Homicide rate in China is about 10% of the US rate, last I checked. Honestly I don’t think there are all that many countries you would need to avoid over safety concerns as a tourist.
There were 20 million people practicing Falun Gong, then the Chinese government decided they may become a threat. The security police went city by city arresting people, any persons who organised these keep fit classes were tortured. Those executed in prison have their organs sold to help pay for the prison system. China’s dictators are now so powerful they feel they can murder without any sanction.
History shows when the international community fails to stop a government brutalising its own people it eventually attacks other countries also.
Those who go to countries like China regardless of the torture faced by human beings are going to find they don’t have many holidays left.
Awaiting the articles that explain why we must never go to X country because they don’t legally allow violent cults and that makes them a geopolitical enemy (conveniently).
Sure hope you never visit the United States because, hoo boy, do they embarrass the Chinese when it comes to atrocities against their fellow man.
Or the UK, for that matter. Actually, any imperialist nation that had colonies pre-1900 now I think about it.
I’m sure you’ll be as diligent in your application of new learning about human abuses now that you’ve discovered America really hates China beating it on the world stage in power projection and economic clout. No Soviets to fill that role, but where Russia and the Slavs failed, the Asiatic hordes in the East will succeed.
And there’s nothing the Anglo world can do about it. Can’t wait for Trump to put tariffs on China and implode his own economy.
Actually, any imperialist nation that had colonies pre-1900 now I think about it.
Including the Qing of course. Their genocidal policies e.g towards the Mongols contributed almost as much to the emptying out of Central Asia as Russia’s.
But I agree about Falungong. They are part heirs to a long tradition of nutty Buddhist sects like the Yellow Turbans, who overthrew the Mongol Yuan Dynasty and call themselves Ming (enlightened) and the Red Turbans of the Boxer rebellion, who thought they they would be immune to Western bullets if they did the right dances. And let’s not forget Taiping, whose Baptist raised leader claimed to be the reincarnation of Buddha and Jesus Christ, and started what may be history’s bloodiest war.
When I was working for a Taiwanese company in the 90s I met a few engineers who believed in Falungong. They believed the leaders could levitate and go for months without eating.
Thanks Alim. The Taiping Rebellion, by the “Great Peace Heavenly Kingdom Movement”, with 20-30 million casualties (massacres by both sides), was news to me. Our species’ capacity for cruelty and violence is only surpassed (well, hopefully matched at least) by our capacity for cooperation and altruism.
I remember seeing a lot of them protesting in towns near me and didn’t really pay too much attention to them until someone raised some of the points I then thought were suspect. Looked into them and, lol, yep, they’re radicals. They’d be the ones starting an Asian Waco incident or something.
Haha your friends hate foreigners. Doesn’t seem a topic of general interest. They may all be in your head anyway.
There are a dozen or two countries that we would probably all erase from any travel list.
But also within all countries and cities are various places where anyone is vulnerable to violence.
These are places that you do not want to drive through and risk getting a flat tire.
The FAO [Global] Food Price Index (FFPI) averaged 127.5 points in November 2024, up 0.5 percent from the October level and reaching its highest value since April 2023…
The FFPI tracks 24 agricultural commodities in five catagories: meat, dairy, cereals, vegetable oils, and sugar; cocoa not included.
Increases were in seed oils and dairy.
“as we know, or should have figured out by now, behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Not to mention a scrolling tapestry of lies, corruption, and the daily pillaging of the general public.”
Tracked by US Navy for 2 weeks, caught on AEGIS radar, corroborated visuals. Appeared at the pilots check point (CAT? point) before the pilot did. On radar.
“The Russians have been very successful in promoting their propaganda in Western democracies and one of their biggest lies is the claim that NATO promised never to expand and enlarge after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is a lie. No promise was made and NATO expansion started in response to Russian aggression, not the other way around.”
“@zawrat26
9 hours ago
Jake, I was born and lived for 20 some years in one of those countries, satellites of USSR. I think you got it 100%!!!. This is probably the best run through the history of Russian oppression, lies, deception, manipulation, genocide committed on other nations, and all accurate and squeezed into about 30 minutes. I am truly impressed with your job. Americans that don’t know or still have some doubts about Russia and the war in Ukraine, should watch this instead of listening to some BS on social media, often presented by people paid by Kremlin. Thank you Jake.”
There was a promise made by a German Foreign Minister and others with full knowledge of the US around the time of discussions for the reunification of Germany.
“Myth:
NATO promised Russia it would not enlarge after the Cold War
FACT
The myth that there was a promise by Western leaders not to allow new members to join has been circulating for many years, and is actively used in disinformation campaigns by the Kremlin since the start of the Russian war against Ukraine.
While records show that in the initial stages of discussions about German reunification, US Secretary of State James Baker and his West German counterpart, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, floated such an idea with each other and with Soviet leaders in 1990, but diplomatic negotiations quickly moved on and the idea was dropped.
NATO’s founding treaty – signed in 1949 by the 12 original members and by every country that has joined since – includes a clear provision that opens NATO’s door to “any other European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.” This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia ever included provisions that NATO cannot take on new members. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies.
Describing NATO’s open door policy as “expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not seek out new members or aim to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision first for those countries that wish to join. It is then for NATO Allies to consider the application.”
“According to several news reports and memoirs of politicians, in 1990, during negotiations about German unification, the administration of then-US President George H.W. Bush made a ‘categorical assurance’ to the then-President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev: If Gorbachev agreed that a reunified Germany was part of NATO, then NATO would not enlarge further east to incorporate the Warsaw Pact countries in the alliance. The rationale was to allow for ‘a non-aligned buffer zone’ between the Soviet border and that of the NATO states.[18] After the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, Gorbachev denied those claims and stated that the promise from NATO not to enlarge eastward is a myth.”
Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3]
This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.
The “Tutzing formula” immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east. The Soviets would need much more time to work with their domestic opinion (and financial aid from the West Germans) before formally signing the deal in September 1990.
The conversations before Kohl’s assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries, and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” (See Document 2)
Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev.
Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)
Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8)
Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” (See Document 9) After this meeting, Kohl could hardly contain his excitement at Gorbachev’s agreement in principle for German unification and, as part of the Helsinki formula that states choose their own alliances, so Germany could choose NATO. Kohl described in his memoirs walking all night around Moscow – but still understanding there was a price still to pay.
All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas Hurd, on April 11, 1990. At this point, the East Germans had voted overwhelmingly for the deutschmark and for rapid unification, in the March 18 elections in which Kohl had surprised almost all observers with a real victory. Kohl’s analyses (first explained to Bush on December 3, 1989) that the GDR’s collapse would open all possibilities, that he had to run to get to the head of the train, that he needed U.S. backing, that unification could happen faster than anyone thought possible – all turned out to be correct. Monetary union would proceed as early as July and the assurances about security kept coming. Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain clearly “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” (See Document 15)
The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: “I used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” (See Document 17)
Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his “nine points,” which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, “Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you.” (See Document 18)
“memos”- Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty is not a “memo”. In place before your “memos” and after.
“In 1997, NATO and Russia signed the Russia–NATO Founding Act, which stated that each country had a sovereign right to seek alliances.[14] NATO ended up expanding to sixteen Eastern countries (apart from the GDR in 1990): Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; North Macedonia in 2020; Finland in 2023; and Sweden in 2024, five of them on the border with Russia.”
The NATO “Open Door Policy” refers to the principle enshrined in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that any European country that can contribute to the security of the North Atlantic region can apply to join NATO, essentially allowing any eligible country to seek membership in the alliance; however, decisions on membership are made by consensus among all NATO members and require the applicant to meet certain political, military, and economic criteria.
NATO’s deployments are a threat to Russia
FACT
Before Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine in 2014, there was no permanent deployment of multinational NATO troops in the eastern part of the Alliance.
NATO tries to push Europe into a war with Russia
FACT
Russia started its war against Ukraine without being threatened by Ukraine or any other country in Europe. It illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and proceeded to seize territory in Donetsk and Luhansk. And in 2022, with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War 2.
The US and other Nato members made a promise to the USSR which was broken. That remains a fact.
HuntingtonBeach & Dennis
Thank you for the detailed back and forth on this topic.
If this is the whole story then it seems clear that regardless of any verbal discussions, there were no formal agreements between states to preclude NATO expansion. In fact, the reverse appears to be true from what HB cites.
Verbal reassurances aren’t diplomatic protocol. If Gorby would have asked for it in writing then the answer would have been No.
Well, it was Russia who broke the physical peace in Europe, not NATO countries or Finland or Ukraine or Latvia, etc.
And therefore I am in favor of having the residual fragment of Ukraine granted membership.
And Belarus when/if they get a democratic government.
Why does it matter? Going back in history you had brilliant engineers telling the Emperor of Rome of how to do road constructions in the most efficient way. The answer was to give the main engineer a death sentence, because the efficiency meant more unemployed people to please. “Was it not enough with bread and circus?” The brutal reality of history…
If Empire ambitions are to prevail innovation could go way down. In the end trust matters, for better or for worse.
What the author fails to address is the fact that failure to make attempts at energy adaptation is locking in failure due to high energy cost, and climate disruption.
There is no good choice for the continent that is so far into population overshoot.
To be reliant on imported fossil fuel (and food) is a game that will only last just so long.
The answer to the main question is partly, and not more than that. The DNV report for 2024 is out, and it has some main stream answers as well (the recent reports are blocked so I am not giving any links, but there are some summaries around).
It is not that difficult to argue against some of your points.
I remember G. Kaplan talking about “going first”. That probably meant at the time having the first mover advantage of going into crisis mode. And in that way get a lot of sympathy and also the adoptation work being better overall. To what purpose some might wonder – maybe to combat the unrealistic future.
The least reliant country in the world when it comes to global trade is Russia, and they are in Empire mode.
The population issue is a hot potato, I will leave it at that for now.
My main point is that Europe (and everyone else) likely cannot afford to do all things it will take to wean off of fossil fuel as supplies deplete and the earth heats up…in transport , industry, security, food production and residential sector.
And just as important…it will become extremely expensive if they don’t try to as hard they can.
WORLD COAL DEMAND AND EXPORTS SET FOR NEW RECORD HIGHS IN 2024
The world’s consumption and exports of thermal coal are expected to rise this year from 2023 to hit fresh record-highs, according to export and power generation data cited by Reuters columnist Gavin Maguire. Coal-fired electricity generation has increased so far this year by 2% compared to 2023, to hit new highs as power demand in emerging markets grows. Coal power emissions are also set to rise to a record high in 2024.
AI PREDICTS EARTH’S PEAK WARMING: HOTTEST YEARS WILL LIKELY SHATTER RECENT RECORDS
Researchers have found that the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is now almost certainly out of reach. The results, published Dec. 10 in Geophysical Research Letters, suggest the hottest years ahead will very likely shatter existing heat records. There is a 50% chance, the authors reported, that global warming will breach 2 degrees Celsius even if humanity meets current goals of rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by the 2050s.
One problem is the US is that there is no conflict between the payers — the insurance companies — and the providers. Instead, the insurers screw the insured. Banning that would force insurers to apply pressure to providers to bring prices down.
It’s a fundamental market failure that money can’t fix. Buyers and sellers have to negotiate prices, otherwise markets don’t work.
Another problem is that providers are paid to treat patients, not to cure patients. Obamacare made some attempts to deal with this problem, but it is still there.
SINK TO SOURCE: ARCTIC IS NOW EMITTING MORE CARBON THAN IT ABSORBS
After locking carbon dioxide in its frozen soil for millennia, the Arctic tundra is undergoing a dramatic transformation, driven by frequent wildfires that are turning it into a net source of carbon dioxide emissions. This stark shift is detailed in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 2024 Arctic Report Card, which revealed that annual surface air temperatures in the Arctic this year were the second-warmest on record since 1900.
-General Electric
-General Motors
-Meta
-Tesla
-T-Mobile
…had a combined $70 billion in profits last year. Yet they paid an effective average tax rate of just 6.9%. Meanwhile, the typical American family pays a tax rate of 13.6%.
The argument for low corporate taxes is that shareholders pay taxes on dividends and capital gains, for wealthy shareholders this marginal tax rate is about 23.8% when the net investment income tax (3.8%) is added to the dividend and long term capital gains tax rate for high income families (20%). I think their should be no special treatment for dividends and long term capital gains, it is just a tax break for wealthy families. Maybe corporate tax rates could be reduced to zero for publicly traded companies in exchange for this change in the tax code.
We had a discussion with friends regarding which countries we would not visit due to crime, government brutality lack of decent healthcare etc.
Russia and China are two obvious examples along with the Middle East and most of Africa and South America.
I would say the world is getting much worse.
Homicide rate in China is about 10% of the US rate, last I checked. Honestly I don’t think there are all that many countries you would need to avoid over safety concerns as a tourist.
Some guy
We were also considering not wanting to finance brutal governments.
https://en.minghui.org/cc/53/
https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2023/02/22/the-religious-persecution-of-falun-gong-practitioners-in-china/
There were 20 million people practicing Falun Gong, then the Chinese government decided they may become a threat. The security police went city by city arresting people, any persons who organised these keep fit classes were tortured. Those executed in prison have their organs sold to help pay for the prison system. China’s dictators are now so powerful they feel they can murder without any sanction.
History shows when the international community fails to stop a government brutalising its own people it eventually attacks other countries also.
Those who go to countries like China regardless of the torture faced by human beings are going to find they don’t have many holidays left.
Man, you’re living in some sort of American Rambo fantasy.
The United States is one of the most brutal societies on the planet to its own people, and to the world as well, and it’s not even close.
SGP99
Or should I say Chinese false information agent.
I guess all the members of the EU Parliament who condemned the China murdering government for these tortures and organ harvesting are all wrong.
Oh, the installed puppets of the US vassal states support American thinking?
Please, do go on.
Not going to China because of the Falun Gong crackdown is like not going to Disneyland because America hates Al-Qaeda.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-abc-is-right-that-falun-gong-teachings-are-dangerous/12538058
Awaiting the articles that explain why we must never go to X country because they don’t legally allow violent cults and that makes them a geopolitical enemy (conveniently).
Sure hope you never visit the United States because, hoo boy, do they embarrass the Chinese when it comes to atrocities against their fellow man.
Or the UK, for that matter. Actually, any imperialist nation that had colonies pre-1900 now I think about it.
I’m sure you’ll be as diligent in your application of new learning about human abuses now that you’ve discovered America really hates China beating it on the world stage in power projection and economic clout. No Soviets to fill that role, but where Russia and the Slavs failed, the Asiatic hordes in the East will succeed.
And there’s nothing the Anglo world can do about it. Can’t wait for Trump to put tariffs on China and implode his own economy.
Actually, any imperialist nation that had colonies pre-1900 now I think about it.
Including the Qing of course. Their genocidal policies e.g towards the Mongols contributed almost as much to the emptying out of Central Asia as Russia’s.
But I agree about Falungong. They are part heirs to a long tradition of nutty Buddhist sects like the Yellow Turbans, who overthrew the Mongol Yuan Dynasty and call themselves Ming (enlightened) and the Red Turbans of the Boxer rebellion, who thought they they would be immune to Western bullets if they did the right dances. And let’s not forget Taiping, whose Baptist raised leader claimed to be the reincarnation of Buddha and Jesus Christ, and started what may be history’s bloodiest war.
When I was working for a Taiwanese company in the 90s I met a few engineers who believed in Falungong. They believed the leaders could levitate and go for months without eating.
Thanks Alim. The Taiping Rebellion, by the “Great Peace Heavenly Kingdom Movement”, with 20-30 million casualties (massacres by both sides), was news to me. Our species’ capacity for cruelty and violence is only surpassed (well, hopefully matched at least) by our capacity for cooperation and altruism.
I remember seeing a lot of them protesting in towns near me and didn’t really pay too much attention to them until someone raised some of the points I then thought were suspect. Looked into them and, lol, yep, they’re radicals. They’d be the ones starting an Asian Waco incident or something.
Haha your friends hate foreigners. Doesn’t seem a topic of general interest. They may all be in your head anyway.
Singapore is a brilliant case study of this.
You can leave your wallet stuffed with cash on the park bench outside your apartment and come back and pick it up the next day.
Crime is not tolerated there, except for maybe government corruption and white collar.
ZERO tolerance for violence or drugs.
How many Singaporeans have won a Nobel Prize?
None
Danish? Of similar size
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Danish_Nobel_laureates
Cool. And?
United States.
There are a dozen or two countries that we would probably all erase from any travel list.
But also within all countries and cities are various places where anyone is vulnerable to violence.
These are places that you do not want to drive through and risk getting a flat tire.
I don’t use this, but there are navigation apps that help you avoid dangerous areas by plotting crime stats-
https://springwise.com/navigation-app-zones-off-high-crime-areas/
Did USA make the list?
The FAO [Global] Food Price Index (FFPI) averaged 127.5 points in November 2024, up 0.5 percent from the October level and reaching its highest value since April 2023…
I am guessing most of that gain has come from cocoa prices.
The FFPI tracks 24 agricultural commodities in five catagories: meat, dairy, cereals, vegetable oils, and sugar; cocoa not included.
Increases were in seed oils and dairy.
https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/
Thanks for that correction Bob.
Once Syria is all liberated or whatever the fuck is going on there, it will just be in time for a new Arab Spring because food becomes unaffordable.
Good article on a part of the world that doesn’t get that much attention:
https://www.theeditors.com/p/prepare-for-the-disintegration-of-syria-and-rise-of-imperial-turkey-david-wurmser-erdogan-russia-us-strategy-middle-east
Rgds
https://youtu.be/zSff0pwc1Xc
I don’t know why YouTube served this up to me but it is insane. The comments are insaner.
“Oil isn’t fossil fuel, it’s a natural mineral that will never run out.”
Actually impressed abiotic stuff isn’t more common, to be frank. There are dumber takes on material reality out there already.
But the world is – in fact – flat.
Is that a military turned banker stating that all scientists are wrong?
“as we know, or should have figured out by now, behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Not to mention a scrolling tapestry of lies, corruption, and the daily pillaging of the general public.”
Occasionally reality sneaks in—
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnIG-i2WCfg
Just for entertainment.
The most credible UFO sighting in history.
Tracked by US Navy for 2 weeks, caught on AEGIS radar, corroborated visuals. Appeared at the pilots check point (CAT? point) before the pilot did. On radar.
Pilot walks thru film of the object.
This was debunked ages ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus&t=6s
It’s actually a really boringly straightforward explanation too.
“Just for entertainment.”
Interesting discussion of the possible repercussions of recent events in Syria on Russia’s position in Africa.
https://behindthefront.substack.com/p/the-role-of-syria-in-russias-africa
I wonder if this is it for Assad. Like, for real this time, given he’s been written off many times in the past and come back from it. Time will tell.
Not very many times. And by whom? What are you even talking about? Maybe you are confusing him with his father, or just inventing random stuff.
Anyway he isn’t in Damascus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gxssycoxz0
NATO Expansion is a LIE
“The Russians have been very successful in promoting their propaganda in Western democracies and one of their biggest lies is the claim that NATO promised never to expand and enlarge after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is a lie. No promise was made and NATO expansion started in response to Russian aggression, not the other way around.”
“@zawrat26
9 hours ago
Jake, I was born and lived for 20 some years in one of those countries, satellites of USSR. I think you got it 100%!!!. This is probably the best run through the history of Russian oppression, lies, deception, manipulation, genocide committed on other nations, and all accurate and squeezed into about 30 minutes. I am truly impressed with your job. Americans that don’t know or still have some doubts about Russia and the war in Ukraine, should watch this instead of listening to some BS on social media, often presented by people paid by Kremlin. Thank you Jake.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gxssycoxz0
Huntingtonbeach,
There was a promise made by a German Foreign Minister and others with full knowledge of the US around the time of discussions for the reunification of Germany.
See for example
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
There were indeed assurances given to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand to the East of the new reunified German State.
“Myth:
NATO promised Russia it would not enlarge after the Cold War
FACT
The myth that there was a promise by Western leaders not to allow new members to join has been circulating for many years, and is actively used in disinformation campaigns by the Kremlin since the start of the Russian war against Ukraine.
While records show that in the initial stages of discussions about German reunification, US Secretary of State James Baker and his West German counterpart, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, floated such an idea with each other and with Soviet leaders in 1990, but diplomatic negotiations quickly moved on and the idea was dropped.
NATO’s founding treaty – signed in 1949 by the 12 original members and by every country that has joined since – includes a clear provision that opens NATO’s door to “any other European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.” This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia ever included provisions that NATO cannot take on new members. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies.
Describing NATO’s open door policy as “expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not seek out new members or aim to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision first for those countries that wish to join. It is then for NATO Allies to consider the application.”
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm
“According to several news reports and memoirs of politicians, in 1990, during negotiations about German unification, the administration of then-US President George H.W. Bush made a ‘categorical assurance’ to the then-President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev: If Gorbachev agreed that a reunified Germany was part of NATO, then NATO would not enlarge further east to incorporate the Warsaw Pact countries in the alliance. The rationale was to allow for ‘a non-aligned buffer zone’ between the Soviet border and that of the NATO states.[18] After the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, Gorbachev denied those claims and stated that the promise from NATO not to enlarge eastward is a myth.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–NATO_relations#Founding_Act
Huntingtonbeach,
The memos found from historical research suggest otherwise. Your post is a revision of history by the West.
From link below
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3]
This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.
The “Tutzing formula” immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east. The Soviets would need much more time to work with their domestic opinion (and financial aid from the West Germans) before formally signing the deal in September 1990.
The conversations before Kohl’s assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries, and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” (See Document 2)
Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev.
Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)
Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8)
Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” (See Document 9) After this meeting, Kohl could hardly contain his excitement at Gorbachev’s agreement in principle for German unification and, as part of the Helsinki formula that states choose their own alliances, so Germany could choose NATO. Kohl described in his memoirs walking all night around Moscow – but still understanding there was a price still to pay.
All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas Hurd, on April 11, 1990. At this point, the East Germans had voted overwhelmingly for the deutschmark and for rapid unification, in the March 18 elections in which Kohl had surprised almost all observers with a real victory. Kohl’s analyses (first explained to Bush on December 3, 1989) that the GDR’s collapse would open all possibilities, that he had to run to get to the head of the train, that he needed U.S. backing, that unification could happen faster than anyone thought possible – all turned out to be correct. Monetary union would proceed as early as July and the assurances about security kept coming. Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain clearly “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” (See Document 15)
The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: “I used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” (See Document 17)
Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his “nine points,” which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, “Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you.” (See Document 18)
“memos”- Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty is not a “memo”. In place before your “memos” and after.
“In 1997, NATO and Russia signed the Russia–NATO Founding Act, which stated that each country had a sovereign right to seek alliances.[14] NATO ended up expanding to sixteen Eastern countries (apart from the GDR in 1990): Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; North Macedonia in 2020; Finland in 2023; and Sweden in 2024, five of them on the border with Russia.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany
The NATO “Open Door Policy” refers to the principle enshrined in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that any European country that can contribute to the security of the North Atlantic region can apply to join NATO, essentially allowing any eligible country to seek membership in the alliance; however, decisions on membership are made by consensus among all NATO members and require the applicant to meet certain political, military, and economic criteria.
NATO’s deployments are a threat to Russia
FACT
Before Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine in 2014, there was no permanent deployment of multinational NATO troops in the eastern part of the Alliance.
NATO tries to push Europe into a war with Russia
FACT
Russia started its war against Ukraine without being threatened by Ukraine or any other country in Europe. It illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and proceeded to seize territory in Donetsk and Luhansk. And in 2022, with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War 2.
Huntingtonbeach,
The US and other Nato members made a promise to the USSR which was broken. That remains a fact.
HuntingtonBeach & Dennis
Thank you for the detailed back and forth on this topic.
If this is the whole story then it seems clear that regardless of any verbal discussions, there were no formal agreements between states to preclude NATO expansion. In fact, the reverse appears to be true from what HB cites.
Verbal reassurances aren’t diplomatic protocol. If Gorby would have asked for it in writing then the answer would have been No.
Well, it was Russia who broke the physical peace in Europe, not NATO countries or Finland or Ukraine or Latvia, etc.
And therefore I am in favor of having the residual fragment of Ukraine granted membership.
And Belarus when/if they get a democratic government.
Definitely
Why does it matter? Going back in history you had brilliant engineers telling the Emperor of Rome of how to do road constructions in the most efficient way. The answer was to give the main engineer a death sentence, because the efficiency meant more unemployed people to please. “Was it not enough with bread and circus?” The brutal reality of history…
If Empire ambitions are to prevail innovation could go way down. In the end trust matters, for better or for worse.
“Can Europe Afford Its Energy Transition?”
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Can-Europe-Afford-Its-Energy-Transition.html
What the author fails to address is the fact that failure to make attempts at energy adaptation is locking in failure due to high energy cost, and climate disruption.
There is no good choice for the continent that is so far into population overshoot.
To be reliant on imported fossil fuel (and food) is a game that will only last just so long.
Hickory
The answer to the main question is partly, and not more than that. The DNV report for 2024 is out, and it has some main stream answers as well (the recent reports are blocked so I am not giving any links, but there are some summaries around).
It is not that difficult to argue against some of your points.
I remember G. Kaplan talking about “going first”. That probably meant at the time having the first mover advantage of going into crisis mode. And in that way get a lot of sympathy and also the adoptation work being better overall. To what purpose some might wonder – maybe to combat the unrealistic future.
The least reliant country in the world when it comes to global trade is Russia, and they are in Empire mode.
The population issue is a hot potato, I will leave it at that for now.
My main point is that Europe (and everyone else) likely cannot afford to do all things it will take to wean off of fossil fuel as supplies deplete and the earth heats up…in transport , industry, security, food production and residential sector.
And just as important…it will become extremely expensive if they don’t try to as hard they can.
“Can Europe Afford Its Energy Transition?”
— OILPRICE.COM
That’s like a pusher asking if a junkie can afford to quit on heroin. The real question is if they can afford not to.
“FFRF asks appeals court to uphold ban on Minn. prison ministry program”
Keep the Cabbages for Christ away.
Oops!
WORLD COAL DEMAND AND EXPORTS SET FOR NEW RECORD HIGHS IN 2024
The world’s consumption and exports of thermal coal are expected to rise this year from 2023 to hit fresh record-highs, according to export and power generation data cited by Reuters columnist Gavin Maguire. Coal-fired electricity generation has increased so far this year by 2% compared to 2023, to hit new highs as power demand in emerging markets grows. Coal power emissions are also set to rise to a record high in 2024.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Coal-Demand-and-Exports-Set-for-New-Record-Highs-in-2024.html
Meanwhile,
AI PREDICTS EARTH’S PEAK WARMING: HOTTEST YEARS WILL LIKELY SHATTER RECENT RECORDS
Researchers have found that the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is now almost certainly out of reach. The results, published Dec. 10 in Geophysical Research Letters, suggest the hottest years ahead will very likely shatter existing heat records. There is a 50% chance, the authors reported, that global warming will breach 2 degrees Celsius even if humanity meets current goals of rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by the 2050s.
https://phys.org/news/2024-12-ai-earth-peak-hottest-years.html
the U.S. has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy,”42?
I’m surprised we are that high
One problem is the US is that there is no conflict between the payers — the insurance companies — and the providers. Instead, the insurers screw the insured. Banning that would force insurers to apply pressure to providers to bring prices down.
It’s a fundamental market failure that money can’t fix. Buyers and sellers have to negotiate prices, otherwise markets don’t work.
Another problem is that providers are paid to treat patients, not to cure patients. Obamacare made some attempts to deal with this problem, but it is still there.
“there is no conflict between the payers — the insurance companies — and the providers.”
You clearly have no experience within that industry.
SINK TO SOURCE: ARCTIC IS NOW EMITTING MORE CARBON THAN IT ABSORBS
After locking carbon dioxide in its frozen soil for millennia, the Arctic tundra is undergoing a dramatic transformation, driven by frequent wildfires that are turning it into a net source of carbon dioxide emissions. This stark shift is detailed in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 2024 Arctic Report Card, which revealed that annual surface air temperatures in the Arctic this year were the second-warmest on record since 1900.
https://phys.org/news/2024-12-source-arctic-emitting-carbon-absorbs.html
-General Electric
-General Motors
-Meta
-Tesla
-T-Mobile
…had a combined $70 billion in profits last year. Yet they paid an effective average tax rate of just 6.9%. Meanwhile, the typical American family pays a tax rate of 13.6%.
Hightrekker,
The argument for low corporate taxes is that shareholders pay taxes on dividends and capital gains, for wealthy shareholders this marginal tax rate is about 23.8% when the net investment income tax (3.8%) is added to the dividend and long term capital gains tax rate for high income families (20%). I think their should be no special treatment for dividends and long term capital gains, it is just a tax break for wealthy families. Maybe corporate tax rates could be reduced to zero for publicly traded companies in exchange for this change in the tax code.
How to explain 10 times increases in UK electricity costs?
https://bsky.app/profile/profbillmcguire.bsky.social/post/3ld2jibznl22z
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2ld0w4yw99o
local pub “forced to close this week because it’s electricity bill was pushed up from £400 to £4000 in one go”
TThis number could be close to $7/hour for continuous use
A new Open Thread Non-Petroleum has been posted.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-december-12-2024/
An updated August Non-OPEC and World oil production has been posted.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/august-non-opec-world-oil-production-rose/