Ukraine escalation

http://www.debka.com/article/23718/Russian-marines-paratroops-seize-Crimean-airports-Moscow%E2%80%99s-creeping-invasion-continues- Since the Ukraine is bankrupt the first need of any new administration in the Ukraine will be economic. It looks like the only "party" to be able to do something meaningfull might be Russia. The US is leaving th Ukraine-crisis to the EU. And the EU is not able to come up with the amounts of money needed. To make things even more complicated, the "demonstrators" are not represented by the new government. Certainly right wing Ukraine nationalists might attack Russians wich would give Putin an excuse to protect Russians. It looks like NATO is only talking after first encouriging the demonstrations (by giving among other things bullet-proof vests, gasmasks etc.)

Global riot epidemic due to demise of cheap fossil fuels

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/feb/28/global-riots-protests-end-cheap-fossil-fuels-ukraine-venezuela?

"If anyone had hoped that the Arab Spring and Occupy protests a few years back were one-off episodes that would soon give way to more stability, they have another thing coming. The hope was that ongoing economic recovery would return to pre-crash levels of growth, alleviating the grievances fueling the fires of civil unrest, stoked by years of recession.

But this hasn't happened. And it won't."

increasing populations

decreasing resources

not a pretty picture

In the Ukrain Russia is backed by miners in the east, the EU is backed by nazi's in the west and democracy is backed by nobody. In a lot of countries demonstrators are for sale due to poverty. Certainly when you see people in a country were hardly a person can write their own language holding posters (sometimes upside down) in a foreign language with "their demands" you can wonder who is organizing that demonstration. 

spot on, Josh

Don't be too hard on the lady who said "f**k the EU".  About a third of people in the EU make stupid comments about the Americans, without any real infomation to base them on.  "Oversexed overpaid and over here.", or "They only fire on their allies.", or "Give a Yank a gun then duck!" and "They don't give a s**t about us."  However most of these people have never served with, or even in some cases, actually met any Americans. 

I served with them on a British base throught the cold war at the time the Yanks were still in Vietnam.  I was naive enough to join the RAF expecting us to support our allies in 'Nam.  We did not.  I lost a lot of friends who went out there and were cas'evac'ed back or often did not return at all.  Many went on so called "cold war op's" and aparently dropped off the edge of the world.   At least, I never saw them again.  Anyone that believes that propaganda crap, whatever side spouts it, is not living in the real world and should look up the casualty lists from any recent war.  They make for sober reading.

However to the present:  Western EU states have a tendency towards National Socialism (euphemism for Nazi).  Eastern EU states have a tendancy towards Socialism (euphemism for Communism).  Here in Britain the Conservative party has a tendancy towards Facisim, whilst Labour has a deep red streak through its core.  Our Liberals are rather similar to America's Democrats.  It all evens out after the arguing abates. I would vote for Angela Merkel myself if I could.

The only problem we have here comes from the religeous fanatics and I'm not just talking about Islamic terrorists, Jewish Zionists or other extremists, I mean the whole lot.  Without their un-elected imput in the British political system (The House of Lords is STUFFED with them) we would have made massive advances in the field of genetics. 

Globally speaking, within the lifetime of my children we would have been able to increase the lifespan to 900+years, beaten all viral, bacterial and most fungal diseases and wiped out every genetically induced birth defect and most genetic disease.  With the highest moral standards and best intentions, the religeous elite have done the most damage.   An extended lifespan of such magnitude would make both long-term-planetary-care a priority and reduce the need to breed with such urgency!   We could have beaten famine and dozens of other extant problems too.

If instead of us all spending billions of pounds/dollars on the armaments we designed to destroy people of differing religeous and political ideologies, we could have a world government, fully elected with an inalienable bill of rights, that insured the freedom, prosperity and happiness of all humanity.

I had this discussion with the late Professor Nigel Holder back in the 80s.  Though he agreed with me, he was also absolutely certain that it would take probably another 100,000 years before mankind had evolved enough to take this step.  I have a Phd in botany and several other lesser qualifications in the sciences.  This sadly allows me, like most people, to be wise after the act and approaching my 70th birthday I will only live to see the very beginnings of such if I am amazingly lucky. 

Hopefully, there are enough young people out there with IQs in the 150s that are willing to spend a considerable investment of time and money to acquire the scientific education necessary to ensure a continuation of our species, which is, at the moment, under threat. 

PS. Professor Holder used to say to the doubters "Remember God is a geneticist.".

Well Technophobe, so my years of brain-washing were all to no avail.
 I suppose this means that you don't beleive that NASA will ever perfect the hydrogen plasma rocket, or the time space displacement event, which will enable interplanetary, and then interstellar travel, respectivly.  However, a world govenment would mean no borders and, as most human conflict is caused by local social disturbance, all most problems would require is an ombudsman as an intermedary, or for one of the protagonists to leave the area. If this failed, resort to law in the form of human rites legislation could be invoked. 

The USA works as a union of nations but neads some tweeking, such as removal off the death penalty, which is a sign of an imature society that is overly relient on violent revenge and reprisal, but is a starting place for a more advanced world government, where the desire to be involved in criminality is lost by education and satisfaction with one's lot in life, and the absolute rule off human rights.  The species must work out the fine print for themselves and the nations will have to rid mankind of the curse of religious superstition, political bully boys, and militaristic methods of control over the masses. however, Maggie, oops,let your name out!  love you really even if you are a bit paranoid.

When the money invested in wars for energy would have been spent in developing more clever ways to deal with energy-needs more countries would not depend on energy from a limited number of countries. Behaving like "energy-junkies" makes some countries very powerfull. 

Technophobe wrote:
I agree that a universal bill of human rights is the only starting point worth having but who writes it? someone as fallible as you or I. We are all only human.

I have an answer for you. They were written many years ago and are called the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

There are first signs that parts of Ukrain armed forces are choosing to "support the old Ukrain (pro-Russian elected) government. http://rt.com/news/ukraine-navy-flaghsip-protest-389/

If the US are not careful they may end up with a war with two big adversaries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waxRf-2LhB4&list=UUpPGJXgbwBmkIp291W0PCMw reports of anti-missile shield in Poland on high alert and Belarus (north of Ukrain,west of Russia) mobilizing and sending troops to its border with Poland. 

Once again the western world will have no choice but to fight, if this continues to build up the way it is going.  That would escalate into a limited nuclear exchange which is not desirable, if we wish the human race, and many other species of animal, to continue to exist. 

Britain is a limited nuclear power.  France somewhat more powerful in that department, though we do not like to believe it over here.  So, once again, heigh ho, we will be relying on America to do the right thing, and another brainwashed few generations of mankind will grow up believing the propaganda fed to them by their governments (or, after a nuclear exchange, the skin wearing, bow-carrying elders of the tribe) so that they believe their nation was the only one that fought for God Queen/President and Country/Empire.  I've heard it all before.  At the end of the second world war, we kids used to play with bombs, grenades incen***** devices etc., which we learnt to disarm and turn into ashtrays, pen holders etc..  Most of us had lost or trophy guns: German, Japaneese etc in our lofts until I was in my teens and rat-population-syndrome caused succesive British governments to enact more and more draconian laws to get rid of them.  Unfortunately they don't take laws away again when they are not needed anymore.  Imagine what it would be like after a nuclear exchange. 

Just by way of continuing my rant, when I was in the forces (for the first time) back in the 70s we were trained to give first aid to civilians in such a way that only the lightly injured survived.  We were told that those over the age of 40, that were fit and did not have specialist knowledge (ie. a Phd or Md after their name), would be collected up and used as virtual slave labour.  The young who could breed and be "educated"  would be taken into establishments for that purpose. 

I don't think that any government that allowed a nuclear war to occur would be allowed to live by the survivors of such a war.  So, the event would mean the destruction of civilisation as we know it, even after a limited exchange.  A full exchange (MAD) would destroy, in the first year, an estimated 90% of humanity and bring about a nuclear winter, which would, in turn destroy another 8%.  Now do the maths, 2% X 7.5 Billion in a frozen radioactive wasteland.  Unfortunately, politicians in general are the product of a cosseted, formally-educated elite that is not known for having an IQ much above 120 (Catell scale).  Maybe we ought to give them a big club each and let them fight among themselves.

A blood relative of mine was at a meeting between Wilhelm Kaiser and King George V before the first world war and aparently witnessed The Kaiser saying to King George "A fine body of men, but wait until they meet my Uland Hun." 

This was said during an inspection of the Coldstream Guards, if my memory serves me correctly, and aparently they found it quite amusing, like children playing with tin soldiers. 

My father, who was a royalist and honoured by The Queen, served in the guards.  My entire family, since 1066, has been involved in the military.   I do not look forward to another war or the aftermath.  But it always seems to start with a little country being fought over by two big ones, like two terriers between them tearing a rat apart. I have seen the injured and dying from no less than 16 wars or battle zones, returning home from the second world war  - in Britain, the Korean war - when I was a child in New Zealand and all the others from Aiden to Afghanistan and I am very sick of it. 

But, finally Josh,  your country, assuming you are Dutch, always seems to get the backlash from European wars, which it does not deserve.  I hope we are wrong and both sets of Morons pull back from the brink.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/amid-ukraine-crisis-us-launches-military-escalation-in-eastern-europe/5372105 there is all kind of discussion going on in different places but there is so far no results. The military build-up goes on from both sides. 

Ukraine signs $10 billion shale gas deal with Chevron

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/05/us-ukraine-chevron-idUSBRE9A40ML20131105

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk_RmHrGsdk

Syria's leader, Bashar Hafez al-Assad voices support for Russia's action in the Ukraine and is decrying the doubling of the American troop presence in the Baltic Sea. 

There is little doubt Russia plans to not only grab Ukraine but also the Crimea region with an upcoming vote. The air is alive with discussions and talk, but nearby military forces are gather producing an area of possible conflict between the U.S. and Russia. The Crimea of course contains a valuable warm seaport city of Sevastopol.

This would give the Russian nuclear submarine fleet a launch point from an area of great strategical value.

Medclinician

Gotta say I think you're view point is very skewed medi.

To think the USA sits by waiting is in ignorance of the methods used to control the world.

Now days the imperial leader dosen't invade an rule a nation. They destabilize established power structure. Reestablish new leadership and enslave with debt.

I dont even know what has happened in the Ukraine, but I would bet both balls something similar is happening right now. Usually there are several benefits on top. Maybe oil or gas? Could be strategic.

Don't be fooled into thinking that the US is some kind of soft savior

You dont have to dig too much.

Don't get me wrong. Russia ain't no sweet heart either. This is just a giant chess game, which the west is dominating.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-14/russia-us-remain-odds-over-ukraine-sanctions-counterproductive-and-tanks-are-coming 

   When I saw several major right wing "leaders" dogging on our President and praising Putin for his quick actions and his "leadership" style, It was like gas on a fire.  In the old days it would be called treason.

   So what are the options, a land war with Russia, a nuclear war, or just a real economic sanction policy where all sides  and countries go all in and support it. Saying Putin is a great leader did not seem to help. Blaming the President at this time in history doesn't seem to help other than at the polls and that could back fire as well , abroad as well as at home.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-03-21/forget-russia-dumping-us-treasuries-%E2%80%A6-here%E2%80%99s-real-economic-threat  Russia and China about to sign tradeagreements with payments for energy in other than "petro"dollar. India, Iran etc. might follow.

I think a next move in Ukrain could be the Ukrain Army taking over power "to restore order". Than a new government might "invite" Russis to help "restoring (a pro-Russian) order". As long as Russia "only" invades Ukrain "on invitation" (like the Soviet interventions in the Eastern bloc during the cold war) the west will protest but not fight. Foreign minister Lavrov might even discuss the way they can sell it to the world. 

Dutch Josh,it is worse than is being reported. Russia has positioned their troops so that they can move into several countries,all a one time. We will just have to see where they stop.Johnray1

Dutch Josh,Everything that you say about Russia having these countries "Occupy themselves" if he can get it to work, in his favor, would be best for Putin.But I do not know how much ego Putin has in all of this. Remember that the western world has left Russian tanks burning by the thousands for the world to see for several years now. That has got to embarrass him. What country would buy a T-72 tank after the way that we have destroyed them with almost no risk to the western worlds tankers. I believe that some where in this mess,he has to have a military victory,to prove that Russian equipment is good and that their tactics are good. The Russia main battle tank has been beaten badly by every nation that has fought them. We have also beaten their tactics,but their tactics were never any good anyway,but they will not change them.---- Also,Russia is a slowly dieing nation. For every 10 live births that they have,they have 16 deaths,they are not even holding their population at a stable rate. That is going backwards pretty fast on the population.----- I was talking about tanks,every one has proven that the T-72 can be beaten by any western army. There next tank that they are already bringing out is the T-90. It is nothing but a T-72 with a different look.If Putin does not have a military victory over some one,the Kremlin will not be happy and Putin will not be happy.I know that he can sway many countries on his border with just plane fear, but he is going to have to destroy some country in a war so that he can claim that the Russian Empire is back. But after saying all of this,I do not believe that any western power is going to go to war with Russia,because our president is afraid to go to war,and no other country will go to war with Russia if we are not in it.. Putin has a free hand for the next 2plus years. He can probably over run the countries that were in the Soviet Union,with T-55 tanks because no one will be there to stop him.Johnray1

Dutch Josh,I understand a show place for selling weapons. but what I was getting at,the way that western tanks have destroyed the Russian tanks,so easily over the last several years,who would want to buy a Russian T-72.? ---- As far as a Russian attack against a NATO country meaning war,I have doubts about that. I think that we would all find out that NATO only exists to feed US money into Europe. I do not believe the Europeans would fight and I do not believe that the President of the US would let us fight either. Putin is probably trying to decide if NATO would fight or not. Europeans countries have a very long history of not living up to the agreements that they make. It will be interesting to watch and see what happens? A few years ago I think that NATO would have fought,but now the Europeans nations have used all of their money for Socialists programs and Except for England, I do not believe that any European country has an Army that is big enough or trained enough to fight a real full scale war. Johnray1