IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Yup. Putin had no choice. Nobody has Agency but the USofA. Of course... :-/
New Of course, NATO expansion East had nothing to do with it. :-/
New Last expansion was April 2009. What year is it now?
New So, if a LIE is old enough, it doesn't count anymore?
New All those countries west of Russia are -- and were, in 2009 too...
...free and sovereign members of the UN.

They can join what-the-fuck-ever organisations they want, and that doesn't give that fucking little Westentaschenführer THE LEAST fucking right to start invading them. What's so fucking hard to understand about that?!?

You still a fucking Stalinist, or what? I always knew growing up in Russia did couldn't have been good for you... Holy sheee...eesh!
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi

(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
New What I learned from a year in the Soviet Union.
Never trust the West.
What the US secretary of state said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's words, "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachev said, but added: "any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."

Now, 20 years later, Gorbachev is still outraged when he is asked about this episode. "One cannot depend on American politicians," he told SPIEGEL.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315-2.html

If I had truly "grown up" in the Soviet Union, my views would be even more extreme to Western eyes.
New That's one interpretation...
Foreign Affairs:

[...]

Contrary to the view of many on the U.S. side, then, the question of NATO expansion arose early and entailed discussions of expansion not only to East Germany but also to eastern Europe. But contrary to Russian allegations, Gorbachev never got the West to promise that it would freeze NATO’s borders. Rather, Bush’s senior advisers had a spell of internal disagreement in early February 1990, which they displayed to Gorbachev. By the time of the Camp David summit, however, all members of Bush’s team, along with Kohl, had united behind an offer in which Gorbachev would receive financial assistance from West Germany -- and little else -- in exchange for allowing Germany to reunify and for allowing a united Germany to be part of NATO.

In the short run, the result was a win for the United States. U.S. officials and their West German counterparts had expertly outmaneuvered Gorbachev, extending NATO to East Germany and avoiding promises about the future of the alliance. One White House staffer under Bush, Robert Hutchings, ranked a dozen possible outcomes, from the “most congenial” (no restrictions at all on NATO as it moved into former East Germany) to the “most inimical” (a united Germany completely outside of NATO). In the end, the United States achieved an outcome somewhere between the best and the second best on the list. Rarely does one country win so much in an international negotiation.

But as Baker presciently wrote in his memoirs of his tenure as secretary of state, “Almost every achievement contains within its success the seeds of a future problem.” By design, Russia was left on the periphery of a post–Cold War Europe. A young KGB officer serving in East Germany in 1989 offered his own recollection of the era in an interview a decade later, in which he remembered returning to Moscow full of bitterness at how “the Soviet Union had lost its position in Europe.” His name was Vladimir Putin, and he would one day have the power to act on that bitterness.


FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I wouldn't cheer to gleefully for another collapse.
One thing Putin can do, and has already begun to do, is pivot East. No doubt about it, he and Russia are in a very bad way (just imagine the World of Shit we would be in if there was a call on our debt! We're the world's leading debtor and have been for decades). But there is this straw Putin has that was not available in 1989:

http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/why-chinas-love-for-putin-is-dangerous/
New Interesting.
Dunno how well the "pivot" is going though.

Foreign Policy:

China hopes to project a squeaky-clean image while international attention centers on APEC’s host. But that’s not the only reason why the Putin-Peng Coatgate has China’s censors on high alert. China’s tightly controlled state media carefully protects the reputation of its top government leaders, and the names of China’s top leaders are frequently some of the most heavily censored terms on Chinese social media. In addition, the sweeping anti-corruption campaign Xi himself directs specifically targets infidelity as both a sign and a symptom of graft. And given China’s growing economic and military ties with Russia, even the hint of less than squeaky-clean behavior involving Russia’s president and China’s First Lady is certainly strictly verboten.


Whoops!

;-)

Being a debtor in one's own currency isn't a huge problem. China needs to buy dollars to keep its currency weak. They know they would be in a world of hurt if the Yuan rose to too high a level. FT.

We'll see what happens. And keep our fingers crossed...

Cheers,
Scott.

     Vlad must be unhappy. - (Another Scott) - (22)
         Not good - (hnick) - (15)
             There is that... - (Another Scott) - (14)
                 If the Russians march on Kiev, then what? - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                     He won't do that. - (Another Scott) - (12)
                         I do hope you're right! -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                         This entire situation is YAN "gift" from the corrupt Clinton Administration. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (10)
                             Yup. Putin had no choice. Nobody has Agency but the USofA. Of course... :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                 Of course, NATO expansion East had nothing to do with it. :-/ -NT - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                     Last expansion was April 2009. What year is it now? -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                         So, if a LIE is old enough, it doesn't count anymore? -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                     All those countries west of Russia are -- and were, in 2009 too... - (CRConrad) - (5)
                                         What I learned from a year in the Soviet Union. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                             That's one interpretation... - (Another Scott)
                                             Drum: More echos of 1989. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                 I wouldn't cheer to gleefully for another collapse. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                     Interesting. - (Another Scott)
         Fsck him! - (a6l6e6x)
         now every russian unhappy, central bank is now at 17% - (boxley)
         Diplomat-LRPD: Duck, and cover. -NT - (Ashton) - (1)
             Lather, rinse, repeat. -NT - (drook)
         77.5:$1 before falling back today. So much for 17% interest helping... -NT - (Another Scott)
         Bloomberg: Ruble fell after Putin's pals got $10B. - (Another Scott)

Yeah, let's watch the lamp. It's more fun and less predictable.
128 ms