5 ms·
Whose rules?
by oa335 4y ago
Whose rules?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hunglee2 4y agothe international community's
- PKop 4y agoIs that what blowing up Nord Stream 2 was for, the benefit of "the community"? Sounds like a load of crap. Doesn't sound very rules based or orderly.
- plushpuffin 4y agoRussia did that. They've damaged/destroyed their own pipelines before in order to avoid penalty clauses in contracts or to get out of a bad deal after the price changed out of their favor, and that's why they did it this time, too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-sabotage-of-the-nord-stream-pipeline-mark-a-point-of-no-return/?sh=3200d4005dba https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2022/09/29/russian-s... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-turkmenistan-gas-sb/turkmen-may-sue-russia-for-vacuum-bomb-pipe-blast-idUSTRE54S4TG20090529 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-turkmenistan-gas-s...
- PKop 4y agoNo. The US (or some deputized vassal at the direction of US) did it to destroy German/European industrial power and sever any potential alliance of European industry and cheap Russian commodities/energy flowing through Euro denominated trade outside $ system, along with the massive geopolitical alignment changes this would bring threatening US power/hegemony. Peeling Europe away from a US alliance through energy partnership and trade, especially trade denominated in Euros which greatly benefited Europeans, was such a powerful lever to play in Russian geopolitical strategy that people claiming Russia blew up their own pipelines and threw this lever away have worms in their brain and simply haven't paid attention to the long term dynamics. Having Germany/Europe on your side, vs them being on your biggest adversary's side is such an order of magnitude net benefit than saving money on contracts, this is just ridiculous. Additionally, even if consideration of blowing up the pipelines ever made any sense whatsoever for Russia, blowing them up right now before winter, before further deterioration of Germany/European industrial economy, and before potential financial/energy crisis really bites right around the corner or next year is absurd. If this was a few years from now we could entertain theories of why not having the pipes and trade with Europe is better than having them (it still wouldn't make sense). But Russia "panic bombing" their own pipelines right before pressure on Europe is about to increase which would potentially get them to capitulate on their sanctions is silly. This is US propaganda and you bought it. Many different political leaders in congress, the white house, and the administrative state like Victoria Nuland, Ron Johnson, Ted Cruz, Joe Biden, Trump, Marco Rubio, Condoleeza Rice, Lindsey Graham just to name a few have for years attacked the project and promised destruction of Nord Stream. Anthony Blinken wrote a book in 1988 called "Ally vs Ally" that speculated about blowing up Soviet gas pipelines flowing into Europe, and discussed the Reagan administrations deep opposition to expanding energy trade between Europe and Russia. This is a long term existential threat to US hegemony and dominance of European affairs. If Russia maybe having to pay a few fees, which I'm sure they could just avoid if they wanted to, was more important than potential energy alliance between Russia and Europe, then multiple US administrations would not have talked and acted to end the project so intensely. This is another example of the all to common delusional thinking that for some reason, the world hegemon that controls financial system, trade lanes, has massive military power and spending advantage, whose empire is very dependent upon global reserve currency and influence of energy trade, won't actually act like a hegemon and apply their power to suit their interests and thwart rivals building their own power. What makes you think the US who promised Nord Stream would be stopped, wouldn't stop it with kinetic force and sabotage? This is the Occam's razor, "cui bono" explanation. Your article claims Russia hasn't called the attacks attacks. They have. Also, it correctly states that destruction of the pipelines "signals a point of no return". Yes, exactly, which is why it makes 0 sense for Russia to do it, and complete sense for US (either directly or through deputized vassals like UK) to do it. Why would Russia want to reach a point of no return on potential alliance with Germany/Europe against the US? See Mackinder's heartland theory on potential global power emanating from control of the "world island"/Eurasia: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world A particular path to this goal that he and many others leading US/NATO/UK security strategy saw was a German/Russia alliance, something US has wanted to prevent for over 100 years. Putin would never throw away potential for this, something he was building towards for decades, in a matter of weeks before circumstances could lead to its realization.
- HyperSane 4y agoYou got issues man.
- PKop 4y agoEmpty, vacuous statement with no substance betraying complete ignorance of the issue being discussed.
- Larrikin 4y agoThis is a very long list of your unsourced "opinions" when all nations that have inspected the damage and assessed the intelligence have pointed the blame at Russia. Everyone but Russia.
- PKop 4y agoWhat are you talking about? Denmark, Sweden, and Germany have begun investigations but have not blamed Russia [0] and in particular are having issues coordinating the investigation and are individually maintaining secrecy about their findings. Sweden has elected to have a partial separate investigation apart from Germany and Denmark citing national security concerns [1]. The point here is the issue is not resolved and there is confusion on all sides; aside from US media elements or US politicians, the investigators themselves have not said Russia was responsible and you won't find a European official at center of investigation making claims of Russian responsibility. [0] https://archive.ph/erz77 https://archive.ph/erz77 [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-shuns-formal-joint-investigation-nord-stream-leak-citing-national-2022-10-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-shuns-formal-joi... In reference to sources for original comment: - Ron Johnson & Victoria Nuland https://youtu.be/rBUIlHM9WSo https://youtu.be/rBUIlHM9WSo - Ted Cruz years of comments attacking Nord Stream https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Atedcruz%20%22nord%20stream%22&src=typed_query https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Atedcruz%20%22nord%20stre... - Condoleezza Rice https://youtu.be/aF0uYIjaTNE https://youtu.be/aF0uYIjaTNE - referencing Antony Blinken's book "Ally vs Ally" about US opposing Russian/European pipeline gas from 1988, and hypothetical bombing of pipelines to stop gas trade https://twitter.com/frankoz95967943/status/1576750794266714113 https://twitter.com/frankoz95967943/status/15767507942667141... - link to book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275924106/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_GB2BXKQYYX7HW9AA8MVH https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275924106/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_GB2BX... - Victoria Nuland again: "Nord Stream 2 will not move forward" https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1586101294334443520 https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1586101294334443520 - Biden: "there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it...I promise you we will do that" https://twitter.com/YoThatsCrazyyy/status/1577412852293324801 https://twitter.com/YoThatsCrazyyy/status/157741285229332480...
- HyperSane 4y agoRussia obviously blew up Nord Stream 2. They are the only country that wouldn't care if they got caught. For anyone else the risk is just too great.
- cute_boi 4y ago> Russia obviously blew up Nord Stream 2 Why? Why after pausing Nord 1? Please enlighten us if you are going to use "obvious" without any source. There is disadvantage to Russia from every perspective if they blew Nord Stream. To me it doesn't make any sense to commit suicide.
- unity1001 4y agoThe US, the UK and a dozen satellites of the US. Not even 20% of the world.
- HyperSane 4y agoBut 80% of the money.
- unity1001 4y agoFake money that is created and kept over the inflated stocks and financal sector. A house of cards that is pending crashing at any point if any Jenga block that holds it up is pulled out. Like how we seen in the recent months, after various countries stopped using dollar as foreign exchange currency for international trade, sending inflation skyrocketing in the US and other countries. In contrast, that other side of the world has actual products, resources and services backing their money and wealth. They dont allow shenanigans like how Wall Street does to invent new 'derivatives' to bloat the financial sector even more and increase its disconnect from the actual physical economy. As of this moment, the US government is busy pumping dollars into Ukraine to take them out of circulation to combat inflation by getting it channeled back to the US defense sector to be racked up as profit and stock value. The wealth that was generated in the Angloamerican West is so weakly supported by the physical sectors of the economy that it requires such things to keep it from crashing down. I intentionally singled out the Angloamerican countries. Because these countries are the ones who allow practically unregulated financial sectors to bloat their economy. The regulations are more strict everywhere including Europe, and neither stock values nor the financial economy are so bloated like in the US.
- oa335 4y agoChina + Russia + other pariah countries >= 25% of the world's population. Are they inside or outside this international community?
- kelnos 4y agoI think it's hard to use population numbers here, as in many of those countries, the population has little meaningful control over their government.
- pessimizer 4y agoThe US. The "international community" that is against China is the same noxious lineup that we put together to attack Iraq. So, the US, Australia, NZ, Britain, the EU, and Japan (whose constitution was written by the US.) Also of course the Saudis, but amusingly, not Israel. India's support will be dependent on us ignoring when they start to put Muslims into concentration camps, which we will be happy to do. "The good guys"
- csunbird 4y ago“Our guys” is more appropriate.