Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Paris newspapers literally have a section for strike and riot information, so you can plan accordingly. You haven't properly been to Paris until you've smelled the teargas.
I never have but then again I never ventured to Saint-Denis
If you put it like this - no, of course not, so I already addressed this subject earlier - the reasons why Russia HAD to start this war, why it was unavoidable.
As a general principle, it's hard to defend any nation that "starts a war". If attacked, a nation has the right to fight back. If attack is incipient, but hasn't yet happened, then it's a gray area; recall that this was one of the attempted justifications of the US's invasion of Iraq in 2003. If there is no attack, and no substantial possibility of attack, then a first-strike is, I think, deeply problematic.
From a strictly cynical and egotistical viewpoint, starting a war is a "good" idea if success comes quickly and cheaply. The textbook example is Bismarck starting the war between Prussia and France in 1870. It was a smashing success for the Germanic alliance, and led directly to the formation of modern Germany (and later the two world wars, but let's not blame Bismarck for those). Whether the war was morally reprehensible or a clear necessity of statecraft, isn't really debated, because it was so quick, so efficient and so successful.
When we now examine Russia's adventure in Ukraine, even if we're sympathetic towards Russia, we find ourselves in dismay, at the enormous cost to the Russian people - let alone to, ahem, other peoples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
I would outline three different political fractions there - three major different approaches, when it comes to today's situation.
Number one - Putin's die hard supporters.
Fraction #2 - critics of Putin's government ...
Fraction #3 ... is as patriotic as "Putin's" one, but it's not shy at criticizing his government...
It seems to me that the largest faction is thoroughly cynical about politics, of whatever flavor. It’s convinced, with good reason, that Russian society will always be oligarchical, whether the oligarchs are “heavies” who pilfered state resources, or Communist Party functionaries, or lackeys of the Imperial court. They separate an earthy, visceral patriotism of the style of Nekrasov or even Mayakovsky, from a jingoistic chest-thumping “patriotism”... a useful lesson for American voters, BTW, but let’s not digress.
If the external threat is sufficiently severe, there’s a rally-around-the-flag phenomenon, as we saw in the US right after 9/11. This also means rally-around-the-leader, even among the cynics, again as we saw in the US right after 9/11, or as what happened in the USSR on June 22, 1941. But incompetence and hubris will eventually dissipate good-will. This dissipation is in tension with there being ongoing threat. If the threat persists, the good-will won’t dissipate. If the threat is deemed to have passed, or to have been exaggerated all along, the good-will melt away.
As an outside observer, I would ask, whether the man-on-the-street in Russia views the Ukraine situation and the prevailing Western posture as a credible, substantial and lasting threat to the Russian people, and to what it means to be Russian. I genuinely don’t know. Does anyone here?
I disagree....all countries are under pressure to raise the retirement age ... some more so than others....
people are living longer and going forward there will be less active workers to support retirees
....again, it has nothing to with the current Ukraine-Russia War.....
And ......the french like to riot....there are some "professional rioters" in the mix there...
ON A SURFACE your reasoning is correct, but on a deeper level, this pension reform comes across more like the last drop of their patience over there, because their living standards keep on falling because of this war and rising energy prices across Europe.
"A series of reports published by Cambridge Econometrics in October and November 2022 found that households in EU countries are spending much more on energy than in 2020 and that governments are spending billions of euros to help consumers pay bills and cut taxes.
In France, for example, the poorest households now spend roughly one-third more on energy than in 2020. Between August 2020 and August 2022, household energy prices increased by 37 percent, while overall inflation increased by 9.2 percent.
“We estimate that the increase in household energy prices make an average French household €410 worse off in 2022 compared to 2020, mostly due to higher gas prices,” said the report."
"Moreover, the supply of energy has been hampered by a lag in the production of oil, as well as geopolitical tensions – especially Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine – and technical disruptions affecting the provision of natural gas to European countries.[2] It is important to account for these confounding factors in order to understand the aggregate impact that higher energy prices will have on private consumption.
De Michelis et al. found that oil price increases generally drive a wedge between consumption developments in oil-importing and oil-exporting countries.[4] Higher oil prices transfer wealth from oil importers to oil exporters, and that wealth effect, in turn, has a negative impact on consumption in oil-importing countries through multiplier effects."
"After decades of low inflation, rising consumer prices present new economic, political and social challenges
across the EU. According to recent Eurostat figures, the annual HCIP inflation in August 2022 has reached 10.1%
at the EU level, and consumer prices have increased by double digits in at least seven Member States. Increases
in the cost of living are fuelled mainly by surging energy prices that are roughly 40% higher on average than
in the previous year. Rising energy and consumer prices are already causing substantial social costs in terms of
decreasing purchasing power, and are further expected to increase material deprivation, poverty and social
exclusion by a considerable margin across the EU."
file:///C:/Users/PC/Downloads/JRC130650_01.pdf
With other words, Bidenomics are ruining Europe, and some Europeans are fighting back - in this case, the French to be exact.
They were protesting already back in 2022 against the rising cost of living, which happened after the war in Ukraine began.
"Strike action and unplanned maintenance had led to more than 60 percent of France's refining capacity – or 740,000 barrels per day (bpd) — being offline which in turn forced the country to import more amid the increased energy costs due to the global supply uncertainty.[1] Strikes have further erupted into other sectors such as energy, "including nuclear giant EDF, where maintenance work crucial for Europe’s power supply will be delayed."[1] There have been weeks of strikes at oil refineries for higher salaries which led to calls for a nationwide and general strike.[4][1]French President Emmanuel Macron criticized the United States, Norway and other "friendly" natural gas supplier states for the extremely high prices of their supplies, saying that Europeans are "paying four times more than the price you sell to your industry. That is not exactly the meaning of friendship."
So by now the French are learning the "price of friendship with US," but it's a bit too late for Macron I suspect.
P.S. On another hand, I am quite content that Russians are watching now this particular protest over the retirement age increase, since their state media is broadcasting it all over the place.
Their media idiots don't understand apparently, that this very retirement age increase ( that Putin promised to not to implement ever, as long as he is a president,) brought the outcry over there, but the government kept on pointing "at the West," stating that "we are no different from THEM."
So now Russians are watching closely how "them" are reacting to such reform, which they were not allowed to even publicly discuss or to protest as much as they wanted to. It was "thank you for understanding" coming from Putin - that's all.
Do any of you guys think your opinion matters!? Or is maybe moving the needle in either direction?
LOL. Thats rarely the purpose behind people coming here. But NOT pushing back against the nonsense has significant risks. suddenly a falsehood becomes "well everyone knows" sort of idiocy.
That being said occasionally you find some fascinating discussions. Not so much lately as were waiting for the Ukrainians to take a turn at trying to advance.
You need to start posting on everything what happens to people in Ukraine that post something on social media that doesn't please the Ukrainian authorities, and then your reporting will be complete.
The rules are obviously different for a nation that has been invaded, is at war and under martial law.
Only a fool would allow their enemy to organize and subvert inside their own country.
As a general principle, it's hard to defend any nation that "starts a war". If attacked, a nation has the right to fight back. If attack is incipient, but hasn't yet happened, then it's a gray area; recall that this was one of the attempted justifications of the US's invasion of Iraq in 2003. If there is no attack, and no substantial possibility of attack, then a first-strike is, I think, deeply problematic.
I already explained the best I could that Russia didn't start this war out of a blue - it was a response to the Western aggression, even if a delayed response.
Quote:
From a strictly cynical and egotistical viewpoint, starting a war is a "good" idea if success comes quickly and cheaply. The textbook example is Bismarck starting the war between Prussia and France in 1870. It was a smashing success for the Germanic alliance, and led directly to the formation of modern Germany (and later the two world wars, but let's not blame Bismarck for those). Whether the war was morally reprehensible or a clear necessity of statecraft, isn't really debated, because it was so quick, so efficient and so successful.
When we now examine Russia's adventure in Ukraine, even if we're sympathetic towards Russia, we find ourselves in dismay, at the enormous cost to the Russian people - let alone to, ahem, other peoples.
THAT I absolutely agree with you, that's why some voices over there are reminding how easy everything could have been accomplished back in 2014, had they respond adequately to the first civilian deaths in Donbass, instead of playing all these "Minsk 1-2-3" games.
To which Putin likes to point now during his interviews ( trying to justify himself) that "back then Russia didn't have supersonic missiles" ( or whatever it is,) so he was "not sure what would have happened to Russia then."
Which is a change of tune with the previous excuse that "Russian economy was not ready for this war back then, " I noticed.
Quote:
It seems to me that the largest faction is thoroughly cynical about politics, of whatever flavor. It’s convinced, with good reason, that Russian society will always be oligarchical, whether the oligarchs are “heavies” who pilfered state resources, or Communist Party functionaries, or lackeys of the Imperial court. They separate an earthy, visceral patriotism of the style of Nekrasov or even Mayakovsky, from a jingoistic chest-thumping “patriotism”... a useful lesson for American voters, BTW, but let’s not digress.
I think that POLITICIANS that lead this fraction are mostly cynical, while their flock that follows them simply doesn't comprehend what "politics" are.
Quote:
If the external threat is sufficiently severe, there’s a rally-around-the-flag phenomenon, as we saw in the US right after 9/11. This also means rally-around-the-leader, even among the cynics, again as we saw in the US right after 9/11, or as what happened in the USSR on June 22, 1941. But incompetence and hubris will eventually dissipate good-will. This dissipation is in tension with there being ongoing threat. If the threat persists, the good-will won’t dissipate. If the threat is deemed to have passed, or to have been exaggerated all along, the good-will melt away.
As an outside observer, I would ask, whether the man-on-the-street in Russia views the Ukraine situation and the prevailing Western posture as a credible, substantial and lasting threat to the Russian people,
Again - it depends to what "political fraction" this "man on the street" belongs.
If he/she belongs to the fractions #1 and # 3, then the answer would be "yes." if it's fraction #2, the answer will be "no."
But overall this assessment is pretty accurate I would say.
Besides, you can use the same excuse for Russia now, since it's a country at war, and "only a fool would allow their enemy to organize and subvert inside their own country."
Do any of you guys think your opinion matters!? Or is maybe moving the needle in either direction?
Nope. This thread was hopefully started to discuss the latest news and possible future military moves or what might happen next.
Instead, it’s nothing but arguments going around in circles on whether it was Russian’s fault or Ukraine/West’s fault for the war.
And here we go again - do you people even know what the word “invade” means? Russia invaded Ukraine and started this mess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
