Youtube comments of D4RD1V (@d4rd1v79).
-
123
-
75
-
74
-
70
-
62
-
59
-
41
-
36
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Russia is primarily engaging in conflict with Ukraine, which still relies largely on old Soviet-era military equipment, with only a few modern Western systems. A glance at SIPRI data on arms exports from the US, UK, France, Germany, and Italy reveals that deliveries to Ukraine constitute only single-digit percentages or just over 10% of the overall arms exports of those countries for the fiscal year.
Furthermore, when examining the Russian public budget, nearly 40% of it is allocated to defense spending. This allocation, rather than showcasing strength, reflects severe weakness and fragility.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@rrmackay While individual NATO member states may have provided support to Ukraine in various forms, NATO as an organization has not violated the treaty.
Attributing violations of the Minsk accords solely to NATO oversimplifies the complexities of the situation. The conflict in eastern Ukraine primarily involves Ukraine, Russia, and separatist forces, with the Minsk accords focusing on finding a peaceful resolution between these parties. While NATO supports Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, its involvement in the conflict is limited to political and humanitarian support rather than direct military intervention.
Blaming NATO for violations of the Minsk accords detracts from addressing the root causes of the conflict and undermines efforts towards a peaceful resolution. Instead, constructive dialogue and cooperation among the relevant parties, including Ukraine, Russia, and the separatists, are essential for achieving lasting peace in eastern Ukraine.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@richardmarsden5610 It's important to consider multiple perspectives when evaluating the state of an economy. While the points raised about the US economy highlight concerning issues such as debt sustainability and deficit spending, it's crucial to recognize that economic analysis is complex and multifaceted. Comparing the economic management of different countries like the US and Russia involves various factors beyond debt alone, including economic structure, policy choices, geopolitical context, and institutional frameworks.
Having debt isn't necessarily bad if used responsibly, such as investing in growth or managing short-term challenges. Some advantages of taking on debt include investing in infrastructure, education, or technological development, which can contribute to long-term economic growth and increased productivity. Debt can also be used to handle short-term economic difficulties, such as during a recession or in the face of extraordinary events like pandemics. Additionally, tax deductions and other incentives can make it advantageous to take on debt for certain investments, providing flexibility in capital management and leveraging the time value of money.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bingbongrafael5052 Russia is primarily engaging in conflict with Ukraine, which still relies largely on old Soviet-era military equipment, with only a few modern Western systems. A glance at SIPRI data on arms exports from the US, UK, France, Germany, and Italy reveals that deliveries to Ukraine constitute only single-digit percentages or just over 10% of the overall arms exports of those countries for the fiscal year.
Furthermore, when examining the Russian public budget, nearly 40% of it is allocated to defense spending. This allocation, rather than showcasing strength, reflects severe weakness and fragility.
At least you tried. 😂🥱
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@user-nc2fn7xt5v Hey, terrorist organizations typically do not adhere to recognized rules and regulations established by international law or governing bodies. However, they may have their own internal codes of conduct, ideologies, and strategies that guide their actions. These "rules" are often characterized by violence, coercion, and intimidation rather than adherence to legal or ethical standards.
What I meant by my text is that Russia's focus right now is solely, now I mean literally solely on the war. Which makes it easier to commit crimes. It's no secret that the special forces and the police arrived after an hour, even though they have over 200,000 surveillance cameras in Moscow alone. Considering that city has the most police officers per square meter, and a police station around the corner, I find the whole thing very funny.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It is true that Crimea has a significant Russian population and historical ties to Russia, but it is important to provide a more nuanced perspective.
Crimea has a complex history involving various rulers and empires. It was indeed conquered by Catherine the Great in the late 18th century and became part of the Russian Empire. However, it also had periods of control by other powers, including the Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Union.
In 1954, Crimea was transferred from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union by Nikita Khrushchev. This transfer was largely symbolic at the time, as both Russia and Ukraine were part of the larger Soviet state.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Crimea became part of an independent Ukraine. However, tensions between the Russian-speaking population in Crimea and the Ukrainian government have persisted, culminating in the controversial annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014.
While Crimea is now under de facto Russian control, its status remains disputed internationally, with most countries not recognizing Russia's annexation. Therefore, while Crimea has historical and cultural ties to Russia, its political status is still subject to debate and negotiation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yoshimitsu1260 While it's true that Russia has historically prioritized military technologies and possesses self-sufficiency in certain resources, it's essential to consider the broader context. Military power is indeed a multifaceted concept that encompasses technological prowess, economic strength, and strategic capabilities. While Russia may excel in certain areas, it's important to recognize that modern warfare increasingly relies on a combination of conventional, cyber, and informational warfare, where economic strength and technological innovation play crucial roles. Additionally, while Russia may not seek global hegemony like the US, its actions in various regions demonstrate ambitions for influence and power projection. Therefore, dismissing the significance of economic indicators and overlooking the interconnectedness of military power with economic stability and technological advancement might oversimplify the assessment of a country's military capabilities.
2
-
@yoshimitsu1260 While I appreciate your perspective, there are several points I'd like to address in your argument.
Firstly, while it's true that great powers historically seek influence and power projection, it's important to distinguish between legitimate security concerns and aggressive expansionism. While the United States certainly pursues its interests globally, it often does so through diplomatic channels, economic aid, and multilateral agreements rather than solely relying on military threats. Sanctions and military deployments are sometimes necessary tools in maintaining stability and deterring aggression, but they are not the only methods employed.
Secondly, characterizing Russia's actions as solely defensive is a simplification. While it's true that Russia prioritizes its security interests, its actions in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria have raised concerns about its willingness to challenge the international order and undermine the sovereignty of other nations. Cooperation in international relations requires respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, something that Russia's actions have sometimes undermined.
Additionally, while efficiency and cost-effectiveness are important factors in military capabilities, they are not the only ones. The technological sophistication, training, logistical capabilities, and strategic objectives of a military force also play crucial roles. While Russia may have strengths in certain areas, it's essential to consider the broader context of military power and the ability to project force effectively over long distances and in complex environments.
Lastly, it's important not to downplay the significance of economic strength in assessing a nation's overall power. Economic power underpins military capabilities, technological innovation, and diplomatic influence. While Russia may have made significant strides in modernizing its military, its economy still faces challenges and constraints that limit its ability to sustain long-term military engagements or compete globally in the same way as the United States or China.
In conclusion, while Russia certainly possesses formidable military capabilities and plays a significant role in international affairs, it's essential to approach assessments of power and influence with nuance and a consideration of multiple factors beyond just military hardware and historical narratives.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardmarsden5610 It's important to consider multiple perspectives when evaluating the state of an economy. While the points raised about the US economy highlight concerning issues such as debt sustainability and deficit spending, it's crucial to recognize that economic analysis is complex and multifaceted. Comparing the economic management of different countries like the US and Russia involves various factors beyond debt alone, including economic structure, policy choices, geopolitical context, and institutional frameworks.
Having debt isn't necessarily bad if used responsibly, such as investing in growth or managing short-term challenges. Some advantages of taking on debt include investing in infrastructure, education, or technological development, which can contribute to long-term economic growth and increased productivity. Debt can also be used to handle short-term economic difficulties, such as during a recession or in the face of extraordinary events like pandemics. Additionally, tax deductions and other incentives can make it advantageous to take on debt for certain investments, providing flexibility in capital management and leveraging the time value of money.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
According to Russia's statistical agency, 35 million Russians lack a flush toilet, 47 million do not have hot water, and 29 million do not have running water in their homes. With a population of 144 million, this means that 32% lack hot water, 24% use non-flush toilets, and 20% do not have running water. In total, 63% of Russians lack modern amenities like water in the house, sewage, central heating, or even electricity and gas. Not so impressive numbers for a industrialized country.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mangobite9689 Classic, WHaT aBOUt AMeRaIcA? Focus instead on Russia.
Preventing and acting during the act are two different subjects.
When an attack has already occurred, it is indeed often easier to manage a situation where special forces can intervene on the ground, as in the case of the Moscow terrorist attack, compared to an attack involving hijacked airplanes, like the 9/11 attacks.
When an attack occurs on the ground, special forces, police, or military can react more directly and intervene to neutralize the threat. On the other hand, when it comes to hijacked airplanes, there are limited options for immediate response. The planes move quickly and can be difficult to stop before they reach their targets.
Then we can also ignore that FSB offices are nearby.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JudgeBread. While it is true that the specifics of NATO's role and level of direct involvement in the conflict remain subjects of debate, it is essential to differentiate between the actions of NATO and the agreements reached in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, while NATO's actions and policies may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, they are distinct from the agreements reached between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other parties in the Minsk process. The Minsk agreements primarily focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing issues such as ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political dialogue.
Secondly, regarding the characterization of the actors in the conflict, it is important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While some may prefer the term "rebels" over "separatists," it is crucial to understand the motivations and objectives of the groups involved. While certain factions may seek greater autonomy or economic freedom within Ukraine, their actions, including the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Furthermore, while advocating for political and economic freedom within Ukraine is a legitimate goal, the means by which certain groups pursue these objectives, including armed conflict and the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to fight for these goals does not necessarily justify the means employed, especially when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
2
-
@JudgeBread. While it is true that the specifics of NATO's role and level of direct involvement in the conflict remain subjects of debate, it is essential to differentiate between the actions of NATO and the agreements reached in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, while NATO's actions and policies may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, they are distinct from the agreements reached between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other parties in the Minsk process. The Minsk agreements primarily focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing issues such as ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political dialogue.
Secondly, regarding the characterization of the actors in the conflict, it is important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While some may prefer the term "rebels" over "separatists," it is crucial to understand the motivations and objectives of the groups involved. While certain factions may seek greater autonomy or economic freedom within Ukraine, their actions, including the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Furthermore, while advocating for political and economic freedom within Ukraine is a legitimate goal, the means by which certain groups pursue these objectives, including armed conflict and the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to fight for these goals does not necessarily justify the means employed, especially when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
2
-
@JudgeBread. While it is true that the specifics of NATO's role and level of direct involvement in the conflict remain subjects of debate, it is essential to differentiate between the actions of NATO and the agreements reached in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, while NATO's actions and policies may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, they are distinct from the agreements reached between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other parties in the Minsk process. The Minsk agreements primarily focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing issues such as ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political dialogue.
Secondly, regarding the characterization of the actors in the conflict, it is important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While some may prefer the term "rebels" over "separatists," it is crucial to understand the motivations and objectives of the groups involved. While certain factions may seek greater autonomy or economic freedom within Ukraine, their actions, including the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Furthermore, while advocating for political and economic freedom within Ukraine is a legitimate goal, the means by which certain groups pursue these objectives, including armed conflict and the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to fight for these goals does not necessarily justify the means employed, especially when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
2
-
@JudgeBread. While it is true that the specifics of NATO's role and level of direct involvement in the conflict remain subjects of debate, it is essential to differentiate between the actions of NATO and the agreements reached in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, while NATO's actions and policies may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, they are distinct from the agreements reached between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other parties in the Minsk process. The Minsk agreements primarily focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing issues such as ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political dialogue.
Secondly, regarding the characterization of the actors in the conflict, it is important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While some may prefer the term "rebels" over "separatists," it is crucial to understand the motivations and objectives of the groups involved. While certain factions may seek greater autonomy or economic freedom within Ukraine, their actions, including the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Furthermore, while advocating for political and economic freedom within Ukraine is a legitimate goal, the means by which certain groups pursue these objectives, including armed conflict and the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to fight for these goals does not necessarily justify the means employed, especially when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
2
-
2
-
@JudgeBread. While it remains a topic of debate regarding the specifics of NATO's role and the extent of its direct involvement in the conflict, it is crucial to distinguish between NATO's actions and the agreements outlined in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, NATO's actions and policies, which may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, are separate from the agreements established between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other involved parties in the Minsk process. The primary focus of the Minsk agreements is to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing key issues such as ceasefire implementation, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and fostering political dialogue.
Secondly, when considering the characterization of the actors involved in the conflict, it is important to acknowledge the complexity of the situation. While some may argue for the term "rebels" over "separatists," understanding the motivations and goals of the various groups is crucial. While certain factions may aspire to achieve greater autonomy or economic independence within Ukraine, their actions, such as the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Moreover, while advocating for political and economic freedoms within Ukraine is a valid objective, the methods utilized by certain groups to pursue these goals, such as engaging in armed conflict and infringing upon Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to achieve these objectives does not justify the means employed, particularly when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stephenadenu-mensah6538 The claim that Europe is losing its industrial relevance and becoming dependent on the USA overlooks several key factors and warrants counterarguments:
Firstly, it's essential to recognize that the European Union stands as one of the world's largest economies, boasting a diverse industrial base spanning various sectors such as technology, automotive, chemicals, and food. While certain sectors face challenges, like global market competition, Europe remains a significant player across many domains.
Secondly, attributing Germany's industrial landscape solely to cheaper energy from Russia oversimplifies the situation. Other factors like technological advancements, labor costs, regulations, and market access also play pivotal roles. Germany maintains a robust tradition of technological innovation and high-quality manufacturing, keeping it competitive on the global stage.
Furthermore, European countries, including Germany, have taken steps to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and increase renewable energy usage. Investments in solar and wind power, along with initiatives promoting energy efficiency, lessen the need for imported energy from Russia or other nations.
Regarding trade relations with the USA, the European Union and its member states have the ability to negotiate agreements and respond to trade barriers in ways that safeguard their interests and foster fair and reciprocal trade. European businesses aren't solely tied to the USA, and decisions regarding production relocation or expansion involve multifaceted considerations beyond trade barriers alone.
In summary, the assertion that Europe is losing industrial relevance and becoming dependent on the USA oversimplifies the complex factors influencing Europe's economy and industrial landscape. Europe maintains a diverse economy and continues to be a significant global player across numerous sectors.
2
-
@stephenadenu-mensah6538 The claim that Europe is losing its industrial relevance and becoming dependent on the USA overlooks several key factors and warrants counterarguments:
Firstly, it's essential to recognize that the European Union stands as one of the world's largest economies, boasting a diverse industrial base spanning various sectors such as technology, automotive, chemicals, and food. While certain sectors face challenges, like global market competition, Europe remains a significant player across many domains.
Secondly, attributing Germany's industrial landscape solely to cheaper energy from Russia oversimplifies the situation. Other factors like technological advancements, labor costs, regulations, and market access also play pivotal roles. Germany maintains a robust tradition of technological innovation and high-quality manufacturing, keeping it competitive on the global stage.
Furthermore, European countries, including Germany, have taken steps to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and increase renewable energy usage. Investments in solar and wind power, along with initiatives promoting energy efficiency, lessen the need for imported energy from Russia or other nations.
Regarding trade relations with the USA, the European Union and its member states have the ability to negotiate agreements and respond to trade barriers in ways that safeguard their interests and foster fair and reciprocal trade. European businesses aren't solely tied to the USA, and decisions regarding production relocation or expansion involve multifaceted considerations beyond trade barriers alone.
In summary, the assertion that Europe is losing industrial relevance and becoming dependent on the USA oversimplifies the complex factors influencing Europe's economy and industrial landscape. Europe maintains a diverse economy and continues to be a significant global player across numerous sectors.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
USA warns about possible ISIS-K attacks
RU-claims to be superpower, to have best intelligence, army, etc
RU - putin ignores warning, says bad amerika wants us to be afraid, there are no dangers
RU - has Moscow rigged with cameras and arrests civilians for any protest
also RU - fully armed terrorists arrive at mass gathering, kill everyone on sight, set fire, leave in 30-40 mins without ANYONE interrupting them except poor unarmed security of building, who are killed
ISIS - we did it, we hate christians.
RU - IT wAs UkRoNaziJeWBanDeraAnglOsAXsaTanisTs
ISIS - yes, it was us, here are pics
RU - AMERIKA IZ BAD. why did not they prevent attack on us?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@loumcast While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
@loumcast While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
The question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
The US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
While the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
@loumcast While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
@loumcast While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
@loumcast While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
@loumcast While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slovoebslovoeb4639 It's true what you say but a lot is for the local market. I know what Russian army has to offer, ICBMs, S-400, S-500, T-90 but you army is most successful in Cyber Warfare. In that area, the money has disappeared as we have noticed in the field. Russia faces challenges including economic diversification, a demographic decline with an aging population, corruption impacting institutions, geopolitical tensions leading to sanctions, the need for infrastructure development, fostering technological innovation, strengthening the rule of law, addressing environmental concerns, and adapting to global economic conditions. Overcoming these challenges is crucial for sustainable economic development and global competitiveness. Russia could easy be the most powerful country. But it is what it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
killer_agent47 But, no toilet seats? 😞
Jokes aside. According to Russia's statistical agency, 35 million Russians lack a flush toilet, 47 million do not have hot water, and 29 million do not have running water in their homes. With a population of 144 million, this means that 32% lack hot water, 24% use non-flush toilets, and 20% do not have running water. In total, 63% of Russians lack modern amenities like water in the house, sewage, central heating, or even electricity and gas. To call itself a industrialized country, these are not pretty numbers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MohNaz-ly6yx It is quite shocking that you are not telling the truth. 🥱
According to past data, the largest oil producers in the world include the USA, China, and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has contributed approximately 12-13%, the USA around 11-12%, and Russia about 11-12% of the total global oil production. However, it's important to note that these figures can vary over time due to factors such as production trends, political changes, and technological advancements.
Approximately 30-35% of the world's oil production comes from countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar.
It's about nurturing positive relationships, a skill that Putin lacks. This is evident from the country's low GDP per capita and the notably high corruption index (CPI). Additionally, it's no secret why Russia is involved in Ukraine: there's a fear of losing the EU market. If Ukraine were to join the EU, it could effortlessly supply the entire EU with gas—a prospect that instills fear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheDogGeneral If the U.S. were to leave NATO and, concurrently, experience war or strained relations with the EU, it could lead to significant economic consequences. The heightened uncertainty surrounding international trade relations and economic stability would impact corporate engagement in long-term projects and international affairs. Investors may hesitate to commit, and confidence in global economic stability, particularly in the U.S. dollar, might decrease, resulting in currency volatility that affects financial markets.
A deteriorating relationship between the EU and the U.S. would lead to trade disruptions, tariffs, and other barriers, negatively impacting businesses and trade flows, thereby affecting GDP and employment. Diminished trust could also result in reduced investments, hindering economic growth and innovation.
This uncertainty and potential conflict between major economic blocs would likely send shocks through the global economy, influencing exchange rates, creating volatility in financial markets, and affecting other countries and regions dependent on trade with both the EU and the U.S. Overall, this underscores the need for carefully considered political decisions to balance both national and international economic interests and maintain global economic stability.
1
-
1
-
@TheDogGeneral While your perspective highlights valid concerns regarding the economic ties and historical tensions between the United States and the EU, it's crucial to consider the evolving nature of international relations and the potential for adaptation.
You rightly point out the existence of economic fluctuations and uncertainties in global markets, referencing historical conflicts that persisted despite economic interdependence. However, it's essential to recognize that contemporary diplomatic efforts often strive to mitigate such risks and promote cooperation.
Your characterization of the relationship as already strained and irreparable relies heavily on historical disagreements and perceived insincerity. It's important to acknowledge that diplomatic exchanges can be nuanced, involving both cooperation and contention, and alliances often withstand political differences.
While you assert that economic growth and innovation are stagnating, it's worth considering the potential for revitalization through collaborative initiatives. A worsening relationship may indeed have adverse effects on the already interconnected global economy, impacting various sectors.
The analogy comparing the EU-U.S. relationship to a couple on the brink of divorce oversimplifies the complexity of international relations. Alliances can adapt to changing circumstances, and future leaders may shape diplomatic ties differently.
The claim that the EU will never match American spending levels assumes a static future, neglecting the possibility of policy adjustments or strategic shifts. Moreover, discussions about the sustainability of defense spending should be approached with a recognition of the need for balance between national security and economic considerations.
While acknowledging challenges with globalization, it's important to recognize instances where it has brought economic benefits to certain sectors. Evaluating the successes and shortcomings of globalization requires a nuanced understanding of its varied impacts.
In conclusion, while your concerns shed light on important aspects, international relations are dynamic, and diplomatic efforts, economic collaborations, and geopolitical strategies can adapt over time. A comprehensive approach considers the potential for positive change and collaboration, even in the face of historical challenges.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NisarulHaque-j3m Hey, terrorist organizations typically do not adhere to recognized rules and regulations established by international law or governing bodies. However, they may have their own internal codes of conduct, ideologies, and strategies that guide their actions. These "rules" are often characterized by violence, coercion, and intimidation rather than adherence to legal or ethical standards.
What I meant by my text is that Russia's focus right now is solely, now I mean literally solely on the war. Which makes it easier to commit crimes. It's no secret that the special forces and the police arrived after an hour, even though they have over 200,000 surveillance cameras in Moscow alone. Considering that city has the most police officers per square meter, and a police station around the corner, I find the whole thing very funny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dinosehic4158 The level of a country's debt compared to another is influenced by various factors, including economic policies, budget priorities, and economic structure. The United States generally has a higher debt level than Russia due to its larger economy, the global dominance of the USD, budget priorities, and economic policies. High debt levels are not inherently "negative" if managed sustainably relative to the country's economy and growth. Countries' debt levels are often assessed in relation to their GDP and their ability to handle the debt.
And what is your point with COVID-19? You mean that there was a ready-made recipe for how a country would act in the face of COVID-19?
All countries handled shutdowns in different ways with different time intervals depending on the spread.Russia implemented various measures to manage COVID-19, including restrictions and lockdowns, with localized measures based on the extent of the spread. However, there have been reports questioning the transparency and accuracy of reporting the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the country. It's important to note that information may have changed over time, and it's always advisable to rely on official sources and international reports for updated and reliable information.
COVID-19 dosn't change that Russia is poor in many ways and needs a big change to get good growth. The level of corruption (CPI) can be compared with Liberia and Uganda.
1
-
@dinosehic4158 The level of a country's debt compared to another is influenced by various factors, including economic policies, budget priorities, and economic structure. The United States generally has a higher debt level than Russia due to its larger economy, the global dominance of the USD, budget priorities, and economic policies. High debt levels are not inherently "negative" if managed sustainably relative to the country's economy and growth. Countries' debt levels are often assessed in relation to their GDP and their ability to handle the debt.
And what is your point with COVID-19? You mean that there was a ready-made recipe for how a country would act in the face of COVID-19?
All countries handled shutdowns in different ways with different time intervals depending on the spread.Russia implemented various measures to manage COVID-19, including restrictions and lockdowns, with localized measures based on the extent of the spread. However, there have been reports questioning the transparency and accuracy of reporting the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the country. It's important to note that information may have changed over time, and it's always advisable to rely on official sources and international reports for updated and reliable information.
COVID-19 dosn't change that Russia is poor in many ways and needs a big change to get good growth. The level of corruption (CPI) can be compared with Liberia and Uganda
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnmcmullan9741 The decision to terminate NATO membership involves a consensus process, typically requiring diplomatic discussions, deliberations within the federal government, and likely approval from the legislative assembly, particularly the Senate, according to the U.S. Constitution.
The claim that the U.S. and Turkey are not dependent on economic globalization is open to debate. Both nations have intricate and significant global economic connections that play a crucial role in shaping their economic landscapes.
In the case of the United States, it stands as one of the world's largest and most interconnected economies. Its multinational corporations operate globally, and its financial markets are intertwined with those around the world. The U.S. is a major player in international trade, with dependencies on imports and exports that contribute significantly to its economic health. Any abrupt disengagement from economic globalization could potentially lead to disruptions in supply chains, impact multinational companies, and influence financial markets.
Similarly, Turkey is not immune to the effects of economic globalization. It engages in international trade, hosts foreign direct investments, and has a currency influenced by global financial markets. Turkish businesses are integrated into the global supply chain, and any attempts to isolate from economic globalization may have repercussions on various sectors, including manufacturing and services.
In essence, both the U.S. and Turkey, like many other countries, are deeply intertwined with the global economy. Their economic well-being is closely linked to international trade, investment, and financial interactions. To assert that these nations are not dependent on economic globalization oversimplifies the intricate web of global economic connections that shape their economic realities.
The assertion that the Nordic countries have unsustainable economies due to their dependence on economic globalization requires a more nuanced perspective. The Nordic countries, including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, have indeed embraced economic globalization, but it's crucial to consider the broader context.
Firstly, the Nordic countries are renowned for their strong social welfare systems, characterized by universal healthcare, quality education, and comprehensive social safety nets. These systems contribute to high living standards, low income inequality, and social cohesion. The economic models of these countries are often cited as examples of successful social democracies.
Moreover, the Nordic countries have demonstrated economic stability over the years. They have robust institutions, transparent governance, and prudent fiscal policies, contributing to sustainable economic growth. Their emphasis on innovation, education, and research and development has allowed them to adapt to changing global economic landscapes.
While these nations engage in international trade and investment, their economies are not solely reliant on global markets. Diversification and a focus on domestic industries have played a role in maintaining economic resilience. The Nordic countries' commitment to sustainability and renewable energy further positions them as leaders in addressing global challenges.
In summary, the Nordic countries' economic success is not solely due to globalization but is also rooted in their well-established social welfare systems, economic stability, and a commitment to sustainability. The claim of unsustainable economies lacks consideration of the comprehensive policies and practices that contribute to the overall strength and resilience of these nations.
The assertion of Nordic superiority, suggesting that these countries are somehow superior to others, implies a simplistic evaluation that overlooks the complexity of global dynamics. Evaluating countries based on a single factor, such as economic or social indicators, can lead to an incomplete and potentially arrogant perspective.
Global dynamics involve multifaceted aspects, including economic strength, political stability, cultural diversity, social welfare, environmental sustainability, and more. Each country has its unique strengths, challenges, and contributions to the global community. The notion of superiority often neglects the diverse contexts and histories that shape nations.
The Nordic countries may excel in certain areas, such as social welfare systems, economic stability, or environmental policies. However, it's crucial to recognize that other regions may excel in different dimensions. For instance, countries in Asia may lead in technological innovation, while some African nations are making significant strides in sustainable development.
Sweden would likely face similar challenges whether or not they joined NATO, given Russia's historical behavior. Personally, I believe the EU has the capacity to manage Russia independently. However, the situation could become more complex if China becomes involved. Hopefully, China won't jeopardize its economy similarly to the U.S. If that were the case, the U.S. might find it challenging to afford creating additional adversaries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JudgeBread. While it is true that the specifics of NATO's role and level of direct involvement in the conflict remain subjects of debate, it is essential to differentiate between the actions of NATO and the agreements reached in the Minsk accords.
Firstly, while NATO's actions and policies may have influenced the situation in Eastern Europe, including its support for Ukraine, they are distinct from the agreements reached between Ukraine, separatist groups, and other parties in the Minsk process. The Minsk agreements primarily focus on finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine, addressing issues such as ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, and political dialogue.
Secondly, regarding the characterization of the actors in the conflict, it is important to recognize the complexity of the situation. While some may prefer the term "rebels" over "separatists," it is crucial to understand the motivations and objectives of the groups involved. While certain factions may seek greater autonomy or economic freedom within Ukraine, their actions, including the establishment of self-proclaimed entities like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, can be interpreted as separatist in nature.
Furthermore, while advocating for political and economic freedom within Ukraine is a legitimate goal, the means by which certain groups pursue these objectives, including armed conflict and the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity, raise ethical and legal concerns. Additionally, the determination to fight for these goals does not necessarily justify the means employed, especially when they result in human suffering and loss of life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loumcast While it is true that the unilateral decision by the US and its allies to recognize Kosovo's independence was met with resistance and led to a lack of recognition by half of the world, drawing parallels between Kosovo and Crimea oversimplifies the situation and ignores crucial differences.
Firstly, the circumstances surrounding Kosovo's declaration of independence and Crimea's annexation by Russia are fundamentally different. Kosovo's independence was the result of a long-standing conflict, international intervention, and a process facilitated by the United Nations. In contrast, Crimea's annexation by Russia was widely condemned as a violation of international law, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, following a controversial referendum conducted under military occupation.
Secondly, the question of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a complex issue governed by international law and diplomatic norms. While the desires of the people in a territory are undoubtedly important, they must be expressed through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, with respect for the sovereignty of the affected state. The legitimacy of Crimea's referendum has been widely questioned due to the lack of international oversight, the presence of Russian military forces, and the rapidity with which it was conducted.
Furthermore, while the US and its allies may express their opinions and exert diplomatic pressure, the ultimate resolution of territorial disputes must involve dialogue, negotiation, and respect for international law. Unilateral actions that undermine sovereignty and territorial integrity only serve to escalate tensions and undermine efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.
In conclusion, while the desires of the people in Crimea and other disputed territories are important, their aspirations must be pursued through legitimate and internationally recognized processes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and respect for international law. Drawing simplistic parallels between different situations overlooks the complexities and nuances of each case and risks perpetuating instability and conflict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1