Word to the wise - when you create a sleeper bot for social media and online forums, at least do some intermittent posting from time to time, before its official activation. Otherwise, anyone can just see it's a year-old account that's only been posting for the last two months, and do the math. Especially on a conspiracy forum full of people who sniff out things like that for a hobby.
It's always a laugh when the MSM and their bots try to play the mandatory "food shortage" card when dealing with non-western countries... without first checking if said countries aren't net exporters of the foods in question - as Russia is with sugar, among other resources. Such as gas, obviously... and wheat... and enriched uranium... for American power plants... Which, by the way, are designed to work only with that specific kind of uranium, so it's not like they can easily obtain a substitute either.
In short, we're looking at a potential 30 million Americans staying in the dark (literally, instead of just the usual media-enforced ignorance), long before Russians will have to worry about how to sweeten their tea.
I've seen it put like this: NATO was created strictly to prevent a strategic alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union / Russia. Americans knew that if German engineering prowess was ever truly combined with Russian resources and mass production capabilities, the resulting behemoth would be unstoppable on the global scale... or at the very least, powerful enough to permanently end America's own attempts at empire-building.
Can't say how much I agree with this, but from where I'm standing, America's foreign policy has always revolved at trying to sic foreign countries on one another, instead of truly building meaningful alliances and developing cultural ties. And now it's backfiring on them, what with the UAE and the Saudis literally standing up Biden on the phone, while powerful wildcards like India and Turkey opt to remain neutral on key issues, including Ukraine now.
This title is a rather weird way of spelling "Europe imposes unprecedented sanctions on Russia, Russia counters with its own, Europe tries to flex its freeze-shrunk nuts anyway."
And is it just me, or have a lot of sleeper accounts been waking up recently? I see that just before this week, OP hadn't had new posts in nine months, and new comments in six. Curious...
EU: Russland, you will no longer be able to use our banking system to trade in dollars or euros.
Russia: Then you'll just have to buy gas with rubles, only now you'll have to buy rubles first... if we decide to sell any to you.
EU: [Pikachu face]
Pretty much. People skeptical of media propaganda concerning vaccines, remain skeptical of media propaganda concerning the Ukraine conflict. The simplest and logical explanation is that they are skeptical in general, hence their stances on both matters (among many others).
The thing that both amuses and bemuses me most about theories like these, is that they seem entirely dedicated to missing the forest for the trees. That is, they focus on some pivotal event - the JFK assassination, the moon landings, 9/11 etc. - and instead of working on a big picture theory, one that ties with economic conditions, clear political agendas etc., they spend all their effort on fine-combing the event itself.
It's an exercise in nitpicking, while the overall framework is typically some generic nefarious scheme for world domination, for... reasons. Because the nigh-omnipotent powers that be apparently have nothing better to do than controlling Billy Bob in his homemade bunker, or some guy who calls himself L33T H4XX0R G3N1US online, while still failing to understand the benefits of showering at least once a week.
For comparison, let's say that in 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand wasn't assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, but by... Lenin's third cousin twice removed, or something. Even if there's tons of evidence supporting that claim, the question remains - who cares? Who gives a shit? Because half the European countries were already looking for an excuse - any excuse - to go at each other's throats. Whether it was Princip killing Ferdinand with a pistol in Sarajevo, or Grigori Rasputin's zombie corpse killing Sultan Mehmet V with a ham sandwich in Vienna, the aftermath of that Clue game would be the same. The momentum was already there, and any otherwise minor event would be used to harness it.
And the same goes for 9/11. Simple fact is, Americans need a major war roughly once every 25 years, in order to balance their lopsided economy. From that point on, any excuse will do. If anything, it's only too easy to just order/allow a few fanatical idiots to hijack a couple of planes, aim them at the one pair of skyscrapers in New York that are built with the support structure on the outside (meaning a plane-sized breach would indeed force them to collapse on themselves, whereas something like the Empire State or Chrysler buildings would remain standing), and just let the dominoes fall on their own.
The bottom line is, events like these aren't like episodes of Columbo, where a couple of stray facts lead to the bad guys dramatically confessing their guilt in the final act. Most of the time, they're distractions leading to wild goose chases, without building up to an actually useful general theory with some predictive quality. Really, what's the conclusion of the "no plane" version, versus any other "inside job" theory? At most, it means ILM got a great gig doing special effects for the government. Big political difference.
To be fair, the very fact that both "spring" and the "winter" solstice vary between hemispheres, is already arbitrary enough. At least the moon is in the same phase for the whole world at any given time. Meanwhile, as others said, the Earth is closest to the sun around early January, which is as good a reason as any to start the year then.
I reckon the logic in the year starting around the winter solstice, is the same as the (24-hour) day starting at midnight - since noon is considered mid-day. And vice versa - if a day begins at dawn, it makes sense for the year to begin in spring, rather than the middle of winter.
Personally, ayh think either way works. The Chinese already celebrate their spring as the start of the new year, even if it falls on late January / early February under their lunisolar calendar.
Though if we can be pedantic, here's a puzzle - why does the "new" moon in a lunar/lunisolar calendar begin at the time when the moon is at its darkest, as opposed to when it's begun to wax? After all, if a day begins at dawn, and a year begins at spring, it makes sense for the new moon to begin at waxing crescent as well, or even at half-full. It just goes to show that calendar definitions can be arbitrary and inconsistent, even on the best of days.
Cue the melodramatic speech about how sometimes, like in [pop-cultural cornerstone conflict], the morality is clear and simple, and if you don't support [the particular side of the speaker], you're clearly in the wrong...
Yeah, given how the specifics in square brackets above tend to differ depending on the speaker, I think the world would be a much more peaceful place if people like that were manipulated into going after each other, and leaving everyone else alone. Which, funnily enough, is most likely what's going on in Ukraine right now. I mean, Azov wannabe Nazis versus Chechen fanatical cut-throats and Syrian mujahedin - let'em duke it out and pass the popcorn while you're at it.
To be fair, it's less "genocide", and more "maintaining control of an ethnically distinct region that hates your guts". Something like the situation with the Uyghurs in China or the Kurds in Turkey, only they don't have a country to try and secede to. Well, not at the moment anyway.
Not a Russian here, but decent enough with Cyrillic languages to work with the text. Which, mind you, is in Ukrainian-Russian, what with the iotas and all, but still mostly understandable.
In short, it's basically a list of preliminary tasks and objectives, by date, to be performed by several brigades and associated forces - in terms of logistics, propaganda, coordination etc. - concerning the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. In general it reads like "by this date, such and such armed units will be organized and supplied at such and such location". I'm guessing it was a strategic suppression plan, meant to prevent the secession of the regions into their own republics.
Pretty much. It's kinda like how southern republicans routinely disparage democrats for being the "real" supporters of slavery in the Civil War... then double back saying the war was totally not about slavery, the (democrat-led) South was totally in the right to fight, etc. It's one thing to say that reality was more complex than a simplistic black and white vision, but it's outright inane to just try and flip the narrative for its own sake.
In this case, Ukrainian forces do have battalions openly endorsing Nazi or Nazi-like imagery - likely for the same simplistic mentality of "Russia bad => Nazis good", without any deeper understanding of the ideology. In turn, Putin is using that for his own propaganda purposes, since it's a narrative much easier to follow than the actual situation with ethnic Russians in Donbas for the past eight years.
As to who is "good" and who is "bad" at this stage - personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Ukrainian version of the Patriot Front get steamrolled, especially if the canon fodder selected for that purpose is mostly comprised of their equivalent Chechen and Syrian lunatics. Ideally, they'd slaughter each other, and the world will be ever so slightly less violent in the end, which is always a good thing.
There is just one more thing to add. Namely, why it needs to happen like this. Why Russia can't just say "you know what, this financial system is unstable and we're pulling out". And that's because it will turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a well-documented phenomenon - rumors spread that a bank is about to go under. As a result, people withdraw their cash from it, so it loses all liquidity and ability to operate. As a result, it goes under.
Now, apply this to the international scale, and it's a situation that even the Russians don't want; neither do the Chinese or the Indians. A financial crisis is one thing, but when the whole system gets shaken all at once, it becomes dangerous, even to nominally independent parties. Even Russia barely survived the 90s mobster reign of terror after the Union collapsed, and if something similar happens in the west, the fallout might as well be nuclear for all the damage it would do.
So instead, this grand theatrical gambit is played, where national economies are amicably separated under false pretenses, and each side will in fact boast its financial resilience, citing... whatever crap suits their audience. And the game continues for another turn. The only question I'm pondering is whether the head pieces after 2024 will still be Trump and Putin, or their possible spiritual successors. But that one's for time to tell.
I agree on the matter of MS collecting user data, though that's usually for the now-ubiquitous business of selling it to advertisers. That said, I also remember the days when software like StarForce was supposed to be the end of piracy. Or when TPM itself came out, and people feared they'd be unable to install anything other than official Windows editions on their boxes. None of that came to pass either. As in all engineering ventures, the rule applies that whenever you consider something "foolproof", the Universe itself will conspire to create a better fool... or in this case, a smarter cracker.
Meanwhile, the question still stands as to why, in the modern conditions of near-total surveillance, places like London have become crime-infested hellholes instead of monochromatic Orwellian dictatorships. Even with regard to the pandemic, the biggest drivers of suppression have been peer pressure and plain old tattle-telling - wetware programming, so to speak. (So, in countries with traditional distrust of authority, as in Eastern Europe, the result was token at best - people only pretend to follow the rules, and even the authorities themselves only pretend to care.)
Instead, I suspect a lot of these demands and innovations are part of a standard business negotiation tactic - a requirement meant to be seen as ridiculous, and then discarded or circumvented - so that the real objectives still enter the contract, without even being outrageous enough to get covered in the media. Stuff like using particular hardware providers (with which MS has a referral contract), or demanding more beneficial financial terms... general purpose business bastardry, in other terms. Not exactly the most ethical of practices, but a far cry from the cyberpunk dystopia that people have feared ever since the invention of vacuum tubes.
Indeed.
And in general, I find a lot of reactions to digitization and technological advancements to amount to melodramatic pearl-clutching, mostly by folks with no experience in the greyer side of technology. It's as if things like rooting your phone or pirating software, or indeed slapping a piece of tape on the integrated webcam, simply don't exist. Never mind how there are entire black market economies prospering precisely in regions with the most draconian restrictions.
Instead, I suspect these reactions stem from some deeply ingrained misconception of how governments and major corporate systems work. That they are somehow invincible, capable of conjuring up infinite resources for countless nefarious schemes... and not dilapidated towers of crippling bureaucracy, full of individual self-serving rogue agents, mostly scrambling for a promotion or a slightly better retirement package.
And all this comes from Microsoft, of all things - the company that officially gave up trying to prevent piracy of its products, then quietly lost the case with hardwired Windows-only PCs and laptops, and is pretty much irrelevant in the now all but dominant tablet and smartphone market. Not exactly a history of victories against inventive users or competing interests.
I agree on the heel part - literally, Trump's public persona ever since he started running for president, is the same one he used in his appearances in pro wrestling shows. It's vastly different from how he acted, for instance, on The Apprentice. That attitude, the mean tweets, the theatrics surrounding "rallies" etc. feels designed to be as divisive as possible - because pretty much anyone not already on board with him will decry it as boorish posturing.
Meanwhile, his policies - as in, the ones that were actually implemented - were old Republican tried-and-trues - reduced regulations and taxes, more military spending etc. Nothing others haven't done before. Even "the wall" ended up as a dud.
And then there was the rigged election... For one, I'm pretty sure it was rigged - there's no chance for that many statistical anomalies alone, let alone all the other details. However, I feel that his response was all but intentionally ineffective, even ridiculous - from using the "Four Seasons Landscaping" yard as a press-conference venue, to presenting court documents riddled with typos even on the first page, to the way every rally since has been the same-old-same-old "I won, it was rigged, we will fight" etc. In short, I suspect that he knew it would be rigged and didn't do a thing about it. That he wanted out, at least for the time being.
And as to why he did, and what unified theory can explain the overall plot - my best guess is, it ties in with the current situation in Ukraine, which itself is a continuation of the events in 2014 (so I'm not just tacking it on since it's trending right now). The overall goal of both sides - Russia and the US - is to disentangle their economies, preventing a domino effect of any future financial crisis. So far, so good. The chosen mechanism - a military crisis that would be the excuse for Russia to be "expelled" from all the major financial systems, especially ones dependent on the dollar. Possibly even the COVID pandemic, which limited tourist economies and overall public movement around the world, but that's a topic for another day.
However, this couldn't happen during Trump's term, because his more aggressive image wouldn't sit well with him doing nothing in response to Russia's own aggression. After all, he's still the guy who threatened "Rocket Man" with using his own red button. So, a solution is devised: Trump "loses" the next elections - to Biden, the guy even democrats didn't believe could win - while maintaining some presence in the public eye, keeping the fire burning. Next, Putin proceeds with "Operation: Economic Divorce" at Biden's expense image-wise, and when the crisis is all wrapped up by 2024, Trump can return and resume his "tough but diplomatic" policy on Russia, either with Putin himself, or his possible successor (since both the US and the Russian elections coincide in 2024).
The aftermath: A much-needed streamlining and stabilization of major national economies, a severe image toll on the democrats in the US, and the avoidance of a ton of actual bloodshed instead of the social media circus that's the current Ukraine crisis. And a mutual tip-of-the-hat between Langley and Lubyanka, celebrating nearly a century of professional cooperation... minor lapses notwithstanding.
I'm more interested in the respective reaction by those watching. That is, the feeling you get when the brave freedom fighter you've been sending tons of weapons and gear, starts talking about taking no prisoners, demands that you attack his enemies openly, and wears symbols decried as signifying hate and racial supremacy... "Hans, are we the baddies?", as a comedy skit put it.
Partially. Everyone's huddled around looking at the red button, that's true. But you know how in magic shows, everyone looking at something tends to be the plan of the magician all along? In this case, the economic restructuring taking place while everyone's busy looking at the button, will have far greater consequences - such that cannot be discussed openly, let alone in the media. We're talking a near-complete remapping of major resource supply lines, resulting in a significant shift of the international balance of power.
Just as an example, right before the Ukraine crisis began, Russia and China signed a massive gas supply deal valid for the next 30 years - enough to offset any economic sanctions imposed by the EU. The kicker is, the gas is paid in euros - meaning the EU would also have to avoid sabotaging the deal, or suffer a drop in currency value that rivals that of Venezuela, only with the added threat of dissolution as a result.
That way, along with a couple of other deals between Russia and China, they have made their economies independent of the west, making them power players to rival all of NATO combined. And this is something that gets the obligatory fleeting coverage, while everyone is looking at the button.
Funnily enough, according to Pravda.ru, in mid-January, a Russian nuke sub surfaced just off the East Coast, gave everyone a metaphorical wave, and disappeared again. Which is a direct repeat of a stunt they pulled back in the late 80s / early 90s. Still, even if the news is true, I don't really think it's a gesture of impending attack, but more of a polite piece of advice concerning the US interfering more directly in the crisis.
The peace talks are ostensibly stalling, which ties in to the operation described above - they're buying time to complete the weapon saturation. The lines from both sides that "compromises are discussed on key issues" are exactly the kind of generic non-commentary politicians say when they don't want to say anything.
However, Russian info agencies have started claiming that a resolution will come within a week now... not that we haven't heard that spiel a thousand times already, on certain other modern political matters. The question is how the cards will play out. There could simply be a cold shake of hands, with Russia assimilating the fledgling Donetsk and Lugansk republics while agreeing to leave Kiev alone. But I suspect the endgame won't be so smooth. I'm not expecting another "shot heard around the world", but I wouldn't be surprised if one comes along anyway.
I wouldn't put much weight in the drones either. They aren't UCAVs, so that only leaves recon duty - which is useful for an attacking army, but not so much for defense, especially against open-field armored vehicles. Everyone already knows where the Russian tank columns are, satellite imaging already does a good enough job for that. Drone recon is simply not the right tool to use here. And I suspect the donors are well aware of that.
Instead, in addition to money-laundering, the whole donation op seem like an attempt to saturate the area with small arms and RPGs, not to pose a credible resistance, but as a kind of scorched earth tactic. Coupled with Zelensky's order to release the combat-capable criminals from prisons, this mass armament will result in a "Lord of War" situation, turning Ukraine into a failed state... which is convenient for both sides, since Russia won't rush to officially claim the territory, and the west will be unable to setup any strategic missile installation more complex than a couple of guys with handheld rocket launchers. Everybody wins... except for those civilians unlucky enough to still be within this newly-formed Euro-Somalia.
Notwithstanding my own theories that the whole conflict is engineered, possibly on both sides (though at least some of the casualties are real, since most people on the lower floors aren't in on it), I'm personally partial to the "liberating Donbass" spiel. At the very least, because NATO set the precedent for it back in the 90's, with Kosovo. So now, whenever a national region wants to declare independence, and there's a strong enough foreign force to assist it, it's all fair play. Sorry, that's how the rules were rewritten, too late for backsies now.
And then there's how NATO nations crap all over themselves at the thought of Iran or North Korea having nukes, yet see nothing wrong with sprinkling military bases and long-range missiles all over the world - because the military alliance that tried to bomb Iraq, Syria and half of Serbia back to the stone age, is certainly non-aggressive and acting only in the best interests of everyone.
Long story short, the balance of power is shifting, and the organization that styled itself the only de facto superpower for the past 30 years, is reaping what it's been sowing for that period, if not even longer.