Tag: ignorance

China and the fiasco in the Ukraine

This is a topical subject. It is something that is going on right now, and the outcome is not determined. The situation is indeterminate.

It is “funny” how the evil regime / military empire operates. Five months of “A war in Taiwan, A war in Taiwan”, followed by three months of non-stop “A war in the Ukraine, A war in the Ukraine”. China didn’t do anything. Russia didn’t do anything. But the facts don’t matter.

Today, the Ukraine started to attack it’s “breakaway” Eastern provinces. The United States fully expects that Russia will get involved, and they are so Hell Bent that Russia would do something, that they can then slap their “sanctions” on Russia and force Germany to abandon the Nordstrom Gas pipeline from Russia.

Why am I so confident that this is what the plan is?

Well, the CIA mouthpiece said so…

Yeah. So this one little article says…

  • USA LP gas exports will increase in 2022…
  • Due to the Northstrom gas pipeline from Russia stopped…
  • Because Germany will adhere to American sanctions…
  • Against Russia …
  • Because Russia invaded the Ukraine.
  • And that Russia will invade because TODAY the Ukranians started to kill their separatist groups in the LDR.

Except that…

  • Russia is not budging. It’s not making any military moves.
  • The Ukrainians must sort out their own issues.
  • Thus, there’s no excuse to sanction Russia.

And thus the entire American plot to seize control of energy into Europe has (so far) failed. I’m sure that they have a “trick or two up their sleeve“, so you cannot say that the situation is fixed in place. It isn’t. The United States evil empire is pushing and pushing and pushing for control of the world. It is flailing and failing everywhere. But it’s still in the ring fighting.

But…

Well…

The USA is mighty strange, don’t you know?

I am not the only one who believes this…

From UNZ…

Just after I published my first long article on the likely origins of the Covid outbreak in April 2020, our alternative media website was suddenly deplatformed, being banned from Facebook and with all our pages completely deranked by Google. For almost a decade, my article The Myth of Hispanic Crime had regularly been ranked #2 of some 200 million Google search results on that topic, but it now suddenly disappeared from the public discussion, a development that deeply rankled me.

Being blocked by the two primary gatekeepers of the global Internet has obviously had a serious impact upon our ability to reach potential readers, especially new ones. Nonetheless, our articles do still occasionally strike a spark and go viral, racking up many tens of thousands of pageviews, an encouraging situation. But the massive current media propaganda-bubble promoting an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine, which seems to be a ridiculous hoax, has apparently shifted that landscape, creating a huge demand for contrary perspectives.

Last weekend I published Mike Whitney’s piece arguing that the motive behind the sudden war-hysteria was actually to prevent the opening of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany, which would have fostered their mutually-beneficial economic cooperation. Such peaceful Eurasian integration might be viewed as a major geopolitical threat by some American strategists, who thereby provoked the sudden war-scare.

The Ukrainian crisis has nothing to do with Ukraine. It’s about Germany and, in particular, a pipeline that connects Germany to Russia called Nord Stream 2. 

Washington sees the pipeline as a threat to its primacy in Europe and has tried to sabotage the project at every turn. 

Even so, Nord Stream has pushed ahead and is now fully-operational and ready-to-go. 

Once German regulators provide the final certification, the gas deliveries will begin. 

German homeowners and businesses will have a reliable source of clean and inexpensive energy while Russia will see a significant boost to their gas revenues. 

It’s a win-win situation for both parties.

The US Foreign Policy establishment is not happy about these developments. 

They don’t want Germany to become more dependent on Russian gas because commerce builds trust and trust leads to the expansion of trade. 

As relations grow warmer, more trade barriers are lifted, regulations are eased, travel and tourism increase, and a new security architecture evolves. 

In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO. 

There’s also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US Treasuries to balance accounts. 

Transactions between business partners can be conducted in their own currencies which is bound to precipitate a sharp decline in the value of the dollar and a dramatic shift in economic power. 

This is why the Biden administration opposes Nord Stream. 

It’s not just a pipeline, it’s a window into the future; a future in which Europe and Asia are drawn closer together into a massive free trade zone that increases their mutual power and prosperity while leaving the US on the outside looking in. 

Warmer relations between Germany and Russia signal an end to the “unipolar” world order the US has overseen for the last 75 years. 

A German-Russo alliance threatens to hasten the decline of the Superpower that is presently inching closer to the abyss. 

This is why Washington is determined to do everything it can to sabotage Nord Stream and keep Germany within its orbit. It’s a matter of survival

Strange American actions

It seems so straight forward, right?

Not so fast.

  • Biden cancelled the US pipeline his first week in office.
  • Now he’s cancelled the Israeli pipeline.
  • But he approved the Russia pipeline, through the Ukraine (no less).

So what the heck is actually going on?

From the American Energy Alliance…

Biden Abandons Israeli Pipeline In Favor Of Russian Gas Via Ukraine

President Biden is withdrawing U.S. support for the EastMed pipeline that would bring natural gas from Israel to the European continent.

Europe is currently in an energy crisis with record prices for natural gas and electricity, potential rolling blackouts, low supplies of natural gas, millions of citizens in energy poverty and increasing coal consumption, which the continent has wanted to end.

Increasing reliance on intermittent renewable sources that have not produced to their potential has put pressure on other sources the Europeans have discouraged.

The result of Biden’s most recent decision is making Europe even more dependent on Russia for its natural gas.

Currently, Western Europe gets over 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia via a pipeline that runs through Ukraine.

Russia wants to activate its Nord Stream 2 pipeline that runs under the Baltic so that it can avoid the current route through Ukraine.

Biden gave Russia the go-ahead in July 2021 for the continued construction of Nord Stream 2, which Russia predicted could go on-line by the end of the year.  It is now completed.

Rather than helping an ally, Biden is helping Russia dominate Europe’s energy system and gain economic strength in doing so.

The only explanation that Biden’s administration has given to withdrawing support is: “Washington’s interest is now switching to renewable energy sources.”

While the White House is using its dogged support for the switch to renewable energy to justify its decision, the European Commission drafted legal text that pronounces natural gas and nuclear power as “transitional” green energy sources to be used to bridge countries away from coal toward technologies like wind and solar.

EastMed Gas Pipeline

The EastMed Gas pipeline is a 1,180-mile undersea pipeline project from Israel to southern Europe, set to be completed by 2025, which, when completed will ease Europe’s dependence on Russia and Turkey, which serves as a hub for oil and natural gas.

The pipeline will reach depths of 3 kilometers, and have a capacity of 10 billion cubic meters per year.

Construction of the pipeline is expected to cost approximately €6 billion ($6.86 billion).

The pipeline is being developed by IGI Poseidon S.A., a 50-50 joint venture between the Greek gas utility DEPA and the Italian gas utility Edison.

The EastMed Pipeline accord was signed in Athens by the leaders of Greece, Cyprus, and Israel on January 2, 2020.

Biden’s Political Decision

Biden is not only catering to Russia regarding the EastMed pipeline decision but also to Turkey, who is offended that it was left out of the EastMed pipeline accord.

Turkey believes that it should be part of the pipeline project amid claims over natural gas in the east Mediterranean.

Turkish president Erdogan declared that any future eastern Mediterranean “gas project must include Turkey.

This business cannot be done without Turkey. Because if [gas] is to be transferred to Europe from here, it will only happen through Turkey.”

According to an expert, the Biden administration is “attributing huge significance to Turkey,” and its future after Erdogan.

Biden’s Inconsistencies

MedEast is the second major pipeline that the Biden administration has put a damper on: the first being the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring oil from Canada and North Dakota to the Gulf States.

Canadian oil is heavy oil needed for U.S. refineries that retooled decades ago when U.S. light oil production was declining.

Keystone XL would also provide more oil to the United States from an ally rather than being dependent on OPEC and Russia for oil.

For several months since the pandemic began, Russia was the number 2 supplier of oil to the United States, competing with Mexico for that distinction.

When Biden blocked the Keystone XL pipeline by canceling its Presidential permit, he blocked a project that went over and above existing standards to address issues such as carbon emissions, safety standards, and cooperation with indigenous people impacted by the pipeline.

Biden’s Keystone XL and MedEast pronouncements both overturn decisions made by President Trump.

When Joe Biden agreed to set aside U.S. objections to the controversial Russian undersea Nord Stream 2 pipeline, he reversed former President Trump’s policy of opposing the project due to security concerns.

The 760-mile Baltic Sea pipeline allows direct Russian natural gas supply to Germany and other western European countries and allows Russia to dominate the European energy market, making Putin a power player in continental Europe, where Russia already supplies over 40 percent of its natural gas.

Conclusion

President Biden continues to overturn decisions made by President Trump regarding energy policy.

In the most recent case, he has withdrawn U.S. support for the EastMed gas pipeline project, which would transport natural gas from Israel to Europe via the Mediterranean Sea when completed in 2025.

The project would remove some of the continent’s dependency on Russia for natural gas supplies that Russia has used as a geopolitical tool at times in the past. Biden’s announced reasoning is that the focus in Washington is now on renewable energy, despite the European Commission seeing the necessity to allow natural gas to be deemed a “transitional green energy source”.

Biden has shown huge inconsistency on his pipeline decisions, with one major exception—they all overturn decisions made by President Trump.

What’s going on

It appears that Geo-political concerns and domestic green energy concerns are at odds. Alliances are at odds, and there are competing interests all backed by powerful corportations and individuals with competing interests. Thus making the United States a schizophrenic entity.

Oh, Great! A schizophrenic bully with the largest arsenal of nuclear and bioweapons in the world. What could go wrong?

It seems, to me at least, that the United States is desparately trying to control Europe, and Israel by energy. If you control access to energy, you can control them, and by dishing out access in measured doses, you can use them as pawns to do your bidding.

And that is what I think is going on.

An Evil Empire

Though it does seem rather mish-mash.  Does the hand on the left know what the hand on the right is doing?

Do you want to know why the rest of the world calls it an evil empire?

The big fear right now is that sanctions against Russia will be ineffective. You slap sanctions on Russia and they will not work. Russia is pretty much autonomus.

So what are the American / UK “experts” saying?

Check out this horror…

Argument
An expert's point of view on a current event.

If Russia Invades Ukraine, Sanction China

Putin has found an economic lifeline in Beijing that only Washington can destroy.

By , a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute’s Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies.
.

Faced with the threat of further Western sanctions against Russia if it invades Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been seeking shelter in China.

On Feb. 4, the opening day of the Beijing Winter Olympics, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a new strategic partnership between their two countries.

A joint statement described the Chinese-Russian relationship as a “friendship” with “no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation.”

Putin expressed support for China’s opposition to Taiwanese independence, and Xi seconded Russia’s demand that NATO end its eastward expansion.

They also unveiled plans for broader economic cooperation, particularly in the oil and gas sectors.

The timing is no coincidence: At least in the short term, strengthened Chinese-Russian ties provide Putin an opportunity to lessen the blow from potential Western sanctions.

This puts the United States in a serious bind.

If Washington expects to convey a credible deterrent against a Russian invasion of Ukraine using financial and economic sanctions, it will need to signal its resolve to impose secondary sanctions against China in the same breath.

The problem is that the United Kingdom and the European Union, key U.S. allies, do not have the same legal or regulatory frameworks to impose secondary sanctions against Chinese banks or state-owned enterprises.

U.S. secondary sanctions, which target a third-party entity or country for conducting business with the primary subject of sanctions, rely on broad interpretations of jurisdiction.

To put it nicely; a very broad and liberal interpetation of the law; or to put it better; to make up the rules as you see fit. -MM

Most countries adopt some form of a territorial or nationality standard, meaning that its national borders define its jurisdictional reach.

The United States, however, considers its citizens, companies, and property as falling under its jurisdiction even if located abroad.

The United States considers the world to be it's territory. Not its borders.  -MM

Because the U.K. and EU lack this framework to apply secondary sanctions, it leaves Washington alone to flex its extraterritorial muscle against China.

And though the United States is unlikely to suffer any significant domestic economic blowback from imposing broad financial and economic sanctions against Russia, it is a different story with China.

At a Feb. 7 press conference following his meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, U.S. President Joe Biden said the United States was coordinating “a strong package of sanctions that are going to clearly demonstrate international resolve and impose swift and severe consequences if Russia violates Ukraine’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity.”

Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a key architect of the U.S. sanctions regime against Iran, is also working on a bipartisan bill that would apply what he described as the “mother of all sanctions” on Russia.

There are still significant disagreements in Washington on when to apply sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline linking Russia and Germany.

Well, you must realize that this is a project between Russia and Germany. The USA is not involved in it in any way, shape or means. -MM

The pipeline is owned by the Russian state-backed energy corporation Gazprom and has become a focal point among NATO allies because of its role in increasing Germany’s energy dependence on Russia.

Democrats, including Menendez and Biden, prefer to wait for Russia to invade Ukraine before putting sanctions in place, while Republicans are in favor of imposing sanctions on the pipeline immediately.

Republicans want to sanction Russia without reason. The Democrats are waiting for an excuse. -MM

Nevertheless, Menendez’s proposed legislation is sweeping and includes options to target Russia’s energy and finance sectors as well as key Russian government officials and even to boot Russia from SWIFT, the global financial messaging system that connects banks around the world.

The pieces for a broader, multilateral approach to sanctions are finally coming together.

This should scare Putin.

Responding to criticism that Germany was not doing enough to bolster Ukraine’s defenses, Scholz provided reassurances during his visit to Washington that Berlin is committed to imposing costs on Russia if it invades Ukraine.

It remains to be seen, however, whether that includes ditching Nord Stream 2.

That is the plan. Do not fool yourselves. -MM

Although Scholz has been vague about the pipeline’s fate if push comes to shove, he did note that Germany was prepared to take “all necessary steps” in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, noting the need for strategic ambiguity to head off an attempt by Russia to preemptively fortify itself against Western sanctions.

European leaders are fearful that an all-out barrage of sanctions against Russia could result in severe economic pain for their own economies.

Sanctions against Russia, whether with Russia alone or with China, will REALLY harm the EU. But the insane psychopaths in Washington DC do not care. -MM

Unlike the United States, many large European banks have close ties to Russia.

Europe’s energy sector is particularly at risk—relying on Russia for more than 40 percent of its imported natural gas.

The United States is trying to prevent a potential energy crisis in Europe should Putin weaponize Russia’s oil and gas exports. Amid already rising energy prices, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been working to assure European leaders that the Biden administration is committed to easing “any disruptions to Europe’s energy supply.”

And so they believe him? -MM

Specifically, he pointed to discussions with governments and major global suppliers of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to shore up supply.

The United States has ramped up its LNG exports to Europe as an alternative to Russian gas.

As of January, some 75 percent of U.S. LNG exports were bound for Europe. Last year, that figure stood at only 23 percent.

Meanwhile, this month, Putin unveiled his new oil and gas deal with China, worth more than $117 billion.

The terms of the 30-year contract call for Russia to supply an additional 10 billion cubic meters of gas to China per year via a new pipeline.

The implication is that deepening economic cooperation with China would help Russia absorb some of the shock if the West did impose severe sanctions against its banking and energy sectors. Russia is one of China’s largest oil and gas suppliers.

Russia is nearly and firmly isolated and sanctions of any types will not really affect it. -MM

But although these deepening economic ties might dampen the blow of U.S. sanctions, they are not completely out of reach of secondary U.S. sanctions.

To ensure its threats of sanctions remain credible, Washington needs to pressure Putin’s emerging economic lifelines by signaling that it is prepared to go beyond its standard sanctions package to impose secondary sanctions against Chinese banks and state-owned enterprises if Russia invades Ukraine.

There is precedent for such a move, but times have changed. China has become wise to the reach of U.S. extraterritorial sanctions and developed its own legal frameworks to push back.

In July 2012, the U.S. Treasury Department levied secondary sanctions against China’s Bank of Kunlun for knowingly facilitating transactions on behalf of designated Iranian banks.

This designation caught many experts and industry insiders by surprise, as it was an unprecedented escalation in the use of extraterritorial sanctions against a third party.

Under international UN laws, this action is ILLEGAL. Trust me, the Chinese will not forgive and forget. -MM

A Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson chided the United States for “invoking its domestic laws to impose sanctions against the Chinese financial institution” and urged the United States to reverse the sanctions.

The argument is valid. Chinese businesses, citizens, and entities do not full under United States law. Further, neither does their trading partners. -MM

While the designation ruffled Beijing, the two countries avoided any substantial political or economic fallout, with China opting to isolate the small bank from broader financial markets.

Later, in 2017, the United States imposed a $1.19 billion fine against another Chinese entity for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran: China’s largest telecommunications company, ZTE.

In addition to paying the fine, ZTE would also be required to develop internal policies to avoid future sanctions violations and undergo a corporate restructuring, according to a settlement reached with company.

The company settled out of court, even though the pressure was illegally applied. -MM

To force ZTE to comply with the settlement terms, the U.S. Commerce Department threatened to place the company on its Entity List—effectively shutting the company out of U.S. markets.

When ZTE did violate the terms of its settlement, though, the Trump administration opted to issue a waiver despite objections from senior advisors, thereby tossing the company a lifeline and preventing it from going under.

Senior officials means John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. -MM

Although there are differing theories as to why then-President Donald Trump reversed the designation—whether for personal political gain or to entice China to remain engaged in trade negotiations—the cases show the reach of U.S. extraterritorial sanctions policy.

The U.S. dollar accounts for nearly 60 percent of global foreign currency reserves—and the Chinese renminbi does not.

That is true for NOW. And the Chinese realize that. But, as I have reported elsewhere, one day they are going to flick a switch and suddenly a staged withdrawl from the USD will occur and the USD will collapse in value. Like I said, the Chinese do not forget. -MM

China, however, has started to push back against foreign extraterritorial sanctions.

Last year, the country established an anti-sanctions law—similar to the EU’s “blocking statute,” which attempts to curb the extraterritorial application of third-party sanctions by prohibiting compliance with extraterritorial laws.

China’s law notes that the country explicitly opposes “hegemonism and power politics” and “opposes any country’s interference in China’s internal affairs under any pretext and by any means,” giving authorities broad powers to impose penalties against Chinese businesses that adhere to U.S. sanctions policies.

These penalties could include fines and even confiscation of assets.

The Chinese do not play. They could single handly destory the American automotive industry by sanctioning all of their factories inside of China and nationalizing them. Flick of a switch. -MM

Many see the law as putting multinational banks in a quagmire: caught in a legal limbo between violating U.S. sanctions and being held liable for adhering to them.

Large multinational banks comply with U.S. sanctions due to the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the global financial system.

But that's the only reason. -MM

In 2014, for example, U.S. authorities levied a record $9 billion fine against the French bank BNP Paribas for violating U.S. sanctions against Iran, among others.

Although China has yet to use its new anti-sanctions laws against U.S. interests, the opportunity will undoubtedly arise if Washington aims secondary sanctions at China.

In this case, banks may be forced to choose between U.S. fines for violating sanctions and Chinese fines for adhering to them.

So, if Washington is going to impose secondary sanctions against Chinese institutions, it must be prepared for retaliation.

In addition to the potential for putting scores of multinational entities in legal limbo, perhaps even forcing them to choose sides, more than $615 billion worth of bilateral trade will also be put in jeopardy. (China accounts for nearly 19 percent of all U.S. imports.)

By VALUE. Not by volume. 

90 - 95% of all medicines come from CHina. Are you ready to live without aspirin or antibiotics? How do you think your parents and grandparents will do when their blood pressure medicine and heart medicine is no longer available? -MM

Thus far, there have been no indications that Washington is considering specific secondary sanctions against China, beyond mere posturing.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price recently told reporters: “We have an array of tools that we can deploy if we see foreign companies, including those in China, doing their best to backfill U.S. export control actions, to evade them, to get around them.”

Deploying these tools against China will have repercussions for U.S. businesses and economic interests—a burden Washington has thus far not had to grapple with and has instead asked its European allies to bear.

Nonetheless, the United States must be prepared to cut off all avenues for Russia to escape Western sanctions.

This includes preparing to wield secondary sanctions against Chinese institutions as well as working to limit blowback to U.S. interests.

The simple truth is that the U.S. dollar accounts for nearly 60 percent of global foreign currency reserves—and the Chinese renminbi does not. That is a big stick to wield.

So what is this “expert” saying?

Well, the USA has its tenticles in just about every country. They are all in debt to the USA.

That gives the United States power.

Just like in prison. If you owe another inmate something, you must pay it back of become indentured. This technique has been used with great effect by the United States in controlling the world.

If the USA sanctions China, the nations will be forced to choose between [1] China or [2] their debt owed to the United States.

Of course, he argues, they would choose the United States over the “Worlds factory”. Right?

Ah.

Don’t be so sure.

The USA is dependent upon China for everything. And what it does not get directly out of China, it gets from countries that are / do.

  • 90% of medicines come from China. What happens when there are no antibiodics? What about heart medicine? Pain killers?
  • 99% of computers come from China. This includes monitors, IC chips (don’t let the Korean / Taiwan medi fool you otherwise), and all preferials.
  • 80% of the world cellphones and much of their inner workings come from China.
  • 95% of all household items, goods, and appliances come from China.
  • 95% of automotive parts come from China. It doesn’t matter what car you are driving. All the spare parts are made in China.

Sanctioning China would be the most stupid blunder, of all the many stupid blunders to choose from, in all of history.

So let’s talk about China.

Now, China is really not like anyone in the “West” thinks. It’s really something different, and as time moves forward, it looks more and more like a sompletely different society that comes from another galaxy.

Let’s start with a few girls.

Chinese girl in a gym

Take a look at the screens on the wall behind her. Yes, this is normal. You can watch media while you exerise and your exercise stats are projected onto the screens as you exercise.

video

No wonder that the Chinese women are healthy, thin and free of ugly tattoos.

You know, I come from the United States.

Seriously, today, the ideas of beauty in the United States are different than from that inside of China. Darker skin, chubbier and shorter build, bigger asses, and tattoo decorations make for an attractive American woman…

An American beauty.

…or so I have been told.

Personally, I like all women. Short, tall, robust, cute, athletic, big and small. But the ones that I favor all are [1] great talkers with [2] interesting thoughts and opinions, a [3] strong personality, and [4] great personal confidence and a [5] real pride in their actions and apperance.

Which is why, perhaps, I love China so much.

Robust Chinese girl in brown

I do admire a fine “robust” woman. That’s me, and I don’t expect anyone to share my tastes. Here we have a fine woman. This gal is a real “head turner”, and I find her very aluring. Most especially in this dress.

video

Houses are for living in

Here’s a clip from the violent anti-China “news” network FOX. They are so very anti-China that they have to preface this report with a disclaimer that they are going to say something positive about China, and that people should not think bad about them for doing so.

The segment is spot on. And yes, China is doing the right thing. Don’t you know.

video

A very casual Chinese girl

Women do not realize just how attractive they are when they are calm, comfortable and confident. Look at the expression on this woman. See the confidence? Man, oh man. What a sexy girl.

video

Chinese girls having fun at a bar

This is what it is like. Here you see a typical after dinner drinks with the girls and some dice game, and all that. Very typical China.

video

Chinese clothing model showing off shorts

She’s one of my favorites.

video

Chinese model with nice slacks

Here she is with the tan slacks. I do like her boobie movement, as well as the lines on the slacks. They look nice and trip and very comfortable.

video

A Traditional Chinese girl

In many of the upper-class Business KTVs the girls are expected to buy their display uniforms. Many of which are traditional such as what this woman is wearing.

video

Chinese girl in cute blue

There’s no question about this. She is a stunner. Actually, I really love her neck and shoulders. I almost want to get a pencil and a sketch pad and start sketching it out with a light orange wash and some white inking overlay.

video

Chinese girl in the front yard

This video shows the front common area / yard in front of the housing complex individual buildings. Many areas a paved like this, while others are manicured trees, shrubs and flowers.

video

Don’t step on a crack Chinese girl

I used to do this when I was in elementry school. I’m glad that the action did not die off and is kept alive inside of rural China.

video

No movie jitter

Note how the Huawei camera negates the handheld jitter while jogging and keeps the face and eyes absolutely centered throughout the video. Pretty cool technology.

video

White fashion sweater

In the cities, one of the fashion items is to wear a light topper sweater that fits over the tops of the boobies so that when you walk it accentuates the jiggle movement of the breasts. Personally I like it, but it does look a little bit strange to my older gentlemen sensibilities. Check out the style…

video

The Fiasco in the Ukraine

Listen to what the Russians say…

Russian FM site inaccessible, hacked or truly overwhelmed by the fact that the reply to the US reply has been published? In any case Cassad has it in Russian.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/7446905.html

Posted by: Paco | Feb 17 2022 17:27 utc | 82
*********************************************
Yandex translation:
*********************************************

February 17, 17:46

The Russian Foreign Ministry has published a written response to the American written response to Russian claims on security guarantees in Europe.

Response to response

On February 17, 2022, US Ambassador John Sullivan, invited to the Russian Foreign Ministry, was given the following reaction to the previously received American response on the Russian draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees.

TASS publishes the full text of the statement.

General characteristics

We state that the American side did not give a constructive response to the basic elements of the draft security guarantees agreement prepared by the Russian side with the United States.

We are talking about [1] the rejection of further expansion of NATO, [2] the withdrawal of the “Bucharest formula” that [3] “Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO”, and [4] the refusal to create military bases on the territory of states that were previously part of the USSR and are not members of the alliance, including [5] the use of their infrastructure for conducting any military activity, as well as [6] the return of military capabilities, including shock, and NATO infrastructure to the state of 1997, when the Founding Act of Russia — NATO was signed.

These provisions are of fundamental importance for the Russian Federation.

The package nature of Russian proposals has been ignored, from which “convenient” topics have been deliberately chosen, which, in turn, are “twisted” in the direction of creating advantages for the United States and its allies.

This approach, as well as the accompanying rhetoric of American officials, reinforces reasonable doubts that Washington is really committed to correcting the situation in the field of Euro-security.

The growing military activity of the United States and NATO directly at the Russian borders is alarming, while our “red lines” and fundamental security interests, as well as Russia’s sovereign right to protect them, continue to be ignored.

Ultimatum demands to withdraw troops from certain areas on Russian territory, accompanied by threats of tougher sanctions, are unacceptable and undermine the prospects of reaching real agreements.

In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees of ensuring our security by the United States and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including through the implementation of military-technical measures.

In Ukraine

There is no “Russian invasion” of Ukraine, as the United States and its allies have been officially declaring since last autumn, and there are no plans, therefore, statements about “Russia’s responsibility for escalation” cannot be regarded otherwise than as an attempt to exert pressure and devalue Russia’s proposals for security guarantees.

The mention in this context of Russian obligations under the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 has nothing to do with the internal Ukrainian conflict and does not apply to the circumstances resulting from the actions of internal factors there.

The loss of territorial integrity by the Ukrainian state is the result of the processes that took place inside it.

The accusations of Russia contained in the American response that it “occupied Crimea” also do not stand up to any criticism.

In 2014, a coup took place in Kiev, the initiators of which, with the support of the United States and their allies, set a course for the creation of a nationalist state that infringes on the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population, as well as other “non-titular” ethnic groups.

It is not surprising that in such a situation, Crimeans voted for reunification with Russia.

The decision of the people of Crimea and Sevastopol to return to the Russian Federation was made by free expression of will in the exercise of the right to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter.

Force or threat of force was not used. The question of Crimea’s ownership is closed.

If Ukraine is accepted into NATO, there will be a real threat that the regime in Kiev will try to “return” Crimea by force, dragging the United States and its allies, in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, into a direct armed conflict with Russia with all the ensuing consequences.

The thesis repeated in the US response that Russia allegedly “ignited the conflict in the Donbas” is untenable.

Its reasons are purely intra-Ukrainian in nature.

The settlement is possible only through the implementation of the Minsk agreements and a set of measures, the priority and responsibility for the implementation of which are clearly spelled out and unanimously confirmed by UN Security Council resolution 2202, including the United States, France and the United Kingdom.

In paragraph 2 of this resolution, Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk are named as parties.

None of these documents mention Russia’s responsibility for the conflict in the Donbas.

Russia, together with the OSCE, plays the role of mediator in the main negotiating format – the contact group – and together with Berlin and Paris – in the “Normandy format”, which formulates recommendations to the parties to the conflict and monitors their implementation.

To de-escalate the situation around Ukraine, it is fundamentally important to take the following steps.

This is forcing Kiev to implement a set of measures, stopping the supply of weapons to Ukraine, withdrawing all Western advisers and instructors from there, the refusal of NATO countries from any joint exercises with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the withdrawal of all foreign weapons previously supplied to Kiev outside Ukrainian territory.

In this regard, we draw attention to the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin, at a press conference following talks in Moscow with French President Emmanuel Macron on February 7, 2022, stressed that we are open to dialogue and urge “to think about stable security conditions for everyone, equal for all participants in international life.”

Force configuration

We note that in their response to the Russian proposals, the United States insists that progress in improving the situation in the field of European security “can only be achieved in terms of de-escalation in relation to Russia’s threatening actions directed against Ukraine,” which, as we understand, implies the requirement to withdraw Russian troops from the borders of Ukraine.

At the same time, the United States is ready to talk only about “mutual obligations … to refrain from deploying permanent-based forces with combat missions on the territory of Ukraine” and “consider discussing the problem of conventional armed forces.”

For the rest, the American side remains silent about our proposals contained in paragraphs 2 of Article 4 and paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the draft bilateral treaty and declares that “the current configuration of the US and NATO forces is limited, proportional and fully complies with the obligations under the NATO-Russia Founding Act.”

We proceed from the fact that the deployment of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on its territory does not and cannot affect the fundamental interests of the United States. We would like to remind you that there are no our forces on the territory of Ukraine.

At the same time, the United States and its allies were advancing their military infrastructure to the east, deploying contingents in the territories of new members.

They circumvented the limitations of the CFE Treaty and interpreted very loosely the provisions of the Russia—NATO Founding Act on the rejection of “additional permanent deployment of substantial combat forces.”

The situation that has developed as a result of these actions is unacceptable.

We insist on the withdrawal of all US armed forces and weapons stationed in CEE, SEE and the Baltic States.

We are convinced that there are quite enough national potentials in these zones.

We are ready to discuss this topic on the basis of art. 4 and 5 of the Russian draft agreement.

The principle of indivisibility of security

We did not see any evidence in the US response that the American side is fully committed to observing the immutable principle of indivisibility of security.

The general statements about the consideration of this postulate by the American side are in direct contradiction with Washington’s unwillingness to abandon a counterproductive and destabilizing course to create advantages for itself and its allies at the expense of Russia’s security interests.

This is precisely what is happening as a result of the unrestrained implementation by the North Atlantic Alliance, with the leading role of the United States, of the policy of unlimited geostrategic and military development of the post-Soviet space, including the territory of Ukraine, which is particularly sensitive for us.

All this is happening directly on the Russian borders.

Thus, our “red lines” and fundamental security interests are ignored, and Russia’s inalienable right to ensure them is rejected.

For us, of course, this is unacceptable.

Additionally, we remind you that this principle is enshrined in the [1]  preamble of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on [2] “Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of 2011”, the [3] extension of which for five years [4] without any exceptions was [5] agreed by the parties in February last year, as well as [6] in a number of OSCE and Russia—[7] NATO basic documents adopted at the highest level: [8] in the preamble of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, [9] in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe of 1990, [10] the Founding Act of Russia — [11] NATO of 1997, [12] the Istanbul Charter for European Security of the OSCE of 1999, [13] the Rome Declaration of Russia-[14] NATO of 2002 and the Astana Declaration of the OSCE Summit of 2010.

We note that the response received mentions Washington’s commitment to the concept of indivisibility of security.

But in the text, it boils down to the right of states “to freely choose or change ways to ensure their security, including union treaties.”

This freedom is not absolute and is only half of the well-known formula fixed in the Charter of European Security.

Its second part requires that, when exercising this right, not “… strengthen one’s security at the expense of the security of other States.”

We cannot consider the letter received from NATO dated February 10, 2022 as a response to the message sent by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on January 28, 2022 to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on this issue.

We asked for an answer in a national capacity.

Conclusion

The United States is playing a very dangerous game, and using everything in its power to wrest control of the energy through Europe. The battlefield is the Ukraine, and they are sponsoring the entire fighting and trying and forcing the blame upon Russia.

Russia will not have any of this.

President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday endorsed Russia’s nuclear deterrent policy, which allows him to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional strike targeting the nation’s critical government and military infrastructure.

By including a non-nuclear attack as a possible trigger for Russian nuclear retaliation, the document appears to send a warning signal to the United States. 

The new expanded wording reflects Russian concerns about the development of prospective weapons that could give Washington the capability to knock out key military assets and government facilities without resorting to atomic weapons.

In line with Russian military doctrine, the new document reaffirms that the country could use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack or an aggression involving conventional weapons that “threatens the very existence of the state.”

But the policy document now also offers a detailed description of situations that could trigger the use of nuclear weapons. They include the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies and an enemy attack with conventional weapons that threatens the country's existence.

In addition to that, the document now states that Russia could use its nuclear arsenals if it gets “reliable information” about the launch of ballistic missiles targeting its territory or its allies and also in the case of ”enemy impact on critically important government or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the incapacitation of which could result in the failure of retaliatory action of nuclear forces."

-Defense News

As a justification, the minions and toadies, and appratus inside the United States “news” are busily justifying their militaristic actions in order to gain popular and military advantage thought the region and now there are “experts” that are arguing that the United States seize the initative that this time, and take out both Russia and China at the same time.

China has warned the United States that it would “strike back” in response to any “reckless” actions, urging Washington to withdraw its recent passing of sanctions targeting people and entities tied to human rights abuses committed by Beijing.

-MSN

This is extraordinarily DANGEROUS.

All sorts of bad things can come of it. As I have stated earlier, of all the blunder-headed, stupid, ignorant, and dangerous foolhardy actions that the American dying empire could perform, this single action could be it’s worst.

But turhtfully, the “leadership” are so ignorant and stupid that they have no idea what the fuck they are doing nor dealing with.

Do you want more?

You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.

New Beginnings 3

.

Articles & Links

Master Index

.

  • You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
  • You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
  • You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE to find out how to go about this.
  • You can find out more about the author HERE.
  • If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
  • If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

.

.