Scholz: Russian energy ban would mean European recession

[exchemist]

Yes, I am aware of this . I have posted two threads in this regard...

Noam Chomsky on NATO...

Christopher Hedges on Nato...

Then you should not misrepresent the position in your posts in this thread.

 

[ajay0]

Then you should not misrepresent the position in your posts in this thread.

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Oh I see. Read my link before you comment further.

 

[Augustus]

Is it a strength to be dependent on the goodwill of a foreign power that does not honor its promises and agreements made on Nato not expanding an inch eastward !

The was no promise from America.

You understand that, if actually made, unofficial pledges from officials do not constitute binding pledges on all future political leaders?

Trump promised to build a wall, that doesn't mean America promised and Biden must fulfil.

Putin promised he wasn't going to invade Ukraine and it was just a Western psyop.

An unwritten pledge means nothing in international affairs.

And expand it did to the very borders of Russia to create a highly volatile situation at present.

I wonder why all of these former Soviet republics and client states wanted to protect themselves from Russia...

Countries have the right to self-determination after all. The ones that joined NATO have also proved why it was a very good idea. As you see with Belarus now, the ones that did what Russia wanted are just slave states.

Your argument relies on the idea that Russia gets to decide who are its vassal states that are under its yoke, and these countries must just suck it up because Russia is such a sensitive and delicate bear that it needs to be mollycoddled

 

[Augustus]

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.

Sanctions are diplomacy and negotiation.

Invading Ukraine is warfare.

So you really support NATO and oppose Russia after all

 

[ajay0]

Oh I see. Read my link before you comment further.

I have read your link.

There is talk of verbal assurances to Gorbachev, who also happens to be a Nobel prize winner for peace, that Nato would not expand eastward.

James Baker stated thus to Gorbachev, " "If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

However, since there is no written agreement or treaty, the verbal assurance is considered null and void.

In other words, as Chomsky stated...

'[Mikhail] Gorbachev complained. He was told look, there's nothing on paper. People didn't actually say it but the implication was look, if you are dumb enough to take faith in a gentleman's agreement with us, that's your problem. NATO expanded to East Germany.'

 

[ajay0]

The was no promise from America.

You understand that, if actually made, unofficial pledges from officials do not constitute binding pledges on all future political leaders?

Trump promised to build a wall, that doesn't mean America promised and Biden must fulfil.

Putin promised he wasn't going to invade Ukraine and it was just a Western psyop.

An unwritten pledge means nothing in international affairs.

This is true. Gorbachev probably thought that his Nobel prize for peace is enough strategic and diplomatic weight for western leaders not to renege on their promises to him and be considerate to him.

He failed in his duties as a politician due to naivete, and did not put these treaties to paper, preferring to trust his western counterparts instead. He was incorrect in his assessents and misplaced trust.

T
I wonder why all of these former Soviet republics and client states wanted to protect themselves from Russia...

Countries have the right to self-determination after all. The ones that joined NATO have also proved why it was a very good idea. As you see with Belarus now, the ones that did what Russia wanted are just slave states.

Your argument relies on the idea that Russia gets to decide who are its vassal states that are under its yoke, and these countries must just suck it up because Russia is such a sensitive and delicate bear that it needs to be mollycoddled

NATO membership to Ukraine will increase the level of military threats to Russia dramatically, considering that American strategic planning documents allow preemptive strike at enemy missile systems.

Putin had said, 'Ballistic missiles from Kharkov will take seven to eight minutes; and hypersonic assault weapons, four to five minutes. It is like a knife to the throat.'

Seeing all its promises by western leaders reneged, and U.S.-Nato forces almost in the borders of Russia prompted Putin to go forward with the invasion.

But what he did is incorrect. He had an excellent case in his hand of U.S.- Nato leaders reneging on their promises to Gorbachev and Russia, and with a good enough diplomatic corps, could have convinced the UN and everyone else of this fact in the beginning itself.

However, he went on with a brutal invasion instead. It shows his immaturity and incompetence as a politician and statesman. Pre-emptive diplomatic work would have easily accomplished the job for him instead of an invasion.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sanctions are diplomacy and negotiation.

Invading Ukraine is warfare.

So you really support NATO and oppose Russia after all

Actually the EU institutions should be super partes.
That is siding with neither Vladimir.
Actually they are very partial and biased, they totally side with Ukraine.
Disregarding all that Ukrainians have been doing in Donbas. Since 2015.

 

[Augustus]

Actually the EU institutions should be super partes.
That is siding with neither Vladimir.
Actually they are very partial and biased, they totally side with Ukraine.
Disregarding all that Ukrainians have been doing in Donbas. Since 2015.

Are you saying we should be equally supportive of people destroying cities, targeting civilians, looting and pillaging and waging an illegal war of aggressions as we should be of people defending their homes?

It's like saying there was moral equivalence between Hitler and Poland, and that fair minded people should have supported both equally.

You also might want to check what Russia has been doing in the Donbas since 2015, and whether or not the Russian speakers there who are being "protected" by warlords and gangsters are benefitting from Saint Vladimir's altruistic humanitarian intervention

 

[Augustus]

This is true. Gorbachev probably thought that his Nobel prize for peace is enough strategic and diplomatic weight for western leaders not to renege on their promises to him and be considerate to him.

He failed in his duties as a politician due to naivete, and did not put these treaties to paper, preferring to trust his western counterparts instead. He was incorrect in his assessents and misplaced trust.

It happened after Gorby went out of power.

Also against the backdrop of Russia/USSR invading Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and destroying much of Chechnya.

This idea that Russia is an innocent victim and everyone else has to agree to be Russian vassals is insane.

Countries have agency.

NATO membership to Ukraine will increase the level of military threats to Russia dramatically, considering that American strategic planning documents allow preemptive strike at enemy missile systems.

Quick quiz:

Which of the following is true:

a) Russian has nukes closer to NATO
b) NATO has nukes closer to Russia

re-emptive diplomatic work would have easily accomplished the job for him instead of an invasion.

The problem is it's not just about NATO, but domination. Russia doesn't want Ukraine, Belarus, etc. to be independent. They need to be submissive vassals.

 

[Stevicus]

However, since there is no written agreement or treaty, the verbal assurance is considered null and void.

In other words, as Chomsky stated...

'[Mikhail] Gorbachev complained. He was told look, there's nothing on paper. People didn't actually say it but the implication was look, if you are dumb enough to take faith in a gentleman's agreement with us, that's your problem. NATO expanded to East Germany.'

That sounds like the equivocations of shady lawyers and used car salesmen. Our leaders revel in such an image (clever lawyers they all are) and then complain about the loss of faith in democracy. Our leaders need to realize that if you act like a sleaze, you'll get treated like a sleaze.

 

[Estro Felino]

Are you saying we should be equally supportive of people destroying cities, targeting civilians, looting and pillaging and waging an illegal war of aggressions as we should be of people defending their homes?

It's like saying there was moral equivalence between Hitler and Poland, and that fair minded people should have supported both equally.

You also might want to check what Russia has been doing in the Donbas since 2015, and whether or not the Russian speakers there who are being "protected" by warlords and gangsters are benefitting from Saint Vladimir's altruistic humanitarian intervention

Ok...I propose a quid pro quo as for the the Brussels institutions.
They tell me why a destructive and tragic individual like George Soros is allowed into the EU institutions. What role he plays and why.
And whether he funded Zelensky or the Maidan Coup.

And I, in exchange I will stop supporting Putin.
Quid pro quo.
Do ut des.

 

[Estro Felino]

The problem is it's not just about NATO, but domination. Russia doesn't want Ukraine, Belarus, etc. to be independent. They need to be submissive vassals.

Like Italy to Brussels. A vassal.

 

[Augustus]

Ok...I propose a quid pro quo as for the the Brussels institutions.
They tell me why a destructive and tragic individual like George Soros is allowed into the EU institutions. What role he plays and why.
And whether he funded Zelensky or the Maidan Coup.

And I, in exchange I will stop supporting Putin.
Quid pro quo.
Do ut des.

Russia funds political causes in every single EU and NATO country. Therefore the EU and NATO get to invade Russia.

That's how it works isn't it?

Like Italy to Brussels. A vassal.

Silly false equivalence. You can vote to leave at any time.

After Brexit, did the EU invade Britain?

 

[sun rise]

Not only would the European economy suffer, but we'd also have to break an international treaty to stop the payments. (And as we all know the economy is always above mere politics.)
But Putin may give us a reason to end payments by insisting the payments have to be in Rubel. I hope we'd take that opportunity if Putin presents it.

Given the war with its war crimes that is being inflicted on Ukraine, we need to go all in to support them.

 

[metis]

German chancellor Olaf Scholz warned that an immediate ban on Russian energy imports would trigger an economic recession in Germany and across Europe, which is recovering from the covid pandemic for the last two years.

Scholz: Russian energy ban would mean European recession

I have no doubt whatsoever that this could happen, but I also believe that sinking further into a depression is also possible. For those of us who live across the Pond, recessions & depressions don't stop just because there's water.

 

[Twilight Hue]

German chancellor Olaf Scholz warned that an immediate ban on Russian energy imports would trigger an economic recession in Germany and across Europe, which is recovering from the covid pandemic for the last two years.

Scholz: Russian energy ban would mean European recession

Translation.

Ukraine is screwed.

 

[Kooky]

But you can ask the obverse too.

Is it a strength to be dependent on the goodwill of a foreign power that does not honor its promises and agreements made on Nato not expanding an inch eastward !

And expand it did to the very borders of Russia to create a highly volatile situation at present.

What incentive could NATO have provided for Russia to not bring Ukraine back into its sphere of influence by force?

 

[Kooky]

Not only would the European economy suffer, but we'd also have to break an international treaty to stop the payments. (And as we all know the economy is always above mere politics.)
But Putin may give us a reason to end payments by insisting the payments have to be in Rubel. I hope we'd take that opportunity if Putin presents it.

AFAIK, that's already been taken care of - Gazprom owns a separate bank that is to exchange foreign currency for Russian Rubels. Since Gazprom is part of the Russian state kleptocracy, all is well again.

 

[Kooky]

Yes. Merkel's decisions on energy look badly flawed. The exit from nuclear was equally foolish, being driven by emotion in the wake of the Fukushima episode. It was the sort of decision that only a very rich country with lots of other energy options could afford. [cue circus music and clowns]

If only somebody would have invested in alternate energy sources ahead of time, instead of doing the exact opposite and cutting almost all subsidies for green energy projects.

But, who could have foreseen the publically known consequences of both global climate change, as well as the extremely obvious dangers of being almost completely dependent on Russian gas imports!