Most based French politician. Macaroon take note
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
DO you think they have the freedom to do that?
The US has them by the balls. Operation "Democracy" will be imposed if they tried.
broadsword
Brigadier
My point was: playing by their unwritten rules is still corruption, irrespective of getting anything done. That is still perpetuating, to various extents, the suffering of the people. It's money taken from the people to line the pockets of the corrupt.
RUSSIA SHUTS WHOLE MISSION TO NATO (18 OCT 2021)
Earlier this month Russia vowed a bigger retaliation in response to NATO expelling what it called "undeclared intelligence officers" from Russia's diplomatic mission to NATO in Brussels. European and US officials have long viewed the diplomatic mission with suspicion, basically seeing it as a hub of Russian espionage in the heart of Europe.
The latest row comes after NATO said on October 6 it had expelled eight members of Russia's mission to the alliance who it said were 'undeclared Russian intelligence officers'.
Moscow said at the time that the expulsions undermined hopes that relations with the U.S.-led alliance could normalise. On Monday, Lavrov cited 'recent moves' by NATO, saying there were no longer 'basic conditions for common work.'
'NATO is not interested in equitable dialogue and joint work,' Lavrov said on Monday, announcing the closure of the Russian mission. 'If that's the case, then we don't see the need to keep pretending that changes in the foreseeable future are possible.'
On Monday (18 October 2021) Moscow announced it will suspend all activities of its mission to NATO beginning next month. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced "In response to NATO’s actions, we are suspending the activity of the NATO military liaison mission in Moscow and will recall the accreditation of its staff from November 1st this year."
Lavrov said that Russia would also be ending NATO's liaison mission -- established in 2002 to improve understanding between NATO and Russia and hosted at the Belgian embassy -- and NATO information office in Moscow.
"If NATO has some urgent matters, it may contact our ambassador in Belgium on these issues," the foreign minister added of the dramatic tit-for-tat move which will serve to greatly lessen communications between the Western military alliance and the Kremlin.
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said in response that Russia's announcement had made a troubling situation even more difficult. 'It makes things more difficult and they were already difficult. Germany has sought, within NATO, for there to be a dialogue with Russia,' Maas told reporters after a meeting of European Union foreign ministers, adding Russia had previously signalled a willingness to talk.
'We must acknowledge more and more that Russia no longer seems to be (willing),' he continued. 'it's more than just regrettable, this decision taken in Moscow ... it will seriously damage the relationship.'
Russia accuses NATO of provocative military activity close to its borders, and staged major military exercises of its own in September 2021.
Communications between Russia and NATO had already been limited and severely strained since Ukraine events of 2015 and Russia's acquiring Crimea, which the West has deemed a 'hostile annexation'. It also follows a couple years of European countries expelling alleged Russian intelligence officers as well as military members.
A NATO statement during the first week of October had accused Moscow of essentially using its diplomatic mission to NATO HQ in Belgium as a rotating spy shop.
The NATO official said further at the time: "NATO’s policy towards Russia remains consistent. We have strengthened our deterrence and defense in response to Russia’s aggressive actions, while at the same time we remain open for a meaningful dialogue."
2/2--If anyone believed in the sincerity of those statements then today they don’t. Their real worth is clear to everyone. After the dramatic end of the Afghan era how can they get by without the bogeyman of “the Russian threat”. They can’t.
— Russian Mission to NATO (@natomissionru) October 7, 2021 via Twitter
The accusation had outraged Russian officials, with one senior lawmaker quoted widely in state media as vowing, "Russia will retaliate, and not necessarily in a symmetrical way." That retaliation appears to have come with Monday's mission closure, significantly heightening the diplomatic war with the West.
Russia has long had an observer mission to NATO as part of a two-decade-old NATO-Russia Council meant to promote cooperation in common security areas, but it is not a member of the US-led alliance.
The dispute marks the latest deterioration in East-West ties that are already at post-Cold War lows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major (succeeded Margaret Thatcher), and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
* * * * *
“The aggressors came to the doorstep of the Russian house, the former Soviet Union, the aggressors occupied the small Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the aggressors are already crawling into the window, into the Ukraine (Slav-brethren), and the aggressors are shouting that they are not the aggressors, but the victim. If not for the restrained policy of Vladimir Putin, the Russians would have kicked the aggressor out of their doorstep long ago. And deeply do not care about all the western concerns and sanctions.”
“Today, though Russians tend to look at Ukrainians as their smaller and younger brothers, Ukraine is in fact more like Russia's cradle. The first Russian state was based in Kyiv or Kiev, and Ukraine is still often seen as Russia's cultural and spiritual homeland, the place where Eastern Orthodox Christianity took root. But power passed on north to Moscow and St. Petersburg after Ukraine was overrun in the 13th century by Mongols from Asia. And that event still has its aftershocks.”
Earlier this month Russia vowed a bigger retaliation in response to NATO expelling what it called "undeclared intelligence officers" from Russia's diplomatic mission to NATO in Brussels. European and US officials have long viewed the diplomatic mission with suspicion, basically seeing it as a hub of Russian espionage in the heart of Europe.
The latest row comes after NATO said on October 6 it had expelled eight members of Russia's mission to the alliance who it said were 'undeclared Russian intelligence officers'.
Moscow said at the time that the expulsions undermined hopes that relations with the U.S.-led alliance could normalise. On Monday, Lavrov cited 'recent moves' by NATO, saying there were no longer 'basic conditions for common work.'
'NATO is not interested in equitable dialogue and joint work,' Lavrov said on Monday, announcing the closure of the Russian mission. 'If that's the case, then we don't see the need to keep pretending that changes in the foreseeable future are possible.'
On Monday (18 October 2021) Moscow announced it will suspend all activities of its mission to NATO beginning next month. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced "In response to NATO’s actions, we are suspending the activity of the NATO military liaison mission in Moscow and will recall the accreditation of its staff from November 1st this year."
Lavrov said that Russia would also be ending NATO's liaison mission -- established in 2002 to improve understanding between NATO and Russia and hosted at the Belgian embassy -- and NATO information office in Moscow.
"If NATO has some urgent matters, it may contact our ambassador in Belgium on these issues," the foreign minister added of the dramatic tit-for-tat move which will serve to greatly lessen communications between the Western military alliance and the Kremlin.
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said in response that Russia's announcement had made a troubling situation even more difficult. 'It makes things more difficult and they were already difficult. Germany has sought, within NATO, for there to be a dialogue with Russia,' Maas told reporters after a meeting of European Union foreign ministers, adding Russia had previously signalled a willingness to talk.
'We must acknowledge more and more that Russia no longer seems to be (willing),' he continued. 'it's more than just regrettable, this decision taken in Moscow ... it will seriously damage the relationship.'
Russia accuses NATO of provocative military activity close to its borders, and staged major military exercises of its own in September 2021.
Communications between Russia and NATO had already been limited and severely strained since Ukraine events of 2015 and Russia's acquiring Crimea, which the West has deemed a 'hostile annexation'. It also follows a couple years of European countries expelling alleged Russian intelligence officers as well as military members.
A NATO statement during the first week of October had accused Moscow of essentially using its diplomatic mission to NATO HQ in Belgium as a rotating spy shop.
The NATO official said further at the time: "NATO’s policy towards Russia remains consistent. We have strengthened our deterrence and defense in response to Russia’s aggressive actions, while at the same time we remain open for a meaningful dialogue."
2/2--If anyone believed in the sincerity of those statements then today they don’t. Their real worth is clear to everyone. After the dramatic end of the Afghan era how can they get by without the bogeyman of “the Russian threat”. They can’t.
— Russian Mission to NATO (@natomissionru) October 7, 2021 via Twitter
The accusation had outraged Russian officials, with one senior lawmaker quoted widely in state media as vowing, "Russia will retaliate, and not necessarily in a symmetrical way." That retaliation appears to have come with Monday's mission closure, significantly heightening the diplomatic war with the West.
Russia has long had an observer mission to NATO as part of a two-decade-old NATO-Russia Council meant to promote cooperation in common security areas, but it is not a member of the US-led alliance.
The dispute marks the latest deterioration in East-West ties that are already at post-Cold War lows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, President George H.W. Bush, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, CIA Director Robert Gates, French President Francois Mitterrand, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, British Prime Minister John Major (succeeded Margaret Thatcher), and NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
* * * * *
“The aggressors came to the doorstep of the Russian house, the former Soviet Union, the aggressors occupied the small Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the aggressors are already crawling into the window, into the Ukraine (Slav-brethren), and the aggressors are shouting that they are not the aggressors, but the victim. If not for the restrained policy of Vladimir Putin, the Russians would have kicked the aggressor out of their doorstep long ago. And deeply do not care about all the western concerns and sanctions.”
“Today, though Russians tend to look at Ukrainians as their smaller and younger brothers, Ukraine is in fact more like Russia's cradle. The first Russian state was based in Kyiv or Kiev, and Ukraine is still often seen as Russia's cultural and spiritual homeland, the place where Eastern Orthodox Christianity took root. But power passed on north to Moscow and St. Petersburg after Ukraine was overrun in the 13th century by Mongols from Asia. And that event still has its aftershocks.”
One stone many birds. Multiple sources, balance of trade, geopolitical bargaining, ......
Russia’s dramatic decision to cut direct diplomatic ties with NATO further proof that Moscow no longer cares what the West thinks (2021/10/19)
By Paul Robinson, a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet history, military history and military ethics.
TWO DECADES AGO, President Vladimir Putin and his American counterpart, Bill Clinton, discussed Russia potentially joining NATO. Now, this week, Moscow has announced it is severing its last remaining diplomatic ties with the bloc.
The rapprochement with the West, it seems, is now truly dead and buried. Russia will withdraw its delegation from Brussels, and will send home NATO’s mission in Moscow from next month. The row ostensibly comes after the US-led bloc announced it would expel nearly half of Russia’s envoys, reportedly over unsubstantiated allegations of ‘espionage.’
BETTER TOGETHER?
One might imagine that groups would make better decisions than individuals. The input of a wide variety of views should produce wiser results than one person following his or her biases. Psychologists have, however, identified multiple problems with the dynamics of group decision-making that contribute to the opposite outcome. Groupthink, for instance, tends to produce conformity by suppressing dissenting points of view. And the phenomenon of “group polarization” pushes groups towards extreme positions.
With group polarization, sets of individuals adopt more extreme ideas collectively than each of them would have supported individually before discussions started. The process of discussion hardens attitudes around more radical positions, as the more moderate members of the group change their opinion in order to fit what they see to be the consensus. Thus, a study of US judges showed that, when making decisions alone, they made what were deemed “extreme” judgements 35% of the time, but when sitting in a panel of three, did so 65% of the time.
It seems that the Russian government has now lost patience with the primary Western multilateral organizations – the EU and NATO – preferring to bypass them to deal with their individual member states individually. Thus Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared earlier this year that, “there are currently no relations with the EU as an organization.”
TEARING UP TIES
Lavrov’s announcement on Monday that bilateral ties with NATO marks the end of nearly 30 YEARS of direct relations with the bloc, dating back to the creation in 1994 of the Partnership for Peace program and also to Russia’s participation in the 1996 mission in Bosnia, led by the bloc.
In an effort to come closer together, in 1997 the two sides signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which created a Permanent Joint Committee of representatives of both parties. In due course, this led to the establishment in 2002 of a NATO-Russia Council, whose purpose was to reassure Russia about the bloc’s intentions by allowing for consultations on key issues of joint interest.
While admirable in theory, in practice neither the Permanent Joint Committee nor the NATO-Russia Council were able to foster good mutual relations. Part of the problem was that both sides took actions that the other considered hostile: the bombing of Yugoslavia and Libya, and the expansion of the bloc on the one side; the takeover of Crimea and support for rebellion in Donbass on the other. Beyond that, though, the Russians found that dealing with NATO as a group didn’t work out quite the way they had imagined.
Moscow’s decision to withdraw its representatives from NATO is, therefore, hardly a shock, given that they were not, in practice, achieving anything. It is nevertheless symbolically extremely significant. Russia’s presence at the headquarters in Brussels, and similarly NATO’s presence in Moscow, at least indicated an aspiration on behalf of both parties to try to do something to repair their relations. Following Lavrov’s statement on Monday, it’s clear that nobody is interested any longer in even pretending that things might get better.
NOT PRETENDING ANY MORE
It’s hard to see where things go from here. Moscow will no doubt seek to bypass NATO and the EU, speaking directly to their members. In turn, the two organizations will see that as part and parcel of a deliberate strategy of divide and rule, with Russia being painted as trying to split the Western alliance. This will then be used as further evidence of Russian malice, even though in reality it’s more a product of frustration than anything else. The result may not be entirely to Russia’s liking.
While it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to either NATO’s or Russia’s policies towards each other, it does therefore tell us something very definite about the change in attitudes that has taken place in Russia OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS. Whereas once Russia’s rulers looked to integrate with the West, now they have slammed the door firmly shut, and made it clear that they intend to go their own way, come what may.
(…)
By Paul Robinson, a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes about Russian and Soviet history, military history and military ethics.
TWO DECADES AGO, President Vladimir Putin and his American counterpart, Bill Clinton, discussed Russia potentially joining NATO. Now, this week, Moscow has announced it is severing its last remaining diplomatic ties with the bloc.
The rapprochement with the West, it seems, is now truly dead and buried. Russia will withdraw its delegation from Brussels, and will send home NATO’s mission in Moscow from next month. The row ostensibly comes after the US-led bloc announced it would expel nearly half of Russia’s envoys, reportedly over unsubstantiated allegations of ‘espionage.’
BETTER TOGETHER?
One might imagine that groups would make better decisions than individuals. The input of a wide variety of views should produce wiser results than one person following his or her biases. Psychologists have, however, identified multiple problems with the dynamics of group decision-making that contribute to the opposite outcome. Groupthink, for instance, tends to produce conformity by suppressing dissenting points of view. And the phenomenon of “group polarization” pushes groups towards extreme positions.
With group polarization, sets of individuals adopt more extreme ideas collectively than each of them would have supported individually before discussions started. The process of discussion hardens attitudes around more radical positions, as the more moderate members of the group change their opinion in order to fit what they see to be the consensus. Thus, a study of US judges showed that, when making decisions alone, they made what were deemed “extreme” judgements 35% of the time, but when sitting in a panel of three, did so 65% of the time.
It seems that the Russian government has now lost patience with the primary Western multilateral organizations – the EU and NATO – preferring to bypass them to deal with their individual member states individually. Thus Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared earlier this year that, “there are currently no relations with the EU as an organization.”
TEARING UP TIES
Lavrov’s announcement on Monday that bilateral ties with NATO marks the end of nearly 30 YEARS of direct relations with the bloc, dating back to the creation in 1994 of the Partnership for Peace program and also to Russia’s participation in the 1996 mission in Bosnia, led by the bloc.
In an effort to come closer together, in 1997 the two sides signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which created a Permanent Joint Committee of representatives of both parties. In due course, this led to the establishment in 2002 of a NATO-Russia Council, whose purpose was to reassure Russia about the bloc’s intentions by allowing for consultations on key issues of joint interest.
While admirable in theory, in practice neither the Permanent Joint Committee nor the NATO-Russia Council were able to foster good mutual relations. Part of the problem was that both sides took actions that the other considered hostile: the bombing of Yugoslavia and Libya, and the expansion of the bloc on the one side; the takeover of Crimea and support for rebellion in Donbass on the other. Beyond that, though, the Russians found that dealing with NATO as a group didn’t work out quite the way they had imagined.
Moscow’s decision to withdraw its representatives from NATO is, therefore, hardly a shock, given that they were not, in practice, achieving anything. It is nevertheless symbolically extremely significant. Russia’s presence at the headquarters in Brussels, and similarly NATO’s presence in Moscow, at least indicated an aspiration on behalf of both parties to try to do something to repair their relations. Following Lavrov’s statement on Monday, it’s clear that nobody is interested any longer in even pretending that things might get better.
NOT PRETENDING ANY MORE
It’s hard to see where things go from here. Moscow will no doubt seek to bypass NATO and the EU, speaking directly to their members. In turn, the two organizations will see that as part and parcel of a deliberate strategy of divide and rule, with Russia being painted as trying to split the Western alliance. This will then be used as further evidence of Russian malice, even though in reality it’s more a product of frustration than anything else. The result may not be entirely to Russia’s liking.
While it won’t make the slightest bit of difference to either NATO’s or Russia’s policies towards each other, it does therefore tell us something very definite about the change in attitudes that has taken place in Russia OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS. Whereas once Russia’s rulers looked to integrate with the West, now they have slammed the door firmly shut, and made it clear that they intend to go their own way, come what may.
(…)
Moreover there are not many stuffs / commodities that the USA still produce that China really needs in order to narrow the trade imbalance between the two, which is each month still amounts to a surplus of more than $25 billion for the Chinese side in 2021... after all the trade wars. The USA should do better, try harder to produce more useful stuffs to supply China thus may achieve more balanced trade.
broadsword
Brigadier
What you wrote here is, in brief, capitalists and politicians sleeping together. Old news.
Do you want the Chinese SOEs to be the new capitalists?
Accusations of Chinese corruption or improper dealings also came from the local people. I still believe the number of projects that involved big under-table money is small. There should not be any. But the damage to the reputation is huge.
Chinese firms will still win a positively disproportionate share of projects in a fair fight.