Scholz: Russian energy ban would mean European recession

[Stevicus]

It is not something amendable or justifiable.
If they are already rich, what do they need the extra money for?
Money that is for the Russian people's needs.

It's like the line in the movie Wall Street: "How much is enough?"

I don't think there's any rhyme or reason to unmitigated greed, which is why I think capitalism is ultimately malignant and self-destructive in the end. Capitalists started two world wars all because concepts like sharing, fairness, and justice are completely alien to them. Even after all this time, they still haven't learned any lessons from history.

 

[Augustus]

Putin is hated by these people because he nationalized Russian resources and the Russian financial system. Through Gazprom and Gazprombank. That money is public. It belongs to the Russian people.

These demonic financial elites are greedier than ravenous wolves and would like to take possession of that natural gas company, to enjoy profits.
This is horrible. Greed is horrible.

Putin is in charge of a corrupt kleptocracy where you can steal as much as you like from the people as long as you support his regime and help him stay in power.

That you see him as a Robin Hood is delusional.

For example look at how rich this guy got simply for being Putin's chef.

Yevgeny Prigozhin - Wikipedia

Look at how rich all Putin's mates get on the back of stealing directly from the people.

The oligarchs all made money from buying state resources for pennies and selling them back for billions.

Your reward for being loyal to Vladimir is that you can steal from the people and buy billion dollar yachts.

If he is Robin Hood, how come despite its vast natural resources, much of Russia is dirt poor yet his mates are all among the world's richest people from resource extraction and government contracts?

(and the answer is not George Soros btw)

 

[Stevicus]

War is disliked by the people.
I see that history is written by the winners, but most Italians know that WW2 was absolutely a nightmare from the very first.
Evidence: until 1940 the Duce was considered a deity to worship. There are videos in which he speaks in English and he says he loves peace and rejects war. That is why he was liked.

As soon as he said yes the war, Italians felt betrayed and started hating him immensely.


One more thing. He was a socialist. He did not like fascists but used them just to get to power.

In the U.S., war has been largely glorified and considered a good thing - as long as people believe the cause is just and that we're on the winning side. In some cases, defining what is "just" is more a matter of perspective, especially when they're expansionist wars of conquest (such as US expansionism on our own continent and all the blood that was spilled in the process of creating these United States).

The main thing that drove US policy was not so much an aversion to war, but at least for the first 100-150 years of our existence, we were committed to "no foreign entanglements." Not just to avoid war, but also to avoid internal dissension which is caused when a government plays favorites with foreign nations.

On the other hand, I've observed that the people within a country might resent shedding their own nation's blood for the sake of other nations. This was a key reason for the Russian Revolution and that country's eventual withdrawal from WW1, as they saw themselves as shedding their blood in order to prop up the empires of Britain and France. Of course, they would be resentful and angry about that.

It also seems plausible that Italians would be resentful if Mussolini tied their fate to that of the Third Reich. Why would Italians want to shed blood for Germany's benefit?

FDR was a bit shrewder than that, especially since he knew that he could never gain support for a declaration of war on Germany. Politically, there was a greater chance of gaining public support if Germany declared war on us. But both Germany and Italy played it cool at first, and as it turned out, it was the hothead fanatics in the Japanese government which kicked off against the U.S. and invited us into the fray. It played right into FDR's hands, which is why some people believe in certain conspiracy theories surrounding that.

In fact, if you look at all the major leaders of WW2, FDR is the only one who still has a relatively positive historical reputation. Churchill's name has been thoroughly dragged through the mud, and we know what most of the world thinks about Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Russia has never done anything to us.
We have no reason to sanction her.

That said, there are always diplomacy and negotiations to settle international issues. Not warfare.

Using your reasoning, there was no reason for America to oppose Hitler and support Russia during WWII.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Actually, you can see in the given threads that both Chomsky and Hedges states that all western leaders have promised Gorbachev and Russia not to expand eastward, but did not honor their promises.

Was there a written and formal agreement not to do so? Have you ever read the NATO charter? In what way is NATO a threat to Russia?

The North Atlantic Treaty

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think that an European Deep State does exist.
And they are in on it.
They do want to unleash WW3 because it can be profitable to so many billionaires.

How is nuclear obliteration profitable to anyone? Could they prevent countries for going nuclear?

 

[Wandering Monk]

In the U.S., war has been largely glorified and considered a good thing - as long as people believe the cause is just and that we're on the winning side. In some cases, defining what is "just" is more a matter of perspective, especially when they're expansionist wars of conquest (such as US expansionism on our own continent and all the blood that was spilled in the process of creating these United States).

The main thing that drove US policy was not so much an aversion to war, but at least for the first 100-150 years of our existence, we were committed to "no foreign entanglements." Not just to avoid war, but also to avoid internal dissension which is caused when a government plays favorites with foreign nations.

On the other hand, I've observed that the people within a country might resent shedding their own nation's blood for the sake of other nations. This was a key reason for the Russian Revolution and that country's eventual withdrawal from WW1, as they saw themselves as shedding their blood in order to prop up the empires of Britain and France. Of course, they would be resentful and angry about that.

It also seems plausible that Italians would be resentful if Mussolini tied their fate to that of the Third Reich. Why would Italians want to shed blood for Germany's benefit?

FDR was a bit shrewder than that, especially since he knew that he could never gain support for a declaration of war on Germany. Politically, there was a greater chance of gaining public support if Germany declared war on us. But both Germany and Italy played it cool at first, and as it turned out, it was the hothead fanatics in the Japanese government which kicked off against the U.S. and invited us into the fray. It played right into FDR's hands, which is why some people believe in certain conspiracy theories surrounding that.

In fact, if you look at all the major leaders of WW2, FDR is the only one who still has a relatively positive historical reputation. Churchill's name has been thoroughly dragged through the mud, and we know what most of the world thinks about Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo.

Are you aware the that United States deployed troops in Russia during the Revolution to fight against the Bolsheviks?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Plenty of countries, people and organisations fund political causes around the world.

Why are you obsessed with Soros, but care nothing about all of the others?

The problem of powerful interests influencing politics for their benefit is real, why the obsession with one person who does this, while you adore another (Putin) who does this with far more hostile intention?

Funny how he never mentions the Koch brothers.

 

[Stevicus]

Are you aware the that United States deployed troops in Russia during the Revolution to fight against the Bolsheviks?

Yes, I was very aware of that fact, even while most Americans are ignorant of it. Why do you ask?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yes, I was very aware of that fact, even while most Americans are ignorant of it. Why do you ask?

Someone said America was Isolationist for most of its history. This is patently not true. I was just giving an example for others to see.

 

[Estro Felino]

In the U.S., war has been largely glorified and considered a good thing - as long as people believe the cause is just and that we're on the winning side. In some cases, defining what is "just" is more a matter of perspective, especially when they're expansionist wars of conquest (such as US expansionism on our own continent and all the blood that was spilled in the process of creating these United States).

The main thing that drove US policy was not so much an aversion to war, but at least for the first 100-150 years of our existence, we were committed to "no foreign entanglements." Not just to avoid war, but also to avoid internal dissension which is caused when a government plays favorites with foreign nations.

On the other hand, I've observed that the people within a country might resent shedding their own nation's blood for the sake of other nations. This was a key reason for the Russian Revolution and that country's eventual withdrawal from WW1, as they saw themselves as shedding their blood in order to prop up the empires of Britain and France. Of course, they would be resentful and angry about that.

It also seems plausible that Italians would be resentful if Mussolini tied their fate to that of the Third Reich. Why would Italians want to shed blood for Germany's benefit?

FDR was a bit shrewder than that, especially since he knew that he could never gain support for a declaration of war on Germany. Politically, there was a greater chance of gaining public support if Germany declared war on us. But both Germany and Italy played it cool at first, and as it turned out, it was the hothead fanatics in the Japanese government which kicked off against the U.S. and invited us into the fray. It played right into FDR's hands, which is why some people believe in certain conspiracy theories surrounding that.

In fact, if you look at all the major leaders of WW2, FDR is the only one who still has a relatively positive historical reputation. Churchill's name has been thoroughly dragged through the mud, and we know what most of the world thinks about Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo.

WW2 was so pointless and meaningless that I think that certain elites behind the scenes bribed Nazi Germany to put it into action.

I have read some evidence about the Baku oilfields...that made me put two and two together.
Banking elites who fight one another and use war to play monopoly.

 

[Wandering Monk]

WW2 was so pointless and meaningless that I think that certain elites behind the scenes bribed Nazi Germany to put it into action.

I have read some evidence about the Baku oilfields...that made me put two and two together.
Banking elites who fight one another and use war to play monopoly.

You mean those Jewish banking elites, right, e.g. Rotschild? BTW, Soros is also Jewish. You can drop the mask now.

 

[Heyo]

WW2 was so pointless and meaningless that I think that certain elites behind the scenes bribed Nazi Germany to put it into action.

They did, kinda. by 1938 Germany was basically bankrupt. Hitler had taken loans, offered to him with open arms, to prop up a military-industrial complex that he now had to use to regain the money. In hindsight one could see how that model only could end in war.

 

[Stevicus]

Someone said America was Isolationist for most of its history. This is patently not true. I was just giving an example for others to see.

Yes, some people use the term "isolationism" to describe US foreign policy, although I always considered it to be a misnomer. The real policy was that of "no foreign entanglements" and to refrain from permanent alliances or playing favorites among foreign nations.

Our policy was never "isolationism," as we still maintained amicable relations with most countries, as well as did commerce and allowed for the free flow of communication between America and the foreign world. This also included a policy of accepting immigrants and championing the concept of the melting pot, which was the exact opposite of what a truly isolationist nation would do.

The Spanish-American War was the major turning point, and it came at a key time - both in terms of America's industrial development and the state of affairs in the world, with most of the world's territory under the thumb of the major powers, in one form or another. Our annexation of the Philippines was both an atrocity and in retrospect, extremely short-sighted and foolish. It also helped facilitate our involvement in China (such as hte Boxer Rebellion and other inventions) and elsewhere in East Asia.

So, no, we weren't really all that isolationist at that point. The world as a whole was pretty nationalistic, and America was no exception. Yet it was still largely driven by an "America First" philosophy.

The intervention in the Russian Civil War was tied in with America's intervention in WW1. The two events are linked to each other, and all of the Allied powers had gotten involved in it, along with several other nations. In a way, that probably helped give a boost to the Bolshevik cause, since they could say the counter-revolutionaries were being aided by foreign imperialists, while it was the Bolsheviks who were fighting for Mother Russia.

So, all in all, it was an unwise move on our part to get involved. We pulled out rather quickly, as Americans didn't really want to be there, and nobody really knew what we were doing there in the first place.

However, it was after that which began a period which many people refer to as "isolationism," since the US Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles or the US entry into the League of Nations. Even immigration was severely curtailed.

But we still had the Philippines and we were still messing about in China, so we were not exactly isolationist in Asian politics - at least not as much as we were in relation to European politics.

In practice, that's a distinction that must be made whenever people speak of America's so-called "isolationism" of the past. What it really meant in practice was that America was committed to avoiding involvements in intra-European squabbles and intrigue. WW1 was a major exception, but people thought it was the "war to end all wars."

 

[Stevicus]

WW2 was so pointless and meaningless that I think that certain elites behind the scenes bribed Nazi Germany to put it into action.

I have read some evidence about the Baku oilfields...that made me put two and two together.
Banking elites who fight one another and use war to play monopoly.

As I've said before, I suppose anything is possible.

I think the seeds for WW2 were planted during WW1, and I believe the root cause of WW1 was various competing forms of nationalism among the European powers which were carving out their own empires in the world. The US started forming its own empire on our side of the pond and extending it into the Pacific.

A lot of money to be made, and there were multiple factions wanting to get in on the action. That seems pretty easy and straight-forward to understand, and it would appear to be quite obvious when one looks at the situation overall.

And even in Latin America, even though those states were nominally independent, they were still under a certain degree of hegemony by the U.S., so they might just easily have become colonial territories if we wanted it that way.

I'm not sure if we'll ever really be able to come to terms with the processes which have shaped and molded the world into what it is today.

But I firmly believe that WW1 was ultimately the result of nationalism and multiple powers going full tilt in wanting to make as much money and grab as much territory and resources as they could get. But nationalism was also present in the smaller nations which didn't have empires, such as Serbia. There were also growing nationalist movements in nations which were part of other empires.

Greed and nationalism kind of go hand in hand in the sense that the privileged classes in any nation benefit from the spoils of war - as long as they're on the winning side.

And then, after WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles, everybody felt like they got screwed - and the US Senate rejected the treaty outright. Some of the rough patches were hashed out a little better at Locarno (which some might see as the early precursor to the policy of Appeasement). The US was out of the League of Nations, so it fell to Britain and France to maintain the world order. But their problem was that their empires had gotten too large and were falling out of their control. Back at home they were facing unemployment, strikes, which became even worse during the Depression. Everybody was in the crapper.

I don't know that Germany would have needed to be bribed to go to war, at least in the sense that they did want to have the boundaries returned to what they were prior to WW1. But in a larger sense, I would say a main cause of WW2 was also due to the same reason they lost both wars - a lack of oil. So, I understand your point about the Baku oil fields and why they wanted them so badly.

For much the same reason, the Japanese wanted the oil of the Dutch East Indies. Their need was especially great after the US imposed an oil embargo on them.

That's where it's hard to see where the bankers might fit into the overall global/capitalist food chain. Those who control the oil seem to be where the power may lie. Oil is the lifeblood of industry and a primary source of energy.

The sad thing about WW2 is that, whatever disputes existed at the time, they could have resolved if they were more reasonable. I think the Allies were more than reasonable at Munich, perhaps they were too reasonable to the point where their actions are castigated as appeasement. But Hitler was just too insane and rightfully seen as treacherous and dishonorable. They were operating without any sense of moral conscience or restraint whatsoever, completely beyond the pale.

It is curious, when you think about it, since Hitler obviously got support and loans from some bankers and was supported by many capitalists, both within and outside of Germany. But considering the nature of the man and the regime he was in charge of, at least from a strictly business point of view, Hitler was definitely a bad investment.

 

[Wandering Monk]

As I've said before, I suppose anything is possible.

I think the seeds for WW2 were planted during WW1, and I believe the root cause of WW1 was various competing forms of nationalism among the European powers which were carving out their own empires in the world. The US started forming its own empire on our side of the pond and extending it into the Pacific.

A lot of money to be made, and there were multiple factions wanting to get in on the action. That seems pretty easy and straight-forward to understand, and it would appear to be quite obvious when one looks at the situation overall.

And even in Latin America, even though those states were nominally independent, they were still under a certain degree of hegemony by the U.S., so they might just easily have become colonial territories if we wanted it that way.

I'm not sure if we'll ever really be able to come to terms with the processes which have shaped and molded the world into what it is today.

But I firmly believe that WW1 was ultimately the result of nationalism and multiple powers going full tilt in wanting to make as much money and grab as much territory and resources as they could get. But nationalism was also present in the smaller nations which didn't have empires, such as Serbia. There were also growing nationalist movements in nations which were part of other empires.

Greed and nationalism kind of go hand in hand in the sense that the privileged classes in any nation benefit from the spoils of war - as long as they're on the winning side.

And then, after WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles, everybody felt like they got screwed - and the US Senate rejected the treaty outright. Some of the rough patches were hashed out a little better at Locarno (which some might see as the early precursor to the policy of Appeasement). The US was out of the League of Nations, so it fell to Britain and France to maintain the world order. But their problem was that their empires had gotten too large and were falling out of their control. Back at home they were facing unemployment, strikes, which became even worse during the Depression. Everybody was in the crapper.

I don't know that Germany would have needed to be bribed to go to war, at least in the sense that they did want to have the boundaries returned to what they were prior to WW1. But in a larger sense, I would say a main cause of WW2 was also due to the same reason they lost both wars - a lack of oil. So, I understand your point about the Baku oil fields and why they wanted them so badly.

For much the same reason, the Japanese wanted the oil of the Dutch East Indies. Their need was especially great after the US imposed an oil embargo on them.

That's where it's hard to see where the bankers might fit into the overall global/capitalist food chain. Those who control the oil seem to be where the power may lie. Oil is the lifeblood of industry and a primary source of energy.

The sad thing about WW2 is that, whatever disputes existed at the time, they could have resolved if they were more reasonable. I think the Allies were more than reasonable at Munich, perhaps they were too reasonable to the point where their actions are castigated as appeasement. But Hitler was just too insane and rightfully seen as treacherous and dishonorable. They were operating without any sense of moral conscience or restraint whatsoever, completely beyond the pale.

It is curious, when you think about it, since Hitler obviously got support and loans from some bankers and was supported by many capitalists, both within and outside of Germany. But considering the nature of the man and the regime he was in charge of, at least from a strictly business point of view, Hitler was definitely a bad investment.

Congratulations. You managed to hit all the cliches!

 

[Stevicus]

Congratulations. You managed to hit all the cliches!

You might make more sense if you ever find that you have something constructive to add to a discussion.

 

[Estro Felino]

As I've said before, I suppose anything is possible.

I think the seeds for WW2 were planted during WW1, and I believe the root cause of WW1 was various competing forms of nationalism among the European powers which were carving out their own empires in the world. The US started forming its own empire on our side of the pond and extending it into the Pacific.

A lot of money to be made, and there were multiple factions wanting to get in on the action. That seems pretty easy and straight-forward to understand, and it would appear to be quite obvious when one looks at the situation overall.

And even in Latin America, even though those states were nominally independent, they were still under a certain degree of hegemony by the U.S., so they might just easily have become colonial territories if we wanted it that way.

I'm not sure if we'll ever really be able to come to terms with the processes which have shaped and molded the world into what it is today.

But I firmly believe that WW1 was ultimately the result of nationalism and multiple powers going full tilt in wanting to make as much money and grab as much territory and resources as they could get. But nationalism was also present in the smaller nations which didn't have empires, such as Serbia. There were also growing nationalist movements in nations which were part of other empires.

Greed and nationalism kind of go hand in hand in the sense that the privileged classes in any nation benefit from the spoils of war - as long as they're on the winning side.

And then, after WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles, everybody felt like they got screwed - and the US Senate rejected the treaty outright. Some of the rough patches were hashed out a little better at Locarno (which some might see as the early precursor to the policy of Appeasement). The US was out of the League of Nations, so it fell to Britain and France to maintain the world order. But their problem was that their empires had gotten too large and were falling out of their control. Back at home they were facing unemployment, strikes, which became even worse during the Depression. Everybody was in the crapper.

I don't know that Germany would have needed to be bribed to go to war, at least in the sense that they did want to have the boundaries returned to what they were prior to WW1. But in a larger sense, I would say a main cause of WW2 was also due to the same reason they lost both wars - a lack of oil. So, I understand your point about the Baku oil fields and why they wanted them so badly.

For much the same reason, the Japanese wanted the oil of the Dutch East Indies. Their need was especially great after the US imposed an oil embargo on them.

That's where it's hard to see where the bankers might fit into the overall global/capitalist food chain. Those who control the oil seem to be where the power may lie. Oil is the lifeblood of industry and a primary source of energy.

The sad thing about WW2 is that, whatever disputes existed at the time, they could have resolved if they were more reasonable. I think the Allies were more than reasonable at Munich, perhaps they were too reasonable to the point where their actions are castigated as appeasement. But Hitler was just too insane and rightfully seen as treacherous and dishonorable. They were operating without any sense of moral conscience or restraint whatsoever, completely beyond the pale.

It is curious, when you think about it, since Hitler obviously got support and loans from some bankers and was supported by many capitalists, both within and outside of Germany. But considering the nature of the man and the regime he was in charge of, at least from a strictly business point of view, Hitler was definitely a bad investment.

I think that both world wars were wanted by those banking dynasties.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think that both world wars were wanted by those banking dynasties.

You mean those Jewish banking dynasties, don't you?

 

[Heyo]

You mean those Jewish banking dynasties, don't you?

I think the association of banking and Jewish is outdated. It was a thing when all banking was seen as usury and forbidden for Christians and Jews were pushed into that business because they were prohibited from taking "honest" jobs. While the Jews had a head start in building banking dynasties and some of them exist 'till today, many non-Jews have also taken that route and are now as despicable as the Jewish bankers were at the beginning of the last century.