# Wither Europe?



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

The news from Europe continues to get worse and now with Germany slowing down and severe disagreements with what the ECB should do next one wonders if the EU is even viable anymore. Bad demographics, a renewed threat from Russia, the lack of a coordinated energy policy and huge structural imbalances continue to plague Europe . The European economy can't seem to gain any traction and it seems Berlin is finally waking up to the fact that the UK may bolt from the EU in the next few years.

Does anyone see a way out for Europe? I certainly hope so but when Germany refuses to budge on stimulus and France and Italy refuse to make any real economic reforms its hard to see how this ends well.

Any thoughts?

Karl


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

The EU is every bit as vibrant and relevant UN ,why worry?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> The news from Europe continues to get worse and now with Germany slowing down and severe disagreements with what the ECB should do next one wonders if the EU is even viable anymore. Bad demographics, a renewed threat from Russia, the lack of a coordinated energy policy and huge structural imbalances continue to plague Europe . The European economy can't seem to gain any traction and it seems Berlin is finally waking up to the fact that the UK may bolt from the EU in the next few years.
> 
> ...


If Western Europe can go a century without a war, that's progress.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ there's still 30 years to go before we can say they've gone a century.

The way out? Dissolve the € and the ECB. To conflate the productive nations of Western and Northern Europe with Albania, Greece and other less productive nations is a recipe for disaster. 

Margaret Thatcher once said something along the lines of if a nation gives up its currency it basically surrenders its sovereignty. The UK was right not to join into the € and even smarter for wanting out of the EU. Germany is left holding the bag as it is the EU's powerhouse and as a result viewed with disdain by the other nations and seen as a bully.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As we observe what is happening around this comparatively small and fragile planet of ours, pick up your Bibles and take some time to read the Book of Revelations! For those who may not believe, skip reading Revelations and simply sit down, put your head between your legs and kiss you a** goodbye!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> If Western Europe can go a century without a war, that's progress.


Yes, It's fortunate Ukraine and Kosovo don't count!!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> If Western Europe can go a century without a war, that's progress.


Judging by its deft touch with monetary affairs, I feel sure that, left to its own devices, the EU will bring about some form of armed conflict in Europe soon enough.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Langham said:


> Judging by its deft touch with monetary affairs, I feel sure that, left to its own devices, the EU will bring about some form of armed conflict in Europe soon enough.


They've certainly been trying hard in Ukraine. With considerable US help of course.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> As we observe what is happening around this comparatively small and fragile planet of ours, pick up your Bibles and take some time to read the Book of Revelations! For those who may not believe, skip reading Revelations and simply sit down, put your head between your legs and kiss you a** goodbye!


you are certainly in apocalyptic mood Eagle:icon_pale: !

Guess I won't bother wasting time drawing up the list of new year resolutions for 2015!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I'm not sure, but isn't 70 years already a record? And remember, I said western Europe.



SG_67 said:


> ^ there's still 30 years to go before we can say they've gone a century.
> 
> The way out? Dissolve the € and the ECB. To conflate the productive nations of Western and Northern Europe with Albania, Greece and other less productive nations is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> Margaret Thatcher once said something along the lines of if a nation gives up its currency it basically surrenders its sovereignty. The UK was right not to join into the € and even smarter for wanting out of the EU. Germany is left holding the bag as it is the EU's powerhouse and as a result viewed with disdain by the other nations and seen as a bully.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ WWII ended in 1945. Pretty sure that was fought, at least in part, in western Europe.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Odradek said:


> They've certainly been trying hard in Ukraine. With considerable US help of course.


You can't be serious. The situation in Ukraine is the fault of the US and the EU? Not even Lavrov dares to utter such nonsense.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> The news from Europe continues to get worse and now with Germany slowing down and severe disagreements with what the ECB should do next one wonders if the EU is even viable anymore. Bad demographics, a renewed threat from Russia, the lack of a coordinated energy policy and huge structural imbalances continue to plague Europe . The European economy can't seem to gain any traction and it seems Berlin is finally waking up to the fact that the UK may bolt from the EU in the next few years.
> 
> ...


A common threat might just prove good for the common cause


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ WWII ended in 1945. Pretty sure that was fought, at least in part, in western Europe.


Yes, that's what I'm talking about.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> A common threat might just prove good for the common cause


Perhaps so but lets be honest Europe has very little military capability anymore. I hope the Flygvapnet is buying more Grippens.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I'd recommend an A-10!!

NATO has criticised Russian "aggression" after a column of 32 Russian tanks entered Ukraine.
The convoy of 32 tanks, 16 howitzer cannons and 30 trucks of troops and equipment crossed the border into the rebel-controlled Luhansk region.
Ukraine's military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said in a televised briefing: "The deployment continues of military equipment and Russian mercenaries to the front lines." 
Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko described the action as a "significant" violation of the truce signed on 5 September at Minsk. That deal was meant to stall the conflict in the east, which has claimed more than 4,000 lives.
"The President noted a significant deviation from the implementation of the Minsk (ceasefire) protocol, which is leading to further escalation of the conflict" a statement on the presidential website said.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'd recommend an A-10!!
> 
> NATO has criticised Russian "aggression" after a column of 32 Russian tanks entered Ukraine.
> The convoy of 32 tanks, 16 howitzer cannons and 30 trucks of troops and equipment crossed the border into the rebel-controlled Luhansk region.
> ...


Whoah, whoah, whoah! Hold on, you mean those convoys weren't delivering humanitarian cargo, diapers and baby formula?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Ack. I don't mean to sound like a peacenik or anything, but so long as there's no genocide going on, I don't care. I just don't, and I doubt that the average person who lives in Ukraine or wherever cares either, so long as they are healthy and their family is healthy and they can just live life. It is probably more complex than I am making it out to be, and I readily admit to being ignorant, but these European conflicts seem so filled with drama that means not much to the common man. Genocide, different story. I should probably be better informed.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

32rollandrock,



32rollandrock said:


> Ack. I don't mean to sound like a peacenik or anything, but so long as there's no genocide going on, I don't care. I just don't, and I doubt that the average person who lives in Ukraine or wherever cares either, so long as they are healthy and their family is healthy and they can just live life. It is probably more complex than I am making it out to be, and I readily admit to being ignorant, but these European conflicts seem so filled with drama that means not much to the common man. Genocide, different story. I should probably be better informed.


No need to worry about sounding like a peacenik, as you sound much, much worse. Do you really doubt that people in Ukraine (or "wherever") care about what is going on? Perhaps the most outlandish statement I have read all year.

When you admit to being ignorant and that you should probably be better informed its perhaps best to refrain from offering an opinion, especially one as offensive as the one you did.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Karl89 said:


> 32rollandrock,
> 
> No need to worry about sounding like a peacenik, as you sound much, much worse. Do you really doubt that people in Ukraine (or "wherever") care about what is going on? Perhaps the most outlandish statement I have read all year.
> 
> When you admit to being ignorant and that you should probably be better informed its perhaps best to refrain from offering an opinion, especially one as offensive as the one you did.


First off, I'm entitled to my opinion as to whether I care or not. No genocide, no U.S. strategic interest at stake, leastways insofar as I can see, nope. I don't care.

Secondly, as I understand things, Russia is occupying Ukraine, which is too small to do much about it. If that's a sufficient broad brush, let's continue. Do the people in Ukraine care? Well, of course they do. The question is, how much do they care? Do they care enough to go to war? See their husbands and sons, again, get killed? Have their cities bombed and industries devastated? Some do, sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a whole bunch who think it's just not worth it, so long as they can go about their lives and prosper. If the only difference is who collects the taxes and the cost of deciding who collects taxes is widespread death and destruction and economic ruin, we should not be surprised if a majority of Ukrainians, or citizens of any other country in a similar position, would choose peace over occupation, especially in a place like Ukraine where a lot of people would still remember what all-out war is like.

Of course, neither you nor I can say for sure, since we haven't polled the Ukrainian people.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Karl89 said:


> Perhaps so but lets be honest Europe has very little military capability anymore. I hope the Flygvapnet is buying more Grippens.


We are actually, 60 of them, or if it was 70. They added another 10 because of the whole Ukraine debacle.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> First off, I'm entitled to my opinion as to whether I care or not. No genocide, no U.S. strategic interest at stake, leastways insofar as I can see, nope. I don't care.
> 
> Secondly, as I understand things, Russia is occupying Ukraine, which is too small to do much about it. If that's a sufficient broad brush, let's continue. Do the people in Ukraine care? Well, of course they do. The question is, how much do they care? Do they care enough to go to war? See their husbands and sons, again, get killed? Have their cities bombed and industries devastated? Some do, sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a whole bunch who think it's just not worth it, so long as they can go about their lives and prosper. If the only difference is who collects the taxes and the cost of deciding who collects taxes is widespread death and destruction and economic ruin, we should not be surprised if a majority of Ukrainians, or citizens of any other country in a similar position, would choose peace over occupation, especially in a place like Ukraine where a lot of people would still remember what all-out war is like.
> 
> Of course, neither you nor I can say for sure, since we haven't polled the Ukrainian people.


Do you have the legal right to share an opinion about matters that you are ignorant about? Yes. But I wonder why you feel entitled to have an opinion about important matters that you are ignorant about.

And I won't go into my experience and connection with Ukraine, however there was an recent election and the results were pretty clear, so even someone as ignorant about the matter as you (your words not mine), can easily with the use of any search engine get a pretty strong indication of how the Ukrainian people feel. You can choose to remain ignorant and make blanket statements that you have no evidence to back up but you shouldn't feel entitled to do so. Take your own advice and become better informed and then offer an opinion.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> , however there was an recent election and the results were pretty clear, .


Really? I don't remember there being any recent election that was honest, where the whole of Ukraine was involved, and that "the results were pretty clear". The west is being egged on by the U.S. and Europe while the East is being egged on by Russia. Any "elections" or "referendums" that have been held recently show this division & are propaganda at best. If I remember correctly, the last "real" elected government (elected by Ukraine as a whole) was overthrown in a bloody coup by a group many considered terrorists. This was over the losing side's refusal to allow pro-russian policies to be put into place by the rightfully elected officials. There has been nothing resembling a real élection anywhere in Ukraine since then & if there were, there is no guarantee that the results wouldn't once again go to those with leanings towards keeping Russia as an ally over Europe. The whole point of your OP is how the European Union is failing. You then go on to infer that the vast majority in Ukraine wants their goverment to develop its policies around Europe (which in your opinion is failing). If we were to take your original premise as true, then what Ukrainian would honestly desire to join the E.U.?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Karl89 said:


> Do you have the legal right to share an opinion about matters that you are ignorant about? Yes. But I wonder why you feel entitled to have an opinion about important matters that you are ignorant about.
> 
> And I won't go into my experience and connection with Ukraine, however there was an recent election and the results were pretty clear, so even someone as ignorant about the matter as you (your words not mine), can easily with the use of any search engine get a pretty strong indication of how the Ukrainian people feel. You can choose to remain ignorant and make blanket statements that you have no evidence to back up but you shouldn't feel entitled to do so. Take your own advice and become better informed and then offer an opinion.


And so you're saying that the Ukrainian people favor going to war to free themselves from the yoke of Russian oppression? Or do you mean something else? If you mean something else, than you have not addressed my point.

Please be explicit. It is difficult to decipher what you mean when you don't say what you mean.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ In my opinion the Ukraine is a bit of a side-show in terms of the issue of 'Whither Europe'. However, the craven reluctance of any western European states to become overtly involved in the affair, even after the shooting down of an airliner, is demonstrative of the hold that Russia has over Germany in particular, and various other states too. Quite simply, they are terrified of the possibility of Russia shutting off their gas.
Sooner or later, however, one country - perhaps the UK, perhaps somewhere else - will withdraw from the EU, and the entire shebang will fall apart. I don't believe there was ever any intention that the EU should be a properly democratic institution, and it patently is not an accountable one, as the traditions of democracy are just wafer-thin in more than a few European countries.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Karl89 said:


> You can't be serious. The situation in Ukraine is the fault of the US and the EU? Not even Lavrov dares to utter such nonsense.


It's no laughing matter.
The situation in Ukraine is the fault of the US and the EU?
It certainly is, and unless you have blinkers on you'd see it.
Time to switch off the Fox News and CNN.



Langham said:


> However, the craven reluctance of any western European states to become overtly involved in the affair, even after the shooting down of an airliner, is demonstrative of the hold that Russia has over Germany in particular, and various other states too. Quite simply, they are terrified of the possibility of Russia shutting off their gas.


And so they should be.
As for that airliner incident, the media have really clammed up on that story since it became obvious that it was shot down by the Kiev regime. It was being shadowed by Ukrainian fighter jets at the time, and had been diverted well north of it's usual course.
The false flag is pretty blatant with this one.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Odradek said:


> It's no laughing matter.
> The situation in Ukraine is the fault of the US and the EU?
> It certainly is, and unless you have blinkers on you'd see it.
> Time to switch off the Fox News and CNN.
> ...


Utter rubbish. You have no understanding of the situation in Ukraine and your use of talking points straight out of the Siloviki handbook ("Kiev regime") is highly suspect. Not even the Russians cling to the outlandish and offensive idea that Ukraine was responsible for MH17. Your views may have currency among fringe nationalists in Russia but certainly no reasonable audience would take them seriously.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

So far, everyone in the thread is behaving OK.

For some people who have been here awhile, moderation is not as lax in the interchange as it was.

While this is a controversial topic, please keep the conversation civil.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Karl89 said:


> Not even the Russians cling to the outlandish and offensive idea that Ukraine was responsible for MH17. Your views may have currency among fringe nationalists in Russia but certainly no reasonable audience would take them seriously.


Yet the officials in charge of investigating the situation are seriously exploring the possibility. I suppose somehow, somewhere, you managed to got hold of a document containing "the truth"? If so, you should probably pass it on to the authorities. At the moment I've only seen the U.S. saying that they have proof that it was the rebels, Russia saying they have proof that it was Ukraine. Ukraine blaming the rebels. The rebels blaming Ukraine. While I've seen plenty of speculation and conjecture, I haven't actually seen any proof. Or evidence. Or a non-biased 3rd party finding of fault. And no... "because the U.S. says so" isn't unbiased proof.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Langham said:


> ...Germany in particular, and various other states too ... are terrified of the possibility of Russia shutting off their gas.





Odradek said:


> And so they should be.


Germany and Italy should never have become so reliant on Russia for their energy (and trade also). Russia has increasingly reverted to its traditional bullying modus operandi; allowing foreign policy to be dictated by short-term expediency is often a mere short-cut to disaster. Ukraine also is rather reliant on Russian gas for that matter, which has hardly eased their predicament.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Generally trade pacifies both ways. I'm sure the Russians will be less likely to engage countries that they have mutually profitable trade with.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Does the available evidence bear this out? Possibly one can explain the quite recent upsurge in Russia's risky military manoeuvres in the Baltic and North Sea as arising from the trade embargo, but the underlying tension seems to have more to do with political and strategic factors.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^It has more to do with the reality that Putin is a intellectual/emotional throwback to the cold war era. Ongoing threats of mutual destruction are what he was raised on professionally and that is what cranks him up these days. The game of nuclear chicken was the preferred sport of the nuclear super powers back in the day and Putin wants to restore a sense of order and get back to the game that he is most comfortable with.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ The danger is that no European countries are particularly interested in playing, nor do they have the military capability. Defence spending has been cut back for many years throughout Europe and at present ranges from a half to a quarter of US levels in relation to GDP.

https://online.wsj.com/articles/nato-leaders-to-vow-to-lift-military-spending-1409832341


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ The danger is that no European countries are particularly interested in playing, nor do they have the military capability. Defence spending has been cut back for many years throughout Europe and at present ranges from a half to a quarter of US levels in relation to GDP.
> 
> https://online.wsj.com/articles/nato-leaders-to-vow-to-lift-military-spending-1409832341


Even if Europe had military strength, what would you suggest?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Even if Europe had military strength, what would you suggest?


What I am suggesting is that military weakness places Europe in a vulnerable position, at risk of inviting Russian aggressiveness on its borders. Recently they have been sending 60-year-old aircraft to probe our defences; what message that is intended to project is open to debate.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

While defense spending may have been cut back by individual countries, NATO continues to have a pretty substantial arsenal to draw from and that arsenal includes an impressive array of tactical nuclear options, should such prove unavoidable. The employment of strategic nuclear options will not be far behind the initial employment of tactical nuclear warheads. Putin is arguably a lunatic...society would be best served if he were in an institution. Once he let's the nuclear genie out of the bottle, a large scale exchange becomes almost inevitable. The saddest reality is that when the "punch drunk" nuclear powers are worn out and stop fighting, the real destruction, with nuclear weapons, does not stop when the last warhead detonates...it goes on and on and on. Frankly, European's should have told Putin a long time ago to keep his under priced oil...the long term costs are proving way, way too high!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The two imbecile policies that our political leaders have been following over the last twenty to thirty years, blind ideological pursuit of a free market economy at the expense of autarky and native industry, combined with pointless military adventures in the Middle East have left us virtually defenceless. When it was pointed out to our leadership that making ourselves reliant on Russian gas might leave us a bit vulnerable, they thought the warnings ridiculous. The Royal Navy has almost ceased to exist as a projector of force; we have so few qualified personnel that we've had to cancel operations because there weren't enough people available to man RFAs. RFA Argus could only deploy to Sierra Leone by stripping crew from other RFAs. We've got seconded USN personnel on RN ships because we don't have enough trained Engineer Officers, and the encouraged destruction of the Merchant Navy by "free market" policies in the 1980's, and the subsequent "Tory-Lite" destruction of the RNR and RNXS, means that we no longer have a reserve of trained officers or crew even if we *could* expand the Navy. As some of our members will know, it takes years to train a Naval Officer, whether Merchant or Royal, and they need competent people to train them. We threw most of ours away, for ideological reasons, in the 1980's, and stopped training any more.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> The two imbecile policies that our political leaders have been following over the last twenty to thirty years, blind ideological pursuit of a free market economy at the expense of autarky and native industry, combined with pointless military adventures in the Middle East have left us virtually defenceless. When it was pointed out to our leadership that making ourselves reliant on Russian gas might leave us a bit vulnerable, they thought the warnings ridiculous. The Royal Navy has almost ceased to exist as a projector of force; we have so few qualified personnel that we've had to cancel operations because there weren't enough people available to man RFAs. RFA Argus could only deploy to Sierra Leone by stripping crew from other RFAs. We've got seconded USN personnel on RN ships because we don't have enough trained Engineer Officers, and the encouraged destruction of the Merchant Navy by "free market" policies in the 1980's, and the subsequent "Tory-Lite" destruction of the RNR and RNXS, means that we no longer have a reserve of trained officers or crew even if we *could* expand the Navy. As some of our members will know, it takes years to train a Naval Officer, whether Merchant or Royal, and they need competent people to train them. We threw most of ours away, for ideological reasons, in the 1980's, and stopped training any more.


I largely agree, but a similar theme of outrage at defence cuts goes back at least to the 1950s, coinciding with the slow decline of British power.

Also, I believe North Korea is the only state currently pursuing a policy of autarky, although one or two others have tried it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Karl89 said:


> but lets be honest Europe has very little military capability anymore.


100% correct. The Swedish Air Force & the rest of the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF) have been decimated in the last couple of decades. The air force only has THREE flying wings left, with various fixed wing aircraft from fighters to bombers to cargo planes dotted around Sweden- F7, F17 and F21. Plus one helo wing.
During the recent U boat farce, we didn't even have any sub-hunter helos to look for it, because all the Air Force sub-hunter helos had been sold off years ago due to the then "non-existent threat" as they put it. A bloody joke!

The Swedish Armed Forces had already been cutting back heavily since 1988, when the Total Defence Study was submitted, which resulted in loads of units combining or being disbanded.

The first time I visited the 1st Helo Squadron in Boden in the north of Sweden was in 2001 for a NATO exercise. In 2000 they had gone from being a Battalion to a Squadron. In 97 the Army Flying Centre there had been shut down. They just keep getting smaller and smaller.

Where I live, for example the entire Infantry Regiment (I2) and the entire Infantry Brigade (IB2) were moved to a town 30 minutes east in 1992, and shared a base with the 9th Artillery Regiment (A9) and the Artillery Battle School. Then in 2000, they were all either moved or disbanded, some personnel and units went north to Boden, some went further east to Örebro. Many people with families simply left the army, including quite a few of my current colleagues and friends, and also in 2000, as they pulled out my MoD agency moved in and took over the base. And that is just one example.

I recently delivered a lecture to the female Infantry Home Guard in my town, at their request, and seven people tunred up, SEVEN!

Like I said the SAF is decimated, it couldn't defend Sweden against a sustained attack/invasion for more than a week or so. And that's not me talking, thats experts at the National Defence College.

*In July 1987,* a year prior to the Defence Study, the entire SAF had a total of *850,000 *personnel (across all arms & including conscripts) plus *100,000 *in the Home Guard.
Then there was another Defence Decision in 2000, so *in 2009 *the total number of personnel in the SAF (all arms) was *41,000 
*In 2014, that figure is much the same, ranging from 41 to 42,000.

In 2014 the Swedish Army has a total manpower of *6,500!!!!! *How many hours was that at the Somme?

IN Januari 2013 the CIC of the SAF Sverker Göransson, said "*With Sweden's current armed forces we can defend Sweden for about a week*. then we will need help from other countries"


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Karl89 said:


> Utter rubbish. You have no understanding of the situation in Ukraine and your use of talking points straight out of the Siloviki handbook ("Kiev regime") is highly suspect. Not even the Russians cling to the outlandish and offensive idea that Ukraine was responsible for MH17. Your views may have currency among fringe nationalists in Russia but certainly no reasonable audience would take them seriously.


Siloviki handbook?

I certainly stand 100% behind the term Kiev regime. The US installed Kiev regime at that.


> A leaked recording of a telephone conversation allegedly between *US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland and the US envoy to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should be in Ukraine's next government* has, according to The FT, threatened to fuel east-west tensions over the troubled nation's future.
> 
> ...An excerpt on the US meddling...
> 
> ...


Try reading some facts about the case. Admittedly it's hard because it seems to have disappeared from the media's radar.

*MH-17 Report False Flag Exposed After Revelation Passenger Was Wearing Oxygen Mask*

And from the same, usually very accurate and informative source...

Ukraine Currency Crashes After Senior EU Official Says "The Ukrainians Are Manipulating Us"


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> The two imbecile policies that our political leaders have been following over the last twenty to thirty years, blind ideological pursuit of a free market economy at the expense of autarky and native industry, combined with pointless military adventures in the Middle East have left us virtually defenceless. When it was pointed out to our leadership that making ourselves reliant on Russian gas might leave us a bit vulnerable, they thought the warnings ridiculous. The Royal Navy has almost ceased to exist as a projector of force; we have so few qualified personnel that we've had to cancel operations because there weren't enough people available to man RFAs. RFA Argus could only deploy to Sierra Leone by stripping crew from other RFAs. We've got seconded USN personnel on RN ships because we don't have enough trained Engineer Officers, and the encouraged destruction of the Merchant Navy by "free market" policies in the 1980's, and the subsequent "Tory-Lite" destruction of the RNR and RNXS, means that we no longer have a reserve of trained officers or crew even if we *could* expand the Navy. As some of our members will know, it takes years to train a Naval Officer, whether Merchant or Royal, and they need competent people to train them. We threw most of ours away, for ideological reasons, in the 1980's, and stopped training any more.


More a case of politicians being bought IMO
Blair is still big making money on the back of his time in office.

Nobody believes the globalist guff any more or the excuses for military intervention but it lines the pockets of venal politicians and the electorate are apathetic or diverted.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Odradek said:


> Siloviki handbook?
> 
> I certainly stand 100% behind the term Kiev regime. The US installed Kiev regime at that.
> 
> ...


I am glad you stand by Russian propaganda, at least Moscow has fooled one person. However if you are puzzled by Siloviki then you really don't understand Russia.

And the facts you state are mere conjecture. And you seem to ignore the fact that the Russian sponsored terrorists claimed responsibility for downing MH17 when they thought it was a Ukrainian military transport. Don't ever underestimate the incompetence of the Russians because when they are not shooting down civilian airliners they are crashing snow plows into them and killing their top collaborators in Europe as in the case of Christophe de Margerie.

Your Zero Hedge article is laughable as that is a widely discredited website that has been predicting a depression for about 7 years. And sorry blind quotes from EU officials don't add much credibility. Is there corruption in Ukraine, sure but considering that 95% of the EU budget cant properly be accounted for and the continuous stream of scandals coming out of Brussels I am not sure they are any better than Kiev.

And how disappointed I am that you don't even mention that Nuland is married to a Kagan and we all know the Kagan are part of some vast Neocon conspiracy, right? The very least you can do is treat us all to the usual canards about conspiracies and American power.


----------

