Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Okay.....it don't say May 25. But the French says it goes by the Legitimate vote. Which Right here it is pointing out how the Parliament wasn't able to remove Yanokovich even with their own Constitution. Which means until May.....who does that leave as the Technical Ruling Government of the Ukraine?
That's Right.....Yanokovich. The rest by the Ukraine until May. Is acting illegally.
Funny! As though Western countries respect international law.
Russia went to the UN to get authorization to invade Crimea?
The dependency on Russian Gas varies according to country, with many Eastern European Countries and Countries such as Finland totally dependent, whilst other have less dependency.
Russia in the European energy sector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Britain does not rely on Russian Gas instead relying on North Sea Gas and Gas shipped in on large LNG Carriers and stored in places such as the Isle of Grain near London.
The Isle of Grain alone having the ability to supply 20 per cent of the UK’s forecast gas demand. However to build more LNG storage facilities, LNG Ships and other such facilities in order to supply whole European countries in the short term would be a mammoth task, and as for other alternative fuel sources they tend to be far more long term options.
A loss of Russian Gas would have serious implications for Russia and many European countries including Germany, and to replace Russian Gas with LNG would require a concerted effort by the west not seen since the Berlin Airlift. Whilst the West would have to take control of whole industries, markets and resources, although it's certainly not an impossible scenario, especially as many western countries such as the US, Canada and Australia have significant Natural Gas Supplies and emerging shale gas deposits, and Europe itself has the potential to carry out future shale gas extraction in certain regions.
If the West was to work together to negate the European reliance on Russian Energy it would without doubt be a devastating blow to Russia's Economy.
LNG Carrier
National Grid - Isle of Grain LNG
Europe looking at alternatives to Russian Gas
What further sanctions could Russia face?
We should no longer bother to try to prevent Iran or any other nation from developing nuclear weapons. It is vital to the interests of every country to develop a nuclear arsenal. Nor should any country believe a word any nuclear power says including the United States. It's official. The United States and NATO are liars acting in conjunction with Russia to divide up the world between us.
Funny! As though Western countries respect international law.
Then who is it hiding their faces, carrying weapons, and shooting at the Ukrainian people? Are you saying it is other Ukrainians?Remember the Ukraine was NOT invaded.
Russia went to the UN to get authorization to invade Crimea?
Nuland went to the UN to get permission to replace the elected president of Ukraine?
Nuland went to the UN to get permission to replace the elected president of Ukraine?
That may well be the case. Even then, it is very unlikely that the figure would approach $1 trillion per year.
Then who is it hiding their faces, carrying weapons, and shooting at the Ukrainian people? Are you saying it is other Ukrainians?
What? 4,000 U.S. deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's, Iran has far more influence in Iraq then before the invasion, both gays and women in Iraq now have far less rights then before, huge sectarian violence, iffy power grid...and all of that was to stop a WMD program that no longer existed?Anchoring foreign policy to the nation's critical interests and focusing on those interests and strategic allies should reduce the risk of "militarism." Such a policy would largely exclude the use of military force for events that fall outside of those parameters. It would also encourage the more robust use of soft power (diplomacy, economic/technical/financial assistance, etc.) in the other cases where military options are not pursued and interests that fall short of critical ones are involved.
In the longer-run, deterrence should result in lower costs than would otherwise be the case. Where deterrence fails, conflicts can erupt and conflicts are far costlier than deterrence. Putting aside political arguments concerning the recent war in Iraq, there's little question that on a present value basis, the costs of the war were vastly higher than those associated with maintaining the prior containment regime. Moreover, the human costs were also vastly higher. Furthermore, following the war, one found that the containment regime had worked remarkably well as Iraq had been deterred from relaunching its WMD activities.
Democratic movements have largely internal origins. The fallacy that has influenced American foreign policy since at least the time of President Woodrow Wilson is the idea that all peoples everywhere want democracy. The quest for individual freedom has been a strong one throughout history, but that quest is not exactly the same thing as desiring democracy. Moreover, the aspirations of people are, in part, a function of a society's structure (institutions, economics, culture, etc.) and history. The fundamental Sunni-Shia divide is part of the reason one has witnessed illiberal regimes in the Middle East. The peoples see things as a zero-sum game where one faction can only gain at the expense of the other (no "win-win" conceptions) and that strong rule is required to prevent societal fragmentation along sectarian lines. Western idealism assumes that authoritarian rule is largely an accident and that "regime change" can, therefore, quickly allow for democratic forces to take hold. The evidence has not been kind to that assumption.
There's also a tendency for the U.S. to view others as we view ourselves. Hence, the sectarian uprising that followed what had been protests for democracy was quickly lumped in as a democratic revolution in the tradition of the American revolution, democratic yearning in Eastern Europe during the Soviet era, etc. The reality is that a repressed majority was simply seeking to gain control over a brutal minority-led regime. Consistent with ethnic conflicts, brutality was in abundance and liberal ideals concerning humanitarian protections were discarded to the greatest extent possible.
Regional uprisings were quickly coined the "Arab Spring" in an analogy to the democratic Prague Spring. Not surprisingly, given the region's structural and historical context, the democratic illusions have proved largely unfounded.
The focus on national interests and strategic allies would preclude the use of force in such situations. Diplomacy and other non-military programs could "test" possible democratic aspirations, give support to genuine movements, and limit the risks should those movements prove less than democratic.
In terms of Saudi Arabia, among other non-democratic states, the U.S. has to deal with the world as it is. The U.S. can't dissociate from dealing with such governments when U.S. interests are at stake. To do so would simply be the other side of the coin of military interventions in the name of ideals. In this case, the U.S. would refuse to engage in relationships in the name of ideals. Both approaches are extreme polar opposites. Constructive relationships are often necessary in advancing the nation's interests and promoting stability. Of course, the U.S. can and should use its soft power to encourage improved human rights, etc., and influence the factors that might lead to a more favorable climate for democracy. The latter would require a lot of time and patience, as societal structures evolve slowly.
No offense, but you talk like a politician.Continued...
There's little question that QE has impacted asset prices (equties and real estate) and that U.S. interest rates are historically low for now. Even if the Fed had not hinted at possible rate hikes down the road, one should not assume that the anomalous low rates would continue indefinitely. Individuals, businesses, and policy makers should all have reasonable ideas as to how they would cope in an environment where interest rates returned to at least the long-run historical average. Policy makers will need to consider the whole budget, not just discretionary spending, in their analysis and that will mean trying to find ways to rein in the rapid growth of health expenditures and consideration of mandatory spending reforms. It will likely require some degree of tax hikes to bridge the gap between spending-related savings and policy needs. Increasing the nation's long-run economic growth rate can help, but doing so is not simply a matter of corporate tax rates as some politicians suggest. The complex interaction of an educated workforce, investments in research and development and more broadly innovation/improvement, global macroeconomic developments, changing demographics, etc., all have an impact. Arguably, the issue of current corporate tax rates could be fairly inconsequential in that larger scheme. In other words, even if the corporate rates were reduced to 0%, the impact on long-run growth would be fairly modest, because the marginal returns from the current level would be small unlike if one were reducing rates from a much higher level. Having said this, the U.S. still has a foundation and opportunity for economic strength. The choices it makes going forward (private and public sectors) will determine how much of that opportunity is leveraged and whether that foundation is strengthened or eroded.
I don't favor "policing the world." The goal for me would be a narrower one: a capacity to safeguard the nation's critical interests and strategic allies and perhaps deal with genuine cases of genocide (as defined under the Convention on Genocide; neither Syria nor Libya would fit that definition). Those allies would also make a reasonable contribution, of course. Whether one is dealing with the neoconservative proposition of using military power to advance the sphere of democracy or the recent liberal notion of a "responsibility to protect," both approaches would overextend the nation if adopted literally. A degree of balance is needed and I believe the focus I suggested would strike a balance albeit an imperfect one. Power (military and economic) is a scarce resource and it should be used wisely. Overextension can only erode that power.
What? 4,000 U.S. deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's, Iran has far more influence in Iraq then before the invasion, both gays and women in Iraq now have far less rights then before, huge sectarian violence, iffy power grid...and all of that was to stop a WMD program that no longer existed?
That is your idea of money/lives well spent?
Putting aside political arguments concerning the recent war in Iraq, there's little question that on a present value basis, the costs of the war were vastly higher than those associated with maintaining the prior containment regime.
Moreover, the aspirations of people are, in part, a function of a society's structure (institutions, economics, culture, etc.) and history. The fundamental Sunni-Shia divide is part of the reason one has witnessed illiberal regimes in the Middle East.
There's also a tendency for the U.S. to view others as we view ourselves.
Regional uprisings were quickly coined the "Arab Spring" in an analogy to the democratic Prague Spring. Not surprisingly, given the region's structural and historical context, the democratic illusions have proved largely unfounded.
The U.S. can't dissociate from dealing with such governments when U.S. interests are at stake.
Sorry, guess I misunderstood you...though I still stand beside what I typed.Either you misunderstood me or I was not sufficiently clear. My reference to the Containment regime concerned the policies that were in place prior to the war (select sanctions, limited no fly zones, etc.). I believe that approach was preferable to the war.
The post-war outcome showed that Containment was less costly than the war (in terms of financial and human costs), less disruptive to regional stability (didn't alter the region's balance of power vis-a-vis Iran), and was highly effective in deterring Iraq from pursuing WMD (Iraq had not restarted WMD-related activities).
They certainly do moreso than their adversaries.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?