Knowing how these articles are put together is important, especially given the subject matter. Secondly at the rate the audience is growing for Simplicious, getting new subscribers up to speed will be on going, so some questions will likely be asked over and over again, so can’t be dismissed as having been answered earlier.
I was pretty sure it was AI for like my first six simplicius, somewhere around 7 or 8 I started thinking ok, I think there's a human here too :) this is my favorite stack, consistently outstanding work
Interesting, 👏🏼👏🏼yes, I’ve quietly thought Brit/Euro as a possibility. Once in a while you’ll catch a time period phase that rings a bell 🤔🔔
Between you and me Rubberheid 😉 I also sense his strong distaste for bias one sided coverage of the Gulf Wars and the culture of exceptionalism through both the political arena and social fabric of the West, that followed.
It's his full-time job, as he's said many times before. It only looks "miraculous" to people used to the corporate system of just barely pretending to work for eight hours a day.
Well, I’m use to many things outside ‘corporate systems’ and I don’t recall saying it “miraculous” .. its just a simple question, I’m not asking for likes 🤷🏻♂️
It was more of a rhetorical expression of admiration by Ben (which as per definition begs no definitive answer, having in mind how precious the time nowadays is for in-depth thinkers like our 'good-ole' Simplicius is) 🫠
Big thanks @ Simplicius & all the other worthy contributors 📡 🫡 🤙
Sadhguru talks the talk to a degree, but not sure he walks the walk. Some things he says make sense and others, to my mind at least, not so much, suspect you are correct. His net worth is estimated at $US 50 million.
I just did a search on the name and one article estimated that, how accurate who knows. Those that truly walk a spiritual path have no interest in money aside from basic needs, it is the embodiment of materialism, most religions say similar.
As to good works those that advertise them pretty much cancel out any positive personal effect as it isn't done for the right reason. Still, few of us are prefect.
"Those that truly walk a spiritual path have no interest in money aside from basic needs, it is the embodiment of materialism, most religions say similar."
It seems to me over the years that most of these "gurus" have a pretty significant interest in money (and sex), attracting wealthy weak-minded men and women across the globe. But perhaps I am too harsh?
True. Most of these Indian gurus are perverts and hedonists. I read a book by a British woman that was a meditator and traveled to India to learn more about it. Some of it is treated as a moneymaking tourism racket. She was taken on a tour to a guru that lived in a cave and could levitate. He displayed it for the crowd. He propositioned her. A guy that hadn't washed in 20 years. Lol.
That set her off on explaining various well known gurus/perverts. The one that calls himself Osho spent the last 6 months of his life snorting a huge line of coke followed by a blowjob by a prostitute and repeated this every half hour. I'm not certain if it was Osho or the guy that started TM (Trancendental Meditation) that owned 50 Rolls Royces and was still begging for more donations.
I read in another book that said thousands of young men from the west flocked to the east in the 60s and 70s to attain enlightenment but came back decades later broken and regretting the life they otherwise could have lead. Getting married and raising a family. All we ever hear about are the so called success stories.
There is a wife and husband team of scientists that study meditation and have shown that the net effect of meditation is negative. On average it's more likely to cause emotional and/or psychological disturbances rather than positive benefits.
If I was at home I might be able to find these sources and names in my files. I've found from personal experience that anyone who is an accomplished meditator has serious anger issues. Steer clear.
Then again, Mother Teresa was a famous con artist who did shockingly evil things. I read Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens. I was amazed how bad a person she was. A mini Hitler. There was a BBC documentary made about her called Hell's Angel and a couple of books written by an Indian expat living in England. Pretty much everything you hear about anything is total nonsense.
Well, as long as it actually helps the recepients....
I followed a couple of I think pretty nuanced discussions by people aquainted with him and his work on Quora, and while there was criticism and views on his stature as a Spiritual teacher varied considerable, there seemed to be an overall consensus that he was doing a lot of pretty good and serious work on the helping the poor, hungry and uneducated front.
Some also mentioned that this lead to a vicious hatred of him on part of (amongst others) the evangelical missionary societies whose efforts to produce what Ghandi called "Rice Christians" his work greatly hampered.
While I have no way to verify independently what I heard on Quora, I think there is ample precedence for various interested forces, some with clout in the West, trying to smear popular Gurus.
Not saying that this is necessarily the case here, and even where there is a clear intention to smear there can still be truth to accusations.
But kinda like with media claims about evil Russia, so here too some caution before accepting media claims at face value is probably warranted.
Personally I think a great many if not most public, religious leaders/teachers (far from restricted to India and Hinduism) have at least something of a conman (certainly a showman) to them.
But also think that that doesn't necessarily preclude all of them from doing good and important work as well.
I don't think this meeting is being properly presented. The only important thing that happened was they came to unanimous agreement that Digital IDs are necessary so they can bring in Digital currencies. When that happens we'll be under one global totalitarian empire. Game over.
I suspected Russia and China were secretly in bed with the west and now we have confirmation.
Now are Russia and China in bed with the West or creating their separate but equal reality? I suspect the latter as the West still has a long, long way to fall, and it will fall.
That about the imposition of a place name by the current nationalist rulers of a given country, trying to oblige all speakers of all languages, is just a load of atrocious nonsense. Each language has its own names for a lot of countres and places. Also, the crass ignorance of the pseudo-etymology offered by that Shri Something is so blinding that one wonders how come anyone reproduced it. "Hind", which developed into "India", etc., is just as ancient as a local name for the subcontinent, if not more ancient than "Bharat" -- check Arrian's history and the ancient Indian texts, fercryinoutloud. As for the name "Türkiye", it is exactly the same word as Turkey (of Greek origin even in its contemporary Turkish form) but in a shape totally unpronounceable in the majority of non-Turkish languages, while "Myanmar" is the same as plain ole "Burma" written in a historic spelling (i.e. with a pronunciation modified over time, like the English spelling) in the local Burman writing system, transposed one-on-one to the Latin alphabet. And all this arrant nonsense by dungheap cockerels, however in tune they may now be with our multipolar or antimperialist sentiment, is defended by you, who always seem to so careful to research and check before stepping in it!
You do make some good points. However, forget the "elites" and policymakers for a second and talk to actual Indian people on the ground. What do they say? The ones I sampled, who are all of "low caste" and have nothing to do with power politics, appear to agree with the sentiment that Bharat should be the official name. What do you say to them?
Well that's pretty obvious isn't it? You say have what you want but this is what you're doing and then explain JQP's points to them. Or ask them to consult their own scholars. And/or history. He wasn't talking about elites or policymakers as far as I can see. Or am I reading the wrong post? He is talking about common sense, common truth - you remember? that thing that fell by the wayside under the American onslaught beginning way back... I'm not sure when...
Doubtless - yep, I'd even say that: 'doubtless' - the Indians or 'Bharatians' who want a change of name want it for purely mypopic, childish, histrionic, feverish reasons and won't have the faintest idea how it could do anything to help the nation at all.
Which, I suppose you can argue it would by promoting 'national pride', whatever that is.
But that same 'national pride' is what is used by rulers all over the world to totally intimidate, manipulate and even destroy their populations: witness Ukraine, right?
What I'd say to them and to all others is always the same: facts deserve full respect and precedence, while feelings, however justified they may seem subjectively, do not.
Besides, in the case of imposed names the popular feeling is a direct result of propaganda and social engineering operated by the counterfactually-named "elites".
Keep in mind that there are no fewer than ELEVEN languages on every Indian rupee banknote, and literally the only personage featured on the money is M. Gandhi because there's no way to achieve a consensus on honoring someone else. India is about ten thousand times more complex and diverse than any other nation.
India is historically the valley of river Indus with all the tributaries, most of which is situated in today's Pakistan. It was the entrance for travelers on a land route coming from Europe via Persia, so it was taken as a name for the whole subcontinent. Happens all the time. However, if you check the languages of India, they call themselves always भारत (Bharat) - so the renaming isn't one. It refers only to the foreigners to finally learn the real name.
I agree, this sad guru provides a highly esoteric pseudo-etymology.
I don't think anyone fom the outside will object to Indians naming their country anything they want, like Joe, Snoogles or Bharat -- in their own language(s)! If anyone is stupid enough to use magical thinking, believing that changing names changes things, let him. There are no "real names" in language, just usage-determined names in each language.
What is intolerable is the arrogance of dictating a replacement of historic names in foreign languages -- the sad fact is that the crassly ignorant "journalists" in all those foreign languages always oblige. Watch them trying to say "Tüüürkiyéh" or "B-hhharat" on the TV.
Good points, and as I am no linguistics expert, I am forced to take your word that they might be accurate. However, the point I would make is that apparently Modi and his followers and the people of India (Bharat?) apparently feel strongly enough about the name to change it. Would you not respect their decision and the reasons they themselves offer up for that change? And would you not consider the proposition that as you explained the word "India" evolved from the word "Hindi" perhaps via usage of it over time by Europeans, and not by Indians themselves?
With a minimum of digging I came upon this article which vaguely supports your supposition of "India" coming from "Hindu" though not quite.
From the article:
The game of name
- In brief, the name ‘India’ originates from the River Sindhu, the very ancient and popular Indus valley civilization.
- Initially, there was no word like India or Indus. It all started with the word Sindhu.
- The Aryan(Indo-Iranian people) referred to the river Indus as the Sindhu(a Sanskrit word).
- The old Persian equivalent of Sindhu is Hindu. So, the Persian invaders started calling the Sindhu “Hindu”. Time Period: 600 BCE to 300 BCE
- Scylax of Caryanda a Greek explorer explored the Indus river for the Persian emperor and presumably took over the Persian name and passed it to Greek(Europe). Time Period: 550 BCE to 450 BCE
- The loss of the /h/ from the dialects of Greek spoken language gave rise to the word “Indos”. - And over the passage of time, it ended up being called India. They also coined the term “Indian” for the people of the lower Indus basin.
- By the time of Alexander, Alexander’s companions were aware of North India up to the Ganges delta. Later, Megasthenes included the southern peninsula in India. Time Period: 356 BCE to 290 BCE
- The names Sindhu and Hindu gave rise to the name “Hindustan” that refers to the land of the Hindus.
- “Bharat”, the name is said to be derived from the name of the Bharata clan(an ancient tribe).
Now, if you read carefully the text above, one thing stands out above all - the word "India" does not derive in any form whatsoever from the Indians themselves, but from other regions of the world, primarily European. So why should the Indians not be offended?
I am likely called by several names by others (we don't need to know what those names are, do we?), but I prefer to be called Victor, and by law, that is my name. But what should happen to my preference should the law decide I am to be called by another name and so the world only knows me by that name? Should I not be offended? Should I not ask to have my true name restored so that the world knows it and recognises it?
The word's story is on the whole correct. The problem is that language and usage is a longterm social phenomenon -- meaning that there are no "true" words but only sounds to which the social convention within each language assigns a meaning -- the only thing that counts is what the current user collective of the English or Eskimo etc. language means by it. Social engineering by nationalist tinpot Mussolinis (change the name if it offends you) that try to command language, worse, languages other than their own (with the complicity of crassly ignorant and supine journalists) is an act of highly offensive propaganda. To summarize, I don't care what you want to be called -- let social usage decide. and feel free to feel offended.
True enough. But on the other hand, social usage can be altered - and that seems to be precisely what the "Indians" (Bharati? Bharatans? Bharatanis?) are attempting to do.
You advocate for compelled speech. See, I am not forcing you to call Russia Rossiya from now on, because how it's spelled in Russian. Because it's not my fucking business. It's your language. We already have this problem with Ukraine, with their constant attempts to compel other to spell toponims certain way. It's unhealthy. I will keep saying Holland, Birma, Pekin, Bombay etc, thank you very much.
Chill. Perhaps you should re-read what I said. I would not compel you to do anything or say anything. I would merely inform you that I have the right to determine my own name and request that you respect that. If I, as a country, join the UN, I expect the nameplate in front of my representative to display my name. If I am the United States, I expect that displayed name to be "United States", not "Shithole Empire". Or if Israel, I expect the name "Israel", not "Apartheid Israel". And whilst you have every right to call me what you want, common decency would demand you respect my name.
It's exactly argument what pronouns people make. No, I will call you 'he', even if you demand me to call you 'zxhey'. UN nameplates are in English, so it's going to be in English, not in 'what I want it to be in English'
Great sitrep, and an astute observation about the sparkly explosions on the Challenger tank. Reading tonight about the cruise missile attack on Sevastopol (preliminary reports are that a ship and a submarine were damaged, and 24 people were injured). A decisive end to this war can't come soon enough.
Nuland is out of her depth when it comes to critical thinking. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that Russia's going to abandon its strategically vital navy base in the Black Sea because of these kinds of nuisance attacks. Russia will adapt and overcome, as they always have.
That's true. I decided not to report on it yet because as of the writing it was just happening and there are simply no clear facts yet.
But the one consistent reminder is that Ukraine typically manages one such moderately successful strike every month or two. This is telling--it goes to show that a lot of planning and coordination goes into such a strike.
I remember several days ago there were reports of heavy NATO SIGINT traffic in the Black Sea and people were expecting a strike of some sort, likely doing a recon pull for Crimean AD radiations to plot a cruise missile chart through the fringes. Earliest reports claim 10 missiles used and 7 were shot down, 3 getting through. The fact that Sevastopol is right on the sea and likely several feet ASL (above sea level) means the missiles could skim the water surface and get just under radar nets, which typically aren't designed to depress downward into negative degrees of elevation, which would mean they could bypass detection up until very last moment.
Success of such air power based attacks begs the question, is it Ukraine executing or is Ukraine getting unofficial help in delivering weapons are target? In general Ukraine lacks the intelligence and delivery platform for such attacks given Russian defenses.
In terms of force deployment, Ukraine and Russia are in 2 different situations - Russia needs to have a functional and vibrant economy and by definition taking able bodied men out of normal industry and sending them to the front is economically destructive. So, minimizing casualties, and having "willing" forces rather than mobiks is important. But, without a doubt, there is a manpower issue, and the front remains enormous.
Whereas, Ukraine has no economy, it is entirely financially supported by the West. The only limiting factor here is the physical number of men that Ukraine can send to the front. Which is a terrible, awful thought, that Ru may have to kill upwards of a million Ukrainian men before this has a chance of ending.
But surely Kiev Ukraine still needs an economy in fact? Else what is being supported by the USA etc. rots down to nothing in the end. It must be rotting now. Doesn't matter? Just part of the cost of getting going again after the war, if there ever is one and Kiev Ukraine is still there?
The west only wants what it can take from Ukraine. Before the war, what industry or economic benefit did Ukraine provide the west? Not very much, mostly just grain. Ukraine is and was more useful to them as an economic and political buffer against Russia.but, the west is salivating at the thought of taking Ukraine's one jewel in the present day, it's plentiful and arable land, and they can get it virtually for free. You don't need Ukraine to have an economy to take that. It's the same thing Hitler and the Nazis wanted in Ukraine, lebensraum, bread for the Reich, and if any Ukrainians are still breathing they'll take them for cheap, or even slave, labour.
I am hoping Russia takes control of all of Ukraine, declares all debt, all foreign land ownership null and void. Breaks the country up in regions, supervises votes on governing referendums, supervises elections for new management, total neutrality, invites the displaced to return, and the regions apply for BRICS funds to rebuild.
If Russia does not do this, Ukraine will be a failed state. Prior to this war, Ukraine was considered the most corrupt country in the West if not in the world. It was and remains a haven for drug trafficing, slave trafficking, organ harvesting. If a rump Ukraine is left to Blackrock, the Globalists, and World bankers they will ravage what is left of the country and its people. They will bring Hell on earth to that country. See Libya for details of what awaits Ukraine at their hands.
Look no further than how German women after the end of the 39-45 war were left with little choice in the male department. Millions dead and MIA with no info on dead or captured. That's how it will look, plus NONE of the current refugees will ever go back.
"none of the refugees will ever go back" - I disagree. Potentially.
If there's a kinda forgiving regime for them after the conflict, they will. A lot of people who fled are also people who have physical gold or money abroad.
If they're allowed, they'll be helluva willing to return and buy as much property as possible.
One thing we have all seen (since the '90') and the refugee trend is that very few go back permanently, and as soon as they get that magic PR or passport it's game over. They holiday back in their country while trying to import the entire family to whatever country they reside.
As you say they usually also become property magnates by buying properties back in Shitanistan or Balkans and now most likely Ukraine.
Meanwhile Sevastopol was attacked with 10 (!) cruise missiles, of which 3 got through and hit two ships in the ship repair yard.
Zero reaction from the Kremlin despite the loudly announced by Shoigu red lines.
And the war is going so swimmingly that 20 months into it the last time substantial territorial advances were made was 15 months ago, Ukraine/NATO is bold enough to start hitting targets deep inside Russia, and they do so with impunity because they know that there will be no meaningful response.
Where does that end? If there is nothing to stop the strikes, eventually there will be no Black Sea Fleet, no industry left west of the Urals (and they might start hitting even e.g. the Sukhoi plants in the Far East too -- there were already rumors about such plans back in December, to be done with drones launched from commercial ships). Bit by bit it will all be degraded while the Kremlin is focused on its BS economic forums and on maintaining the appearance of normality.
But sure, keep writing 10,000-word reassurances to the gullible masses how Russia is winning decisively, and how everything is perfect.
You most certainly have a right to your valid opinion, but a quick search of your post history reveals literally every single post is one of what would be considered "dooming", complaining, concern-trolling, etc. So that sort of takes some of the legitimacy away from what you have to say as it's a bit of the 'boy who cried wolf' syndrome, as no matter what happens, it's always bleak sturm und drang according to you.
Yes, it is very convenient to deflect by labeling people doomers. There is a proud tradition of it since before the Saker shut down the blog.
There is a point where reality and narratives diverge so much that the narratives just become obviously laughable to everyone with a still functioning brain.
The objective facts are that the SMO was supposed to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, but Ukraine is more nazi (and ever more openly so) and more powerful militarily than ever before, while the Kremlin is doing less and less to stop that.
That is just the reality on the ground.
Was Ukraine able to hit Sevastopol with cruise missiles in February 2022? No. Would NATO even have dared to do that? No. Is that happening now? Yes.
Was Ukraine able to hit Moscow last year? No. Would NATO have even dared send drones there last year? No. Has it been a nearly daily occurrence recently? Yes.
Have planes and ships, i.e. important assets, been hit? Yes, they have been, and this has been going on for nearly a year now.
Did Shoigu publicly state hitting Crimea is a red line? Yes. Has Crimea been hit? Yes, repeatedly, and further and further southwards -- first it was Chongar, then the airfields in central Crimea, now the shipyard in Sevastopol. Were the mythical decision making centers hit? No.
Is everything of key importance in Ukraine -- grid, transportation system, leadership -- largely or completely (in the case of leadership) untouched? Yes.
It has gotten to the point where Putin is afraid to leave Russia while Zelensky jet sets around the world. So much winning I just can't get enough of it.
And all that even though the Kremlin has the power to stop it all in a single day. But they don't.
Which is not because this is some 5D chess game in which they are the grandmasters, but because they are looking for a deal. For themselves and their oligarch cronies. Russia's interests be damned. Is there another explanation that makes any sense given what is happeinng?
Remember that first missile strike last October after the Kerch bridge was hit? It was a small demo of their conventional capabilities, and it didn't really hit anything of importance. That salvo alone could have decapitated much of the command structure, had it been targeted at it.
It is an insult to the soldiers who die every day in the trenches that the Kiev pilgrimage continues without any interference. Inevitably followed by more and more weapon deliveries and attacks against Russia.
24 people were reportedly injured today in Sevastopol (and much of that is probably skilled personnel that is hard to replace). Why? Because the Kremlin allowed Storm Shadow missiles to be transferred to Ukraine and didn't do anything to stop it. It is of great comfort to them that Putin gave yet another uninspiring speech at the economic forum in Vladivostok and that some morons in the West think he is the greatest leader ever.
Yes, it is absolutely "buried deep and untouchable" when it gives press conferences with Western leaders out there in the open.
And the entrances to those bunkers are also "buried and untouchable", it wasn't the USSR that built them and there are no blueprints for them in Moscow, and Russia doesn't have absolutely any means of sealing them and entombing everyone inside. Absolutely.
Compared to perfection, none of the leaders fair very well. Putin compared to the geriatric blob in the White House or his back up blob who has been honing her disco era dance moves, while hundreds of thousands of Americans are dying on the streets. Of course there is also the alternative, the orange freak who, one must admit, surprised everyone by showing that it was indeed possible to miss him. So umm... what were you saying again about Putin ?
I don't think it's deflection to point out a provocateur who has a 100% batting average for concern trolling out of literally dozens/hundreds of posts. It's very telling and means that you don't have a proper rational grasp on the conflict.
With that said, I still give you your space to have your opinion, despite how laughably wrong it is.
Simplicius what do you think of the possibility that Putin is ‘sitting on his duff’, as McGregor stated, on purpose - minimise Russia’s own losses, continue the Ukrainian attrition while, importantly, bankrupting the US and NATO. What if the ancillary goal is to expedite the financial duress/sovereign insolvency the US is facing? Surely the more inflated the US dollar becomes (due to the inevitable money printing ahead), the more appealing this ‘other’ means of trading - whether via an alternative currency or accepting multiple currencies - becomes for BRICs+? Just a thought. (I also believe Putin’s wish to avoid enflaming US/NATO hostilities and creating a direct confrontation is also credible; our leadership is truly nuts, unpredictable and duplicitous)
From the charts I’m seeing the ‘world’ is slowing the buying of bonds and treasuries. The analysts I’m reading warn of the risk of a debt spiral. Financial historians recount case study after case study of fiat currencies dying. After the gold standard, the dollar relied on the ‘petro’ dollar - that’s in the process of dying it seems as OPEC countries are making trades outside the dollar system. It’s all small steps at the moment, but as Hemingway famously quipped about bankruptcy, ‘slowly at first, then all at once.’
The West is afraid the price of oil will go up causing more inflation and thus higher interest rates. "Investors" are getting a ridiculously low rate of interest on their government bonds. As interest rates go up, previous bonds are less valuable and lose collateral value so banks go under. Yes, they are rigging, but the rigging is falling apart.
But there's more than that. There's corporate debt, commercial mortgage backed securities defaults, massively underfunded pensions, massive consumer debt, municipal and state debt and more.
None of these has a currency they can just print more of. Corporations used all the tax breaks Trump gave them to buy back their own stock to jack up their share prices and then borrowed to the hilt to do even more buybacks. If I didn't believe in God I'd be having a nervous breakdown right now.
When the Covid lockdown began I subscribed to a trader education service. They did fundamental analysis of US companies to figure out who would benefit or be hurt by Covid. Something like 85% of these companies has more long term debt than their book value. AT&T is in a slow growth sector so had paid through the nose for some high growth, high margin companies to make themselves look better. But they had to pay top dollar for them. Their long term debt was something like $245 billion. The company isn't worth anything near that. IBM was similar. The airlines had spent more money buying back stock in the 10 years prior than they were worth. If I remember correctly, 15% of US listed corporations were zombie companies. They don't make enough to pay interest on their debt so borrow even more just to do that.
And these hotels and things going tits up in San Fransisco, like the Hilton hotel, aren't being expensed to the mother company. They're just defaulting on their commercial mortgage backed securities. So that's our pensions that are taking the hit. 100% wiped out on that investment.
We're sitting on a house of cards that itself sits on hundreds of card houses. I nearly start hyperventilating just thinking about how fragile things are.
That I don't already live under a bridge eating crickets shows how bad my predicting skills are. I must be missing something. Trump started this last gasp suicide run when his budget deficits were double anything that had ever been seen before. By Sept. 2019 the REPO market locked up and the FED had to inject $1 trillion a day to keep things afloat. That's when Trump and the gang launched Covid. They kicked the can down the road a bit by using a fake force majeure to get them out from under their contractual obligations.
Maybe Putin knows what he's doing and he's letting this bomb were sitting on ignite itself? I suspect, many thanks to simplicius and the commentors, that Russia has many things to consider besides the war. The opinion of the global south and the global citizenry in general, is one. The hollowing out of the western military capability and their economies is another.
My intuition tells me they're in this together but I can't formulate a convincing argument. Covid being so obvious and consisting of wall to wall mistakes confuses me. That most went along with it is the strangest thing that's ever happened. I'm stumped. But if Digital ID comes in I don't know how we'll survive.
I think everyone, Simplicius included, needs to keep tabs on what is happening in the world of oil and natural gas, the life blood of economy, to put this conflict in proper focus. Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr's Defense Chief, Admiral William Crowe, told me in 2003, re the Iraq invasion "If we lost the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, we would see Depression Era economic conditions in the west within a matter of months". Well sure enough, with BRICS + 6 , Russia and China now have effective control of not just the Persian Gulf, but the Suez Canal also. Iraq, after the USA and UK spent a trillion dollars and a million lives lost, just directed all of their oil and gas to go to Russia and China. There is no way on earth that the west can stand back and let that happen and I think it would be foolish for anyone to think that they will. Having said that, it is prudent for Putin and Xi to keep a huge amount of powder dry for the real war ... the one in the Middle East that is inevitable. They, the CIA et al have already started to destabilize the Kurdish autonomous region with sectarian riots and Lindsey G is calling for 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Nevermind 'follow the money'... follow the oil and I'm saddened to see not nearly enough attention being paid to that background story that trumps all the others.
While I’ve always understood our foreign policy was never about ‘freedom and democracy’ but controlling oil and resources, I hadn’t thought of what you illustrate here - I’ve been focused on the petrol dollar mostly but supply chain and control of distribution is a new dimension. Dry powder also a good theory but the need of such is an awful prospect for the rest of us just trying to live our lives as best we can in peace!
Either way, I can’t see the US being up to the task of a direct military confrontation unless nukes involved. Abled bodied recruits alone means we are behind vs the billions in Eurasia. And our leadership is not up to the task. Mental stuff
This attack was serious. Russ knows what airport they came from - they were apparently on radar. Why weren't they shot down as they should have been under the radar coverage of S330/400 radars? Instead, they were only taken out short range by Panstir. None of the S34s were shot down, and apparently disappeared again. This is an important Russian military base. The only thing I can think of is they fly too close to the water for radar to pick them up(?) or ??? I wouldn't be so annoyed except for all the praise of the vaunted Russian anti-missile systems. I understand from Legends their S34s are even active on the front(???)
One word: the objective is to destroy the Amerukrainian armed forces together with their Nazi commissars and to force that American colony to neutrality, NOT to conquer any territories.
Because I don't see that happening -- I see its capabilities growing, its command structures untouched, and its getting bolder and bolder in its attacks
Were they capable of hitting Sevastopol with cruise missiles when this all started? Simple question.
For instance: 'they are looking for a deal' - well yes, for sure. Putin, Lavrov etc. even declare that. That's top level.
But next level down there's all kinds of intricacies involved in 'deals'.
And next level down those intricacies involve not so much evil oligarchs but astute politicians, business leaders and all kinds of people.
And relevant to that is the simple fact that oligarchs necessarily are involved as always because big money is always involved and big money often belongs to 'oligarchs'. They ain't necessarily evil.
So what's that? An argument by elimination or something? I seek to show that ' a deal for themselves and their oligarch cronies' is a remote and far fetched possibility.
And so on.
The world is built on deals, explicit and implicit and this war is running the way it is because of deals and the end of it will be full of deals and how could it be otherwise?
And Russia ending it overnight. How? NOT possible. Not feasible.
Instead of busting our guts with heated polemic in venues such as this some effort directed towards getting the simple truths: like it is Kiev Ukraine v Donbas Ukraine and like there are NO Russian boots on any piece of ground in Ukraine that they were not invited onto - to the ordinary people in the West and to the ordinary people in Kiev Ukraine.
You have a point, I personally thought Putin would have gone for the Dneiper by now.
The only faith I have that it will end is by attrition of manpower to the point we see "Volksturm" units being destroyed at the front (But the Russkies never move forward)
Ya Ukraine is winning ... that's why their Defense Chief was sacked and left the country.... too much winning. Reznikov was warned .. "Oleksii, you are going to have to cut back on all those battlefield victories or we will have to find a better loser to replace you".... but he wouldn't listen.
I think the answer is much simpler than cronies in the Kremlin looking to make some treasonous deal with the West. When you have military assets, that you have spent months and years accumulating and training, you become risk averse. This is the natural course that most generals follow. They had to lose assets and become asset hoarders.
In a different post, I compared this war to the U.S. Civil War, and the two are very, very similar: Russia in the case playing the part of the Union and Ukraine the Confederate States. Lincoln had the same issue with his generals that Putin has with his, and it was not that the Union generals were trying to cut behind-the-scenes deals with the Confederates. No one would attack, because they were, as many generals are, asset hoarders, and they knew, after 1st Manassas, the high cost of offensive operations. Moreover, they had some compassion for their soldiers as human beings.
Lincoln had to go through 3 generals in the West and 4 in the East before he hit upon Grant and Sherman, who would attack, despite the enormous cost in lives. I don't think the Russians are going to face a Cold-Harbor type pyrrhic victory if they start and offensive, but they will lose assets and it will be bloody. Putin needs to find his Grant and his Sherman before this escalates into a nuclear exchange, which it will eventually if it does not wind down.
I am not disagreeing with you about the need for Russia to start offensive operations. I am disagreeing with you about why they are seem so reluctant to do so.
It does not really matter if the enemy knows where you are today. What matters in an offensive is if you can move more to a point of attack tomorrow than the enemy. The Russians can do this, because they have compete air superiority and can interdict any large-scale Ukranian troop movements. They just need to find a general with the brains and the callousness (to his troops) to do it.
Dear GM. Did you have a look on Gen Milley's screens in his bunker? It's in this article - go find it. That little inroad they've made with the counter offensive at the cost of 71500 men's lives? It's laughable.
That is the reality on the ground.
My brain functions really well thank you, so well that I can remember the same types as you going on and on about Syria too...I always hark on about Syria..why??...same players...same end results, you'll see...it's all a bit slower than you want it, but then again it's not all about what we want.
Your reply to either this propaganda operative or moron, and whichever he is is irrelevant, is much more diplomatic than what i would have been able to muster up. And when one thinks about it, the most logical conclusion for posts like GM's is that they are propaganda operatives as even though you are experiencing well earned expanding readership, it's highly unlikely that someone with GM's mainstream narrative beliefs would be coming to niche blogs like yours for information, and especially posting in the comments trying to sow seeds of doubt etc etc.
Not to minimise the quality of his (her? their?) comments but images keep coming to mind of Eeyore the Donkey in the Winnie-the-Pooh stories.
But those images are often interspersed with images of that creature Chicken Little running around hysterically crying the "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!".
Of course, I could be wrong. The sky might well be falling. And Ukraine might be a great power now and on the verge of destroying Russia. Yes, indeed, I could well be wrong.
You have a point but insulting your host and his readership is rude and doesn't advance the discussion.
Anyway, it's worth considering why Russia doesn't respond when its red lines are crossed. Ukraine is obviously "all in" on this conflict. There's no tactic, no matter the ancillary damage - dam destruction, nuclear contamination, etc. - that they aren't willing to pursue, no weapons - even awful cluster bombs - that they hesitate to use, and no sacrifice of manpower they're not willing to make. Russia on the other hand refuses to go "all in." The lights are still on in Kiev.
Putin is seasoned and IMO is not deluded about the facts on the ground. He understands something fundamental about the military and political situation that makes him very hesitant to take action that would horrify the Western public and drive opinion towards an full-fledged NATO v. Russia engagement. I have some thoughts on what that might be, but am not inclined to share those thoughts presently.
Turkey changing its name to Türkiye isn’t going to undo the tremendous disservice that it did long ago (1929) to its cultural identity and heritage by adopting the Latin alphabet as part of Its “Westernization/modernization” project, hence actively censoring, disowning, and pummeling its own history, cultural, and linguistic heritage.
Slightly off-topic with my comment. Simplicius refers, often to Turkey and how Turkey/Erdogan is coming more to the fore. Being an ex-pat living in Greece (Lesvos, particularly) we do not see Erdogan as a source of enlightenment. Indeed, many Turks do not - we are friends with them, including an ex-Intelligence gentleman who is, to be blunt, worried for HIS future......
The question is, these Christians are, I believe, Coptic Christians. They are related to Orthodox Christians which are, as we all know, more or less, under the protection (?) of Russia.... Will Putin intervene? Are there going to be repercussions?
I would like to hear Simplicius' thoughts on this....
I was going to cover the Armenian situation in this report, but alas, it already got so long I felt that it would be too much as the Armenian topic requires a lot of space on its own. However, to add a few words the current sentiment in Russia is that Armenia has dug its own grave. In fact in the same Eastern Economic Forum talk, Putin stated as much by saying that Russia tried to help Armenia by recognizing Kalbahar and Lachin as Armenian but Karabakh as Azerbaijanian but Armenia was recalcitrant and wanted to fight. Also he said that Armenia had itself already legally recognized Azerbaijan's claims to Karabakh in the Prague summit last year. You can hear his words here: https://t.me/IntelRepublic/27538
Many Russian analysts now espouse the belief that Pashinyan is a Western mole who wants to instigate a conflict on purpose in order to give himself a raison d'etre to shift the country away from Russia toward a reorientation to the U.S. which has been courting them. Thus, many Russians see the proceedings as partly a betrayal on the behalf of Armenian elite, particularly
Pashinyan.
It's a difficult situation because Russia also has important trade with Azerbaijan as well. And the past few days there have been Armenian provocateurs who have tried to attack/provoke Russian peacekeepers in the region, so it's a very complex situation.
Sep 13, 2023·edited Sep 13, 2023Liked by Simplicius
And, as per usual, the people will suffer... Thanks for your quick reply. Are you still going to do an ARMENIAN article?
By the way, I wrote a comment a few days ago about my experience with Russian military, whilst I was with the RMP (British Military police) in Germany, with our SOXMIS unit. Not sure if you picked it up:
"I am an ex-British serviceman. In the RMP (Military Police) From '75-87. In 1982-3, I was in Germany as part of the SOXMIS unit, in Bielefeld (Look it up wikipedia has a fair article) We monitored Russians in West Germany. One day, I was tasked to meet, and follow, a Russian car from Southern Germany. In it was a Russian Colonel, his wife and son, plus, his driver. He was going to Bonn, the then capital, to the Russian embassy. We took him there and waited outside. After an hour, the car came back out and came over to us.
"Corporal," he said, "we have been told to go away for two hours and then go back. Where can we go for a picnic?" I kid you not. I told him to drive ahead to....... And we'd follow making sure that he did not go into restricted areas. He went into the countryside, found a picnic spot, stopped, and WE ALL got out, had drinks/food etc. Like good friends, but recognising ranks.
"You know, corporal," said the Colonel, "we, in Russia, have our countries around the world. Especially Africa. We give to them our socialist views.. We give to them our money to give to their people our socialist views! And what do these leaders do? They spend this money on themselves. They keep themselves, and their friends well off and the people? A few peanuts. And, we give them more money to keep them on our side! And you do the same!"
Paraphrased, but that was the gist of the conversation. Now, think. He knows, like his bosses, that, whenever we, the RMP/SOXMIS, have a verbal meet with the Russians, straight away, we are required to contact our Intelligence for a debrief........
That meeting cost me a beret and cap badge which I gave to his son! I enjoyed my time on SOXMIS - it gave to me an alternate view to what we were usually given on our briefings....."
Sadhguru's explanation is bunk. "Bharat" comes from the name of one of the Afghan groups that invaded northern India about 3500 years ago. They later got personified in the Mahabharata as a semi-mythical founding ruler. Given that "India" comes from Sanskrit and was also coined by a group invading northern India, I'm not sure "Bharat" is that much of an improvement.
Note that the name "Russia" apparently also comes from foreign conquerors, the Norsemen who settled around Kiev, via descriptions from Greek merchants. There comes a point where you just accept the baggage history left you. Of course, not my country, not my place to say.
Exactly. There are so many non-Indian experts it seems who have an opinion on this proposed name change, yet I'm curious how many of them have talked to actual Indians. The ones I've talked to all enthusiastically support the "patriotic" name change to Bharat. Who cares what outsiders think? That's the whole point of this global revolution, is it's a big middle finger to all Western colonists who stick their nose where they shouldn't.
Exact. The more vehement the reaction the more appropriate the change was. If they said eh call it what you want, that would be sensible. Hate is closer to love than indifference.
Serious question, here: How far back are you going to go? You state that the name comes from an invasion 3,500 years ago? What was it called before then? Using your logic, please follow the argument about the UK:
Our problems stem from the Dutch, because we had a Dutch king (William of Orange) since 1689. Well, no, it was the fault of the Normans, who invaded England in 1066 (And All That...) Well, no, it was the Danes who invaded during the 800s. Well, no, it was the Romans who invaded....
Bugger it all. It was the fault of Eve - if she hadn't taken the forbidden fruit then the world would be a better place! We worked that all out in the Mess one afternoon.
Not telling anyone else what to call their own country or where to find inspiration. Not saying 3500 years is too far back. I'm just noting that Sadhguru's explanation is bunk, that it's not unusual for countries to be named for foreign exonyms, and that "Bharat" isn't that much more autochthonous than "India".
Since you mention the UK: the name "Britain" is about the same age and has a somewhat similar origin. Greeks made contact with a Celtic group living on the south coast and generalized their native name to the whole island, with the pronunciation shifting over time. Not unlike the Persians generalizing the Sanskrit name for northwestern India to the entire subcontinent, which is how we get the English name "India" (Sindhu-Hindu-Indos-Indus-India).
This isn't that unusual. We call the Hellenes "Greeks" because Graecia happened to be the bit close to the Romans. "Rwanda" comes from the word for an annexed territory. "Austria" comes from being east of Bavaria. "Ukraine" of course means the borderland (but don't tell them that...)
Countries also often have multiple names across different languages. We don't go around saying Hellas, Deutschland, Nihon, Zhongguo, etc. Besides, many countries didn't exist as recognizable political entities until the colonial era, so the "decolonized" names often have to be contrived. Again: not saying countries shouldn't do that -- it's not my call. I'd just like to be factually accurate about the etymologies.
Is that Ukrainian newsreader, or whatever he is, for real? Or a joke? 'Who is fighting in Ukraine?' he says, like he doesn't know. After 9 years of doing all they can to occupy the Donbas regions. After two years of issuing increasingly hateful polemic about them, etc.
This is the american insanity, where black is white and up is down, everything is reversed.
I read years ago that NK had the capacity to rain down on Seoul 10,000 artillery rounds an hour. I reckon they would have millions upon millions stockpiled.
I lived in Gimpo (between Seoul and Inchon, former home of the Seoul airport and former military airfield), and all the Korean men I knew, most still in the reserves, basically said that if war broke out they were cooked. The rumor is that all 43 bridges over the Hahn are permanently wired for demolition. When the siren goes off for real it’s like 45 minutes until the bridges are dropped and everything north of the river is abandoned. North of the river was lightly developed for years and only increased because Seoul couldn’t expand south.
I never got all the way to N. Korea but I spent a week on a recently opened island inside the DMZ. Love minefields on the north side of the island, active AA batteries, ROK marines practicing amphibious landings next to my campsite at dawn, ready to go artillery emplacements, the whole nine yards. A fishing boat captain took me to the NLL but said he couldn’t take me across because of all the tourists on the boat. We were supposed to be on a coastal cliff tour but were already far enough out that they were just shoreline.
Ironic how Milley's PR interview backfired by unintentionally revealing locations of Ukrainian formations in the background. Everything these Western clowns do seems to backfire.
No. It's way past that. Ukraine is losing over 2,000 KIA and WIA per day - possibly as high as 3,000. See my articles calculating that. There may be some "return to duty" dilution but not as many as on the Russian side. Russia claims 97% of their wounded return to duty. Ukraine doesn't nearly has as good battlefield evacuation procedures or battlefield medical support as Russia does, so Ukraine is getting close to a 1:1 KIA:WIA ratio, i.e., many WIA die on the battlefield or in transit to primary care.
Well they are certainly effective for what they are. The problem is, they're being used in a way that's not exactly what they were designed for. Rather than mass fires they're now being used in a very limited sniper role to strike single targets one at a time, only a few times per month.
What's funny is, the Ukrainian side roles out a video collage they put together of about 6-7 "big" looking HIMARS "snipes" of this sort and to the uninitiated it looks like major damage. But it completely ignores the fact that these collages are made up of footage over the course of weeks. They put such a collage together once every month or two. So the HIMARs are able to hit maybe 1 or 2 Russian targets per week. That's not *really* the mark of an effective weapons system or usage. It would be decent maybe if we were talking about only 1 or 2 HIMARs systems doing this damage. But considering they have MARS IIs, M270s, HIMARs all total numbering allegedly 40-50 by now (all those systems shoot the same exact rocket on different platforms), they should really be hitting more than that.
So that's to say, ultimately it's a rather disappointing usage of the system thus far which I think speaks to how well Russia has nullified it by way of a combination of AD and effective EW. However, when they DO work, they can be very effective--it's just too few and far in between.
The thing that impresses me most is not the HIMARs system itself but the Ukrainian networking/sensor fusion that allows them to so rapidly distribute target data between observational drones to the HIMARs unit by way of--most likely--their Delta/GIS Art/Nettle networking/battlefield management systems.
We know this is happening very swiftly because some of the hits have been on units that would not have been in that same place (like scoot-n-shooting artillery) if the data transfer took more than a few minutes. That means the networking kill chain from drone to HIMARs is happening very fluidly and swiftly which is impressive--when it does happen.
But given the paucity of actual successful occurrences as compared to the potential of total systems, it's not overly impressive.
Thank you very much for your fast and detailed response.
About your comment about the impressive Ukrainian networking/sensor fusion -- this might be the key element of US/UK intelligence assistance to Ukro-Nazis. They now stated that a strategy to force Russia into a "freeze" is to systematically attack Russian very high value targets - like yesterday's attack on dry-dock and submarine(s) in Sevastopol.
This was likely impossible without precise (6++ digit) and timely satellite and other surveillance data from US/UK. To me it is not clear how best Russia should handle such escalation...
From any kind of rational perspective, it was Roman Law PREVENTING gay marriage that was the original "social-engineering". Fuckball Xians did NOT "invent the concept of marriage", they do NOT own it, and they can fuck the fuckity off , and the quicker the better. Simply removing inequitious inhuman discriminatory restrictions that should never have been there in the first place is hardly "social engineering", it is the REMOVAL of social engineering.
People have been eating bugs since... forever. I personally like sea-bugs, aka "shrimp" and "prawns". Don't you? Have I ever eaten crickets or ants? Not intentionally, although I know people who've had choco-ants and said they were OK, if crunchy. What really sticks in the throat, so to speak, is that this will be MANDATED for western poor. Much like the poor Irish HAD to eat only potatoes, during the "famine", Ireland was still exporting 90% of its foodstuffs.
Smart cities wouldn't be TOO bad of an idea, minus the top-down social control built into many of those concepts. An secure open-source, consumer lead, reduced wif-fi exposure, integrated city run on properly democratic lines with strict prevention of data-harvesting and disinformation (corporate media outlets), wouldn't be so bad. Human density at our current levels requires coordination. Sad, but true. The trick is ensuring it doesn't become authoritarian.
MRNA IS seriously fucking dodgy, along with everything that shitbag Gates gets invested in.
Transgender is fine, once we have the social/physical infrastructure to handle it. FX, unisex toilets as well as the regular two, and perhaps even specific trans-prisons to circumvent that current problem. It's worth ALWAYS bearing in mind the transgendering does not create the fucked up person - the person was ALREADY fucked up. Look at that wierd and psycho bitch "Ukr Spokeperson" - do you not think when it was a MALE, it was ALREADY one fucked up cunt? Making it semi-female did diddly-squat on that front.
A lot of M2F trans seem to imagine that life is easier as a woman, because they believed that it was being male that was their problem. Of course, it was being THEM that was the problem, not their 'gender'. But I also know personally some trans-people who ARE much happier as the opposite gender, and WTF has the right to deny them that? Like smoking tobacco or even dope, it may be harmful, it may even SLIGHTLY harm those around them, but there's no need to get all fucking Fash about it and ban it outright.
Conservatives are supposed to be protective of 'civil liberties', and 'individualism'. I suppose that was back in the days when "conservatism" meant anything more than "Opposing whatever the other bunch supports".
This kulchah war is seriously fucking stupid, when everyone should be working together to prevent authoritarianism, Oligarchism, and top-down total control. And dismantling the Western empires.
People aren't freaking out because trans have rights. Their freaking out because they're trying to brainwash children into thinking they're the wrong sex and giving them the legal authority to be surgically changed while stripping all rights from the parents. In that sense you're completely misrepresenting the issue while masquerading as just being reasonable. So go ahead and flip out if you want.
Well, I agree that this should be a choice for ONLY adults to make. If you can't be trusted to be able to buy a friggin BEER, you certainly shouldn't be making irreversible surgical and biological changes. Yes, I HAVE been censored and 'deplatformed' by trans-extremists for saying that, And I HAVE had to deal with their emotional-blackmailing bawling and wailing I'm "Denying their existence". Yawn.
They'll get over it. Kids wrongly persuaded to transition won't. The equation is simple.
But you do your own thing too, I'l find your own anti-trans bawling and wailing equal boring.
“The unbearable heaviness of data” LOL
:Checks clock: - 18,023. Stil not "18,000" though.. ;)
How do you pump out so many articles of depth?
Do you have an assistant?
Point? .. I love these comments 🙂
I have no ‘point’, I am curious. Sorry I don’t have the same ego as some, forgive me 🙏🏼
😂 people’s tempers seem to be on a trip wire around here.
😁👍🏼
on a lighter note,
Simps promised myself the the proof reader's job when it came up ,
lol,
I'll give you a shout for the next assistant position ; )
I would be honored 🫡
hilarious,
do remember the enigma is all part of the fun! Stop teasing it repeatedly though! ; )
I, for a fact know, this is Slimps Shadikous c'mon !!!
and ye valiant Simp Gvard, calm down, it is part of the parcel, : )
Mir
Knowing how these articles are put together is important, especially given the subject matter. Secondly at the rate the audience is growing for Simplicious, getting new subscribers up to speed will be on going, so some questions will likely be asked over and over again, so can’t be dismissed as having been answered earlier.
You left out the bit where he does a back-flip, breaks the bad-guy's neck, cuts the red wire, and gets the girl.
He's an AI 😁
Hmm 🤔 ...
I was pretty sure it was AI for like my first six simplicius, somewhere around 7 or 8 I started thinking ok, I think there's a human here too :) this is my favorite stack, consistently outstanding work
Yes, it’s the consistency and depth for me too 👍🏼
always quite human is the Slimps, that's why sometimes methinks is more than one writer..? or just the mood of writing?
Simps' turn of phrase seems younger than me, marginally, with a good gamut of wider life context. Good grounding, shows depth. Quite human.
Almost seems more brit/euro than yank too . . ?
[but the Kremlinbot hypothesis??] lol will persist. . .
Here am I enjoying the enigma, hahaha,
What's the Slimp Shady think?
; )
Interesting, 👏🏼👏🏼yes, I’ve quietly thought Brit/Euro as a possibility. Once in a while you’ll catch a time period phase that rings a bell 🤔🔔
Between you and me Rubberheid 😉 I also sense his strong distaste for bias one sided coverage of the Gulf Wars and the culture of exceptionalism through both the political arena and social fabric of the West, that followed.
consider we are all A something? At least some of us have an I ?
lol.
what's and AO ?
It's his full-time job, as he's said many times before. It only looks "miraculous" to people used to the corporate system of just barely pretending to work for eight hours a day.
Well, I’m use to many things outside ‘corporate systems’ and I don’t recall saying it “miraculous” .. its just a simple question, I’m not asking for likes 🤷🏻♂️
Let me give a try 😇
It was more of a rhetorical expression of admiration by Ben (which as per definition begs no definitive answer, having in mind how precious the time nowadays is for in-depth thinkers like our 'good-ole' Simplicius is) 🫠
Big thanks @ Simplicius & all the other worthy contributors 📡 🫡 🤙
Old Soviet adage: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.
He's actually just running out of articles, and has to get them sent from museums to be refitted, I mean rewritten..
/s
😄👍🏼
I don't like that sadhguru dude. I think he's a cheap conman. A sad guru indeed.
I like very much the Russian 'tricks' to foil e.g. radar and such. :)
Sadhguru talks the talk to a degree, but not sure he walks the walk. Some things he says make sense and others, to my mind at least, not so much, suspect you are correct. His net worth is estimated at $US 50 million.
Thanks for that. Should I trust you or can you give a link re the net worth?
If true it probably says it all. You don't need that amount of money.
The only justifier I can think of is if you need it to enable your good works, in which case if they are afoot they should be demonstrable.
If it just sits there in the bank you're a fraud.
I just did a search on the name and one article estimated that, how accurate who knows. Those that truly walk a spiritual path have no interest in money aside from basic needs, it is the embodiment of materialism, most religions say similar.
As to good works those that advertise them pretty much cancel out any positive personal effect as it isn't done for the right reason. Still, few of us are prefect.
"Those that truly walk a spiritual path have no interest in money aside from basic needs, it is the embodiment of materialism, most religions say similar."
It seems to me over the years that most of these "gurus" have a pretty significant interest in money (and sex), attracting wealthy weak-minded men and women across the globe. But perhaps I am too harsh?
💯👋
True. Most of these Indian gurus are perverts and hedonists. I read a book by a British woman that was a meditator and traveled to India to learn more about it. Some of it is treated as a moneymaking tourism racket. She was taken on a tour to a guru that lived in a cave and could levitate. He displayed it for the crowd. He propositioned her. A guy that hadn't washed in 20 years. Lol.
That set her off on explaining various well known gurus/perverts. The one that calls himself Osho spent the last 6 months of his life snorting a huge line of coke followed by a blowjob by a prostitute and repeated this every half hour. I'm not certain if it was Osho or the guy that started TM (Trancendental Meditation) that owned 50 Rolls Royces and was still begging for more donations.
I read in another book that said thousands of young men from the west flocked to the east in the 60s and 70s to attain enlightenment but came back decades later broken and regretting the life they otherwise could have lead. Getting married and raising a family. All we ever hear about are the so called success stories.
There is a wife and husband team of scientists that study meditation and have shown that the net effect of meditation is negative. On average it's more likely to cause emotional and/or psychological disturbances rather than positive benefits.
If I was at home I might be able to find these sources and names in my files. I've found from personal experience that anyone who is an accomplished meditator has serious anger issues. Steer clear.
Then again, Mother Teresa was a famous con artist who did shockingly evil things. I read Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens. I was amazed how bad a person she was. A mini Hitler. There was a BBC documentary made about her called Hell's Angel and a couple of books written by an Indian expat living in England. Pretty much everything you hear about anything is total nonsense.
Well, as long as it actually helps the recepients....
I followed a couple of I think pretty nuanced discussions by people aquainted with him and his work on Quora, and while there was criticism and views on his stature as a Spiritual teacher varied considerable, there seemed to be an overall consensus that he was doing a lot of pretty good and serious work on the helping the poor, hungry and uneducated front.
Some also mentioned that this lead to a vicious hatred of him on part of (amongst others) the evangelical missionary societies whose efforts to produce what Ghandi called "Rice Christians" his work greatly hampered.
While I have no way to verify independently what I heard on Quora, I think there is ample precedence for various interested forces, some with clout in the West, trying to smear popular Gurus.
Not saying that this is necessarily the case here, and even where there is a clear intention to smear there can still be truth to accusations.
But kinda like with media claims about evil Russia, so here too some caution before accepting media claims at face value is probably warranted.
Personally I think a great many if not most public, religious leaders/teachers (far from restricted to India and Hinduism) have at least something of a conman (certainly a showman) to them.
But also think that that doesn't necessarily preclude all of them from doing good and important work as well.
It's not always 100% clear cut.
WEF stooge, video of him saying he wants less souls on earth so a eugenicist to boot.
And his narration on Bharat is wrong. Bharat is because of the great emperor Bharata who ruled the region from Indus till down south
Don’t want to hijack this section I love reading Simplicius articles, please keep them coming
the bastard guru pushed the jabs. A fake Gandhi for confirmes idiots
I don't think this meeting is being properly presented. The only important thing that happened was they came to unanimous agreement that Digital IDs are necessary so they can bring in Digital currencies. When that happens we'll be under one global totalitarian empire. Game over.
I suspected Russia and China were secretly in bed with the west and now we have confirmation.
I didn't know about the digital ID agreement. How horrible: https://www.ntd.com/g20-announces-plan-to-impose-digital-currencies-and-ids-worldwide_941560.html
Now are Russia and China in bed with the West or creating their separate but equal reality? I suspect the latter as the West still has a long, long way to fall, and it will fall.
That about the imposition of a place name by the current nationalist rulers of a given country, trying to oblige all speakers of all languages, is just a load of atrocious nonsense. Each language has its own names for a lot of countres and places. Also, the crass ignorance of the pseudo-etymology offered by that Shri Something is so blinding that one wonders how come anyone reproduced it. "Hind", which developed into "India", etc., is just as ancient as a local name for the subcontinent, if not more ancient than "Bharat" -- check Arrian's history and the ancient Indian texts, fercryinoutloud. As for the name "Türkiye", it is exactly the same word as Turkey (of Greek origin even in its contemporary Turkish form) but in a shape totally unpronounceable in the majority of non-Turkish languages, while "Myanmar" is the same as plain ole "Burma" written in a historic spelling (i.e. with a pronunciation modified over time, like the English spelling) in the local Burman writing system, transposed one-on-one to the Latin alphabet. And all this arrant nonsense by dungheap cockerels, however in tune they may now be with our multipolar or antimperialist sentiment, is defended by you, who always seem to so careful to research and check before stepping in it!
You do make some good points. However, forget the "elites" and policymakers for a second and talk to actual Indian people on the ground. What do they say? The ones I sampled, who are all of "low caste" and have nothing to do with power politics, appear to agree with the sentiment that Bharat should be the official name. What do you say to them?
Well that's pretty obvious isn't it? You say have what you want but this is what you're doing and then explain JQP's points to them. Or ask them to consult their own scholars. And/or history. He wasn't talking about elites or policymakers as far as I can see. Or am I reading the wrong post? He is talking about common sense, common truth - you remember? that thing that fell by the wayside under the American onslaught beginning way back... I'm not sure when...
Doubtless - yep, I'd even say that: 'doubtless' - the Indians or 'Bharatians' who want a change of name want it for purely mypopic, childish, histrionic, feverish reasons and won't have the faintest idea how it could do anything to help the nation at all.
Which, I suppose you can argue it would by promoting 'national pride', whatever that is.
But that same 'national pride' is what is used by rulers all over the world to totally intimidate, manipulate and even destroy their populations: witness Ukraine, right?
What I'd say to them and to all others is always the same: facts deserve full respect and precedence, while feelings, however justified they may seem subjectively, do not.
Besides, in the case of imposed names the popular feeling is a direct result of propaganda and social engineering operated by the counterfactually-named "elites".
Keep in mind that there are no fewer than ELEVEN languages on every Indian rupee banknote, and literally the only personage featured on the money is M. Gandhi because there's no way to achieve a consensus on honoring someone else. India is about ten thousand times more complex and diverse than any other nation.
Bharat sounds too much like Barack. I'll not be ordering any Barackian takeaway food. Might catch AIDS or something.
Or get addicted to two types of crack. Lol
My take on this:
Better Bharat than Borat.
Sacha Baron Cohen
I'm just hoping that the remergence of Pangaea in 200 million years does not set off another SMO...🤣
India is historically the valley of river Indus with all the tributaries, most of which is situated in today's Pakistan. It was the entrance for travelers on a land route coming from Europe via Persia, so it was taken as a name for the whole subcontinent. Happens all the time. However, if you check the languages of India, they call themselves always भारत (Bharat) - so the renaming isn't one. It refers only to the foreigners to finally learn the real name.
I agree, this sad guru provides a highly esoteric pseudo-etymology.
I don't think anyone fom the outside will object to Indians naming their country anything they want, like Joe, Snoogles or Bharat -- in their own language(s)! If anyone is stupid enough to use magical thinking, believing that changing names changes things, let him. There are no "real names" in language, just usage-determined names in each language.
What is intolerable is the arrogance of dictating a replacement of historic names in foreign languages -- the sad fact is that the crassly ignorant "journalists" in all those foreign languages always oblige. Watch them trying to say "Tüüürkiyéh" or "B-hhharat" on the TV.
Good points, and as I am no linguistics expert, I am forced to take your word that they might be accurate. However, the point I would make is that apparently Modi and his followers and the people of India (Bharat?) apparently feel strongly enough about the name to change it. Would you not respect their decision and the reasons they themselves offer up for that change? And would you not consider the proposition that as you explained the word "India" evolved from the word "Hindi" perhaps via usage of it over time by Europeans, and not by Indians themselves?
With a minimum of digging I came upon this article which vaguely supports your supposition of "India" coming from "Hindu" though not quite.
From the article:
The game of name
- In brief, the name ‘India’ originates from the River Sindhu, the very ancient and popular Indus valley civilization.
- Initially, there was no word like India or Indus. It all started with the word Sindhu.
- The Aryan(Indo-Iranian people) referred to the river Indus as the Sindhu(a Sanskrit word).
- The old Persian equivalent of Sindhu is Hindu. So, the Persian invaders started calling the Sindhu “Hindu”. Time Period: 600 BCE to 300 BCE
- Scylax of Caryanda a Greek explorer explored the Indus river for the Persian emperor and presumably took over the Persian name and passed it to Greek(Europe). Time Period: 550 BCE to 450 BCE
- The loss of the /h/ from the dialects of Greek spoken language gave rise to the word “Indos”. - And over the passage of time, it ended up being called India. They also coined the term “Indian” for the people of the lower Indus basin.
- By the time of Alexander, Alexander’s companions were aware of North India up to the Ganges delta. Later, Megasthenes included the southern peninsula in India. Time Period: 356 BCE to 290 BCE
- The names Sindhu and Hindu gave rise to the name “Hindustan” that refers to the land of the Hindus.
- “Bharat”, the name is said to be derived from the name of the Bharata clan(an ancient tribe).
Now, if you read carefully the text above, one thing stands out above all - the word "India" does not derive in any form whatsoever from the Indians themselves, but from other regions of the world, primarily European. So why should the Indians not be offended?
I am likely called by several names by others (we don't need to know what those names are, do we?), but I prefer to be called Victor, and by law, that is my name. But what should happen to my preference should the law decide I am to be called by another name and so the world only knows me by that name? Should I not be offended? Should I not ask to have my true name restored so that the world knows it and recognises it?
The word's story is on the whole correct. The problem is that language and usage is a longterm social phenomenon -- meaning that there are no "true" words but only sounds to which the social convention within each language assigns a meaning -- the only thing that counts is what the current user collective of the English or Eskimo etc. language means by it. Social engineering by nationalist tinpot Mussolinis (change the name if it offends you) that try to command language, worse, languages other than their own (with the complicity of crassly ignorant and supine journalists) is an act of highly offensive propaganda. To summarize, I don't care what you want to be called -- let social usage decide. and feel free to feel offended.
True enough. But on the other hand, social usage can be altered - and that seems to be precisely what the "Indians" (Bharati? Bharatans? Bharatanis?) are attempting to do.
I am from the Philippines and we sometimes call them Barat. Without the "h".
You advocate for compelled speech. See, I am not forcing you to call Russia Rossiya from now on, because how it's spelled in Russian. Because it's not my fucking business. It's your language. We already have this problem with Ukraine, with their constant attempts to compel other to spell toponims certain way. It's unhealthy. I will keep saying Holland, Birma, Pekin, Bombay etc, thank you very much.
Chill. Perhaps you should re-read what I said. I would not compel you to do anything or say anything. I would merely inform you that I have the right to determine my own name and request that you respect that. If I, as a country, join the UN, I expect the nameplate in front of my representative to display my name. If I am the United States, I expect that displayed name to be "United States", not "Shithole Empire". Or if Israel, I expect the name "Israel", not "Apartheid Israel". And whilst you have every right to call me what you want, common decency would demand you respect my name.
It's exactly argument what pronouns people make. No, I will call you 'he', even if you demand me to call you 'zxhey'. UN nameplates are in English, so it's going to be in English, not in 'what I want it to be in English'
Great sitrep, and an astute observation about the sparkly explosions on the Challenger tank. Reading tonight about the cruise missile attack on Sevastopol (preliminary reports are that a ship and a submarine were damaged, and 24 people were injured). A decisive end to this war can't come soon enough.
This is literally a Nuland pet project - putting Crimea under attack, to prove to the Russians that they aren't safe there. Its another Donetsk.
Nuland is out of her depth when it comes to critical thinking. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that Russia's going to abandon its strategically vital navy base in the Black Sea because of these kinds of nuisance attacks. Russia will adapt and overcome, as they always have.
That's true. I decided not to report on it yet because as of the writing it was just happening and there are simply no clear facts yet.
But the one consistent reminder is that Ukraine typically manages one such moderately successful strike every month or two. This is telling--it goes to show that a lot of planning and coordination goes into such a strike.
I remember several days ago there were reports of heavy NATO SIGINT traffic in the Black Sea and people were expecting a strike of some sort, likely doing a recon pull for Crimean AD radiations to plot a cruise missile chart through the fringes. Earliest reports claim 10 missiles used and 7 were shot down, 3 getting through. The fact that Sevastopol is right on the sea and likely several feet ASL (above sea level) means the missiles could skim the water surface and get just under radar nets, which typically aren't designed to depress downward into negative degrees of elevation, which would mean they could bypass detection up until very last moment.
It also coincides with the start of the big NATO exercise in Romania.
Success of such air power based attacks begs the question, is it Ukraine executing or is Ukraine getting unofficial help in delivering weapons are target? In general Ukraine lacks the intelligence and delivery platform for such attacks given Russian defenses.
In terms of force deployment, Ukraine and Russia are in 2 different situations - Russia needs to have a functional and vibrant economy and by definition taking able bodied men out of normal industry and sending them to the front is economically destructive. So, minimizing casualties, and having "willing" forces rather than mobiks is important. But, without a doubt, there is a manpower issue, and the front remains enormous.
Whereas, Ukraine has no economy, it is entirely financially supported by the West. The only limiting factor here is the physical number of men that Ukraine can send to the front. Which is a terrible, awful thought, that Ru may have to kill upwards of a million Ukrainian men before this has a chance of ending.
But surely Kiev Ukraine still needs an economy in fact? Else what is being supported by the USA etc. rots down to nothing in the end. It must be rotting now. Doesn't matter? Just part of the cost of getting going again after the war, if there ever is one and Kiev Ukraine is still there?
The west only wants what it can take from Ukraine. Before the war, what industry or economic benefit did Ukraine provide the west? Not very much, mostly just grain. Ukraine is and was more useful to them as an economic and political buffer against Russia.but, the west is salivating at the thought of taking Ukraine's one jewel in the present day, it's plentiful and arable land, and they can get it virtually for free. You don't need Ukraine to have an economy to take that. It's the same thing Hitler and the Nazis wanted in Ukraine, lebensraum, bread for the Reich, and if any Ukrainians are still breathing they'll take them for cheap, or even slave, labour.
I am hoping Russia takes control of all of Ukraine, declares all debt, all foreign land ownership null and void. Breaks the country up in regions, supervises votes on governing referendums, supervises elections for new management, total neutrality, invites the displaced to return, and the regions apply for BRICS funds to rebuild.
That’s disgusting.
If Russia does not do this, Ukraine will be a failed state. Prior to this war, Ukraine was considered the most corrupt country in the West if not in the world. It was and remains a haven for drug trafficing, slave trafficking, organ harvesting. If a rump Ukraine is left to Blackrock, the Globalists, and World bankers they will ravage what is left of the country and its people. They will bring Hell on earth to that country. See Libya for details of what awaits Ukraine at their hands.
That's totally understandable. For Russia there are 2 quite bad options left:
1) leave a part of Ukraine as independent state, but there is a chance it will be armed again and thrown against Russia one more time in the future;
2) or take all territory, but Russia needs a lot of resources to drag it from poverty and also counterinsurgency problems.
Look no further than how German women after the end of the 39-45 war were left with little choice in the male department. Millions dead and MIA with no info on dead or captured. That's how it will look, plus NONE of the current refugees will ever go back.
"none of the refugees will ever go back" - I disagree. Potentially.
If there's a kinda forgiving regime for them after the conflict, they will. A lot of people who fled are also people who have physical gold or money abroad.
If they're allowed, they'll be helluva willing to return and buy as much property as possible.
Perhaps some investments and companies as well.
It's not all dark-sided.
One thing we have all seen (since the '90') and the refugee trend is that very few go back permanently, and as soon as they get that magic PR or passport it's game over. They holiday back in their country while trying to import the entire family to whatever country they reside.
As you say they usually also become property magnates by buying properties back in Shitanistan or Balkans and now most likely Ukraine.
Meanwhile Sevastopol was attacked with 10 (!) cruise missiles, of which 3 got through and hit two ships in the ship repair yard.
Zero reaction from the Kremlin despite the loudly announced by Shoigu red lines.
And the war is going so swimmingly that 20 months into it the last time substantial territorial advances were made was 15 months ago, Ukraine/NATO is bold enough to start hitting targets deep inside Russia, and they do so with impunity because they know that there will be no meaningful response.
Where does that end? If there is nothing to stop the strikes, eventually there will be no Black Sea Fleet, no industry left west of the Urals (and they might start hitting even e.g. the Sukhoi plants in the Far East too -- there were already rumors about such plans back in December, to be done with drones launched from commercial ships). Bit by bit it will all be degraded while the Kremlin is focused on its BS economic forums and on maintaining the appearance of normality.
But sure, keep writing 10,000-word reassurances to the gullible masses how Russia is winning decisively, and how everything is perfect.
You most certainly have a right to your valid opinion, but a quick search of your post history reveals literally every single post is one of what would be considered "dooming", complaining, concern-trolling, etc. So that sort of takes some of the legitimacy away from what you have to say as it's a bit of the 'boy who cried wolf' syndrome, as no matter what happens, it's always bleak sturm und drang according to you.
Yes, it is very convenient to deflect by labeling people doomers. There is a proud tradition of it since before the Saker shut down the blog.
There is a point where reality and narratives diverge so much that the narratives just become obviously laughable to everyone with a still functioning brain.
The objective facts are that the SMO was supposed to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine, but Ukraine is more nazi (and ever more openly so) and more powerful militarily than ever before, while the Kremlin is doing less and less to stop that.
That is just the reality on the ground.
Was Ukraine able to hit Sevastopol with cruise missiles in February 2022? No. Would NATO even have dared to do that? No. Is that happening now? Yes.
Was Ukraine able to hit Moscow last year? No. Would NATO have even dared send drones there last year? No. Has it been a nearly daily occurrence recently? Yes.
Have planes and ships, i.e. important assets, been hit? Yes, they have been, and this has been going on for nearly a year now.
Did Shoigu publicly state hitting Crimea is a red line? Yes. Has Crimea been hit? Yes, repeatedly, and further and further southwards -- first it was Chongar, then the airfields in central Crimea, now the shipyard in Sevastopol. Were the mythical decision making centers hit? No.
Is everything of key importance in Ukraine -- grid, transportation system, leadership -- largely or completely (in the case of leadership) untouched? Yes.
It has gotten to the point where Putin is afraid to leave Russia while Zelensky jet sets around the world. So much winning I just can't get enough of it.
And all that even though the Kremlin has the power to stop it all in a single day. But they don't.
Which is not because this is some 5D chess game in which they are the grandmasters, but because they are looking for a deal. For themselves and their oligarch cronies. Russia's interests be damned. Is there another explanation that makes any sense given what is happeinng?
If the Kremlin could stop Ukraine in a single day, they would. What a load of unsubstantiated rubbish posted as fact. Shadowbanned?
Yes, they indeed can do it in a single day.
Remember that first missile strike last October after the Kerch bridge was hit? It was a small demo of their conventional capabilities, and it didn't really hit anything of importance. That salvo alone could have decapitated much of the command structure, had it been targeted at it.
It is an insult to the soldiers who die every day in the trenches that the Kiev pilgrimage continues without any interference. Inevitably followed by more and more weapon deliveries and attacks against Russia.
24 people were reportedly injured today in Sevastopol (and much of that is probably skilled personnel that is hard to replace). Why? Because the Kremlin allowed Storm Shadow missiles to be transferred to Ukraine and didn't do anything to stop it. It is of great comfort to them that Putin gave yet another uninspiring speech at the economic forum in Vladivostok and that some morons in the West think he is the greatest leader ever.
Grandstanding on the lives of Russan Soldiers again I see. Great.
You are misinformed as to the nature of this war. Without overflight of heavy bombers, much of Ukraine's command structure is untouchable.
Check out the Gerasimov Doctrine. There was some good stuff posted here on it awhile back.
Yes, it is absolutely "buried deep and untouchable" when it gives press conferences with Western leaders out there in the open.
And the entrances to those bunkers are also "buried and untouchable", it wasn't the USSR that built them and there are no blueprints for them in Moscow, and Russia doesn't have absolutely any means of sealing them and entombing everyone inside. Absolutely.
Compared to perfection, none of the leaders fair very well. Putin compared to the geriatric blob in the White House or his back up blob who has been honing her disco era dance moves, while hundreds of thousands of Americans are dying on the streets. Of course there is also the alternative, the orange freak who, one must admit, surprised everyone by showing that it was indeed possible to miss him. So umm... what were you saying again about Putin ?
How could the Kremlin have prevented storm shadow missiles to be transferred to Ukraine?
By enforcing red lines from the start, and by sealing the western Ukrainian borders
I don't think it's deflection to point out a provocateur who has a 100% batting average for concern trolling out of literally dozens/hundreds of posts. It's very telling and means that you don't have a proper rational grasp on the conflict.
With that said, I still give you your space to have your opinion, despite how laughably wrong it is.
Simplicius what do you think of the possibility that Putin is ‘sitting on his duff’, as McGregor stated, on purpose - minimise Russia’s own losses, continue the Ukrainian attrition while, importantly, bankrupting the US and NATO. What if the ancillary goal is to expedite the financial duress/sovereign insolvency the US is facing? Surely the more inflated the US dollar becomes (due to the inevitable money printing ahead), the more appealing this ‘other’ means of trading - whether via an alternative currency or accepting multiple currencies - becomes for BRICs+? Just a thought. (I also believe Putin’s wish to avoid enflaming US/NATO hostilities and creating a direct confrontation is also credible; our leadership is truly nuts, unpredictable and duplicitous)
Quantititive easing will never end, they can print indefinitely until the rest of the world wakes up and stops buying treasuries and bonds.
It should have gone tits up in '08 but didn't, that tells you it will never be allowed unless above happens.
From the charts I’m seeing the ‘world’ is slowing the buying of bonds and treasuries. The analysts I’m reading warn of the risk of a debt spiral. Financial historians recount case study after case study of fiat currencies dying. After the gold standard, the dollar relied on the ‘petro’ dollar - that’s in the process of dying it seems as OPEC countries are making trades outside the dollar system. It’s all small steps at the moment, but as Hemingway famously quipped about bankruptcy, ‘slowly at first, then all at once.’
The West is afraid the price of oil will go up causing more inflation and thus higher interest rates. "Investors" are getting a ridiculously low rate of interest on their government bonds. As interest rates go up, previous bonds are less valuable and lose collateral value so banks go under. Yes, they are rigging, but the rigging is falling apart.
But there's more than that. There's corporate debt, commercial mortgage backed securities defaults, massively underfunded pensions, massive consumer debt, municipal and state debt and more.
None of these has a currency they can just print more of. Corporations used all the tax breaks Trump gave them to buy back their own stock to jack up their share prices and then borrowed to the hilt to do even more buybacks. If I didn't believe in God I'd be having a nervous breakdown right now.
When the Covid lockdown began I subscribed to a trader education service. They did fundamental analysis of US companies to figure out who would benefit or be hurt by Covid. Something like 85% of these companies has more long term debt than their book value. AT&T is in a slow growth sector so had paid through the nose for some high growth, high margin companies to make themselves look better. But they had to pay top dollar for them. Their long term debt was something like $245 billion. The company isn't worth anything near that. IBM was similar. The airlines had spent more money buying back stock in the 10 years prior than they were worth. If I remember correctly, 15% of US listed corporations were zombie companies. They don't make enough to pay interest on their debt so borrow even more just to do that.
And these hotels and things going tits up in San Fransisco, like the Hilton hotel, aren't being expensed to the mother company. They're just defaulting on their commercial mortgage backed securities. So that's our pensions that are taking the hit. 100% wiped out on that investment.
We're sitting on a house of cards that itself sits on hundreds of card houses. I nearly start hyperventilating just thinking about how fragile things are.
That I don't already live under a bridge eating crickets shows how bad my predicting skills are. I must be missing something. Trump started this last gasp suicide run when his budget deficits were double anything that had ever been seen before. By Sept. 2019 the REPO market locked up and the FED had to inject $1 trillion a day to keep things afloat. That's when Trump and the gang launched Covid. They kicked the can down the road a bit by using a fake force majeure to get them out from under their contractual obligations.
Maybe Putin knows what he's doing and he's letting this bomb were sitting on ignite itself? I suspect, many thanks to simplicius and the commentors, that Russia has many things to consider besides the war. The opinion of the global south and the global citizenry in general, is one. The hollowing out of the western military capability and their economies is another.
My intuition tells me they're in this together but I can't formulate a convincing argument. Covid being so obvious and consisting of wall to wall mistakes confuses me. That most went along with it is the strangest thing that's ever happened. I'm stumped. But if Digital ID comes in I don't know how we'll survive.
I think everyone, Simplicius included, needs to keep tabs on what is happening in the world of oil and natural gas, the life blood of economy, to put this conflict in proper focus. Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr's Defense Chief, Admiral William Crowe, told me in 2003, re the Iraq invasion "If we lost the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, we would see Depression Era economic conditions in the west within a matter of months". Well sure enough, with BRICS + 6 , Russia and China now have effective control of not just the Persian Gulf, but the Suez Canal also. Iraq, after the USA and UK spent a trillion dollars and a million lives lost, just directed all of their oil and gas to go to Russia and China. There is no way on earth that the west can stand back and let that happen and I think it would be foolish for anyone to think that they will. Having said that, it is prudent for Putin and Xi to keep a huge amount of powder dry for the real war ... the one in the Middle East that is inevitable. They, the CIA et al have already started to destabilize the Kurdish autonomous region with sectarian riots and Lindsey G is calling for 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Nevermind 'follow the money'... follow the oil and I'm saddened to see not nearly enough attention being paid to that background story that trumps all the others.
While I’ve always understood our foreign policy was never about ‘freedom and democracy’ but controlling oil and resources, I hadn’t thought of what you illustrate here - I’ve been focused on the petrol dollar mostly but supply chain and control of distribution is a new dimension. Dry powder also a good theory but the need of such is an awful prospect for the rest of us just trying to live our lives as best we can in peace!
Either way, I can’t see the US being up to the task of a direct military confrontation unless nukes involved. Abled bodied recruits alone means we are behind vs the billions in Eurasia. And our leadership is not up to the task. Mental stuff
This attack was serious. Russ knows what airport they came from - they were apparently on radar. Why weren't they shot down as they should have been under the radar coverage of S330/400 radars? Instead, they were only taken out short range by Panstir. None of the S34s were shot down, and apparently disappeared again. This is an important Russian military base. The only thing I can think of is they fly too close to the water for radar to pick them up(?) or ??? I wouldn't be so annoyed except for all the praise of the vaunted Russian anti-missile systems. I understand from Legends their S34s are even active on the front(???)
A healthy attitude: take life with good humor.
One word: the objective is to destroy the Amerukrainian armed forces together with their Nazi commissars and to force that American colony to neutrality, NOT to conquer any territories.
Then start destroying it.
Because I don't see that happening -- I see its capabilities growing, its command structures untouched, and its getting bolder and bolder in its attacks
Were they capable of hitting Sevastopol with cruise missiles when this all started? Simple question.
I think there is another explanation.
For instance: 'they are looking for a deal' - well yes, for sure. Putin, Lavrov etc. even declare that. That's top level.
But next level down there's all kinds of intricacies involved in 'deals'.
And next level down those intricacies involve not so much evil oligarchs but astute politicians, business leaders and all kinds of people.
And relevant to that is the simple fact that oligarchs necessarily are involved as always because big money is always involved and big money often belongs to 'oligarchs'. They ain't necessarily evil.
So what's that? An argument by elimination or something? I seek to show that ' a deal for themselves and their oligarch cronies' is a remote and far fetched possibility.
And so on.
The world is built on deals, explicit and implicit and this war is running the way it is because of deals and the end of it will be full of deals and how could it be otherwise?
And Russia ending it overnight. How? NOT possible. Not feasible.
Instead of busting our guts with heated polemic in venues such as this some effort directed towards getting the simple truths: like it is Kiev Ukraine v Donbas Ukraine and like there are NO Russian boots on any piece of ground in Ukraine that they were not invited onto - to the ordinary people in the West and to the ordinary people in Kiev Ukraine.
You have a point, I personally thought Putin would have gone for the Dneiper by now.
The only faith I have that it will end is by attrition of manpower to the point we see "Volksturm" units being destroyed at the front (But the Russkies never move forward)
"Ukraine is ..... more powerful militarily than ever before" ROTFLMAO.
Ya Ukraine is winning ... that's why their Defense Chief was sacked and left the country.... too much winning. Reznikov was warned .. "Oleksii, you are going to have to cut back on all those battlefield victories or we will have to find a better loser to replace you".... but he wouldn't listen.
I think the answer is much simpler than cronies in the Kremlin looking to make some treasonous deal with the West. When you have military assets, that you have spent months and years accumulating and training, you become risk averse. This is the natural course that most generals follow. They had to lose assets and become asset hoarders.
In a different post, I compared this war to the U.S. Civil War, and the two are very, very similar: Russia in the case playing the part of the Union and Ukraine the Confederate States. Lincoln had the same issue with his generals that Putin has with his, and it was not that the Union generals were trying to cut behind-the-scenes deals with the Confederates. No one would attack, because they were, as many generals are, asset hoarders, and they knew, after 1st Manassas, the high cost of offensive operations. Moreover, they had some compassion for their soldiers as human beings.
Lincoln had to go through 3 generals in the West and 4 in the East before he hit upon Grant and Sherman, who would attack, despite the enormous cost in lives. I don't think the Russians are going to face a Cold-Harbor type pyrrhic victory if they start and offensive, but they will lose assets and it will be bloody. Putin needs to find his Grant and his Sherman before this escalates into a nuclear exchange, which it will eventually if it does not wind down.
The problem is that if there is no deterrence, then NATO can just destroy the whole Black Sea Fleet bit by bit in such attacks. Then what?
A line needs to be drawn at some point, and it better be sooner than later
These ships don't grow on trees, it takes years to build a fleet, and such strikes degrade real capabilities.
There were six Kilo subs in the BSF, now there are five. That matters.
I am not disagreeing with you about the need for Russia to start offensive operations. I am disagreeing with you about why they are seem so reluctant to do so.
It does not really matter if the enemy knows where you are today. What matters in an offensive is if you can move more to a point of attack tomorrow than the enemy. The Russians can do this, because they have compete air superiority and can interdict any large-scale Ukranian troop movements. They just need to find a general with the brains and the callousness (to his troops) to do it.
Dear GM. Did you have a look on Gen Milley's screens in his bunker? It's in this article - go find it. That little inroad they've made with the counter offensive at the cost of 71500 men's lives? It's laughable.
That is the reality on the ground.
My brain functions really well thank you, so well that I can remember the same types as you going on and on about Syria too...I always hark on about Syria..why??...same players...same end results, you'll see...it's all a bit slower than you want it, but then again it's not all about what we want.
Your reply to either this propaganda operative or moron, and whichever he is is irrelevant, is much more diplomatic than what i would have been able to muster up. And when one thinks about it, the most logical conclusion for posts like GM's is that they are propaganda operatives as even though you are experiencing well earned expanding readership, it's highly unlikely that someone with GM's mainstream narrative beliefs would be coming to niche blogs like yours for information, and especially posting in the comments trying to sow seeds of doubt etc etc.
Not to minimise the quality of his (her? their?) comments but images keep coming to mind of Eeyore the Donkey in the Winnie-the-Pooh stories.
But those images are often interspersed with images of that creature Chicken Little running around hysterically crying the "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!".
Of course, I could be wrong. The sky might well be falling. And Ukraine might be a great power now and on the verge of destroying Russia. Yes, indeed, I could well be wrong.
The troll is back. Where have you been GM? Train ride in Kiev?
The best (for the owner of the ship) place for a naval asset to be damaged is in port!!!
You have a point but insulting your host and his readership is rude and doesn't advance the discussion.
Anyway, it's worth considering why Russia doesn't respond when its red lines are crossed. Ukraine is obviously "all in" on this conflict. There's no tactic, no matter the ancillary damage - dam destruction, nuclear contamination, etc. - that they aren't willing to pursue, no weapons - even awful cluster bombs - that they hesitate to use, and no sacrifice of manpower they're not willing to make. Russia on the other hand refuses to go "all in." The lights are still on in Kiev.
Putin is seasoned and IMO is not deluded about the facts on the ground. He understands something fundamental about the military and political situation that makes him very hesitant to take action that would horrify the Western public and drive opinion towards an full-fledged NATO v. Russia engagement. I have some thoughts on what that might be, but am not inclined to share those thoughts presently.
Turkey changing its name to Türkiye isn’t going to undo the tremendous disservice that it did long ago (1929) to its cultural identity and heritage by adopting the Latin alphabet as part of Its “Westernization/modernization” project, hence actively censoring, disowning, and pummeling its own history, cultural, and linguistic heritage.
Slightly off-topic with my comment. Simplicius refers, often to Turkey and how Turkey/Erdogan is coming more to the fore. Being an ex-pat living in Greece (Lesvos, particularly) we do not see Erdogan as a source of enlightenment. Indeed, many Turks do not - we are friends with them, including an ex-Intelligence gentleman who is, to be blunt, worried for HIS future......
Turkey is also supporting the repression of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/slow-genocide-120000-armenian-christians-happening-under-azerbaijan-occupation-report
The question is, these Christians are, I believe, Coptic Christians. They are related to Orthodox Christians which are, as we all know, more or less, under the protection (?) of Russia.... Will Putin intervene? Are there going to be repercussions?
I would like to hear Simplicius' thoughts on this....
I was going to cover the Armenian situation in this report, but alas, it already got so long I felt that it would be too much as the Armenian topic requires a lot of space on its own. However, to add a few words the current sentiment in Russia is that Armenia has dug its own grave. In fact in the same Eastern Economic Forum talk, Putin stated as much by saying that Russia tried to help Armenia by recognizing Kalbahar and Lachin as Armenian but Karabakh as Azerbaijanian but Armenia was recalcitrant and wanted to fight. Also he said that Armenia had itself already legally recognized Azerbaijan's claims to Karabakh in the Prague summit last year. You can hear his words here: https://t.me/IntelRepublic/27538
Many Russian analysts now espouse the belief that Pashinyan is a Western mole who wants to instigate a conflict on purpose in order to give himself a raison d'etre to shift the country away from Russia toward a reorientation to the U.S. which has been courting them. Thus, many Russians see the proceedings as partly a betrayal on the behalf of Armenian elite, particularly
Pashinyan.
It's a difficult situation because Russia also has important trade with Azerbaijan as well. And the past few days there have been Armenian provocateurs who have tried to attack/provoke Russian peacekeepers in the region, so it's a very complex situation.
And, as per usual, the people will suffer... Thanks for your quick reply. Are you still going to do an ARMENIAN article?
By the way, I wrote a comment a few days ago about my experience with Russian military, whilst I was with the RMP (British Military police) in Germany, with our SOXMIS unit. Not sure if you picked it up:
"I am an ex-British serviceman. In the RMP (Military Police) From '75-87. In 1982-3, I was in Germany as part of the SOXMIS unit, in Bielefeld (Look it up wikipedia has a fair article) We monitored Russians in West Germany. One day, I was tasked to meet, and follow, a Russian car from Southern Germany. In it was a Russian Colonel, his wife and son, plus, his driver. He was going to Bonn, the then capital, to the Russian embassy. We took him there and waited outside. After an hour, the car came back out and came over to us.
"Corporal," he said, "we have been told to go away for two hours and then go back. Where can we go for a picnic?" I kid you not. I told him to drive ahead to....... And we'd follow making sure that he did not go into restricted areas. He went into the countryside, found a picnic spot, stopped, and WE ALL got out, had drinks/food etc. Like good friends, but recognising ranks.
"You know, corporal," said the Colonel, "we, in Russia, have our countries around the world. Especially Africa. We give to them our socialist views.. We give to them our money to give to their people our socialist views! And what do these leaders do? They spend this money on themselves. They keep themselves, and their friends well off and the people? A few peanuts. And, we give them more money to keep them on our side! And you do the same!"
Paraphrased, but that was the gist of the conversation. Now, think. He knows, like his bosses, that, whenever we, the RMP/SOXMIS, have a verbal meet with the Russians, straight away, we are required to contact our Intelligence for a debrief........
That meeting cost me a beret and cap badge which I gave to his son! I enjoyed my time on SOXMIS - it gave to me an alternate view to what we were usually given on our briefings....."
Sadhguru's explanation is bunk. "Bharat" comes from the name of one of the Afghan groups that invaded northern India about 3500 years ago. They later got personified in the Mahabharata as a semi-mythical founding ruler. Given that "India" comes from Sanskrit and was also coined by a group invading northern India, I'm not sure "Bharat" is that much of an improvement.
Note that the name "Russia" apparently also comes from foreign conquerors, the Norsemen who settled around Kiev, via descriptions from Greek merchants. There comes a point where you just accept the baggage history left you. Of course, not my country, not my place to say.
Ultimately the only thing of importance is whether the name change resonated with the population and aids in the decolonialization process.
I haven't a clue if it does, but a nation isn't obliged to accept historical baggage if they deem it reinforces neocolonialism.
Exactly. There are so many non-Indian experts it seems who have an opinion on this proposed name change, yet I'm curious how many of them have talked to actual Indians. The ones I've talked to all enthusiastically support the "patriotic" name change to Bharat. Who cares what outsiders think? That's the whole point of this global revolution, is it's a big middle finger to all Western colonists who stick their nose where they shouldn't.
Exact. The more vehement the reaction the more appropriate the change was. If they said eh call it what you want, that would be sensible. Hate is closer to love than indifference.
Serious question, here: How far back are you going to go? You state that the name comes from an invasion 3,500 years ago? What was it called before then? Using your logic, please follow the argument about the UK:
Our problems stem from the Dutch, because we had a Dutch king (William of Orange) since 1689. Well, no, it was the fault of the Normans, who invaded England in 1066 (And All That...) Well, no, it was the Danes who invaded during the 800s. Well, no, it was the Romans who invaded....
Bugger it all. It was the fault of Eve - if she hadn't taken the forbidden fruit then the world would be a better place! We worked that all out in the Mess one afternoon.
So, again, how far are you going back in history?
Not telling anyone else what to call their own country or where to find inspiration. Not saying 3500 years is too far back. I'm just noting that Sadhguru's explanation is bunk, that it's not unusual for countries to be named for foreign exonyms, and that "Bharat" isn't that much more autochthonous than "India".
Since you mention the UK: the name "Britain" is about the same age and has a somewhat similar origin. Greeks made contact with a Celtic group living on the south coast and generalized their native name to the whole island, with the pronunciation shifting over time. Not unlike the Persians generalizing the Sanskrit name for northwestern India to the entire subcontinent, which is how we get the English name "India" (Sindhu-Hindu-Indos-Indus-India).
This isn't that unusual. We call the Hellenes "Greeks" because Graecia happened to be the bit close to the Romans. "Rwanda" comes from the word for an annexed territory. "Austria" comes from being east of Bavaria. "Ukraine" of course means the borderland (but don't tell them that...)
Countries also often have multiple names across different languages. We don't go around saying Hellas, Deutschland, Nihon, Zhongguo, etc. Besides, many countries didn't exist as recognizable political entities until the colonial era, so the "decolonized" names often have to be contrived. Again: not saying countries shouldn't do that -- it's not my call. I'd just like to be factually accurate about the etymologies.
Is that Ukrainian newsreader, or whatever he is, for real? Or a joke? 'Who is fighting in Ukraine?' he says, like he doesn't know. After 9 years of doing all they can to occupy the Donbas regions. After two years of issuing increasingly hateful polemic about them, etc.
This is the american insanity, where black is white and up is down, everything is reversed.
I'm guessing just on arty rounds alone, NK must be Aladdins cave for 152mm rounds.
I read years ago that NK had the capacity to rain down on Seoul 10,000 artillery rounds an hour. I reckon they would have millions upon millions stockpiled.
aye, they could raze Seoul in a matter of hours with cannons. One of largest artillery army's in the world.
I remember that, in the 90's !
does it still stand true?
NK, one of those places you always wanted to visit ; ) all true.
I lived in Gimpo (between Seoul and Inchon, former home of the Seoul airport and former military airfield), and all the Korean men I knew, most still in the reserves, basically said that if war broke out they were cooked. The rumor is that all 43 bridges over the Hahn are permanently wired for demolition. When the siren goes off for real it’s like 45 minutes until the bridges are dropped and everything north of the river is abandoned. North of the river was lightly developed for years and only increased because Seoul couldn’t expand south.
I never got all the way to N. Korea but I spent a week on a recently opened island inside the DMZ. Love minefields on the north side of the island, active AA batteries, ROK marines practicing amphibious landings next to my campsite at dawn, ready to go artillery emplacements, the whole nine yards. A fishing boat captain took me to the NLL but said he couldn’t take me across because of all the tourists on the boat. We were supposed to be on a coastal cliff tour but were already far enough out that they were just shoreline.
Ironic how Milley's PR interview backfired by unintentionally revealing locations of Ukrainian formations in the background. Everything these Western clowns do seems to backfire.
"it’s easily 500-1000 KIA per day."
No. It's way past that. Ukraine is losing over 2,000 KIA and WIA per day - possibly as high as 3,000. See my articles calculating that. There may be some "return to duty" dilution but not as many as on the Russian side. Russia claims 97% of their wounded return to duty. Ukraine doesn't nearly has as good battlefield evacuation procedures or battlefield medical support as Russia does, so Ukraine is getting close to a 1:1 KIA:WIA ratio, i.e., many WIA die on the battlefield or in transit to primary care.
Thank you.
Any comments on HIMARs - how effective are they, their supposed dominance in long-range weapons on battlegrounds ?
Many thanks
Well they are certainly effective for what they are. The problem is, they're being used in a way that's not exactly what they were designed for. Rather than mass fires they're now being used in a very limited sniper role to strike single targets one at a time, only a few times per month.
What's funny is, the Ukrainian side roles out a video collage they put together of about 6-7 "big" looking HIMARS "snipes" of this sort and to the uninitiated it looks like major damage. But it completely ignores the fact that these collages are made up of footage over the course of weeks. They put such a collage together once every month or two. So the HIMARs are able to hit maybe 1 or 2 Russian targets per week. That's not *really* the mark of an effective weapons system or usage. It would be decent maybe if we were talking about only 1 or 2 HIMARs systems doing this damage. But considering they have MARS IIs, M270s, HIMARs all total numbering allegedly 40-50 by now (all those systems shoot the same exact rocket on different platforms), they should really be hitting more than that.
So that's to say, ultimately it's a rather disappointing usage of the system thus far which I think speaks to how well Russia has nullified it by way of a combination of AD and effective EW. However, when they DO work, they can be very effective--it's just too few and far in between.
The thing that impresses me most is not the HIMARs system itself but the Ukrainian networking/sensor fusion that allows them to so rapidly distribute target data between observational drones to the HIMARs unit by way of--most likely--their Delta/GIS Art/Nettle networking/battlefield management systems.
We know this is happening very swiftly because some of the hits have been on units that would not have been in that same place (like scoot-n-shooting artillery) if the data transfer took more than a few minutes. That means the networking kill chain from drone to HIMARs is happening very fluidly and swiftly which is impressive--when it does happen.
But given the paucity of actual successful occurrences as compared to the potential of total systems, it's not overly impressive.
Thank you very much for your fast and detailed response.
About your comment about the impressive Ukrainian networking/sensor fusion -- this might be the key element of US/UK intelligence assistance to Ukro-Nazis. They now stated that a strategy to force Russia into a "freeze" is to systematically attack Russian very high value targets - like yesterday's attack on dry-dock and submarine(s) in Sevastopol.
This was likely impossible without precise (6++ digit) and timely satellite and other surveillance data from US/UK. To me it is not clear how best Russia should handle such escalation...
Thanks once again.
"Inhuman social engineering"....?
Mrna, transgender, faggots legally marrying, bug eating, smart cities. All that good wholesome family stuff.
From any kind of rational perspective, it was Roman Law PREVENTING gay marriage that was the original "social-engineering". Fuckball Xians did NOT "invent the concept of marriage", they do NOT own it, and they can fuck the fuckity off , and the quicker the better. Simply removing inequitious inhuman discriminatory restrictions that should never have been there in the first place is hardly "social engineering", it is the REMOVAL of social engineering.
People have been eating bugs since... forever. I personally like sea-bugs, aka "shrimp" and "prawns". Don't you? Have I ever eaten crickets or ants? Not intentionally, although I know people who've had choco-ants and said they were OK, if crunchy. What really sticks in the throat, so to speak, is that this will be MANDATED for western poor. Much like the poor Irish HAD to eat only potatoes, during the "famine", Ireland was still exporting 90% of its foodstuffs.
Smart cities wouldn't be TOO bad of an idea, minus the top-down social control built into many of those concepts. An secure open-source, consumer lead, reduced wif-fi exposure, integrated city run on properly democratic lines with strict prevention of data-harvesting and disinformation (corporate media outlets), wouldn't be so bad. Human density at our current levels requires coordination. Sad, but true. The trick is ensuring it doesn't become authoritarian.
MRNA IS seriously fucking dodgy, along with everything that shitbag Gates gets invested in.
Transgender is fine, once we have the social/physical infrastructure to handle it. FX, unisex toilets as well as the regular two, and perhaps even specific trans-prisons to circumvent that current problem. It's worth ALWAYS bearing in mind the transgendering does not create the fucked up person - the person was ALREADY fucked up. Look at that wierd and psycho bitch "Ukr Spokeperson" - do you not think when it was a MALE, it was ALREADY one fucked up cunt? Making it semi-female did diddly-squat on that front.
A lot of M2F trans seem to imagine that life is easier as a woman, because they believed that it was being male that was their problem. Of course, it was being THEM that was the problem, not their 'gender'. But I also know personally some trans-people who ARE much happier as the opposite gender, and WTF has the right to deny them that? Like smoking tobacco or even dope, it may be harmful, it may even SLIGHTLY harm those around them, but there's no need to get all fucking Fash about it and ban it outright.
Conservatives are supposed to be protective of 'civil liberties', and 'individualism'. I suppose that was back in the days when "conservatism" meant anything more than "Opposing whatever the other bunch supports".
This kulchah war is seriously fucking stupid, when everyone should be working together to prevent authoritarianism, Oligarchism, and top-down total control. And dismantling the Western empires.
I think you put that rather well.
Thank you.
People aren't freaking out because trans have rights. Their freaking out because they're trying to brainwash children into thinking they're the wrong sex and giving them the legal authority to be surgically changed while stripping all rights from the parents. In that sense you're completely misrepresenting the issue while masquerading as just being reasonable. So go ahead and flip out if you want.
Well, I agree that this should be a choice for ONLY adults to make. If you can't be trusted to be able to buy a friggin BEER, you certainly shouldn't be making irreversible surgical and biological changes. Yes, I HAVE been censored and 'deplatformed' by trans-extremists for saying that, And I HAVE had to deal with their emotional-blackmailing bawling and wailing I'm "Denying their existence". Yawn.
They'll get over it. Kids wrongly persuaded to transition won't. The equation is simple.
But you do your own thing too, I'l find your own anti-trans bawling and wailing equal boring.
Jamis huh? Dune fan??? Well done if so.
You sad lonely bastard, you should emigrate to Ukraine.
Are you addressing me you cunt?
I'd rather be a cunt than a sad, lonely bastard like you. Have you got your visa for Ukraine yet?
Aw, little fag has his nose out of joint.
Who are you calling little? ;O)