agree to its worth. If there develops a consensus that the Yaun should be the standard then the Yaun would replace the dollar.And nothing would change. The exchange rate between Yaun and USD would still be the consensus exchange rate.A US dollar would be exactly the same value as it was before.The biggest threat to the consensus would be the US acting like it was in charge. Try that and in a matter of hours the rest of the world could decide that the US was NOT worthy of being part of the world commerce. Period. End of story.In minutes the USD would be nearly worthless.

This news report appears this morning: https://news.yahoo.com/...un-shelling-russian-005724169.htmlThis is extremely similar to the hypothetical I posed about Estonia which went like this. If the Russians set up an artillery battery on Russian territory near the Estonian border from which they bombard Estonia, if Estonia takes out the artillery battery are they attacking Russia? Or are they defending themselves?The news story I just cited describes a fairly similar scenario. Russia set up an ammunition depot on Russian territory near the Ukrainian border. If Ukraine takes out the ammunition depot, as they appear to be doing, are they attacking Russia? Or are they defending themselves?I ask this in the context of trying to gain clarification of your statement that enforcement of rule 5 of the NATO charter requires that if any NATO member is invaded by Russia then the rest of NATO is required, "forced" you actually said at one point, to attack Russia. I asked what "attack Russia" means, and the items you listed, like taking out radar and missile sites and such, sound like defensive measures intended to hinder Russia's ability to continue the invasion, no matter where those radar and missile sites happen to be, on Russian soil or elsewhere. If that's all you mean by "attack Russia" then sure, NATO rule 5 requires NATO members to attack Russia.But to me, unless qualified in some way "attack Russia" doesn't include measures taken for defense against an invasion. It means invading Russia.--Percy

Opinion | What if Putin Didn’t Miscalculate? - The New York Times, asks an editorial in today's times. I'll quote extensively since I'm not sure of the extent to which the NYT makes itself accessible to non-subscribers.Maybe, the editorial suggests, Ukraine was never Putin's true goal. Maybe he just wanted its eastern regions to extend the Russian energy empire. As I keep reminding people, Russia is a country of enormous natural resources, and acquiring the Ukrainian energy fields would only make them greater. The editorial says it this way:

quote:

---

But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? What if the West is only playing into Putin’s hands once again?

​

The possibility is suggested in a powerful reminiscence from The Times’s Carlotta Gall of her experience covering Russia’s siege of Grozny, during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. In the early phases of the war, motivated Chechen fighters wiped out a Russian armored brigade, stunning Moscow. The Russians regrouped and wiped out Grozny from afar, using artillery and air power.

​

Russia’s operating from the same playbook today. When Western military analysts argue that Putin can’t win militarily in Ukraine, what they really mean is that he can’t win clean. Since when has Putin ever played clean?

​

“There is a whole next stage to the Putin playbook, which is well known to the Chechens,” Gall writes. “As Russian troops gained control on the ground in Chechnya, they crushed any further dissent with arrests and filtration camps and by turning and empowering local protégés and collaborators.”

​

Suppose for a moment that Putin never intended to conquer all of Ukraine: that, from the beginning, his real targets were the energy riches of Ukraine’s east, which contain Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas (after Norway’s).
...
He’s less interested in reuniting the Russian-speaking world than he is in securing Russia’s energy dominance.
...
If this analysis is right, then Putin doesn’t seem like the miscalculating loser his critics make him out to be.
...
This alternative analysis of Putin’s performance could be wrong. Then again, in war, politics and life, it’s always wiser to treat your adversary as a canny fox, not a crazy fool.

---

--Percy

I know you think these are important distinctions but I do not. If Russia bombed Estonia it triggers Article 5 and the West will defend itself in whatever military terms are required. This would necessarily mean hitting Russia in Russia - especially if airfields and artillery or missiles where originating there. They're doing both! Well there you go. Once again, I'm confused about how you could defend against an attack from Russia without attacking Russia and Russians. It wouldn't be possible to effectively defend against Russia purely from inside the country under attack - it would necessarily spread to supply chains, ammo dumps, radar installation, anti-aircraft missile systems, airfields etc etc within contact range of the actual battlefield.

Four other nations have the same power, so I wouldn't call it an actual veto. And it's part of what prevents the UN from getting anything done.

Are you kidding? Have you ever heard of Donald Trump? You guys are a few thousand votes from having him as President for Life. And his Republican henchmen are bending over backwards to make it happen. Stop listening to the voices in your head. I have never advocated that. Helping the poor would do a lot more to preserve the value of the dollar. More taxpayers. That's just stupid. Globalism is a fact. With the present state of communications and transportation, there's no avoiding it. That's your favorite bumper sticker. It's just as worthless as your predictions.You're like Jeb Bush saying, "George is ahead! Stop counting!" Or Donald Trump saying, "I'm ahead! Stop counting!"Luckily for the real world, you don't dictate the time line. When all of the votes are counted, the elction is over. When the jury is in, it's in. If I read the same crap that you do, I might reach the same crappy conclusions.You should try less reading and more thinking.