Posts from Forum

Do you really think that the confrontation between the USSR and the USA gave you a tablet, iPhone, laptop, and so on?

probably... unfortunately, I only watched the final table. There was this interesting guy there, Zdravko Duvnjak. He kept folding AJ, KQ, etc., and then went all-in with 108... This main event left a mixed impression...

Net, my dear, you should be the one to write which specific points of the article you disagree with, why you disagree, and what the reality is.

These are your words, and you are responsible for them.

Also, it would be good not to criticize the theses that I myself said were inaccurate (see my conversation with Snoopy). There aren't many of them, far from 95% of the article's content.

Your problem is that you don't support your words with specifics, you don't elaborate on your point of view. You just declare, "I'm D'Artagnan, and you're all..." (edited - censorship!). Someone already passed by, boasting about their knowledge of history, but quickly faltered when asked simple questions.

My argument is supported by reasoning, which I am ready to elaborate on or detail further, depending on the interlocutor's requests, so that the discussion focuses on the essence of the issue and does not turn into a measuring contest. This is also why I include links to articles - sometimes it's too much work to type out kilobytes of text, it's easier to copy and paste what's already written.

Missiles are not needed to launch them, but to have more sovereignty. In big politics, it's like in the jungle - whoever is stronger is right. No one intends to use force; the mere possibility of using it is enough.

For example, in Syria, several Russian ships with weapons capable of destroying American aircraft carriers arrived, stood in the harbor, conducted some exercises, and sailed away. This is a typical demonstration of force - we have weapons, we are not afraid to deliver them to the area of your interests, and we will not be punished for it. It is clear that no one was going to fight, but this step allowed us to gain an advantage at the negotiating table. That's how big politics is done.

I strongly disagree with that. I know firsthand (I served in the Russian Strategic Missile Forces for 10 years) that the Americans won't have time to launch their missiles before a sufficient payload is launched to completely destroy them within minutes. They know this, which is why they can't do anything. ... It is important for Russia that its strategic partner is a powerful ally. The Americans won't interfere in Ukraine because they know that Russia won't allow it.

a sign of weakness is when there is nothing to demonstrate!

Well, I can't even imagine thinking otherwise. For example, if you were told for 10 years that you have nothing to offer against the United States. On the contrary, you have a huge number of missiles, more than anyone else. But what about the fact that they have been rusting in their bunkers for 50 years, and it is far from certain how many of them can even take off, let alone reach their target? Technologically, the war was lost long ago. The United States brazenly interferes wherever they want, and Russia only barks from the sidelines, tucking its tail. I understand that it's painful to hear, but I'm sorry, that's the reality.

The population benefits from the fact that, all other things being equal, the larger the group, the stronger the effect of the division of labor, and as a result, the higher the standard of living.

Simply put, if you are thrown into the jungle alone, you will not survive. If there are two or three of you, your chances will be better, but not by much. A group of 100 people is quite capable of building a settlement from scratch and providing for themselves. If there are 10,000 people, life will be quite good. And 1 million people will build modern infrastructure there.

In the case of the EU and the United States, this principle does not work because they view their sphere of influence as colonies - territories from which they need to extract as many resources as possible, and invest as little as possible, and protect from external encroachments as little as possible. That is, they improve the metropolis at the expense of resources from the colonies. And then they promote this as achievements of democracy, human rights, and so on - all these benefits are only for the inhabitants of the metropolis, and the colonies pay for the feast.

100 years ago, this scheme was exactly as described in the previous paragraph, now it is more veiled, but the essence is the same.

And the colonial policy of Russia, both under the tsars and under the general secretaries, was the opposite - they lifted the periphery both economically and infrastructurally, protected it from external aggression, and did not particularly humiliate the local elite, but integrated it into the existing power hierarchy. Even in Afghanistan, during the war, they built so many infrastructure facilities that the Afghans still remember how well they lived under the Soviet "occupation." And they compare it with the Americans, who only shoot and support the production of drugs.

Independence is needed when an external force is robbing you or forcing you to work for it. That is, when the losses exceed the profits. The example of the interaction between Russia and Belarus shows that this is clearly not the case.

And where did you get that from? Did you serve, launch, see how they rust, or maybe even handed over a couple of missiles for scrap metal? Stop talking nonsense in a topic about which you have zero knowledge... Your words about 48 hours are just laughable...

I am interested in how the lives of ordinary people in Ukraine and Russia will improve specifically after the unification (if I understood you correctly, and you meant ordinary people)? At whose expense? Is there a development plan?

1) Simplification of trade - abolition of duties, abolition of customs restrictions, reduction of paperwork.
2) Lowering prices for gas and other export goods reduces production costs.
3) Simplification of relocation and employment, reduction of bureaucratic procedures in this regard.
4) A single currency reduces losses and delays in conversion, simplifies bill payments, and reduces risks caused by exchange rate fluctuations.
5) The absence of inspections at the border reduces logistics costs and reduces the time for transporting people and goods.
6) For a number of goods, it is not necessary to build separate factories in each state, but to use one factory that serves the entire country. Reduction of costs due to production volume.
7) Reduction of expenses on the state apparatus - duplicate ministries, consulates, etc. become unnecessary.
That is, this is not manna from heaven that falls into your hands by itself, but an optimization of economic processes that increases the efficiency of doing business, thereby increasing well-being.
8) Absence of Maidan protests. I understand that for some this is a plus, but for the economy it is objectively a minus.

Hence the question – is the strengthening of transnational corporations a path to improving the well-being of Ukraine? The answer is a definite no. The already rich will get richer, and the poor will remain poor.

In diplomacy, well-formulated demands are half the battle.

For example, if the Maidan had only one slogan: "Azarov must resign," Yanukovych would have scratched his head in a day or two – "What the hell, let Azarov go," and signed a decree on his resignation. But as long as the Maidan is driven by slogans like "we want to join the EU" or "we will put an end to lawlessness," the attitude towards it will be accordingly.

But the Maidan is one thing, I understand that expecting coherence from a crowd is naive; that's what political parties are for – to shape the desires of the masses into an idea, an ideology, a goal, and a program of action, and to declare it publicly. The ideology of the Ukrainian opposition (and the Russian one as well) mainly consists of trying to make life miserable for the ruling party.

For comparison, the Bolsheviks had a complete set of ideological tools – from populist theses like "land to the peasants, factories to the workers" to serious scientific works by Marx and his followers. This is partly why they were able to seize and maintain power, and to rebuild the country afterwards – having a goal and a compass motivates both the masses and the elite.

Snupik, for this www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpPrkMPzmrs – mega-respect!!!
A brave woman, of course)) And she explained it very clearly, to the point. The picture that formed in my mind intuitively, subconsciously, she put it together and presented it quite briefly and clearly.