Madness

That’s what this seems like to me.

Proposed EU sanctions threaten to shut Russia out of the world financial system.

They just seem to want to dominate and humiliate and provoke Russia. Do they want to start a war or something?

It may of course all just be empty threats, because it’s likely to rebound on Europe.

Stalled recovery leaves Europe defenceless against economic shock from Russia.

It’s already started.

Russian Boomerang Hits UK, Oligarchs Shift Assets From London

As Ukraine implodes again.

Ukraine’s Government Collapses, PM Yatsenyuk Resigns

I don’t have a high opinion of most European (or British) politicians at the best of times, but this particular story illustrated just how petty and small-minded some (all?) of them are:

MH17: Dutch mayor says Russian President Vladimir Putin’s daughter should be deported

During an interview with a radio station on Wednesday morning, Pieter Broertjes, the mayor of Hilversum, northern Holland, said Maria Putin, Vladimir Putin’s daughter, should be removed from the country.

The 29-year-old daughter of Vladmir Putin is said to live in the western village of Voorschoten with her Dutch boyfriend.

FFS, it’s obviously not her fault the plane was shot down!

He later apologised. But that he ever made the suggestion raises troubling questions.

Perhaps it’s the influence of the rapidly approaching 100th anniversary of the outbreak of WW1, now only 11 days away. For as events unfold, I’m wondering if these madmen are working to the exact same timetable.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Madness

  1. waltc says:

    Stop me if and where I’m wrong. (That’s genuine.) Seems to me that the EU tried to woo Ukraine into its orbit by political means. Sure, to crow over Russia and add to its domain but also to offer Ukraine the –possibly dubious –benefits of aligning with the west. Putin’s response, however, was not political, surely not one of diplomacy or suasion, but infiltration and invasion. True, too, that the EU was far too smart for its own good, but nobody died. So I don’t quite see the moral equivalence or that Putin’s the good guy here. True, also, that it’s escalating stupidly but otoh it’s hard to accept that any country, including our own, can just march in and take land from another country without consequences. I think of Sudetenland. Or Czechoslovakia. (Don’t bother telling me about Panama etc. I know and I don’t think any of it’s acceptable.) However, I don’t think anyone’s going to slide into war, or not unless Putin invades a NATO country, which he’s far too smart to do. This’ll just play itself out in a series of hissy-fits.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Walt I see your point. Putin has played the EU game going along with the smoking bans and other such BS. But it seems he may just well be the one who puts a stop to it. Remember the Ukraine ban was but a Joke in that country unless you listen to the Nanny Nazis who went out and created their own propaganda video to show how well it was working if you recall. Made during the EU and CIA paid for protestors that began all this shit!

    • Frank Davis says:

      Stop me if and where I’m wrong. … Seems to me that the EU tried to woo Ukraine into its orbit by political means.

      That’s where you’re wrong. If the EU had done that, and used legitimate political means, it would have waited for the Ukrainian people to vote to enter the EU, and install a pro-EU government. It didn’t do that. It instead helped foment revolt against the elected pro-Russian government, and succeeded in overthrowing that government. Quite a few people were killed in Kiev in the process. It was not a bloodless revolution.

      Putin’s response, however, was not political, surely not one of diplomacy or suasion, but infiltration and invasion.

      Putin’s swift response (within days) was to secure the Black Sea port of Sevastapol, shared by the Russian and Ukrainian Black Sea fleets. Practically, this meant securing the entire Crimea. And this was done in the space of a week or two, apparently entirely bloodlessly. Putin didn’t need to infiltrate or invade, because his fleet was already installed in Sevastopol. And he appears to have used diplomacy to secure the remainder of the Crimea. And conducted a referendum after the event.

      So I don’t quite see the moral equivalence or that Putin’s the good guy here.

      The EU (and US) illegitimately fomented the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government. Putin responded by illegitimately annexing Crimea days later. The two acts are more or less exactly morally equivalent, except that quite a few people died in the streets of Kiev (which gives Putin a slight moral advantage). Putin is not the good guy here. But neither is he the bad guy.

      it’s escalating stupidly but otoh it’s hard to accept that any country, including our own, can just march in and take land from another country without consequences. I think of Sudetenland. Or Czechoslovakia.

      Since the twin coups some months ago, there has remained the problem that much of eastern Ukraine is ethnically Russian and Russian speaking. Rather unsurprisingly, these ethnic Russians take Russia’s side, and want to secede from Ukraine. And that’s why the region is in revolt against Kiev. And Putin has not invaded eastern Ukraine – although he’s almost certainly helping arm the secessionists. So it’s not yet the Sudetenland.

      I don’t think anyone’s going to slide into war, or not unless Putin invades a NATO country, which he’s far too smart to do.

      Putin is not going to invade any NATO country. Everything he has done has been done to secure Russian military priorities (annexing the Crimea in order to preserve his Black Sea fleet), and supporting ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

      It’s not Putin who wants war. If anything it’s the EU/US that wants war, as it backs Russia into a corner. Or, to be more precise, it’s John McCain and Hillary Clinton who want war -or at very least the humiliation and reduction of Russia. Most EU leaders don’t want war, because they are dependent on Russian gas and Russian trade. So they’re being pretty half-hearted about sanctions.

      This’ll just play itself out in a series of hissy-fits.

      I sincerely hope it does. The best solution would be for pro-Russian eastern Ukraine to secede from pro-European western Ukraine, using legitimate political methods. But there seems at present to be no possibility of this, particularly after MH17. And so the whole thing remains extremely unstable and dangerous, in ways that grimly reflect what happened 100 years ago.

      • Frank Davis says:

        MH17: Australia ready to send police to secure crash site
        Tony Abbott says 90 police officers are ready to be deployed to eastern Ukraine site where Malaysia Airlines plane was downed

        This will crank up the tensions even higher. It will mean a new military presence in eastern Ukraine, and an enhanced likelihood of a new flashpoint (“Peacekeepers gunned down in eastern Ukrainian gunfight”). Both Kiev and rebels have agreed to a ceasefire in the locality of the MH17 wreckage, so what’s the point of introducing this dangerous new military presence (apart from cranking up tensions even higher)?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          agreed and its simple little steps that finally lead to a single small event blowing the whole damned thing into ww3

  2. Some other Tom says:

    “…For as events unfold, I’m wondering if these madmen are working to the exact same timetable…”

    Sure seems like it. It’s the one and only thing that governments truly excel at; making wars, drumming up the need for a new war or two or four… The bigger a government gets, the bigger the wars become…

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    The only thing that ended Germanys depression was Hitlers armaments rebuilding plan and against the treaty of Versailles. In America it was WW2 that pretty well ended it as they say.

    They’ve printed so much money all over the world Id guess only a good old fashioned mega war will turn the world economy around. Id just as soon have the Depression as the destruction and death such a war would bring. No doubt my friends here on Franks Blog would be right in the thick of it in the end.

  4. C777 says:

    “Do they want to start a war or something”?
    Yes they do.
    BRICS and the coming fall of the Petrodollar once the Renminbi becomes the reserve currency of the BRICS its economic ruin for the US and they know it.

    What will happen to the US if they lose the Dollar as the Worlds reserve currency?
    1. massive inflation,
    2. high interest rates on mortgages and cars,
    3. substantial increases in the cost of food, clothing and gasoline and
    4. a much harder time financing its debt.

    Or in other words a break up of the union, look how polarised US society is becoming.
    They “aint” gonna let that happen without a fight.

    http://www.munknee.com/shift-from-u-s-dollar-as-world-reserve-currency-underway-what-will-this-mean-for-america/

    This may be worth a read…..

    http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Fallout-Shelter

  5. Rose says:

    The one to blame is the trigger happy halfwit who targetted a civilian plane mistaking it for a military one.
    No one can have possibly wanted that to happen.

    To deliberately misinterpret such a tragic situation and start throwing blame around before a proper inquiry has been held, is childish and reflects very badly on our political leaders.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Rose when an area has been determined to HOSTILE airspace. The answer was already told. Somebody sent that plane into a known hostile airspace so it would be shotdown.

      It wasn’t the Russians who have control over air traffic and flight plans.

      Whomever made that decision at the top is guilty of trying to create a LUSITANIA MOMENT IN HISTORY.

      • Rose says:

        Only for American airlines, Harley.
        19 July 2014

        “Until the loss of MH17, aviation authorities had ordered a no-fly zone over eastern Ukraine – but only up to 32,000ft, known as Flight Level 320. The 777’s crew had asked to fly at 35,000ft over Ukraine, but were assigned 33,000ft – the lowest permissible altitude in the area.”
        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-why-planes-fly-over-warzones-9615967.html

        “The British Civil Aviation Authority had warned operators to take caution in the Donetsk area but Eurocontrol, the EU authority, and the International Civil Aviation Organisation had not imposed a ban on flying through the zone.”

        ‘Malaysia Airlines, along with many other airlines, has been flying in this airspace, which was declared safe by ICAO and IATA.

        He added: ‘150 airlines each day were using the same air corridor.’
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698579/Two-cabin-crew-refused-fly-doomed-plane-war-zone-safety-fears-Senior-pilots-cabin-crew-flagged-concerns-flight-path-weeks-tragedy.html

        Coverage on 24 hour BBC news was constant that day and you heard each scrap of information as it came in.

        “An hour before news of the crash, Igor Strelkov reportedly wrote on Vkontakte, a popular Russian social media website, “In the district of Torez an An-26 was just shot down. It crashed somewhere near the Progress mine. We warned them not to fly in our skies.”

        The message was sent about 30 minutes after the plane is believed to have gone down. The post was later deleted and another post went up, blaming Ukrainian government forces for shooting down the passenger plane.”
        http: //news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/17/malaysian-airlines-mh17-reported-crashed-just-after-rebel-leader-boasted-of-shooting-down-plane-we-warned-them-not-to-fly-in-our-skies/

        “Meanwhile, a Ukrainian newspaper published the transcript of a phone call reportedly intercepted by Ukraine’s security services where rebels are heard discussing finding MH17’s wreckage.

        Militants nicknamed ‘Major’ and ‘Greek’ were recorded speaking as ‘Major’ inspected the crash site and found only ‘civilian items’.”
        http: //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696389/That-blast-look-smoke-Sick-boast-laughing-rebels-saw-MH17-hit-missile-hours-leader-boasted-We-warned-not-fly-sky.html

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Then why that one single plane………………As far as the flight level of 35,000 feet that would have put them at the maximum altitude to possibly evade should launched missles.

          Which have an effective rabge of about 6-7 miles the last time I checked JANES website on weaponry systems.

          What they were hit with was a track mounted mobile ground to air missle system not sure the exact system though. There are many Russian made systems deployed in that theatre.

          But my point here is with many of these track mounted missle systems even 80,000 feet wouldn’t save them without ECCM measures. Electronic counter counter measures. ie chaff and jamming pods.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Btw I worked at electronic warfare for 7 years on Russian BLACK THREATS

        • Rose says:

          Never under estimate human stupidity.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Or creating a world event to justify further sanctions and even a war.

      • jaxthefirst says:

        Thank you, Harley. From the outset, I’ve been very suspicious about Ukraine’s refusal to release the tapes of the last conversation between MH17 and their own air traffic control – the one thing, following an air crash, which is immediately available in order to ascertain what might have gone wrong, even before the black boxes are located, bodies removed or wreckage found for air crash investigators to take a look at. But would they release those tapes? Surprisingly, no. Now, I wonder why not? Suspicious, n’est pas?

        It’s also pertinent, in my view, that the black boxes (now in the UK, I understand) were confirmed as not having been tampered with after their short stay in Moscow. That, too, tends to indicate some kind of Ukrainian wrongdoing. Why would the Russians need to tamper with a black box which they either strongly suspected, or knew, contained the highly incriminating “other end” of a conversation that the Ukrainians have been so reluctant for the world to hear?

        Given the self-serving and uncaring nature of top politicians pretty much everywhere, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the top brass in Ukraine – knowing full well that the eastern portion of their territory was awash with revolutionaries, armed courtesy of a technologically-advanced military nation like Russia – quietly reassured their air traffic control people that “It’s fine to let civilian aircraft over the area – the insurgents aren’t targeting those,” whilst knowing all the time that in fact that there was a very high chance that some trigger-happy, not-professionally-trained insurgent would mistake a civilian aircraft for a military one if it was far enough away. They may not have actively encouraged or manipulated such a tragedy, but it doesn’t seem out of the question that they conveniently “let it happen,” knowing full well that in the scramble amongst the international community for someone to blame, it would very likely be that traditional bad boy, Russia, who would get it in the neck. As anticipated, the fact that Russia doesn’t command the insurgents, and therefore can’t really be accountable for what they do with their weapons seems to have been conveniently ignored by the western press. How very handy their sloppiness has been for Ukraine!

        Now, I’m no fan of Putin’s by a long shot. I think he’s a vain, egotistical, born-again anti-smoker with Little Man Syndrome and he’s a Champagne Socialist to boot. But in this instance I think the EU is joining the chorus of voices who are trying their damnedest to make him the scapegoat and make him carry the can on the basis of some fairly tenuous links to a truly heinous action, simply because they don’t want to blame the other side, i.e. Ukraine, because they have ambitious for Ukraine as their own next “conquest.” But Putin’s not someone who bullies well – particularly when, at a stroke, he could cripple huge swathes of Europe just by depriving them of a large proportion of their energy. He knows it and, for all their mealy-mouthed, faux big-talk, so does the EU. But I for one hope that they keep on prodding this one, like an irritating gnat in the bedroom. A couple of weeks without electricity, gas or petrol would be just the “swot” that Germany and France need right now to bring them down a peg or two and make them realise just how insignificant and easily-ignored they and their precious EU really are on the world stage …

  6. beobrigitte says:

    Proposed EU sanctions threaten to shut Russia out of the world financial system.

    They just seem to want to dominate and humiliate and provoke Russia. Do they want to start a war or something?

    I might be wrong, but, WHO is currently the main supplier of Europe’s gas?
    (Reuters) – The European Union aims to diversify away from Russian natural gas supplies, yet Reuters research indicates the EU’s biggest provider a decade from now could easily still be Russia.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/18/uk-energy-gas-europe-analysis-idUKBRE96H0SE20130718

    Stalled recovery leaves Europe defenceless against economic shock from Russia.

    It’s already started.

    Russian Boomerang Hits UK, Oligarchs Shift Assets From London

    As Ukraine implodes again.

    Ukraine’s Government Collapses, PM Yatsenyuk Resigns

    Frank already pointed out that:
    It [the EU] instead helped foment revolt against the elected pro-Russian government, and succeeded in overthrowing that government. Quite a few people were killed in Kiev in the process. It was not a bloodless revolution.

    The failed attempt to annexe the Ukraine along with the MH17 disaster (some nitwit mistaking a passenger plane for a military one and shooting it down) might well be the trigger for more than we can handle.
    With a little “Galgenhumor” (?gallows humour) we might observe that our political leadership will continue to pursue “the war on smokers”; “the war on alcohol”; “the war on obesity” etc. etc. etc. when all hell breaks lose.
    I don’t believe we have ever had that many fronts to fight on at the same time. It’s a side effect of “divide and rule”.

    With respect to the MH17 disaster, I fully agree with Rose.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    OS > harleyrider1989 • 16 hours ago

    So I ask you? What would be an fair solution to this debate? Let people smoke any place they want too and let the non-smokers deal with it or leave the establishment? Have smoking establishments and non-smoking establishments? I would really like to know what could possibly be done to appease both sides. It is not at all fair for you not to be able to smoke when and where you want. It is also not fair for non-smokers to have to be in the presents of smokers.
    Where is the mutual ground?

    harleyrider1989 > OS • 15 minutes ago

    The problem is a non-problem to begin with. Its a problem created by Prohibitionists and Big Pharma wanting to make big profits of selling patches and gums. The ACS makes 12 million a year pushing the patch sells thru the quitlines they operate nationwide.

    Non-smokers don’t care about smoking one way or another,anti-smokers hate smoking period and they are such a small clique of people they don’t even count,except they are or were well financed via Federal Grants and Big Pharma Grants besides stealing money from the MSA to finance their war on smokers.

    They don’t want any compromise they want total Prohibition of tobacco period and like before then they will want total prohibition of Alcohol,then likely total prohibition of obese people from being seen in public…………….There is no end to the targets these folks have in mind. They in effect will even outlaw themselves to satisfy this control everything attitude the hardcore prohibitionists have.

    A simple look at history shows us these people are Fanatics

    Here is them 80 years ago:

    Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

    1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

    1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

    1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

    1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

    1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

    1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

    ………………………

    Heres them today:

    A little on the “slippery slope” that apparently – according to the antismoking fanatics – doesn’t exist.

    The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.

    Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
    Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

    While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors.

    Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of dilute smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, “innocent” nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entranceways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entranceways.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses, and parks and beaches.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.
    Then they ONLY wanted bans in backyards.

    On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA, where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) rather than allow them to have a cigarette.

    At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s. They have prostituted their medical authority to chase ideology. All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO and that most governments are now signed-up to.

    This has all happened in just 20 years. If it was mentioned 20 years ago, or even 10 or 5 years ago, that smokers would be denied employment and housing, and smoking bans in parks and beaches, it would have been laughed at as “crazed thinking”. Yet here we are. Much of it has happened before and it has all been intentional, planned decades ago. We just don’t learn or we’re going to have to learn the very hard way because it has to do with far, far more than just smoking.

    …………………..

    Now do you think there will ever be compromise with Fanatics…………

    If there was compromise it would have ended with short haul 2 hour flights!

    Today they want complete 400 mile long Beaches completely TOBACCO FREE

    Oregon Proposes Ban On Smoking Along Its Coastline

    News

    Search MPR. Oregon Proposes Ban On Smoking Along Its Coastline. News & Features NPR · Jul 25, 2014. Listen Story audio. 28sec. Copyright 2014 …

    There will never be any compromise and all that is going to happen is the entire anti-tobacco crusade will fall flat on its sniveling nose just like it did last time fanatics and zealots got control of government and science.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Sorry Frank delete one of them please

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.