View Poll Results: Whom do you support and to what extent?

Voters
151. You may not vote on this poll
  • I support Ukraine fully.

    104 68.87%
  • I support Russia fully.

    17 11.26%
  • I only support Russia's claim over Crimea.

    4 2.65%
  • I only support Russia's claim over Crimea and Donbass (Luhansk and Donetsk regions).

    11 7.28%
  • Not sure.

    7 4.64%
  • I don't care.

    8 5.30%
Page 7 of 563 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516173257107507 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 11249

Thread: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

  1. #121
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,779

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    Russia wouldn’t be fighting the entire US military. In the event of full scale war, it’d be a huge Russian force fighting a likely smaller NATO combined force (if there were even time for something like that to mobilize pre-invasion) in a spat of escalation, while Washington and Moscow scramble to reach a resolution before missiles start flying and the whole planet is put at risk - all over a local, political conflict on the outskirts of the global middle of nowhere. The US has to be on alert all over the world. Russia would be fighting at home. The US doesn’t have local superiority by any stretch.

    Speaking for myself, I would consider that disadvantage worth the risk of escalation vs China due to the existential nature of the struggle. The same does not apply to Russia or Iran for that matter.
    You are assuming that the Russian nationalist state apparatus cannot be dismantled and that Russia cannot be welcomed into the global liberal order. You assume that Russia will always be "that" Russia.

    Russian population, although still at large conservative-nationalist-pro authoritarian folk are a lot more engaged with the Western mindset. This became obvious in Ukraine a decade ago and even in a place like Belarus last year. Peoples of Eastern Europe are not as isolated from a globalist world idea as the Chinese or North Koreans are. Both in Russia and Russian-sphere, many consider themselves as part of the European identity. An identity that so far represents enlightement, democracy and liberalism. Same in Iran. When you people look at these countries from the West, you only see the state apparatus, but many of these countries have significant populations that want a system like in the West. That want to integrate to a global world and be done with their loval feudal-like oligarchs.

    The assets which the authoritarian regime in Russia rests on are limited. There is a possibility that the regime CAN be dismantled and pro-Western people can install some sort of a cooperative, open democracy.

    People keep thinking that Russia is a unified force that acts from the mind of those in centre at all times, but people ignore the fact that Russia is spending A LOT of resources to main that regime and it's hold on various ex-communist states.

    There is already a great deal of discontent in every ex-Soviet sphere country as well as in Russia. Local nationalism's against Russian expansionism are on the rise.
    Russia lacks the economic and financial power to keep this afloat. Their reserves are big because EU does not want to go through heavy undertakings on diversifying their energy resources. Russian economy is outdated beyond that, their exports are mostly uncompetitive, their firms rarely have global edge and most businesses rely on old Soviet ties-ties that are enforced by the same oligarchy that rules the Russian regime. That is how they survive.

    The worst scenario is if Russia secured a solid energy export deal to China and they cooperate. This could turn into a win-win for Russia&China for a long time. But even there, Russian and Chinese expansion, their desire to create their own spheres clash in most locations, especially Central Asia. There are already conspiracies about what happened in Kazakhstan, that the pro-Chinese bureaucracy that was being funded by China was dismantled by what happened.

    Anyways, I believe Russia is running out of time, they are at their peak power and they have to act now. That is the reason for their aggresion. For the Putinist regime, they either act now or they use their dwindling power to maintain their hold on their sphere.

    It is an economically undynamic country, reliant of fossil fuel that is being replaced by new energy sources all over the world. It's population is aging at an extremely rapid pace. It is relatively isolated. It's society is oppressed and thus very undynamic. Most of the brains of the country escape to West.
    The relative strenght of the countries that surround Russia including it's own sphere of influence is becoming stronger. Even Turkey has been taking significant shots at Russia. Russian influence in Kafkas has been damaged immensely. An area West did not even dare to step in before. They kıst Georgia to West, Armenia is half-half. Their grip on Azerbaijan is melting at a rapid pace as Israel and Turkey moves in.

    Russia has one great asset since the Soviet times. It's deep state, it's intelligence agency networks and their power to divide the rest of the world. Their ability to use disinformation.

    A Russia that can rid itself of this entrenched authoritarian-militarist network can also become a dynamic economy with lots of potentials. This opportunity was wasted in the 1990s due to over-celebration of the Western victory where they ruthlessly turned Russia into a terrible colony of sorts for a while, trying to plunder it- which ended up creating a huge resentment among the masses who were expecting to have their lives elevated (like in Eastern Euroe).
    I believe that a pro-western, cooperative, democratic Russia is possible with the newer generations that grow up seeing the world on the internet. Not only that, Russia would be major ally against China's attempt to create it's own alternative hegemonic power.

    That is why Russia should be the priority. The solution to the question of Russia is the solution to the problem of China.
    Last edited by dogukan; January 14, 2022 at 01:21 PM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  2. #122

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    The big problem is that, should war with Russia come, Putin has all of the advantages. His influence on the US is huge and growing every day. He owns the Republican party and could order them to sabotage any defenses, feed Russia intel to cripple any US counterattacks, and generally cause chaos. He could even order then to tell their voters to start shooting, saying it would get Trump back in power.

  3. #123
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    The big problem is that, should war with Russia come, Putin has all of the advantages. His influence on the US is huge and growing every day. He owns the Republican party and could order them to sabotage any defenses, feed Russia intel to cripple any US counterattacks, and generally cause chaos. He could even order then to tell their voters to start shooting, saying it would get Trump back in power.
    If Putin invaded Ukraine, the GOP would be using it as leverage to pressure Biden. They would most likely turn full hawk on it to make sure Biden's time is difficult. The GOP might have been happy to use Putin when they saw advantage. But they are in no way 'Putin's' party. That is just hyperbole.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  4. #124

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    If Putin invaded Ukraine, the GOP would be using it as leverage to pressure Biden. They would most likely turn full hawk on it to make sure Biden's time is difficult. The GOP might have been happy to use Putin when they saw advantage. But they are in no way 'Putin's' party. That is just hyperbole.
    It isn't hyperbole, it's false. Only yesterday did the GOP attempt to introduce sanctions against Nord Stream 2 that were blocked by Senate Democrats.



  5. #125
    swabian's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,298

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    The big problem is that, should war with Russia come, Putin has all of the advantages. His influence on the US is huge and growing every day. He owns the Republican party and could order them to sabotage any defenses, feed Russia intel to cripple any US counterattacks, and generally cause chaos. He could even order then to tell their voters to start shooting, saying it would get Trump back in power.
    Putin wants his array of gas pipelines that reach through Ukraine secure protected. The US doesn't want Europe to become dependent on Russian gas, but from a European perspective, there will be some sort of dependency anyways. The US should make sure the diplomatic way that his stupid pipe dreams in the Ukraine aren't threatened too much. War is not an option. Just until the last remaining idiots in Europe have understood that nuclear energy is a necessity and without alternative, as Merkel would put it. It will not be Europe, but Russia ending up suffering from withdrawal within 15-20 years.

  6. #126

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    It isn't hyperbole, it's false. Only yesterday did the GOP attempt to introduce sanctions against Nord Stream 2 that were blocked by Senate Democrats.
    Good. The sanctions were against our allies Germany and Norway and not a single one against Russia. Had the sanctions taken effect it would have ruptured NATO.

    I wonder who would want that...

    Quote Originally Posted by swabian View Post
    Putin wants his array of gas pipelines that reach through Ukraine secure protected. The US doesn't want Europe to become dependent on Russian gas, but from a European perspective, there will be some sort of dependency anyways. The US should make sure the diplomatic way that his stupid pipe dreams in the Ukraine aren't threatened too much. War is not an option. Just until the last remaining idiots in Europe have understood that nuclear energy is a necessity and without alternative, as Merkel would put it. It will not be Europe, but Russia ending up suffering from withdrawal within 15-20 years.
    In the next 15-20 years Russia will be the dominant world superpower thanks to climate change. Vast tracks of formerly useless frozen tundra in Siberia will open up to resource exploitation and colonization, and Russia's currently semi-useless arctic seaports will be open year-round.

    Meanwhile the US heartland will be the new Sahara.

    Of course this was a big reason why the US right has always been so adamant about climate change being a hoax and outright hostility to green energy or emissions standards.

    And once the US is crippled, it will be a simple matter for Putin or his successor to bribe their way to control of China. Then the world is his.

  7. #127
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,116

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    So now the NYT is less credulous too bad it was not over WMDs or Hillary's Emails (the horror)
    That's a good point. But in this case, they are right.Call it a war neurosis,living in a hostile foreign country where they were under constant surveillance.


    Challenging the diagnosis of 'Havana Syndrome' as a novel clinical entity - Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

    It has been said that history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Manifestations of mass psychogenic illness throughout history are notoriously protean, changing with the times to reflect shifting fears and beliefs.1 That is because it is a psychosomatic condition involving the influence of the psyche (mind) on the soma (body); a complex interaction of biological, psychological and social forces.2 During the 19th century, there was an upsurge in outbreaks in Western schools and factories coinciding with rigid academic and capitalist discipline paralleling the rise in scientific rationalism. Prior to this time, episodes were typified by anxiety associated with the fear of witches and demons.3 Clusters of hand tremor in European students were common during the late 19th and early 20th centuries in response to tedious penmanship classes.4 Trance-like states, abnormal movements and neurological symptoms began to manifest in industrial settings with the advent of the industrial revolution and harsh work conditions before the appearance of unions.5 With the publication of Silent Spring by biologist Rachel Carson in 1962 which gave rise to the birth of the modern environmental movement, outbreaks again shifted, to reflect contamination fears.6 Since this period which has been marked by environmental legislation and concerns, the most common trigger of mass psychogenic illness episodes has been strange odours, and to a lesser extent, a preoccupation with the safety of food and water.

    New technologies have often been fertile ground for heightening anxieties and prevailing fears. Soon after the invention of the radio, many people believed that the invisible waves were making them sick. When computer terminals became widespread during the early 1980s, some were convinced that they were causing birth defects and miscarriages. More recently, fears that mobile phones, microwave ovens and Wi-Fi would cause a spike in the number of brain tumours have not materialised.7 The introduction of new technologies have been associated with the appearance of an array of health complaints that were deemed to have been of psychogenic origin. Soon after the advent of rail travel, passengers who had survived serious train accidents began to complain of a variety of health issues including back pain, difficulty walking, abnormal eye movements, unusual sensations in the limbs, insomnia, fatigue, sluggishness, confusion and visual impairment. Dubbed ‘railway spine’, physicians initially attributed these symptoms to ‘spinal concussion’ resulting from physical trauma including accidents and shaking. In 1883, London surgeon Herbert Page established ‘that in many cases no damage had been sustained to the spinal cord’, which led him to conclude that ‘fright alone’ led to the symptoms.8

    During the 18th century, some musical instruments were widely believed to cause an array of illnesses. In 1787, German armonica player Karl Röllig reported experiencing an array of complaints that he attributed to the armonica, ranging from nervousness and muscle spasms to dizziness, tremors and hallucinations that involved seeing ghosts and hearing threatening noises.9 Röllig once famously wrote of the armonica’s impact: ‘Its social effects were such as no other instrument whatever has produced. Its tones could…make women faint; send a dog into convulsions; make a sleeping girl wake screaming through a chord of the diminished seventh, and even cause the death of one very young.’10 German playwright Friedrich Rochlitz (1769–1842) helped to foster the scare when he observed that there was a shortage of armonica players, reinforcing a growing belief that the instrument’s tone was leading to an array of nervous disorders and depression. He also believed that stringed instruments such as the harp and guitar produced a similar effect.9

    With the recent advent of wind-to-energy technology, people living near wind farms have reported becoming sick from the noise created by the turning blades. Researchers studying the wind farm scare have demonstrated that the effects can be explained by mass psychology, expectation and framing, not from the noise of the blades. In 2009, a panel of scientists found that a small fraction of persons living near turbines experienced health issues related to stress from the perception of noise, but not from the sound waves themselves.11 There is no evidence that sound below the threshold of human hearing has a negative effect on human health. In fact, human respiration and heart rate generate higher levels of sub-audible sound than those produced by rotating wind turbine blades, and many everyday sounds occur at a higher level.12 Double-blind studies have shown that people who claim to experience symptoms from exposure to weak electromagnetic fields are unable to detect the presence of these fields and sham exposure to them elicits symptoms as frequently as real exposure.13 Studies that assess expectations prior to being exposed to sham or real electromagnetic fields show that the nocebo effect plays a key role in determining whether symptoms develop or not. If people expect to have symptoms, they are much more likely to have them.14 Based on the weight of evidence, we believe that the most likely explanation for the recent outbreak of mysterious symptoms in Cuba and elsewhere is mass psychogenic illness triggered by rumours of the development of a new and enigmatic sonic device.

    The events in Cuba

    Between November 2016 and June 2018, a mysterious illness was reported among 25 diplomats from the US embassy in Havana, Cuba.15,16 Patients exhibited an array of what the State Department described as ‘medically confirmed symptoms’, including headaches, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, confusion, disorientation, trouble walking, insomnia, sensitivity to sound, ear pain and pressure, tinnitus and brain abnormalities that included concussion-like symptoms.17 An eerie sound accompanied most incidents. Government physicians suspected the involvement of a sonic device and consulted a specialist on the health effects of acoustic weapons. US President Donald Trump, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Senator Marco Rubio each blamed the ‘attacks’ on the Cuban government, in complicity with a hostile foreign actor.18,19 The incidents were confined to diplomats’ homes and two prominent landmarks: the Hotel Capri and Hotel Nacional de Cuba.

    Soon after the ‘attacks’ were made public on 9 August 2017, approximately three dozen American tourists contacted the Associated Press to report that they too had heard strange sounds and felt unwell while visiting the hotels in question over the past several years.20 The next month, a US embassy worker and his spouse in Tashkent, Uzbekistan were evacuated after they reported health incidents coinciding with a mysterious sound.21 By mid-2018, the State Department had evacuated at least 11 Americans from China after reports of similar sounds and symptoms in staff at consulates in Guangzhou, Shanghai and Beijing.22 In February 2019, several Canadian diplomats and their families filed a CAD $28,000,000 lawsuit against their government for neglect after they reported sounds and symptoms while in Havana.23 The attack claims have left experts in physics and acoustics mystified and skeptical as to how subjects located deep within a hotel or their home could be targeted.24

    Conflicting findings and the framing of illness

    US embassy staff who were exposed to a presumed ‘sonic attack’ have been evaluated by two medical teams: ear specialists who attributed their symptoms to inner ear vestibular damage and head trauma specialists who found evidence of mild traumatic brain injury. Both studies were inconclusive. The trauma specialists examined 21 patients and concluded that they were suffering from concussion-like symptoms and brain damage. They wrote that despite no history of head trauma, the subjects ‘appeared to have sustained injury to widespread brain networks’.25 However, MRI scans found ‘nonspecific white matter tract changes in some individuals, but were otherwise unrevealing’.26 Of 21 patients tested, three had white matter tract changes (two mild, one moderate). Such findings are common in an array of conditions from migraine and depression to normal aging. Many of the symptoms overlap with a host of medical and psychiatric conditions, and there were no structural brain changes.26 Furthermore, the standards for neurological impairment in the study were arbitrarily high – any test score under the 40th percentile of normal responses, which almost certainly gave rise to false positives.27

    Symptoms such as difficulty concentrating, brain fog, memory problems, and sleep-related complaints (e.g. drowsiness, insomnia) were present in nearly all patients, but are also common in those with anxiety, depression and both individual and epidemic forms of psychogenic illness. Visual problems like light sensitivity, difficulty reading and eye strain were commonly reported but when tested, there was no visual impairment. Impaired convergence and eye tracking found in about half the patients are common in anxious patients. Three-quarters of patients complained of headaches and about half of these had sensitivity to light and sound – symptoms typical of migraines. Stress is a well-known trigger for migraine, which affects about 15% of the population.

    The study’s lead author, Dr Randel Swanson said:

    If you took any one of these patients and put them into a brain injury clinic, and you didn’t know their background, you would think they had a traumatic brain injury from being in a car accident or a blast in the military. It’s like a concussion without a concussion.28

    A key issue here is the power of physicians to shape the presentation of symptoms through suggestion, as many of these complaints are common in the general population (e.g. fatigue, dizziness, headaches, memory problems) and may be reframed to reflect what doctors and government authorities are telling them. Hence, if you put these patients in a dizziness clinic, a headache clinic, a post-traumatic stress disorder clinic or an anxiety disorder clinic, there is a strong likelihood that they will be diagnosed with persistent postural perceptual dizziness, tension or migraine headaches, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety disorder, respectively. The process of referring patients with non-specific symptoms to a clinic specialising in brain trauma can shape the symptoms into a specific pattern.

    A second study conducted by ear specialists drew an entirely different conclusion: that all 25 embassy staff examined had damage to the otolith organs which regulate balance, perception of gravity and sense of linear motion. The study focused on 25 individuals who reported symptoms and direct exposure to either a noise or a pressure sensation, and 10 people who were with a victim at the time of an ‘attack’, but did not exhibit symptoms, although ‘one reported an extremely brief sensation of exposure to a force wave and a second heard a very brief, high-pitched noise for a few seconds on a single occasion’.29 The most common symptom was dizziness (92%), followed by cognitive problems like difficulty concentrating, forgetfulness, taking longer to process information and mental fogginess (56%). Hearing loss and tinnitus were reported in 32% of individuals, ear pain in 28% and headache in 24%.

    On the vestibular testing of balance and eye movement, they reported an assortment of ambiguous abnormalities which, without an appropriate control group, are impossible to interpret and are essentially meaningless without a baseline for comparison. Inexplicably, the 10 housemates who did not report symptoms were not tested. With the exception of dizziness, which is notoriously difficult to measure, there was little symptom overlap, suggestive of multiple causes. While nearly one-third of individuals reported hearing loss from the ‘attacks’, a standard hearing test found loss in just two people – both of whom had hearing loss before the events in Cuba.29

    Havana Syndrome: shell shock in a different cultural guise?

    In light of the inconclusive and contradictory findings in studies on the embassy patients, and the tendency for physicians to reframe illness to reflect expectations, it is notable that most of the reported symptoms are commonly encountered by general practitioners and neurologists in their everyday practices. However, one conspicuously stands out: concussion-like symptoms. During every major American conflict since the Civil War, doctors have noticed clusters of unexplained symptoms in soldiers who were exposed to the trauma of war. After undergoing thorough exams, they were unable to identify an organic cause. The presentation of neurological symptoms in these illness clusters varies to reflect the perceived wartime threat, be it artillery shells, poison gas, agent orange or depleted uranium. There is a growing consensus in the psychiatric community that the fear and uncertainty that accompanies these events give rise to outbreaks of psychogenic illness.30 A characteristic feature of combat syndromes over the past century is the appearance of an array of neurological complaints from an overstimulated nervous system that are commonly misdiagnosed as concussions and brain damage.

    This is relevant to Havana Syndrome because the diplomats who became sick were participants in a continuation of the Cold War, living in a hostile foreign country where they were under constant surveillance. There is a long history of embassy staff suffering harassment at the hands of Cuban agents. They soon began to hear alarming stories of sonic attacks. New staff were not only being briefed on the likelihood that they may become the next targets, they were primed for ‘attacks’ as they were played recordings of the sounds captured by employees in Havana, before taking up their posts. Several of these recordings were later identified as the mating calls of Anurogryllus celerinictus (the Indies short-tailed cricket) and Gryllus assimilis (the Jamiacan field cricket).31,32 As a result, between late 2016 and much of 2017, staff in Havana were living in a cauldron of stress and uncertainty, amid rumours of an enigmatic sonic weapon. As one worker who lived through this ordeal told us, they were afraid to even retire to their beds at night, fearful that they and their families would be attacked in their sleep.

    Shell shock posed a challenge for doctors of the day just as the array of similar symptoms in Cuba has created modern-day controversy and confusion within the medical community. During both periods, there was no dearth of opinions to explain the symptoms associated with the diagnosis. Once the JAMA team had published their findings in early 2018, there was a swift response by specialists who pointed out the psychogenic features of the outbreak. During the Great War, faced with accumulating evidence that the affected soldiers had not been subjected to exploding ordinance, some doctors continued to suggest that sufferers must have had subtle microscopic brain tears or haemorrhages that had been triggered by the blast waves, but once they had a chance to analyse the data, a consensus soon emerged that traumatic stress and suggestibility were the root of most cases. The mind had become debilitated by emotional trauma and fear. Over time, many European neurologists and psychiatrists concluded that shell shock had a psychological origin. The public health physician for the American Expeditionary Forces in France, Thomas Salmon pointed out that soldiers’ symptoms often mirrored their war experiences. This is a longstanding feature and telltale sign of psychogenic illness. In some cases, soldiers developed blindness after witnessing a traumatic event or became deaf after hearing unbearable cries for help from wounded comrades. In a similar vein, contemporary mass psychogenic illness outbreaks in the general population typically reflect the exposure scenario. Persons who believe they have been exposed to tainted food commonly experience abdominal pain, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, while those who think they have come into contact with toxic gas typically exhibit dizziness, itchy eyes and breathing problems.1
    During a press briefing in Washington, DC, on 28 September 2017, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert observed: ‘We have never seen this any place in the world before’.33 Physicians treating these patients have made similar observations, the significance of which cannot be overstated, using terms like ‘novel clinical entity’25 and ‘new syndrome’ characterised by concussion-like symptoms.34 In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, State Department doctor Charles Rosenfarb concurred with this assessment, noting that what may be a ‘novel syndrome’ was proving to be a challenge to understand.35 What might this new syndrome be that masquerades as brain damage, and why has it not been identified before now? We believe that it has.

    Over the past century, soldiers returning from combat have been diagnosed with a new and novel syndrome for which no organic cause could be found. Some of the most common complaints include headache, dizziness, disorientation, forgetfulness, difficulty concentrating, fatigue, insomnia, chest pain, and impaired vision and hearing – all common features of Havana Syndrome. However, the most conspicuous feature is the appearance of concussion-like symptoms. These psychogenic symptoms associated with American soldiers living under continuous stress parallel those reported by the US diplomats working under continuous surveillance while living on foreign soil under the spectre of the Cold War. The symptoms of the American diplomats in Havana closely parallel those associated with war trauma – right down to the concussion-like symptoms that have often confounded physicians who have misdiagnosed it as brain trauma in the past. In so far as the political and scientific evidence for the perpetration of an attack on US embassy staff in Cuba is inconclusive, we pose the question: what is the more likely, that the diplomats were the target of a mysterious new weapon for which there is no concrete evidence and the use of which defies the laws of physics, or they were suffering from psychogenic symptoms generated by stress?

    Over the past 100 years, the medical community has accumulated a vast amount of evidence for the existence of psychogenic war trauma under an array of disparate labels. Each of these conditions uniquely reflect the times and manifest in a slightly different form to reflect the circumstances. Due to the large variation in symptoms, none of these conditions are truly syndromes. To this lengthy list, we should add another: ‘Havana syndrome’. Unfortunately, the continued framing of the outbreak as a brain injury will likely prolong recovery time because if the patients believe they have brain damage, those negative expectations are likely to drive the nocebo effect.36
    Last edited by Ludicus; January 16, 2022 at 09:05 AM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  8. #128
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,116

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    One thing is very obvious, our European governments aren’t willing to consider sanctions on Russian energy exports.Exclusive: U.S. talks to energy firms on EU gas supply in case ...

    Any interruptions to Russia's gas supply to Europe would exacerbate an energy crisis caused by a shortage of the fuel. Record power prices have driven up consumer energy bills as well as business costs and sparked protests in some countries
    ...
    Read the Article by Vladimir Putin "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians"
    Let's just say it's a lengthy article.
    How it ends,
    (...) The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.
    Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us.
    We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.
    I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.
    Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.
    ------
    Edit,
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Russia would at least be less of a liability then America's current "best allies"
    It’s reassuring to see that Trump’s followers are not betraying him.If I remember well, the "true" President of the US has little patience for alliances or anything that commits the US to defending a weaker ally, repeatedly questioned the utility of NATO, kept saying it wasn’t worth pissing off Russia and what a bad country Ukraine was (“They are horrible, corrupt people”),cannot stop praising Putin, accepted a large delivery of medical supplies from Russia, asked allies to let Russia back into the G-7 and also praised far-right European leaders aligned with Putin.

    Russia's Involvement in Far-Right European Politics

    A Pattern of Supporting Far-Right Parties

    This recent evidence connecting Russia to the League should not come as a surprise. Rather, the country’s support of Salvini is one example among many demonstrating the Kremlin’s goal to break current European alliances by strengthening right-wing extremism. As they seemed to have done with the League, the Russian government’s method of choice in carrying out this objective is using business transactions to mask exchanges of political power. Salvini is not the only recipient.

    Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s far-right National Rally, received 11 million euros in the form of loans from Russian banks after publicly supporting the annexation of Crimea. Due to the National Rally’s history of racism and anti-Semitism, the party has been turned down for loans from French banks.

    Earlier this year, Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the Austrian far-right Freedom Party, was caught negotiating the exchange of public contracts for Russian financial campaign support.

    Russian influence is also evident in the rise of far-right politics in Hungary. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban infamously declared “shipwrecked liberal democracy” to be a thing of the past in his country, echoing Putin’s statements on the issue.

    Hungary’s connections to the Kremlin have solidified recently due to nuclear energy deals.

    Russian ties to Salvini and the League are yet another example of the Kremlin’s strategy of using commerce to support the rise of European nationalism and populism. By aiding the growth of far-right political power in Europe, Russia plays the long-game of weakening key Western alliances.
    -----
    Trump Endorses Viktor Orban, Hungary's Far-Right Prime ...
    Trump expresses support for French candidate Le Pen - Politico
    Matteo Salvini plans return as PM, wants alliance with Trump

    Shall I go on or shall I stop?
    Last edited by Ludicus; January 16, 2022 at 11:29 AM.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  9. #129
    swabian's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,298

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Coughdrop addict View Post
    Good. The sanctions were against our allies Germany and Norway and not a single one against Russia. Had the sanctions taken effect it would have ruptured NATO.

    I wonder who would want that...



    In the next 15-20 years Russia will be the dominant world superpower thanks to climate change. Vast tracks of formerly useless frozen tundra in Siberia will open up to resource exploitation and colonization, and Russia's currently semi-useless arctic seaports will be open year-round.

    Meanwhile the US heartland will be the new Sahara.

    Of course this was a big reason why the US right has always been so adamant about climate change being a hoax and outright hostility to green energy or emissions standards.

    And once the US is crippled, it will be a simple matter for Putin or his successor to bribe their way to control of China. Then the world is his.
    Haha, interesting. I think this could certainly be a business model for post Putin Russia, but not in the nearer future. The climate change process is not getting brutal enough for that to happen under Putin. He's in his 60's and the real fun stuff comes in the second half of the century. Also, the Russians would not sell to actual refugees during a cascade of collapsing economies, epicentering around the equator, the participants of which cannot afford it. They would sell it to wealthy people, like Nort-Americans. But the latter don't need Russia's hand. The USA has a rather low population density, so that the north could absorb the southern part of the population and there is also Canada as a more attractive alternative to Russia. Speaking of Canada, I'm not even sure if the colonization of Russia could work out as you imagine it (i had that same thought myself before btw... it is very plausible, at least on the surface). There are horrible heat waves now in Canada which apparently has something to do with high pressure zones becoming more static during the Summer in climates on large land masses. The same is beginning to happen in Siberia as well. It could still very well be, that Siberia remains an attractive area for colonization in the later century, but the same would apply to Canada and Alaska and Greenland.
    Last edited by swabian; January 17, 2022 at 08:36 PM.

  10. #130
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    21,467

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    If it comes to war, expect conscription and the start of a new world war.
    No-one will expect to sit back in the comfort of their own armchairs and expect to watch war porn without being bombarded by nuclear tipped HGVs

  11. #131
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,397

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Lol no. The current standing army of the EU nations is sufficient to wipe the floor with Russia's in terms of both manpower and materiel. If America and the rest of NATO join the party it's game over for the ruskies.

    There's not going to be a war. Ukraine lied through its teeth, as it always does, hoping to get the US to intervene in Crimea and Donbas more directly. Russia caught that lie and spun it into its own bluff in order to get more influence in the region at the expense of the EU.
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; January 18, 2022 at 07:32 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  12. #132
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    Lol no. The current standing army of the EU nations is sufficient to wipe the floor with Russia's in terms of both manpower and materiel.
    That is just outright hilarious. The military strength of the EU couldn't come close to touching Russia. Why do you think Eastern European countries keep requesting a permanent US military presence in their countries? They certainly don't think the mighty EU can protect them.

    The EU doesn't have to he firepower, willpower, nor logistics to take on Russia in a fight.

  13. #133
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    That is just outright hilarious. The military strength of the EU couldn't come close to touching Russia. Why do you think Eastern European countries keep requesting a permanent US military presence in their countries? They certainly don't think the mighty EU can protect them.

    The EU doesn't have to he firepower, willpower, nor logistics to take on Russia in a fight.
    This is not a black and white statement. There is a lot of grey.

    For example, neither Russia or (insert European collective here) are going to go to open war, because both are nuclear armed. A war of aggression against any NATO member in Europe is a declaration of war that would bring in the US.

    If nukes were set aside for a moment, you'd then need to look at what a success looks like in a war, rather than a simple look at weapons or numbers. This is the calculation going on for the Ukraine confrontation at the moment:
    - Can Russia overwhelm Ukraine? - Probably.
    - Can Russia sustain a longer term intervention militarily? - Given a US commitment to an insurgency has already been given, that's uncertain.
    - Is there appetite for a large scale offensive war in Russia at the moment? - uncertain according to polling.
    - Can Russia pay for a longer term commitment? - there will be a wealth and wellbeing crunch as sanctions and body bags bite.
    - What are Russia's objectives? Control of the sea corridor to Crimea? full occupation of the Donbass? A quick encirclement of Kyiv to force a capituation? Total occupation?
    - Is Russia prepared for unrest at home while the attack occurs? - on a scale never seen in Russia before?
    - Does Russia have an 'out strategy'? What does that look like? Enforcing a change in government or just force concessions out of current one?

    There are many more questions that one can ask when looking at a success metric - this is only a shallow serving... but scaling up even this small selection to a European conflict and it is relatively easy to suggest that Russia might be able to throw a good punch, but it is certainly not capable of 'winning' a war on that scale. I doubt that their war gamers could even describe what victory in a conflict like that would look like.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  14. #134
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,397

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    That is just outright hilarious. The military strength of the EU couldn't come close to touching Russia. Why do you think Eastern European countries keep requesting a permanent US military presence in their countries? They certainly don't think the mighty EU can protect them.

    The EU doesn't have to he firepower, willpower, nor logistics to take on Russia in a fight.
    See, it's stupid statements like these that really harm credibility

    There are no Eastern European nations in NATO, yet. Ukraine and Moldova are interested. There's a bunch of Central European and Southern European nations in it though, and they ACCEPTED (not requested, the US offered) US military presence both as an easier way to get into NATO, as a means of modernizing their post-communist military and because in case of war with Russia, which Russia will lose, the battlefield will be Warsaw and Bucharest, not Paris and Berlin. Some people just don't want to have to rebuild their entire country for the 3rd time in a century.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  15. #135
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    [URL="http://www.aalep.eu/eu-vs-russia-military-strengths"]See, it's stupid statements like these that really harm credibility
    Really? Simple numbers doesn't tell you anything nor does you link specify who would win.


    There are no Eastern European nations in NATO, yet. Ukraine and Moldova are interested. There's a bunch of Central European and Southern European nations in it though, and they ACCEPTED (not requested, the US offered) US military presence both as an easier way to get into NATO, as a means of modernizing their post-communist military and because in case of war with Russia, which Russia will lose, the battlefield will be Warsaw and Bucharest, not Paris and Berlin. Some people just don't want to have to rebuild their entire country for the 3rd time in a century.
    The Baltic nations are in NATO and so is Poland. All located in Eastern Europe. And both the Baltics and Poland have requested US forces with Poland wanting a permanent base.

    Russia would wipe the floor with Eastern Europe first and move into central and Western Europe. The Baltics wouldn't even last a week. Poland would be rolled over. Germany doesn't have military capable of taking on Russia either.

    Current EU nations already require American logistics to even support their own forces. It's a pipe dream to think they could take on Russia.

  16. #136

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Really? Simple numbers doesn't tell you anything nor does you link specify who would win.



    The Baltic nations are in NATO and so is Poland. All located in Eastern Europe. And both the Baltics and Poland have requested US forces with Poland wanting a permanent base.

    Russia would wipe the floor with Eastern Europe first and move into central and Western Europe. The Baltics wouldn't even last a week. Poland would be rolled over. Germany doesn't have military capable of taking on Russia either.

    Current EU nations already require American logistics to even support their own forces. It's a pipe dream to think they could take on Russia.
    The European strategy is centred around the US providing defense for free. The EU has more than enough potential to defend itself from any threat, it just doesn't need to.



  17. #137
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The European strategy is centred around the US providing defense for free. The EU has more than enough potential to defend itself from any threat, it just doesn't need to.
    On paper the EU looks like it has an amazing military. The reality is much different. Here's an example:

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/re...r-force-189598

    I remember in 2911 when European nations ran out of bombs in the Libya campaign and had to buy bombs from the US.

    European strategy centers around free American defense because they can't do it on their own. Even increasing defense spending wouldn't be enough to close the gap.

  18. #138
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,397

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Really? Simple numbers doesn't tell you anything nor does you link specify who would win.
    So basically what you are saying is that the side with 4 times the population, 10 times the industry and manufacturing capacity, two times the military budget, 4 times as much equipment, more modern equipment and a recruitable population twice the size of of the side's entire male population "doesn't come anywhere close" because ...

    The only thing the EU doesn't have going for it is that it's disjointed, but that can change mighty quickly once war is declared.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    All located in Eastern Europe.
    Epic geography fail. Poland and the baltics are not Eastern Europe by any definition. Even the retarded American cold war split did not place Poland in Eastern Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Russia would wipe the floor with Eastern Europe first and move into central and Western Europe. The Baltics wouldn't even last a week. Poland would be rolled over. Germany doesn't have military capable of taking on Russia either.
    The Baltics would fall within a day actually, Warsaw would fall within a week, and that's just about how far the Russians would get before being pushed back. In order for your argument to work you have to talk about the EU as a whole but treat every country individually which is kind of stupid if you step out of the nationalist American bubble and think about it.

    A war with the EU does not mean a war against 26 individual countries. It means a war against a WWII style coalition led by the most successful military powers in history, not to mention that the Russian economy is incapable of supporting a war on that scale so all you have to do is keep them in Poland and Romania until they defeat themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Current EU nations already require American logistics to even support their own forces.
    This isn't even remotely true. You've built this false opinion based on the wars of the past 3 decades, where EU countries specifically sent token forces that relied on US logistics because they were token forces. What you're saying is like the Wehrmach general who said that the US cannot fight WWII because it relied on British logistics in WWI.

    In fact I kinda like the dissonance here. On one hand you keep bringing up American bases like they're Rohirrim from RotK on the other you say Europe lacks logistics. Who do you think provides logistical support for those bases? Santa?
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  19. #139
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,779

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    I guess the fair assesment would be that European militaries are not prepared for any form of conventional warfare.
    That is not to say that if they were to start a program of mobilization and training, within a year or two, they can easily far surpass the military capabilities of Russia.

    However, modern conventional wars (not including insurgencies) are expected to last real short with billions of dollars of worth of equipment getting destroyed in the first few days.
    Russia simply has a larger mobilized force, ready to be operational within a very short period of time whereas Europeans have high skilled-specialized small forces that are for deployments around the world.
    Meanwhile, Poland is actually one of the larger forces in the European military space. A larger portion of their forces are combat ready, they seem more geared towards a conventional act.
    Afaik, American strategy is to bank on Poland, which has the will and the population to face a Russian-Belarussian invasion. Though the general idea is that USA and the Europeans would mobilize during this time to push them Russians back.

    It seems to me that Polish army backed by higher end troops and equipment of US-EU can easily overwhelm the Russians. I believe if the Russians felt that they had any advatange, they would have made their move long ago rather than making a lot of noise. Russia rarely negotiates when they think they'll get what they want through force. The amount of crying from Russians in the latest meetings only shows that they are not sure of their capabilities at this point.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  20. #140
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    17,268

    Default Re: Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    So basically what you are saying is that the side with 4 times the population, 10 times the industry and manufacturing capacity, two times the military budget, 4 times as much equipment, more modern equipment and a recruitable population twice the size of of the side's entire male population "doesn't come anywhere close" because ...
    This is what I am talking about. Numbers don't tell the full story. Having more equipment doesn't mean anything. China has far more men, ships, vehicles, and tanks than the US but you'd be hard-pressed to claim the Chinese have a better or superior military.

    How many of those Eastern and Central European nations actually have modern armies. Old legacy Soviet aircraft, arms, tanks, and weapons won't touch the Russians.
    The only thing the EU doesn't have going for it is that it's disjointed, but that can change mighty quickly once war is declared.
    No way the entire EU would agree to go to war.



    Epic geography fail. Poland and the baltics are not Eastern Europe by any definition. Even the retarded American cold war split did not place Poland in Eastern Europe.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe

    Maybe you need to read up on your geography? Even the United Nations counts Poland and the Baltics as Eastern Europe.

    The Baltics would fall within a day actually, Warsaw would fall within a week, and that's just about how far the Russians would get before being pushed back.
    By who? The French who don't have the capability? The Germans who can't even maintain their own air force?

    In order for your argument to work you have to talk about the EU as a whole but treat every country individually which is kind of stupid if you step out of the nationalist American bubble and think about it.
    A European telling me to step out of my nationalist bubble. The irony.

    A war with the EU does not mean a war against 26 individual countries. It means a war against a WWII style coalition led by the most successful military powers in history, not to mention that the Russian economy is incapable of supporting a war on that scale so all you have to do is keep them in Poland and Romania until they defeat themselves.
    You act as if the EU would unite it's militaries overnight with no problem and 26 nations could effectively coordinate their militaries to beat the Russians. This is just hilarious


    This isn't even remotely true. You've built this false opinion based on the wars of the past 3 decades, where EU countries specifically sent token forces that relied on US logistics because they were token forces.
    I could simply point to Libya and the French intervention in Mali to prove my point. In both cases Europeans require American logistics to support their forces.

    What you're saying is like the Wehrmach general who said that the US cannot fight WWII because it relied on British logistics in WWI.
    Sure if you leave out the US developed better logistics in the interwar while European militaries haven't done anything except in many cases like the Germans and British who have actually cut the size of their military.

    In fact I kinda like the dissonance here. On one hand you keep bringing up American bases like they're Rohirrim from RotK on the other you say Europe lacks logistics. Who do you think provides logistical support for those bases? Santa?
    The US. It's not the Germans flying in supplies from the United States. Do you honestly think the Germans, British, Poles, and other American allies are footing the entire bill for the American military presence on their lands?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •