The biggest thing that puzzles me about this (and about many recent geopolitical events) is the elephant in the room. Nobody mentions it:
The United Nations
Why isn't this issue being discussed there, prominently?
If it's not possible to even discuss the behavior of the 5 permanent Security Council members (5 of the most powerful countries in the world), then screw it! Let's just get rid of the UN entirely.
Because that's not what UN is. UN is not a world government.
UN for all it's glory, is just a permanent place for countries to to talk to each other.
Think of it as an expo/trade conference for governments that is always running.
The issue here is that Russia doesn't seem to want to talk to anyone (except their demand for 1on1 with USA), and can veto anything on the security council, so UN has little role to play.
> If it's not possible to even discuss the behavior of the 5 permanent Security Council members (5 of the most powerful countries in the world)
Sure you can discuss it, but to what gain ? Just to further piss some of them off ?
> then screw it! Let's just get rid of the UN entirely.
UN is a tool, but unlike a hammer can't always be used. That doesn't mean its useless.
> 5 of the most powerful countries in the world
This is a fantasy people live in that world is a fair place. It's not and it has never been. In private life we have come far, and you could say that at least in most developed countries rule of law works to a degree (it's not perfect, but its better than at any point in the past.)
But on the international stage it's still pretty much that countries with the biggest sticks get their way. Most of the big countries regularly bully smaller ones, and there is little small countries can do, except to maybe appeal to big countries population in hopes they will restrain their own government.
Unless we get some kind of global government that has it's own teeth (army/police) this wont change.
I always find it odd to hear comments to the tune of "Well, if it doesn't bring about world peace, why bother?" As if organizations like UNESCO, UNHCR, WHO, etc didn't exist. The UN makes the world a better place, even if it doesn't make it a perfect place.
Its inability to prevent saber-rattling by the permanent Security Council members is unfortunate. But they haven't had direct wars since the UN was founded, and the UN is partly the reason. It's in the votes; it's in the behind-the-scenes talks that keep small crises from turning into world crises.
It's never going to be a world government that can be the sole legitimate user of force. That was never its goal, even if it were feasible (which it isn't). But it's just ignorant to say that it doesn't have more plausible goals at which it has some success.
The person is said to be an "expert is cyber security", however, his arguments go way beyond his area of expertise. In fact they barely touch cyber security at all. He might end up being right of course (like anyone else). But at the moment his reasoning is a mere speculation of a person, who is maybe marginally better informed than an average commentator on the matter.
How much of this is Washington’s drumming for defence contractors to get rich? And if Russia does invade Ukraine, why do we care? Specifically as a US citizen how does it affect me? Honest question. I either don’t understand geopolitics or there is something seriously wrong with our government and media trying to get us into pointless conflict.
It's about nordstream 2. The US doesn't want it to be finished and I am quite sure it will end up as part of new sanctions against Russia after a small incident on the border.
I agree with you, having the US in play and the US president negotiating is out of place.
Imagine the US was building up troops at the Mexican border and Russia was objecting saying the US will invade Tijuana. They have done it before with New Mexico. Putin would be meeting with the US president instead of the Mexican president. At the same time Germany would be objecting to the new pipeline Mexico is building to Canada and even have people in the parlement trying to force a vote on it (some people in the US congress wanted to vote on nordstream 2, wtf)
Talk about grasping at straws. The Mexican-American War ended in 1848, and the USA bought the rest of New Mexico in 1854.
Maybe we should discuss instead when Joe Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians to death in the Holodomor[1]. Or maybe that was just an "internal matter"? Or perhaps just Western propaganda?
There is quite the history of wrongdoing by all countries since 1854.
Crowdstrike is one the best and most expensive EDR systems on the market. I doubt he'd put their name in jeopardy with misinformation.
Personally as a European I wouldn't mind if Eastern Ukraine (Donbas in particular) rejoins Russia. The people in the region sure want it, and that's what freedom is about, making your own choices. If they don't it'll be an unstable area of insurgency for decades anyway. It's been a warzone for years.
However an invasion would cause instability in itself. It would increase tensions and cause NATO to build up forces. I hope they come to a diplomatic solution but I agree that Russia's public demand are completely ridiculous and designed to fail.
I don't really understand why they view us and NATO as such a threat. We'd never invade Russia.. Nobody would ever want to. And Ukraine and Azerbaijan etc they allowed to separate years ago. It was their own choice.
While I agree with most of your comment, one sentence triggered me.
> I doubt he'd put their name in jeopardy with misinformation.
His company's top officers lied to the public during the campaign in 2016 (and ever since) that the DNC servers was hacked by the Russian Government [1], but then, when asked about it in a court of law in 2017, retractied themselves that any data trace even existed [2]. However the testimony was kept classified. Nevertheless, they continued to tell the same false story in public when asked until the testimony was unclassified in 2020 [3].
This was outright disinformation, and lies, not misinformation. As the saying goes, the first victim in war is truth. And this war is being prepared since 2014.
> I don't really understand why they view us and NATO as such a t[h]reat. We'd never invade Russia.. Nobody would ever want to.
I guess it's a paranoia which he's supported with cherry-picked info from history. Someone else better has written that world politics is about who has the most influence, e.g. USA and Europe used to be able to decide almost everything everywhere ("we'll give you development loans, in return you'll have to buy our products"). China is doing that in Africa now, and from Putin's perspective Eastern Europe now has "puppet" governments controlled by USA/Germany (in the guise of EU), I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks their democratic elections are as rigged as Russia's ones, with the media under control of the rulers.
I guess Putin is worried that Russia could fall under that sphere of influence, although I don't know how missiles pointed at Moscow would make the country more democratic... Maybe he sees them as a persuasion tools, after all that's also what he uses his forces for.
Even if you ignore that it's always Crowdstrike when it comes to Russians or that one the founder seems to have a personal vendetta against Putin, Crowdstrike is too large and to close the US government to be trusted.
In recent history (past 30 years), the vast majority of usage cases for mass graves pretty much have been for genocide.
Pay attention people and use your critical thinking skills. Stay off of social media: Russian propaganda is making claims that this is for COVID-19 which is pure BS!
In addition to this RT (Russia Today) along with Sputnik News apps need to be removed from app stores!
Keep in mind that Russia has a history of corrupting Western politicians, on a strategic and multi-decade basis, for example Gerhard Shroder, ex-Chancellor of Germany. He initiated the nuclear shutdown, and now serves as Chairman of Rosneft:
Readit News
If it's not possible to even discuss the behavior of the 5 permanent Security Council members (5 of the most powerful countries in the world), then screw it! Let's just get rid of the UN entirely.
UN for all it's glory, is just a permanent place for countries to to talk to each other.
Think of it as an expo/trade conference for governments that is always running.
The issue here is that Russia doesn't seem to want to talk to anyone (except their demand for 1on1 with USA), and can veto anything on the security council, so UN has little role to play.
> If it's not possible to even discuss the behavior of the 5 permanent Security Council members (5 of the most powerful countries in the world)
Sure you can discuss it, but to what gain ? Just to further piss some of them off ?
> then screw it! Let's just get rid of the UN entirely.
UN is a tool, but unlike a hammer can't always be used. That doesn't mean its useless.
> 5 of the most powerful countries in the world
This is a fantasy people live in that world is a fair place. It's not and it has never been. In private life we have come far, and you could say that at least in most developed countries rule of law works to a degree (it's not perfect, but its better than at any point in the past.)
But on the international stage it's still pretty much that countries with the biggest sticks get their way. Most of the big countries regularly bully smaller ones, and there is little small countries can do, except to maybe appeal to big countries population in hopes they will restrain their own government.
Unless we get some kind of global government that has it's own teeth (army/police) this wont change.
But UN is still useful.
Its inability to prevent saber-rattling by the permanent Security Council members is unfortunate. But they haven't had direct wars since the UN was founded, and the UN is partly the reason. It's in the votes; it's in the behind-the-scenes talks that keep small crises from turning into world crises.
It's never going to be a world government that can be the sole legitimate user of force. That was never its goal, even if it were feasible (which it isn't). But it's just ignorant to say that it doesn't have more plausible goals at which it has some success.
Having been a part of a UN “peace-keeping” military force, under UN command authority, I find this part — and your whole comment odd.
I agree with you, having the US in play and the US president negotiating is out of place.
Imagine the US was building up troops at the Mexican border and Russia was objecting saying the US will invade Tijuana. They have done it before with New Mexico. Putin would be meeting with the US president instead of the Mexican president. At the same time Germany would be objecting to the new pipeline Mexico is building to Canada and even have people in the parlement trying to force a vote on it (some people in the US congress wanted to vote on nordstream 2, wtf)
Talk about grasping at straws. The Mexican-American War ended in 1848, and the USA bought the rest of New Mexico in 1854.
Maybe we should discuss instead when Joe Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians to death in the Holodomor[1]. Or maybe that was just an "internal matter"? Or perhaps just Western propaganda?
There is quite the history of wrongdoing by all countries since 1854.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Deleted Comment
Personally as a European I wouldn't mind if Eastern Ukraine (Donbas in particular) rejoins Russia. The people in the region sure want it, and that's what freedom is about, making your own choices. If they don't it'll be an unstable area of insurgency for decades anyway. It's been a warzone for years.
However an invasion would cause instability in itself. It would increase tensions and cause NATO to build up forces. I hope they come to a diplomatic solution but I agree that Russia's public demand are completely ridiculous and designed to fail.
I don't really understand why they view us and NATO as such a threat. We'd never invade Russia.. Nobody would ever want to. And Ukraine and Azerbaijan etc they allowed to separate years ago. It was their own choice.
> I doubt he'd put their name in jeopardy with misinformation.
His company's top officers lied to the public during the campaign in 2016 (and ever since) that the DNC servers was hacked by the Russian Government [1], but then, when asked about it in a court of law in 2017, retractied themselves that any data trace even existed [2]. However the testimony was kept classified. Nevertheless, they continued to tell the same false story in public when asked until the testimony was unclassified in 2020 [3].
This was outright disinformation, and lies, not misinformation. As the saying goes, the first victim in war is truth. And this war is being prepared since 2014.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-e...
[2] https://mate.substack.com/p/indicted-clinton-lawyer-hired-cr..., see trial transcripts in the middle of the article
[3] https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/...
I guess it's a paranoia which he's supported with cherry-picked info from history. Someone else better has written that world politics is about who has the most influence, e.g. USA and Europe used to be able to decide almost everything everywhere ("we'll give you development loans, in return you'll have to buy our products"). China is doing that in Africa now, and from Putin's perspective Eastern Europe now has "puppet" governments controlled by USA/Germany (in the guise of EU), I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks their democratic elections are as rigged as Russia's ones, with the media under control of the rulers.
I guess Putin is worried that Russia could fall under that sphere of influence, although I don't know how missiles pointed at Moscow would make the country more democratic... Maybe he sees them as a persuasion tools, after all that's also what he uses his forces for.
Deleted Comment
In recent history (past 30 years), the vast majority of usage cases for mass graves pretty much have been for genocide.
Pay attention people and use your critical thinking skills. Stay off of social media: Russian propaganda is making claims that this is for COVID-19 which is pure BS!
In addition to this RT (Russia Today) along with Sputnik News apps need to be removed from app stores!
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty does not have this reputation unlike Russia Today.
Keep in mind that Russia has a history of corrupting Western politicians, on a strategic and multi-decade basis, for example Gerhard Shroder, ex-Chancellor of Germany. He initiated the nuclear shutdown, and now serves as Chairman of Rosneft:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/gerhard-schr%C3...
The message to Europe is presumably: intervene in Ukraine this time, and we'll completely shut off your Winter gas.
Russia doesn't want to support the Ukraine with gas but it want to sell it to Europe.
Dead Comment