Politics

[375 Ruger Fan]

 

[sestoppelman]

A worthy quote,

“The old politics of right versus left, and Republican opposed to Democrat have now given way to a new existential struggle: Americans must choose between civilization—or its destroyers.” –Victor Davis Hanson.

 

[ActionBob]

WTF! If you want to Immigrate, in other words leave the country you are from to better your life in another, why would you carry or display the flag of what you are leaving? I do not understand this!?
We are being told these are Asylum seekers. Well turn those f#$@ers around, they are certainly not seeking Asylum if they are loyally displaying the flag of the country they are leaving!!!

And I am all for immigration for the right reasons. I have just not seen Clinton, Obama, nor Biden ever explain the right reasons. In Minnesota Obama used Immigration to permanently change House seats in Congress. Isn't there some law against this?

 

[Altitude sickness]

Most of the European countries are waking up to the dangers of non-assimilation

 

[flying sailor]

Most of the European countries are waking up to the dangers of non-assimilation

Teddy Roosevelt said we could welcome immigrants, but they need to assimilate. I have short cutted his brief speech. One of our finer presidents in my book!

 

[sestoppelman]

The open invitation from Biden is too much of a draw and is enuf to overcome any ingrained pride one might have for their own country.
They are being promised no end of good things to just show up at our doorstep, come on over and get the goodies!
Its most maddening to witness this invasion and that is what it is, and have Brandon wander around thinking he is the greatest thing that ever s*** behind two shoes with the stupid grin on his ugly puss!
I never thought I could have more distain for a president than I did for the Bamster, but Biden is even worse!

 

[sestoppelman]

Most of the European countries are waking up to the dangers of non-assimilation

Too little, too late. A book written by a Frenchman in the 70's predicted this.

The Camp of the Saints, Jean Raspail

 

[sestoppelman]

MSN

Makes my blood boil!

 

[sestoppelman]

MSN

 

[Hunt anything]

WTF! If you want to Immigrate, in other words leave the country you are from to better your life in another, why would you carry or display the flag of what you are leaving? I do not understand this!?
We are being told these are Asylum seekers. Well turn those f#$@ers around, they are certainly not seeking Asylum if they are loyally displaying the flag of the country they are leaving!!!

And I am all for immigration for the right reasons. I have just not seen Clinton, Obama, nor Biden ever explain the right reasons. In Minnesota Obama used Immigration to permanently change House seats in Congress. Isn't there some law against this?
View attachment 576834View attachment 576835

My wife and I had this discussion the other night, she said they were just proud of their country. I said Bull Shit, if they’re so damned proud of their country they should keep their proud asses in it.

 

[Daniel Cary]

My Ma's "Optional Life Insurance" Policy was raised $130 More per Month, Because a Multitude of Covid Deaths. Jan 1st.

Has anyone noticed an increase in their life Insurance Premium due to "Multitude of Covid Deaths"?

Thank you.

 

[Corey0372]

The most recent article I saw in the Washington Post (November) put the likely blame on the Ukrainians. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/ Perhaps you read a newer one?

That said, whomever and however it was accomplished, very few people in the West with any understanding of the situation did anything but quietly applaud. I think @rigbymauser is spot on in his analogy to the British attack on the French Fleet at Mels-el-Kebir in July 1940. France had just fallen, and the French fleet, allied to a newly triumphant Germany, would have dominated the Mediterranean likely making the British position in Egypt untenable. The British gave the commander of the French fleet the option of placing the ships under British control or sailing them to the French West Indies. Darlan equivocated, and the British struck putting the French fleet out of action for the remainder of the war and killing over a thousand French sailors (and recent allies) in the process.

Nord Stream was a deal with the devil. I think even most Germans realized that it represented a "bargain" that along with cheap natural gas, limited Germany's ability to fully exercise its sovereignty - particularly with regard to Russian aspirations. I have no doubt that factored greatly in Putin's strategy for recreating a Soviet-like empire.

Cutting that umbilical cord did not result in near the economic dislocation predicted by many, and witness the recent deployment of a combat brigade to the Baltics, Germany is already exercising a more aggressive role in Europe than at any point since the Second World War. That probably doesn't make France entirely happy, but it is good news for the West's collective national interests,

The notion that the Biden administration could make such a decisive move has never seemed very likely to me. Joe Biden is no Winston Churchill, and the hyper cautiousness Jake Sullivan and his other advisors have shown with regard to every other aspect of the Ukraine conflict, would argue against such a decisive move with regard to Nord Stream.

Eventually, someone will tell the story, and historians will render their judgement. Regardless how it was accomplished, I suspect most of those historians will conclude it was an important waypoint in Europe's economic independence. Whether it was an important waypoint in Ukraine's waits to be seen.

A really good book on the Russian gas sector is Putinomics by Chris Miller (also wrote Chip War, which I haven't read yet)

Love or hate Merkel she was democratically elected, multiple times. If I understand correctly.... you're insinuating that Germany entering into an energy agreement with Russia that was extremely beneficial for their manufacturing industry (not to mention the huge contracts to build the pipelines awarded to German companies) isn't exercising sovereignty... But a foreign country (probably US or Britain planning, potentially using Ukrainians to do it) taking part in the destruction of German infrastructure, while those countries have multiple military bases inside Germany, is exercising sovereignty?

-Some numbers and facts about Nordstream 1 (Pre-invasion)

https://www.csis.org/blogs/energy-headlines-versus-trendlines/how-nord-stream-1-rewired-german-gas

Not to mention the Unmanned Underwater Vehicle near Nordstream 1 in 2015....

https://www.worldpipelines.com/equi...th-explosives-seen-near-nord-stream-pipeline/

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/6296977

To your point about most Germans seeing it as an uneasy bargain, the AfD party has been polling ahead of all other parties, and one of their leaders Maximilian Krah has expressed that he believes the US was behind the destruction of Nordstream 2. He also feels that this event coupled with the Green's radical policies are destroying the German Economy...

"I mean, this attack is unbelievable and unthinkable without an involvement and at least approval by the United States, which have declared prior to the explosion that they want to destroy it. So, for me, this is an attack with the clear destiny to separate Germany and the Eurasian economic zone, Russia, China, etc. It will destroy the German export manufacturing industry. We only can have our classical economic model, which is based on exporting manufactured goods with cheap energy. The only way to have cheap energy is pipeline gas. Everything else will not work, especially when you have crazies in the government that shut down your atomic power plants and that will clearly shut down your coal power plants within the next 10 years. This is what we have, and we are run by crazy. No atomic, no coal and then no Russian pipeline gas but the country is run by a manufacturing industry." -Krah

https://www.voiceofeurope.com/the-g...usive-interview-with-afd-mep-maximilian-krah/


Vacom (German manufacturing company) is opening a huge 90 million dollar facility in Lewistown, Montana, it's supposed to create about 500 jobs (is this Bidenomics? hahaha). Do we think that's happening because their board members want to get into Elk hunting? Or is it because the energy costs are too high, and are likely to get higher in the future? Probably the latter...

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/selected-issues-papers/Issues/2023/07/24/Impact-of-High-Energy-Prices-on-Germanys-Potential-Output-536837#:~:text=Energy%20prices%20are%20expected%20to,thus%20lowering%20Germany's%20potential%20output.

I guess Lord Hastings Ismay's famous words about NATO still sort of ring true today.

 

[Red Leg]

AfD polling ahead of other German parties? In a sense they do with respect to the individual parties of the current ruling coalition. But the far right party of Germany remains under domestic surveillance. They did win their first mayoral election in a large city - Pirna, Saxony. But Krah and his followers have a bit of a way to go. They are polling at 23% nationally, but until they can build a coalition with someone, then they remain an interesting populist phenomena.

To be clear, what I criticized was Germany entering into an economic relationship with a foreign power whose strategic goals were fundamentally at odds with Germany's role in NATO and Western Europe. And no, I don't care who put together the governing coalition that consummated that relationship. The destruction of Nord Stream, like an addict going cold turkey, severed both that relationship and what I suspect and hope was Germany's sense of safety residing as it has historically at Russia's doorstep.

So in a word, yes, I think I'll stick with my assessment.

I find it interesting that you bring up Ismay, if for no other reason it is good to interact with someone who is well read. But Churchill's admonishment to him has been irrelevant for at least four decades as the US under administrations of both parties (to include Donald Trump) has urged Germany to take a stronger leadership role in Europe and in its own defense. I absolutely believe ending the economic bondage to Russian natural gas is the single most important strategic step Germany could take in exercising that new leadership role. In other words, the opposite of Churchill's guidance to Ismay. Will it cause some economic challenges - of course - but over long term, Germany will be far more free to act in its and the Alliance's critical interests than it ever could under Russian economic blackmail.

 

[Corey0372]

AfD polling ahead of other German parties? In a sense they do with respect to the individual parties of the current ruling coalition. But the far right party of Germany remains under domestic surveillance. They did win their first mayoral election in a large city - Pirna, Saxony. But Krah and his followers have a bit of a way to go. They are polling at 23% nationally, but until they can build a coalition with someone, then they remain an interesting populist phenomena.

To be clear, what I criticized was Germany entering into an economic relationship with a foreign power whose strategic goals were fundamentally at odds with Germany's role in NATO and Western Europe. And no, I don't care who put together the governing coalition that consummated that relationship. The destruction of Nord Stream, like an addict going cold turkey, severed both that relationship and what I suspect and hope was Germany's sense of safety residing as it has historically at Russia's doorstep.

So in a word, yes, I think I'll stick with my assessment.

I find it interesting that you bring up Ismay, if for no other reason it is good to interact with someone who is well read. But Churchill's admonishment to him has been irrelevant for at least four decades as the US under administrations of both parties (to include Donald Trump) has urged Germany to take a stronger leadership role in Europe and in its own defense. I absolutely believe ending the economic bondage to Russian natural gas is the single most important strategic step Germany could take in exercising that new leadership role. In other words, the opposite of Churchill's guidance to Ismay. Will it cause some economic challenges - of course - but over long term, Germany will be far more free to act in its and the Alliance's critical interests than it ever could under Russian economic blackmail.

I think it's going to cause more than just economic challenges, I think we're looking at a serious threat of accelerated deindustrialization in Germany. This would be a far greater (and already immediate) economic threat to them as a nation than them buying cheap gas from Russia. I do think Germany would have been better off to really lean into nuclear energy to facilitate their industrial base as opposed to natural gas from Russia. However, I can also acknowledge that, as a sovereign nation, their decision on energy sourcing should come from their government and electorate, not from threats and pressure from the US, NATO, or anyone else.

An idea I had...

The last time I was in Namibia (2022 right after the Russian invasion) a friend and I were discussing some huge reparations package the German government was putting together to give to Namibia for reconciliation from the Colonial period. Seemed to me like it would end up just being a boondoggle mostly, maybe some housing project gets done, a road gets paved, but probably a lot of local ministers end up with a paycheck and nothing of substance is accomplished.

My thoughts were....

-German mining companies open Uranium mines in Namibia
-Educate and train locals to employ them in these mines, not just as laborers but also as engineers in the future
-Build (German funded, maybe even USAID help) nuclear power plants in Namibia ran on uranium sourced from these Namibian mines, maintained and operated by German trained Namibian engineers
-Buy a bunch of Uranium from Namibia and build nuclear power plants back in Germany for their power grid instead of using Russian natural gas
-Within a couple years turn the whole operation over to Namibia and maintain a system of info sharing and education/ training exchanges

Obviously the Nam govt would have to buy off on this, but it would have accomplished a number of things in my opinion.

1. Started to solve the Germany/ Russia Natural Gas issue
2. Served as an actual reconciliation and reparations gesture, not just cash
3. Potentially disrupted Rosatom, as well as the Chinese and Iranian mining interests in the country
4. Drastically improved electric grids in Namibia
5. Created good jobs and education opportunities for a huge number of Namibians

But alas.... The Russians and Chinese seem to be outmaneuvering the West here. I see Swakop Uranium and others online posting pictures and videos of the workers happy waving Namibian flags and Chinese flags. Not really my place to be mad at them i guess

The West: "Don't you know China is BAD, and Rosatom is RUSSIAN!!!!"

The Workers: "I'm going to buy a car next year, and my kids have food security that i never did, I dont care"

 

[Corey0372]

AfD polling ahead of other German parties? In a sense they do with respect to the individual parties of the current ruling coalition. But the far right party of Germany remains under domestic surveillance. They did win their first mayoral election in a large city - Pirna, Saxony. But Krah and his followers have a bit of a way to go. They are polling at 23% nationally, but until they can build a coalition with someone, then they remain an interesting populist phenomena.

To be clear, what I criticized was Germany entering into an economic relationship with a foreign power whose strategic goals were fundamentally at odds with Germany's role in NATO and Western Europe. And no, I don't care who put together the governing coalition that consummated that relationship. The destruction of Nord Stream, like an addict going cold turkey, severed both that relationship and what I suspect and hope was Germany's sense of safety residing as it has historically at Russia's doorstep.

So in a word, yes, I think I'll stick with my assessment.

I find it interesting that you bring up Ismay, if for no other reason it is good to interact with someone who is well read. But Churchill's admonishment to him has been irrelevant for at least four decades as the US under administrations of both parties (to include Donald Trump) has urged Germany to take a stronger leadership role in Europe and in its own defense. I absolutely believe ending the economic bondage to Russian natural gas is the single most important strategic step Germany could take in exercising that new leadership role. In other words, the opposite of Churchill's guidance to Ismay. Will it cause some economic challenges - of course - but over long term, Germany will be far more free to act in its and the Alliance's critical interests than it ever could under Russian economic blackmail.

Also I enjoy the conversation here too, and I stand by my statement from last week that this place is better than basically any think tank in DC, haha

 

[VertigoBE]

I think it's going to cause more than just economic challenges, I think we're looking at a serious threat of accelerated deindustrialization in Germany. This would be a far greater (and already immediate) economic threat to them as a nation than them buying cheap gas from Russia. I do think Germany would have been better off to really lean into nuclear energy to facilitate their industrial base as opposed to natural gas from Russia. However, I can also acknowledge that, as a sovereign nation, their decision on energy sourcing should come from their government and electorate, not from threats and pressure from the US, NATO, or anyone else.

All the figures are pointing to this no longer being a threat. But actual fact. CWE is deindustrializing at a fast pace. Chemical producers (Basf, Ineos, ...), Steel/metals manufacturers (Thyssen Krupp, Nyrstar, Arcelor Mittal, ...), Tire producers (Michelin), Glass manufacturers (AGC, O-I, Saint-Gobain) in sum all basic industry, producing the big volumes of basic commodities that run an economy are consuming 20-30% less energy than before. This means they are running less than optimum efficiency of 24/7, meaning they cannot be cost-competitive on the worldwide markets. Many of them are closing down operations in some of their sites in Europe.

Those who can are switching production to the US, Latin-America, Asia.

I predict Russian pipeline gas will be flowing to Europe again. No matter the politics, or geo-strategy, it will prove impossible to ignore a very cheap and easily accessible supply of energy, so close to the industrial base that needs it.

On nuclear you have a point. I do not know about Namibia, but in energy production, if you take the nukes off the table, you are not serious. I predicted 5 years ago that the eventual saviours for the CWE industrial base and economy will not be the consumers of bratwurst und kartoffeln, but rather the adepts of vin, fromage et baguette, who might put logic in front of emotion.

V.

 

[mark-hunter]

Those who can are switching production to the US, Latin-America, Asia.

May I add China to the list, as per good american example of doing business?

Member Companies

3M Company A.O. Smith Corporation ABB Inc. Abbott Laboratories Albemarle Corporation Adobe Systems Incorporated Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Agilent Technologies, Inc. AIG Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Airbnb, Inc. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Albright Stonebridge Group Alcoa Inc. All...

www.uschina.org

I predict Russian pipeline gas will be flowing to Europe again. No matter the politics, or geo-strategy, it will prove impossible to ignore a very cheap and easily accessible supply of energy, so close to the industrial base that needs it.

This is my prediction too. Once the normalization process starts, economy will kick in.

 

[rigbymauser]

The most recent article I saw in the Washington Post (November) put the likely blame on the Ukrainians. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/nordstream-bombing-ukraine-chervinsky/ Perhaps you read a newer one?

That said, whomever and however it was accomplished, very few people in the West with any understanding of the situation did anything but quietly applaud. I think @rigbymauser is spot on in his analogy to the British attack on the French Fleet at Mels-el-Kebir in July 1940. France had just fallen, and the French fleet, allied to a newly triumphant Germany, would have dominated the Mediterranean likely making the British position in Egypt untenable. The British gave the commander of the French fleet the option of placing the ships under British control or sailing them to the French West Indies. Darlan equivocated, and the British struck putting the French fleet out of action for the remainder of the war and killing over a thousand French sailors (and recent allies) in the process.

Nord Stream was a deal with the devil. I think even most Germans realized that it represented a "bargain" that along with cheap natural gas, limited Germany's ability to fully exercise its sovereignty - particularly with regard to Russian aspirations. I have no doubt that factored greatly in Putin's strategy for recreating a Soviet-like empire.

Cutting that umbilical cord did not result in near the economic dislocation predicted by many, and witness the recent deployment of a combat brigade to the Baltics, Germany is already exercising a more aggressive role in Europe than at any point since the Second World War. That probably doesn't make France entirely happy, but it is good news for the West's collective national interests,

The notion that the Biden administration could make such a decisive move has never seemed very likely to me. Joe Biden is no Winston Churchill, and the hyper cautiousness Jake Sullivan and his other advisors have shown with regard to every other aspect of the Ukraine conflict, would argue against such a decisive move with regard to Nord Stream.

Eventually, someone will tell the story, and historians will render their judgement. Regardless how it was accomplished, I suspect most of those historians will conclude it was an important waypoint in Europe's economic independence. Whether it was an important waypoint in Ukraine's waits to be seen.

I have no evidence in regards to whom actually was behind, however the rumours goes that the US had a strong interests and had the type of Equipment to pull of such operation in a monitored sea.
I doubt there will be a pipeline Russia in any near future and you`re right it is a waypoint. I am sure behind the scenes some old time warriors of the Cold War was screamimg to EU, Merkel and the ratpack: " Don`t get anything from Russia, Europe can become depended on(leverage). Many here in the EU had their concerns, but our present Statsminister at that time Lars Rasmussen gave consent for one thing and completely ignored warnings. Why?. He wanted to be good friend with Merkel and EU in the hope to get a good political position later within EU. You don`t say "no" to the friends in EU and the consensus to just ride along(always say yes regardsless of crap)

 

[mark-hunter]

You don`t say "no" to the friends in EU and the consensus to just ride along(always say yes regardsless of crap)

Correct. Only europan understand that!

 

[Red Leg]

All the figures are pointing to this no longer being a threat. But actual fact. CWE is deindustrializing at a fast pace. Chemical producers (Basf, Ineos, ...), Steel/metals manufacturers (Thyssen Krupp, Nyrstar, Arcelor Mittal, ...), Tire producers (Michelin), Glass manufacturers (AGC, O-I, Saint-Gobain) in sum all basic industry, producing the big volumes of basic commodities that run an economy are consuming 20-30% less energy than before. This means they are running less than optimum efficiency of 24/7, meaning they cannot be cost-competitive on the worldwide markets. Many of them are closing down operations in some of their sites in Europe.

Those who can are switching production to the US, Latin-America, Asia.

I predict Russian pipeline gas will be flowing to Europe again. No matter the politics, or geo-strategy, it will prove impossible to ignore a very cheap and easily accessible supply of energy, so close to the industrial base that needs it.

On nuclear you have a point. I do not know about Namibia, but in energy production, if you take the nukes off the table, you are not serious. I predicted 5 years ago that the eventual saviours for the CWE industrial base and economy will not be the consumers of bratwurst und kartoffeln, but rather the adepts of vin, fromage et baguette, who might put logic in front of emotion.

V.

I'll simply say that there is a thin but incredibly deep chasm between acquiring a resource cheaply and becoming dependent upon it - particularly if that resource is held by a power with potentially adversarial territorial, military, and economic ambitions.

I too would fully expect a future Russian or perhaps regional government to conclude a natural gas agreement with Western Europe. But it won't be immediately, and hopefully Western Europe and Germany in particular have the foresight to maintain their hard earned diversification. I would also humbly suggest fiscally incentivizing priorities other than decarbonization might be wise.

I think it's going to cause more than just economic challenges, I think we're looking at a serious threat of accelerated deindustrialization in Germany. This would be a far greater (and already immediate) economic threat to them as a nation than them buying cheap gas from Russia. I do think Germany would have been better off to really lean into nuclear energy to facilitate their industrial base as opposed to natural gas from Russia. However, I can also acknowledge that, as a sovereign nation, their decision on energy sourcing should come from their government and electorate, not from threats and pressure from the US, NATO, or anyone else.

National interests drive relations with any nation. With respect to the US, the "America First" crowd actually have it correct even if they mean something entirely different (the few who have any understanding what that may mean at all). Where those interests are shared, they become collective interests.

The Soviet Union, brandishing an expansionist ideology and a huge army looming over a prostrate Europe represented the sort of clear collective threat that spawned the North Atlantic Alliance. The collapse of the Soviet Union obviously called into question the reasons for its continuation. From a purely American perspective, our core interest never really changed which was reasonably free commercial access to Western Europe. The real life blood that maintained the Alliance was the membership of Eastern European states with a very different and far more immediate perception of Russian history.

As we have noted here, some of our non-American members characterize the US as naïve. It is one of those generalizations that sticks because there is an element of truth. I would argue, post war Germany has sometimes been far too worldly and sophisticated for its own good. Whether the German people were fully on board with Merkel's voluntary bondage to Russia was irrelevant from an American national interest perspective. Even Obama, with his own issues of self-perceived intellectual sophistication, expressed deep concerns about European and specifically German dependence on Russian gas - shackles made far more binding by the voluntary closure of Germany's nuclear power production capability.

Those concerns, from an American national interest perspective, had nothing to do with our LNG export capacity, but everything to do with a Russia possessing the capability to truly disrupt the European market. German self-determination in abetting that threat was irrelevant with respect to a core national interest.

As is usual in conflict, early appeasement and strategic miscalculation - I continue to argue the parallels to 1938 are profound - led to the miscalculation by Putin that the West would accede to Russian occupation of Ukraine. And perhaps it would have had the Ukrainian people not exercised their right of franchise with their lives.