Will Russia invade the Ukraine?

[DefTrap]

Finally we agree! It WAS hilarious. I remember the first coveefee Twitter which was an absolute first for a sitting president. He was raw, he was entertaining and he was an asshole.

Again, I agree, you are not seeing where he is being censored. No one is...

If his Twitter account is an example of censorship, he did it to himself.

I'm not sure raw, entertaining and asshole should be the primary prerequisites for presidency. In a two party system I'm not surprised that could be a winning formula though, shades of Boris innit?

[Yambo]

Again, I agree, you are not seeing where he is being censored. No one is...

It is entirely possible then, that he is not being censored.

[Screwdriver]

Again, I agree, you are not seeing where he is being censored. No one is...

It is entirely possible then, that he is not being censored.

So this is fake news? From Twitter??

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/c ... suspension

...and July 2021

"Former president Donald Trump is suing Facebook, Twitter and Google’s YouTube, as well as their respective chief executives, in lawsuits alleging “unlawful censorship” of Americans.

Trump on Wednesday said he would lead class actions against chief executives Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai, as well their Big Tech platforms."


From: https://www.ft.com/content/86c98f3b-7d2 ... b4b0839c66

Naturally, timing is a key element here. All you have to do is pick and choose exactly when and for what you decide to suspend, hide or delete a comment. Once the "danger" is past, just switch it back on like nothing happened.

Once Google has decided to censor your output, anything you want to post on the web can easily be "shadow banned". A sneaky move that doesn't even tell you it's not showing you something which actually might turn up several pages beyond where any right minded person would even bother to scroll. Past the Iranian regimes live commentaries, way beyond Saudi owned UK media propaganda, look see, it's not banned, we just stuck it where you can't find it...

FWIW, this is actually the very first time I have even tried to find Trump related stuff. I don't actually care to hear what he has to say, I'm more concerned that big tech has so much power it can "ban" the most powerful man on the planet at their whim.

As one senator famously quipped to Zuckerberg, "who the hell voted for you"

[slowsider]

Again, I agree, you are not seeing where he is being censored. No one is...

It is entirely possible then, that he is not being censored.

So this is fake news? From Twitter??

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/c ... suspension

...and July 2021

"Former president Donald Trump is suing Facebook, Twitter and Google’s YouTube, as well as their respective chief executives, in lawsuits alleging “unlawful censorship” of Americans.

Trump on Wednesday said he would lead class actions against chief executives Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai, as well their Big Tech platforms."


From: https://www.ft.com/content/86c98f3b-7d2 ... b4b0839c66

Naturally, timing is a key element here. All you have to do is pick and choose exactly when and for what you decide to suspend, hide or delete a comment. Once the "danger" is past, just switch it back on like nothing happened.

Once Google has decided to censor your output, anything you want to post on the web can easily be "shadow banned". A sneaky move that doesn't even tell you it's not showing you something which actually might turn up several pages beyond where any right minded person would even bother to scroll. Past the Iranian regimes live commentaries, way beyond Saudi owned UK media propaganda, look see, it's not banned, we just stuck it where you can't find it...

FWIW, this is actually the very first time I have even tried to find Trump related stuff. I don't actually care to hear what he has to say, I'm more concerned that big tech has so much power it can "ban" the most powerful man on the planet at their whim.

I presume you are at least as concerned that big tech made him the most powerful man on the planet in the first place.

[Yambo]

Again, I agree, you are not seeing where he is being censored. No one is...

It is entirely possible then, that he is not being censored.

So this is fake news? From Twitter??

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/c ... suspension

...and July 2021

"Former president Donald Trump is suing Facebook, Twitter and Google’s YouTube, as well as their respective chief executives, in lawsuits alleging “unlawful censorship” of Americans.

Trump on Wednesday said he would lead class actions against chief executives Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai, as well their Big Tech platforms."


From: https://www.ft.com/content/86c98f3b-7d2 ... b4b0839c66

Naturally, timing is a key element here. All you have to do is pick and choose exactly when and for what you decide to suspend, hide or delete a comment. Once the "danger" is past, just switch it back on like nothing happened.

Once Google has decided to censor your output, anything you want to post on the web can easily be "shadow banned". A sneaky move that doesn't even tell you it's not showing you something which actually might turn up several pages beyond where any right minded person would even bother to scroll. Past the Iranian regimes live commentaries, way beyond Saudi owned UK media propaganda, look see, it's not banned, we just stuck it where you can't find it...

FWIW, this is actually the very first time I have even tried to find Trump related stuff. I don't actually care to hear what he has to say, I'm more concerned that big tech has so much power it can "ban" the most powerful man on the planet at their whim.

As one senator famously quipped to Zuckerberg, "who the hell voted for you"

In your second (FT) link why have the FT put the word 'censorship' in inverted commas?

Is it because it may not be censorship but simply that a the owner of facebook doesn't want Trump as a member of his facebook platform. You know, like a publican putting his pub out of bounds to soldiers.

[Horse]

However, a recent series of 'justifications' (whatever the actual facts) (not by you) went...

So you are replying to a comment I made because of "something else" that "someone else" said?

As an attempt at explaining some of the scepticism, similar to that you have experienced.

The part of your post that I quoted was about someone's truth being better than another's and people feeling 'shut down'.

[Screwdriver]

I presume you are at least as concerned that big tech made him the most powerful man on the planet in the first place.

Yes. Yes I am. It is an indictment of the entire cash for votes, lies for votes, fuck it fake votes system that currently defines our "democratic" system.

No I am not saying destroy it, no I am not saying I know better and if you need someone like me to come up with a better system, we're in a lot more trouble than even I suggest.

I am merely pointing out 1. simplistic analysis of vastly complex situations is facile and 2. we should all be more wary of the narrative because 3. the narrative is typically being manipulated for the financial benefit of greedy corporate interests.

Note: currently greedy politicians self-interest is what allows greedy corporate self interest to manipulate these complex political situations to their financial benefit. We all know it but it has in recent years become so commonplace and widespread it is as if we don't see the wood for the trees.

[Screwdriver]

In your second (FT) link why have the FT put the word 'censorship' in inverted commas?

Is it because it may not be censorship but simply that a the owner of facebook doesn't want Trump as a member of his facebook platform. You know, like a publican putting his pub out of bounds to soldiers.

Dunno. Why don't they call a spade a spade? Presumably because they don't think preventing someone from communicating on a public platform is censorship. A typical trick is to redefine the meaning of a word. You know like "terrorist". Introduce laws that allow the state to punish terrorist activities, like bombing innocent civilians, committing atrocious acts to suppress dissenting voices etc. Then, just redefine "terrorist" to include anyone who doesn't support your political view or dares protest against authoritarian state controls.

As for the publican kicking out soldiers. YES. Yes I agree it is exactly like that except see point 1. above. That is such a simplistic analogy it fails to address the complexities of this new world of social media.

First off each of these giant mega corporations like FaceBook, Google, Twitter etc. were first to market and while the free market economy and capitalism broadly worked well with manufactured products and more mundane services, it has allowed these global virtual platforms to become literal monsters. Secondly they are easily able to embrace and destroy: gobble up any competition to grow even larger or just stifle it.

I know what you're saying about bloke down the pub etc. but it does not address the actual problems we are facing with this new plague on society. The knee jerk reaction would be to try and "control" it. Mandate checks and balances to reduce the enormous financial (and therefore political) power these big tech giants have carved out for themselves.

Why can't we do that? Because they have carved out so much financial and political power, they are very much in the driving seat when it comes to mandates and even lawmaking. Why else do they spend so many millions on so called "lobbying". That's just another word for bribery...

[Count Steer]

I am merely pointing out 1. simplistic analysis of vastly complex situations is facile and 2. we should all be more wary of the narrative because 3. the narrative is typically being manipulated for the financial benefit of greedy corporate interests.

Note: currently greedy politicians self-interest is what allows greedy corporate self interest to manipulate these complex political situations to their financial benefit. We all know it but it has in recent years become so commonplace and widespread it is as if we don't see the wood for the trees.

Don't disagree with any of that but, tbh, I just switch off when it gets gift wrapped in 18 layers of repeated yaddah yaddah about the attack on the White House, stuff about Biden, Trump and Clinton H. A plague on all their houses and all politicians that see power and cash as common aims + the media owners that demonstrate that cash IS power.

[Screwdriver]

Don't disagree with any of that but, tbh, I just switch off when it gets gift wrapped in 18 layers of repeated yaddah yaddah about the attack on the White House, stuff about Biden, Trump and Clinton H. A plague on all their houses and all politicians that see power and cash as common aims + the media owners that demonstrate that cash IS power.

Sadly I agree entirely with that comment. It is a real turn off.

Unfortunately that leaves us here with an unnecessary war which while we all agree is horrific and "because" Putin is an overt criminal thug, we can't seem to agree on the gigantically complex web of interconnected skullduggery which has allowed it to happen.

[DefTrap]

Farcical.

In 5 years of presidency trump made little use of his access to the world's experts and an intelligence service presumably second to none - his approach to world politics was simply that he looked at the evidence, sort of, said that he was being lied to, and then behaved unpredictably. Unpredictability and sticking it to the man worked for him because that's what morons do.

Of course now his access to "intelligence" is limited to barmy rantings of sycophants and other invested goons following him around his golf course. There's almost zero chance he's digging out the dirt on rivals and world politics - he's certainly not getting balanced input anyway. Again, it doesn't matter much because the empty heads are all about the fake news.

[mangocrazy]

This will probably be criticised as being overly simplistic, but to me Putin has been using the enormous profits from gas and oil to make his close associates unbelievably rich and essentially buy key players in western 'democracy'; i.e. buying the Tory party in the UK. His rich oligarch mates then further embed themselves in the UK, Europe and the US by laundering money through top end property and a variety of institutions notably sport. Once they are stitched into the fabric of society they make themselves very, very difficult to expel and their behind the scenes influence is enormous.

Then when Putin decides to invade Ukraine, all the major global players have their hands tied in terms of response because they are so tightly interconnected with Putin's regime, albeit via proxies.

[irie]

This will probably be criticised as being overly simplistic, but to me Putin has been using the enormous profits from gas and oil to make his close associates unbelievably rich and essentially buy key players in western 'democracy'; i.e. buying the Tory party in the UK. His rich oligarch mates then further embed themselves in the UK, Europe and the US by laundering money through top end property and a variety of institutions notably sport. Once they are stitched into the fabric of society they make themselves very, very difficult to expel and their behind the scenes influence is enormous.

Then when Putin decides to invade Ukraine, all the major global players have their hands tied in terms of response because they are so tightly interconnected with Putin's regime, albeit via proxies.

That's one way of looking at what encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine.

However, it is a fact that wars cost "a lot" of money.

It seems to me that there are three key factors at the root of Russia's war in Ukraine:

1. Continental Europe's addiction to Russian oil and gas has provided Russia with the financial means to wage the war against Ukraine.

2. The West's and especially Continental Europe's failure to deal robustly with Russia's annexation of Crimea and the effective annexation of Donbas and Donetsk in 2014. This together with (1) above has encouraged Putin.

3. Taken together with Putin's view of Russia outlined in his article "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" published in July 2021 (which I have previously posted) it is clear what primarily led to the invasion of Ukraine.

Edit: to the invasion

[Screwdriver]

This will probably be criticised as being overly simplistic, but to me Putin has been using the enormous profits from gas and oil to make his close associates unbelievably rich and essentially buy key players in western 'democracy'; i.e. buying the Tory party in the UK. His rich oligarch mates then further embed themselves in the UK, Europe and the US by laundering money through top end property and a variety of institutions notably sport. Once they are stitched into the fabric of society they make themselves very, very difficult to expel and their behind the scenes influence is enormous.

Then when Putin decides to invade Ukraine, all the major global players have their hands tied in terms of response because they are so tightly interconnected with Putin's regime, albeit via proxies.

Yes and to answer the above Trump bashing rant above, Trump was all go for the US Keystone XL pipeline and vetoed the Russian Nord Stream2; 1. because it would subvert the Ukrainian oil/gas industry and 2. because it would make Germany and Europe more heavily dependent on Russian oil/gas.

So what happened next? Well, Biden stopped the USA's own Keystone XL, castrated the USA's own fossil fuel industry and gave Putin the green light for Nord Stream2. Then everyone seems surprised that Putin would choose that moment to invade Ukraine.

Having Biden in power with his fingers sticky from the Ukrainian pie, gives me the heebie jeebies. He is the very exemplar for everything that is wrong with modern capitalist politics. Under normal circumstances I might say "what's the worst that could happen" well, it already did.

[Screwdriver]

That's one way of looking at what encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine.
However, it is a fact that wars cost "a lot" of money.
It seems to me that there are three key factors at the root of Russia's war in Ukraine:
1. Continental Europe's addiction to Russian oil and gas has provided Russia with the financial means to wage the war against Ukraine.
2. The West's and especially Continental Europe's failure to deal robustly with Russia's annexation of Crimea and the effective annexation of Donbas and Donetsk in 2014. This together with (1) above has encouraged Putin.
3. Taken together with Putin's view of Russia outlined in his article "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" published in July 2021 (which I have previously posted) it is clear what primarily led the invasion of Ukraine.

I agree entirely.

Now I feel dirty.

[Hoonercat]

This will probably be criticised as being overly simplistic, but to me Putin has been using the enormous profits from gas and oil to make his close associates unbelievably rich and essentially buy key players in western 'democracy'; i.e. buying the Tory party in the UK. His rich oligarch mates then further embed themselves in the UK, Europe and the US by laundering money through top end property and a variety of institutions notably sport. Once they are stitched into the fabric of society they make themselves very, very difficult to expel and their behind the scenes influence is enormous.

Then when Putin decides to invade Ukraine, all the major global players have their hands tied in terms of response because they are so tightly interconnected with Putin's regime, albeit via proxies.

That's one way of looking at what encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine.

However, it is a fact that wars cost "a lot" of money.

It seems to me that there are three key factors at the root of Russia's war in Ukraine:

1. Continental Europe's addiction to Russian oil and gas has provided Russia with the financial means to wage the war against Ukraine.

No mention of the Middle East and Africa's addiction to Russian wheat (oh those greedy bastards)? Or Africa's addiction to Russian military supplies? I guess Politico didn't make mention of either?

[Horse]

So, picking up one point made recently and one from US election times:
1. During the election build-up: Biden is senile and rambling, incoherent, won't know or understand what's going on if elected, etc
2. Biden has been in cahoots with Ukraine, making millions, feathering his nest, supporting his family

Ok, he could have made millions from Ukraine, then gone senile.

But where's the truth?

[Screwdriver]

So, picking up one point made recently and one from US election times:
1. During the election build-up: Biden is senile and rambling, incoherent, won't know or understand what's going on if elected, etc
2. Biden has been in cahoots with Ukraine, making millions, feathering his nest, supporting his family

Ok, he could have made millions from Ukraine, then gone senile.

But where's the truth?

Both reflect elements of the truth albeit exaggerated I assume because you believe neither.

To expand. His gait and stance along with the many gaffes suggest early signs of Parkinson’s disease. Hunter Biden was on the payroll of Burisma for $50,000 a month after daddy (then VP Biden) got Zelensky to sack the prosecutor investigating fraud. This is all easily established if you care to look.

When Biden has served his purpose, the truth will out. Like I said earlier, now that the USA is in such deep shit with an obviously incompetent government, even mainstream media are starting to pick up on the truth behind this scandal.

But hey ho, I can see how it’s easier to call me a conspiratorial nut job than bother to verify these open secret for yourself.

<edit> I am curious though, where do you think the Biden mafia made it’s millions with sleepy Joe being a lifelong politician on circa $100kpa. That doesn’t buy you an island in the Bahamas now does it? Maybe it’s the extraordinary art of Hunter Biden “earning” millions for spit paintings from “undisclosed” buyers. It’s a National security issue dontcha know. Yeah right.

[Mr. Dazzle]

It's easily established that Biden got the prosecutor fired - he openly takes credit for it! It's less easy to establish the motive.

After all, the mainstream story, if you want to call it that is that the prosecutor in question was deemed too lenient in dealing with corruption...hence his firing.

[DefTrap]

I'll make it easy.
The previous (incompetent) government suited your politics.
The current (incompetent) government doesn't.