Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,319 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 7 hours, 5 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A useful wee article from Declassifed
“Dearlove said that in the run-up to the 2000 Russian election, he had been approached by a senior KGB officer in London asking for MI6’s help in getting Putin elected. The officer asked if Blair would be willing to attend the opera alongside Putin.
“We had a long discussion in London whether Tony Blair should accept the invitation or not, and we decided on balance that this was an unusual and unique opening and we accepted the invitation,” Dearlove said.”
“The Foreign Office documents ask Blair to lobby for BP regarding the bankruptcy of the Russian oil company, Sidanco, in which BP had bought a 10% stake in 1997 for $571-million.
This “highlighted the problems faced by foreign investors”, the document notes, before the rest of the line is censored. The document then notes: “A deal was cut in December enabling BP… to hold their stake in Sidanco and begin implementation of the recovery plan to release Sidanco from bankruptcy.””
I was somewhat surprised by the language used by this Russian government spokesperson
Hysteria at the White House is revealing more than ever. The Anglo-Saxons need war. At any cost. Provocations, disinformation and threats are favorite method of solving their own problems,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote
https://www.rt.com/russia/549149-anglo-saxon-propaganda-brigade/
Have the differences now become “racialised” between Slavs and Anglo-Saxons?
She meant, of course, Anglo-American. The US and UK are really the ONLY ones fuelling this hysteria, although Putin isn’t helping.
If NATO didn’t want Ukraine, surely Biden would have reached a compromise today with Putin.
The fact is, the US’ silence on this shows they do intend to add Ukraine to NATO and bugger the consequences.“At the June 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process”
Putin reminds everyone that Ukraine joining NATO could lead to nuclear war
“The United States and its NATO allies have rebuffed that suggestion (that Ukraine not join NATO) even as talks on de-escalating tensions around Ukraine have continued.”I thought you were worried, and rightly, about the effect on people’s mental health of alarmist talk of an impending nuclear war between Russia and America. As you pointed out earlier, Al Jazeera takes a more balanced approach. President Zeletsky of Ukraine seems to too.
There are many ‘peoples around the world falling into the emotional and alarmist trap of the US and England, that includes several leftwing groups and ML organizations. Russia is not going to invade Ukraine and both sides are going to negotiate as they did during the Cuban missiles crisis, both sides can not afford a destructive war that could escalate into a world confrontation
ALB, you are right. I joined this discussion because the news is affecting my mental health, as someone with clinical depression in the first place, and I suppose what I need is assurance of some kind by having an avenue open to fellow comrades.
I would like your thoughts, basically, on why, if NATO doesn’t really want Ukraine, why is Biden refusing to give Putin the assurance he is asking for, and thus end the impasse.Movimiento, why then is the West dragging it out by deliberately refusing to answer the Russians on Ukraine NATO membership?
What is the brinkmanship serving?” While the statement said Biden also made clear Washington is willing to continue with diplomatic efforts, it added that the U.S.—along with its allies—”are equally prepared for other scenarios,” a not-so-veiled reference to possible military action.”
What’s the problem?
It’s just everyday diplomatic negotiations between two rival power blocs, NATO and Russo-ChineseWhats the purpose?
Whatever they can get.How can you tell the difference between this case and the imminence of a world war?
Many here know that when equations get involved my mind goes a blank. However…
James Fearon’s Rationalist Explanations for War
Fearon has three basic assumptions about war. First, war is a more costly choice than peace. Second, war is predictably unpredictable. In other words, although neither side may be sure exactly who will win, they can agree on the relatively likelihood each will win. And third, there are no direct benefits from fighting.
Thus, using John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern expected utility functions, Fearon finds the expected utility for war for states A and B, which are PA – CA and (1 – PA) – CB, where PA is A’s probability of winning a war, CA is A’s costs for war (proportional to how much they value the utility), and CB is B’s costs for war (proportional to how much they value the utility). With simplification, if X is A’s share of a peaceful settlement, Fearon finds that peace is better than war when PA – CA < X < PA + CB. A satisfactory X exist if PA + CB > PA – CA, or CA + CB > 0. Because CA and CB are individually greater than 0, so is their sum. Therefore, the inequality holds and so some settlement is mutually preferable to war.
The question is why two rational states cannot find an X that satisfies both sides, even though one must always exist and war is the worst feasible payoff for both sides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War%27s_inefficiency_puzzle
http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/pdf/fearon-io1995v49n3.pdf
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.