• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia could default on its debt within days

911Sparky said:
trouble 13: you could just be honest with the forum and admit that if Biden cured cancer, brought about a great economy, created world peace, and gave you tonight's winning lottery numbers, you would not consider it praiseworthy.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you don't get off the hook that easy. You don't get to try to draw a false equivalency between your irrational hatred of trump with my feelings about Biden. When I agree with Biden I say so and give him his due credit.

I am a better human being than the TDS crowd. I don't hate for the sake of hate. Nor do I personally attack someones character simply to destroy them because I disagree with their politics.
 
trouble13 said:
Sorry but you don't get off the hook that easy. You don't get to try to draw a false equivalency between your irrational hatred of trump with my feelings about Biden. When I agree with Biden I say so and give him his due credit.

I am a better human being than the TDS crowd. I don't hate for the sake of hate. Nor do I personally attack someones character simply to destroy them because I disagree with their politics.
Click to expand...
Assumes facts not in evidence.
 
Chomsky said:
That's your inference, but the statement stands on its own.

Besides the Chancellery & BBN, both Duda & Stoltenberg also announced it together - maxparrish:

www.airforcetimes.com

No, EU countries aren’t sending fighter jets to Ukraine

"NATO is not to be part of the conflict,” Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Tuesday.
www.airforcetimes.com www.airforcetimes.com

--

I honestly don't see the worth in further hypothesizing this arcane point any further, to be honest.
I've now given you multiple source of public statements that you seem to refute through personal inference, even though the statements appear unequivocal.
So, I'm not really sure what you want here, or why?
Click to expand...

I want you to be informed and draw your opinion regarding Biden from a factual basis, whatever that may be. None of this needs inference, it only requires all to know the timeline of when parties made their statements, and when they announced revised public statements and new stances.

Timeline is self explanatory:

Feb 27th: The EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell announced that 3 NATO countries are going to provide Russian made combat aircraft to Ukraine.

March 1st: Bulgaria and Slovakia deny that that that is their intent. Polish President Andrej Duda said after a press conference with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg: "We are not sending any jets to Ukraine because that would open a military interference in the Ukrainian conflict. We are not joining that conflict. NATO is not a party to that conflict."

March 5th: Multiple US news outlets reported that US officials told them of a possible deal, in which Poland would send Soviet-era aircraft to Ukraine in return for American F-16 fighter jets. IChancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland said "fake news." "Poland won't send its fighter jets to #Ukraine as well as allow to use its airports. We significantly help in many other areas."

March 6th: US Secretary of State Blinken, in Moldovia: "We are looking actively now at the question of airplanes that Poland may provide to Ukraine and looking at how we might be able to backfill should Poland decide to supply those planes." And on face the nation: "That gets the green light. In fact, we're talking with our Polish friends right now about what we might be able to backfill their needs if in fact they choose to provide these fighter jets to the Ukrainians".

March 7th/8th: Polish Foreign Ministry suddenly confirms its choice: "The authorities of the Republic of Poland, after consultations between the President and the Government, are ready to deploy – immediately and free of charge – all their MIG-29 jets to the Ramstein Air Base and place them at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America. At the same time, Poland requests the United States to provide us with used aircraft with corresponding operational capabilities. Poland is ready to immediately establish the conditions of purchase of the planes."

March 8th: Fiasco. That afternoon Victoria Nuland, a top official at the State Department, surprised everyone by saying that Poland’s statement about the MiGs wasn’t “preconsulted” with the U.S. Which seemed … unimaginable.

Later comes a statement from the Pentagon (Kirby) dismissing the Poles’ plan to transfer the MiGs to Rammstein.

March 9th: Poland said on Wednesday that it (still) wants to work with NATO countries to send fighter jets to Ukraine one day after the U.S. rejected Poland's proposal.
"Such a serious decision as supplying planes must be unanimous and unequivocally made by the whole North Atlantic alliance," Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said at a press conference, Reuters reported.

March 10th and aftermath: Poland's offer to continue to seek a way was moot. The Pentagon lobbied Biden to kill the deal.

From Politico:
Five U.S. officials said there was general agreement within the administration that Washington should work with Warsaw to support Ukraine. ...(Then) Biden, per three U.S. officials, agreed with the cautious Pentagon and intelligence view, in part over concerns that Russia would see America openly helping NATO send fighter jets into Ukraine as an escalation.
Click to expand...

So let's all agree; at first Poland denied the idea or planning for the idea of a transfer (March 1st and then March 5th statements). Blinken and Poland arrived at the outline of a possible solution and gave a green light. Poland then announced a (or the) plan on their own. Biden did not like it and killed it - and killed further efforts to come up with a solution.

The idea that everyone was always "adamantly against it" BEFORE Biden killed is incorrect. Poland changed its stance and Biden had sent Blinken on a pointless mission, one that Biden never had faith in.

Let the context and facts speak for themselves.
 
911Sparky said:
A poster on another thread, one with knowledge in the matter said that NATO planes are fitted with special equipment which would need to be removed
before any transfer could take place.
Click to expand...

That was the Pentagon's excuse. However, its not like it can't be removed prior to release.
 
eohrnberger said:
There's a difference between moving fighter jets from Poland to Ukraine and committing US ground forces against Russians in Ukraine, don't you think?

Yet Biden is too timid to even consider that.

Further, there are NATO nations that have Russian anti-missile / anti-aircraft systems, Greece and others, which could send those to the Ukraine without any loss to their security. Yet this 'out of the box' thinking simply escapes the present administration. One starts asking 'Why?'
Click to expand...
buy yourself a vowel...
that may help...
-peace

1647391447070.webp​
 
maxparrish said:
I want you to be informed and draw your opinion regarding Biden from a factual basis, whatever that may be. None of this needs inference, it only requires all to know the timeline of when parties made their statements, and when they announced revised public statements and new stances.

Timeline is self explanatory:

Feb 27th: The EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell announced that 3 NATO countries are going to provide Russian made combat aircraft to Ukraine.

March 1st: Bulgaria and Slovakia deny that that that is their intent. Polish President Andrej Duda said after a press conference with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg: "We are not sending any jets to Ukraine because that would open a military interference in the Ukrainian conflict. We are not joining that conflict. NATO is not a party to that conflict."

March 5th: Multiple US news outlets reported that US officials told them of a possible deal, in which Poland would send Soviet-era aircraft to Ukraine in return for American F-16 fighter jets. IChancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland said "fake news." "Poland won't send its fighter jets to #Ukraine as well as allow to use its airports. We significantly help in many other areas."

March 6th: US Secretary of State Blinken, in Moldovia: "We are looking actively now at the question of airplanes that Poland may provide to Ukraine and looking at how we might be able to backfill should Poland decide to supply those planes." And on face the nation: "That gets the green light. In fact, we're talking with our Polish friends right now about what we might be able to backfill their needs if in fact they choose to provide these fighter jets to the Ukrainians".

March 7th/8th: Polish Foreign Ministry suddenly confirms its choice: "The authorities of the Republic of Poland, after consultations between the President and the Government, are ready to deploy – immediately and free of charge – all their MIG-29 jets to the Ramstein Air Base and place them at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America. At the same time, Poland requests the United States to provide us with used aircraft with corresponding operational capabilities. Poland is ready to immediately establish the conditions of purchase of the planes."

March 8th: Fiasco. That afternoon Victoria Nuland, a top official at the State Department, surprised everyone by saying that Poland’s statement about the MiGs wasn’t “preconsulted” with the U.S. Which seemed … unimaginable.

Later comes a statement from the Pentagon (Kirby) dismissing the Poles’ plan to transfer the MiGs to Rammstein.

March 9th: Poland said on Wednesday that it (still) wants to work with NATO countries to send fighter jets to Ukraine one day after the U.S. rejected Poland's proposal.
"Such a serious decision as supplying planes must be unanimous and unequivocally made by the whole North Atlantic alliance," Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said at a press conference, Reuters reported.

March 10th and aftermath: Poland's offer to continue to seek a way was moot. The Pentagon lobbied Biden to kill the deal.

From Politico:


So let's all agree; at first Poland denied the idea or planning for the idea of a transfer (March 1st and then March 5th statements). Blinken and Poland arrived at the outline of a possible solution and gave a green light. Poland then announced a (or the) plan on their own. Biden did not like it and killed it - and killed further efforts to come up with a solution.

The idea that everyone was always "adamantly against it" BEFORE Biden killed is incorrect. Poland changed its stance and Biden had sent Blinken on a pointless mission, one that Biden never had faith in.

Let the context and facts speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Forgot to include politico link: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/10/poland-fighter-jet-deal-ukraine-russia-00016038
 
HangLow said:
buy yourself a vowel...
that may help...
-peace

Click to expand...
Ukraine has been sent thousands of anti-aircraft and tank missiles that are more effective than planes... Ukraine isn’t using its existing air force. Because Russia would shoot down the planes immediately. Not Biden but NATO is putting the resources where they are most effective...

Russia is no longer flying over Ukraine dropping bombs... They got shot down... They are using their bombers to launch their Cruise missiles from a standoff position (over Russia)... They have their Fleet in the Black sea and can lob Cruise missiles all day long... Their problem is they are running out of them... They thought this thing would be over by now...
-peace
 
Chomsky said:
That's an awesome observation, CS!

But you overlooked the tube audiophile market, which has exploded in recent years, including for headphones.

Have you priced any original era Mullards lately???

No one is making tubes in the states today, besides several very low volume boutique firms. They all come from Russia & China, with China being really prolific these days. Apparently, they love tube audio! I say, 'they have good taste'!

But, here's the rub: Some of the Chinese tubes are getting to be pretty darn good. I've several that can nearly hold their own against the best NOS stock from the 40's/50's/60's! And that's *really" saying something!
Click to expand...

Believe me I really do wish the vacuum tube audiophile market WAS a lot bigger.
Reason it isn't is because vacuum tube audio gear is now more expensive pound for pound than a Bugatti Veyron.
Seriously! I'm actually serious...a McIntosh audio amp STARTS at around 5000 bucks for the bottom of the line model, yes?
It weighs about...what, forty pounds?

A Bugatti Veyron weighs 4200 pounds and costs about $1.5 Million, so if you do the ciphering, you arrive at the conclusion that a McIntosh amp weighing 4200 pounds would cost
a dozen times more than a Veyron. High grade vacuum tube audio amps are simply UNOBTANIUM at this point.
 
eohrnberger said:
There's a difference between moving fighter jets from Poland to Ukraine and committing US ground forces against Russians in Ukraine, don't you think?

Yet Biden is too timid to even consider that.

Further, there are NATO nations that have Russian anti-missile / anti-aircraft systems, Greece and others, which could send those to the Ukraine without any loss to their security. Yet this 'out of the box' thinking simply escapes the present administration. One starts asking 'Why?'
Click to expand...

Quite right, there is an obvious difference between the two, but because Biden has consistently evaded defining what he will and won't send, and papered it over with phrases like "we are not going in with Nato troops with offensive weapons because that is WWIII" one is left wondering, WELL WHAT JUST WHAT WILL GO IN?

Unspoken, and only hinted at in clips showing the weapons and ammunition being supplied by ground transport are comments by officials like "we don't consider Starstreak HVM an offensive weapon" (its a short range manpad, like stinger). My first thought was "why does that matter how you categorize it"?

I am increasingly convinced that our so-called "lend-lease" to Ukraine is intentionally "inoffensive", meaning its mostly limited to what a solider can carry on foot. In other words, Biden and some NATO countries have let Putin's rhetorical ploy of non specific saber rattling morph into fearful and timid limitations. This is so bizarre, I've never seen such an emasculated reaction to a bellowing bully before.

Tomorrow morning, 3/16, 9AM, Zelensky will be addressing Congress from his bunker in Kiev. Thanks to Pelosi and Schumer (two folks I never thought I'd give kudos too) they have shrewdly put pressure on Biden by letting Congress hear his pleas directly. Zelensky, in turn, is expected to convey Ukraine's willingness to fight to a bloody end, and hear a plea that all he asks on behalf of his people is weapons and ammo. He will most likely be asking for SAMs (more than handheld stingers), EW Warfare Jammers, and larger and more powerful drones. And I am sure he will plead for those jets.

Biden's people are prepared for Congress to be swayed, and will attempt a follow-up speech responding the Congress and its demands to do more.

We shall see if Biden will listen, or let Ukraine die.









hi
 
phoenix2020 said:
I imagine China will happily finance it behind the scenes so long as this conflict strengths China and weakens everyone else.
Click to expand...
Did you know Ukraine was one of China's biggest trading partners? That can't make China too happy that Putin has ****ed that up.
 
maxparrish said:
Quite right, there is an obvious difference between the two, but because Biden has consistently evaded defining what he will and won't send, and papered it over with phrases like "we are not going in with Nato troops with offensive weapons because that is WWIII" one is left wondering, WELL WHAT JUST WHAT WILL GO IN?

Unspoken, and only hinted at in clips showing the weapons and ammunition being supplied by ground transport are comments by officials like "we don't consider Starstreak HVM an offensive weapon" (its a short range manpad, like stinger). My first thought was "why does that matter how you categorize it"?

I am increasingly convinced that our so-called "lend-lease" to Ukraine is intentionally "inoffensive", meaning its mostly limited to what a solider can carry on foot. In other words, Biden and some NATO countries have let Putin's rhetorical ploy of non specific saber rattling morph into fearful and timid limitations. This is so bizarre, I've never seen such an emasculated reaction to a bellowing bully before.
Click to expand...
'emasculated reaction' is a good summary of Biden, more so his handlers in his administration, have been doing. Clearly neither Biden nor his handlers are leaders of any strength in any sense. There was a glimmer, thought, for a few hours, with Blinkin pushing for the fighter jet deal, but that too, was squashed by the timidity, typical of management by committee.

maxparrish said:
Tomorrow morning, 3/16, 9AM, Zelensky will be addressing Congress from his bunker in Kiev. Thanks to Pelosi and Schumer (two folks I never thought I'd give kudos too) they have shrewdly put pressure on Biden by letting Congress hear his pleas directly. Zelensky, in turn, is expected to convey Ukraine's willingness to fight to a bloody end, and hear a plea that all he asks on behalf of his people is weapons and ammo. He will most likely be asking for SAMs (more than handheld stingers), EW Warfare Jammers, and larger and more powerful drones. And I am sure he will plead for those jets.

Biden's people are prepared for Congress to be swayed, and will attempt a follow-up speech responding the Congress and its demands to do more.

We shall see if Biden will listen, or let Ukraine die.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
'emasculated reaction' is a good summary of Biden, more so his handlers in his administration, have been doing. Clearly neither Biden nor his handlers are leaders of any strength in any sense. There was a glimmer, thought, for a few hours, with Blinkin pushing for the fighter jet deal, but that too, was squashed by the timidity, typical of management by committee.
Click to expand...

I remain completely stunned at our sides reaction. I recall under Nixon that in the 73 war there wasn't any hesitation to ship hundreds/thousands of additional tanks and conventional hardware to Israel when its stocks became low...Russians mobilized paratroopers and made threats, but Nixon didn't hesitate.

I tire of the drumbeat of excuses..."oh this won't help", "its too complex for Ukrainians" , "we know what's best for Ukraine", yada, yada, yada.
 
maxparrish said:
I remain completely stunned at our sides reaction. I recall under Nixon that in the 73 war there wasn't any hesitation to ship hundreds/thousands of additional tanks and conventional hardware to Israel when its stocks became low...Russians mobilized paratroopers and made threats, but Nixon didn't hesitate.

I tire of the drumbeat of excuses..."oh this won't help", "its too complex for Ukrainians" , "we know what's best for Ukraine", yada, yada, yada.
Click to expand...
The Ukrainians have been quite clear about what they need. I think that 'our side' isn't being creative enough in figuring out solutions to deliver what's being asked for.
 
phoenix2020 said:
What are the specific repercussions of Russia defaulting on certain debts? Other than the creditor losing out on money, and Russia less likely to be loaned money going forward, does this change anything in the near term in a meaningful way?
Click to expand...
They can't get more loans, bail outs etc
 
ClaraD said:
Even China won't take a chance on a country that doesn't have the ability to pay
Click to expand...
Fair enough. They won't 'finance' Russia.

That said, China doesn't need globally exchangeable currency - we provide more than enough of that. They need raw materials to feed their economic engine, and that engine cranks out most of the basic goods and services needed for a reasonable 1st world living experience. I don't see that support going away.
 
Last edited:
phoenix2020 said:
Fair enough. They won't 'finance' Russia.

That said, China doesn't need globally exchangeable currency - we provide more than enough of that. They need raw materials to feed their economic engine, and that engine cranks out most of the basic goods and services needed for a reasonable 1st world living experience. I don't see that support going away.
Click to expand...
You mentioned 'China doesn't need globally exchangeable currency'.

Seems the Chinese have aims to displace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.
What if Saudi oil is purchased with Chinese Yuan instead of US dollars?

Saudi Arabia is in talks to sell oil to China and be paid in yuan instead of dollars, according to a Wall Street Journal report. About 80% of global oil sales are done in dollars, and Saudi Arabia ...​

China buys more than 25% of the oil that Saudi Arabia exports, and if priced in yuan, those sales would boost the standing of China's currency, and set the Chinese currency on a path to becoming ...​

The Wall Street Journal reports active talks between Riyadh and Beijing about pricing some Saudi oil sales to China in yuan instead of dollars. Chatter about this sort of arrangement has been ...​
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
A new wave music group called "Club Adobe" was on tour in Russia back in 1991 when the revolution stranded them for a while.
But they got an idea, stick around and weather the storm and use some of their money to make further inroads.
So they BOUGHT an entire cassette tape manufacturing facility for peanuts, guaranteeing them a Russian distribution network.

So, what does a tape cassette manufacturing plant sell for in 1991 post-collapse Russia?
Try thirty thousand US dollars.

If Russia defaults, and defaults hard, somebody with some smarts would do well to buy the Sovtek vaccuum tube manufacturing plant at fire sale prices.
A lot of musicians depend upon Sovtek vacuum tubes these days. So do a lot of wealthy audiophiles who have a soft spot for vacuum tube sound.
I bet if the Ruble drops down to something like five hundred or a thousand to the dollar that tube manufacturing plant could be had for a hundred grand or even less.

View attachment 67380173
Click to expand...

Not just Sovtek.

Tung-Sol, Mullard, Svetlana... Most of the brands currently made. That is, those that aren't made in China like Ruby and others.

JJ is made in Slovakia, and they are very good tubes.
 
vanceen said:
Not just Sovtek.

Tung-Sol, Mullard, Svetlana... Most of the brands currently made. That is, those that aren't made in China like Ruby and others.

JJ is made in Slovakia, and they are very good tubes.
Click to expand...

Well, seeing as how Slovakia has now thrown in with Moscow, it's doubtful any Slovakian tubes will make their way West for a while.
Yes, I realize Mullard and Tung-Sol aren't US made.
I still say there's a chance that vacuum tubes may wind up becoming a revival industry like vinyl LP records started out a few years ago.
Now vinyl is back, it's a major player again. Same might happen with tubes.

Of course, note I said "might"... :)
 
HangLow said:
Ukraine has been sent thousands of anti-aircraft and tank missiles that are more effective than planes... Ukraine isn’t using its existing air force. Because Russia would shoot down the planes immediately. Not Biden but NATO is putting the resources where they are most effective...

Russia is no longer flying over Ukraine dropping bombs... They got shot down... They are using their bombers to launch their Cruise missiles from a standoff position (over Russia)... They have their Fleet in the Black sea and can lob Cruise missiles all day long... Their problem is they are running out of them... They thought this thing would be over by now...
-peace
Click to expand...
But @HangLow , why would President Zelensky be begging for them and saying Ukraine needs control of its skies if they didn't need fighter jets? I read that the Ukranian planes were busy over Kyiv yesterday while the meeting was going on with the EU people. Their force is very small, but if there were more of them, they might get more done? Couldn't they start taking out some of those cruise missile launchers if they had MIG's?
 
MaryP said:
But @HangLow , why would President Zelensky be begging for them and saying Ukraine needs control of its skies if they didn't need fighter jets? I read that the Ukranian planes were busy over Kyiv yesterday while the meeting was going on with the EU people. Their force is very small, but if there were more of them, they might get more done?
Couldn't they start taking out some of those cruise missile launchers if they had MIG's?
Click to expand...
M'Lady @MaryP; As long as he is begging FOR THEM, he is saying he does not have them... They can do this much more effectively with the new switchblade300 system... REAL BADASS... We really did not want to give this technology to anyone... but shit happens... Remember I told you that there are hundreds of other MIGs in NATO other than Poland's... Don't be surprised if Ukraine's MIGs start having babies and their Air Force FAMILY start growing... (NO MORE Loose Lips, then we can sink some Russian ships...) On a side note; tens of thousands of volunteers are flooding into Ukraine... Now if I am a member of a NATO military unit and I take my uniform off... WHO AM I??? I am a fully trained BADASS Volunteer warrior... Maybe even a MIG pilot... or Drone operator... or Finnish sniper(best in the world)...

Ukraine Will Get Switchblade Suicide Drones​

As Part Of New U.S. Aid Package Lawmaker Says​

www.thedrive.com

Ukraine Will Get Switchblade Suicide Drones As Part Of New U.S. Aid Package Lawmaker Says

A new $800 million U.S. aid package for Ukraine includes drones, air defenses, anti-armor weapons, and more.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

This SHIT SHOW is almost over... One Way or Another...
Russia has been shown to be a weak paper tiger...
-peace

ps:
There will be some dumbass rePuke's that will whine
"paper tiger with nukes" Don't pay those fools any attention...
Enjoy your evening M'Lady
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom