May you live in interesting times


You already probably know Mearsheimer’s view of the conflict, at least in respect of its cause, which he largely places at the feet of the US (and NATO) and the decision of Bush Jr. to move to have Georgia and Ukraine enter NATO. He again goes over this terrain but also looks at the prospects for peace in the short-medium term. Here, his position is pessimistic to say the least. He thinks a negotiated settlement is largely impossible following the failure to achieve negotiated terms in April 2022, the hardening of positions as the war intensifies, and because events and revelations since February 2022 have brought about a situation in which neither party – or possible third parties – trust the other/s to abide in good faith to the terms of any such settlement.

One of the interesting leitmotifs is the seriousness of the present conflict which is largely absent from presentations of the conflict in the Western media. There is a sense that the conflict sits on a knife’s edge, that while presently localized, could quite readily directly involve more parties as one or the other escalates the conflict.

Highly recommended, including the discussion that follows.


Subscribe
Notify of
guest

50 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
WesternDecliner
June 8, 2023 8:12 pm

We can discuss all of the factors leading up to the current state of play, however the core fact on the ground is that Russia invaded Ukraine when they were not threatened. Likewise in taking over Crimea.

Blaming the victim is not a path to productive, informed discussion for any topic.

Boxcar
Boxcar
June 8, 2023 10:25 pm

Let me paraphrase WesternDecliner
“the core fact on the ground … that Russia invaded Ukraine when they were not threatened, is not a path to productive, informed discussion for any topic”

Louis Litt
Louis Litt
June 8, 2023 11:15 pm

Western Decliner/Boxcar
The Ukrainians had shelled the Donbas with 14,000 Russians dead.
Weapons sent by Merkel, Macron, British Labor, and every other bent out of shape twerp.
Throw in Burisa with Hunter Biden, Nancy’s sons, John Kerry’s son and that Republican who foul mouthed Trump , Mitt Romney.
Ukraine was the Clinton Foundations biggest donor.
Those thilthy Labor party hedonists, addicted to pop culture, just go on and on about sex and s the benefits of mind altering substance abuse.
Those effin idiots embarrassingly got Gaddafi, totally ruined Syria for mind games and the don’t like the patriot solder Putin.
Unfortunately the Democrats bough the war the Putin door stop.
What would you do if you people were being killed outside your border.

Plasmamortar
Plasmamortar
June 9, 2023 12:08 am

It is easy for people to criticise the actions of others while under no threat whatsoever…

The conflict in Ukraine is a direct result of an expansionist NATO post cold war.

This was the Cuban missile crisis just the other way around.

Ukraine’s entry into NATO would have meant nukes aimed at Moscow.
Russia knee that.

The difference is that this time, thickest refused to back down, unlike the Soviet Union in Cuba…

Arky
June 9, 2023 12:39 am

NATO is the organisation for countries bordering Russia and worried it will one day invade.
It is in the interest of all those countries to have a mutual defence agreement.
From Japan to Turkey to Finland, all would be smart to ensure Moscow knows they won’t be isolated and knocked over one by one.
Events of the the last decade would hardly dissuade them otherwise, eh?
Ukraine belongs in NATO.
Europe ain’t the Americas, and this isn’t the Cold War.
Europe has to have a balance of powers, history tells us any disturbance of that balance leads quickly to a general conflagration.
China inhabits the same landmass, potentially allied to Russia making a formidable bloc: and the balance must be kept by keeping the line as far East as possible.

Plasmamortar
Plasmamortar
June 9, 2023 12:44 am

NATO is the organisation for countries bordering Russia and worried it will one day invade.
It is in the interest of all those countries to have a mutual defence agreement.
From Japan to Turkey to Finland, all would be smart to ensure Moscow knows they won’t be isolated and knocked over one by one.
Events of the the last decade would hardly dissuade them otherwise, eh?
Ukraine belongs in NATO.
Europe ain’t the Americas, and this isn’t the Cold War.
Europe has to have a balance of powers, history tells us any disturbance of that balance leads quickly to a general conflagration.
China inhabits the same landmass, potentially allied to Russia making a formidable bloc: and the balance must be kept by keeping the line as far East as possible.

NATO was the western alliance formed to combat the Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union.

NATO should have been disbanded at the of the Cold War as its purpose was fulfilled and was no longer required.

Unfortunately, war is a big money industry and NATO continued to expand eastward after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of the guarantees given.

It’s not fun to know that your side is the bad guy in this scenario. But that is the truth.

The West is the aggressor and the bad guy…

Arky
June 9, 2023 12:47 am

The West is the aggressor and the bad guy…

..
Juvenile tripe.

Plasmamortar
Plasmamortar
June 9, 2023 12:50 am

Juvenile tripe.

Explain…

Arky
June 9, 2023 1:07 am

The North Atlantic Treaty

Washington D.C. – 4 April 1949
04 Apr. 1949 – | Last updated: 10 Apr. 2019 14:16

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 1

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Article 7

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 8

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

Article 9

The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Article 11

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)

Article 12

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13

After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

Article 14

This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.

The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.

Arky
June 9, 2023 1:25 am

Russia had mutual interests, especially those between Germany and Russia

..
Last time they buddied up under the Von Ribbontrop pact, that worked out well for the Anglosphere and all else involved, eh?
Balance of power in Europe must be kept, regardless of politics, regardless of who you think is the “bad guy”.
A rampant Russia is no better than an EU metastasising across the continent. Or a totalitarian China building a belt and road so they can access gulf oil directly through Pakistan and build the tentacles of their empire.

Plasmamortar
Plasmamortar
June 9, 2023 1:56 am

NATO Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

I’m so glad you linked this. As I can tear it apart…

Based on available evidence, we can be fairly certain that the U.S. government led the operation to destroy the Nordstream pipelines.

You only need to look at who benefits from such an operation (it’s not Russia and it definitely isn’t Germany)

This act of industrial sabotage is an act of war.

Based on article 5, the rest of NATO should be declaring war on the U.S.

Fat chance of that happening…

It’s funny how after all the bullshit from media and government we suffered through covid, people still immediately believed the ‘Russia bad’ narrative after what they had just been through and in many cases were or still are going through…

I feel for the world when even people here, on this site, who could see what was happening with covid fell for the bullshit about Russia.

Run by the same media that lied to you for the previous two years.

I just don’t understand…

billie
billie
June 9, 2023 6:38 am

US officials talk about defeating Russia, and we can only assume that means a retreat to it’s original pre 2022 border.

That’s possibly unlikely though isn’t it, because one suspects the clear purpose of the last few decades actions by the USA has been the occupation, plundering and breakup of Russia.

Regardless of whether this or that is right or wrong, consider that the Russian people may not want to be invaded. They are a capable people with self sustaining resources and manufacturing capability.

They will not tolerate what the Americans are pursuing, regardless of proxies, I would venture.

The fear of the rest of the world, is that the Americans will push Russia to the point that they regard some action as an existential threat, and will react to it.

I am sure, like anyone else, that Russia is keeping track of who is supplying the Ukraine with weapons of war to kill Russians. It’s no secret and the donations are quite public, even the little spats about what to give and how much and how deadly it is or isn’t.

If Russia is pushed hard enough, and react, all the words in the world being twisted by marketeers are going to mean nothing.

If the USA is attacked on their home soil, which might be likely should Russia react, how will the US public respond? A sudden interest in world affairs perhaps, beyond who is representing light beer sales?

There has been no attack or warfare on the USA home ground (lower 48) since the Civil War, and perhaps if such a thing happened, they might take more care imposing their rules on everyone’s way of life

Or not, who knows what might happen in the next few days, weeks or years. The NATO excercises in a few weeks could be very interesting, but only from a distance. Up close, it might be a bit too real.

I have no love for the USA or Russia, but I can see what’s going on and school yard blame games and quoting rules are insufficient in managing the coming conflict with neither party able to back down.

Petros
Petros
June 9, 2023 7:05 am

The US is bringing people together. Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Syria etc. Well done USA. You are winning. It’s got nothing to do with dodgy Joe and his Ukraine shenanigans. Honest.

Bruce
Bruce
June 9, 2023 7:43 am

@billie:

“There has been no attack or warfare on the USA home ground (lower 48) since the Civil War, …”

There was this thing a couple of decades ago; involved a bunch of airliners and major buildings.. A DOCTRINALLY-mandated Act of (Holy?)WAR!

During WW2, Japanese navy submarines launched a fleet of incendiary balloons at the West coast, with the intention of starting major wildfires.

Meanwhile Kriegsmarine U-boats were busy sinking shipping (US and other) in the Caribbean and just off the northern east coast of the US.

That might not fall into the same category as a fully-fledged combined-arms assault on the mainland, but “acts of war”, they most certainly were.

Also Oz.

Has everyone “memory-holed” the sinking of the Hospital ship, “Centaur” off the Moreton Bay Islands? A fully marked and lit hospital ship loaded with patients and crew. There appear to have been other appearances of IJN subs along the Queensland coast. The Japanese bombed Broome and Darwin AND had a crack at Townsville. They landed troops and equipment in parts of the Northern Territory and Northern Queensland. Their submarines occasionally sheltered in the Daly River. A large radio set of decidedly Japanese origin was recovered and was, a couple of decades ago, in a museum in Darwin. Any “top-enders” know if it is still there?

Several of these troops on Cape York were “detained” by indigenous locals and handed over to the “authorities”. News of all this at the time was “scanty” to say the least, because it went hard against the narrative of a “secure” island continent, that replaced the narrative about the “Brisbane line”. There used to be fixed “anti-tank” barriers along the Qld. / NSW border. These were on several inland roads. No doubt long “removed” for “safety reasons” and to maintain the “invinciblity” narrative and prevent further questions.

Roger
Roger
June 9, 2023 8:12 am

… that was the clear takeaway from Putin’s 2007 speech.

Putin’s thoughts on Russia and its place in the world have developed quite a bit since then.

Damon
Damon
June 9, 2023 8:34 am

In my opinion, this conflict has very little to do wit territorial integrity. It is a hot war between Russia and the US, enthusiastically cheered on by China.

Mantaray
Mantaray
June 9, 2023 11:26 am

No idea what “There is a sense that the conflict sits on a knife’s edge, that while presently localized, could quite readily directly involve more parties as one or the other escalates the conflict.” means.

NATO directly attacks Russia, or Russia directly attacks NATO?

Then?

Arky
June 9, 2023 3:44 pm

Heavens, can people stop referring in every instance to the pre-WW2 period

..
Yes. Let’s ignore the most recent historical example where Germany and Russia ponied up Eastern Europe between themselves, just prior to the war that ended up with Russia occupying all of Eastern Europe, fostering regimes that instituted brutal police states.
Let’s allow Moscow to roll back the borders yet again and ignore the blood and treasure generations expended in Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia and the dozens of other countries around the world where Moscow sponsored communist revolutions from the mid east to Cuba to the crap that went down in South Africa. The repeated attempts to knock off Israel. The destruction of our academies and media (ongoing).
Let’s ignore the decades of left wing infiltration into our institutions paid for by Moscow and Beijing.
Let’s ignore the hundreds of millions murdered by the communist regimes Moscow spawned.
Let’s ignore history and cede to your weird hard on for Putin.
Because election fraud or something.

Arky
June 9, 2023 4:03 pm

Also interesting to note that you have taken to the habit of another poster here, instead of having a discussion you throw up a bunch of quotes from a post in order of appearance and shotgun a bunch of inane “retorts” under each.
It’s not genuine engagement, is it?
Unless you really want to exchange laundry lists each time.

JC
JC
June 9, 2023 5:11 pm

All roads as usual lead to Taiwan. I’m anti-Putin, but boy, what a sad transparent set of arguments we’ve witnessed here from his Leadership.

It’s almost time to refer to the blog owner as an”idiot” and then take a couple of weeks flounce, which is the usual pattern we see from this Einstein.

Speedbox
June 9, 2023 6:00 pm

Does Mearsheimer read the Cat? Just joking, but a number of his points have been discussed on the Cat since Feb 2022 in one form or another.

Nevertheless, thoroughly enjoyed watching his presentation which eloquently lays out the various aspects. As a follow-up, link attached for another discussion entitled “Is China the Real Winner of Ukraine War?” He mentions several of the same points in his earlier presentation but this one has a greater Asian perspective. Also long at over an hour but worth your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl7goPRw_eE

As many of us have noted in various posts since February 2022, Western talk about crippling Russia militarily, economically and, with any luck, facilitating the break-up of Russia only serves to reinforce Russian thoughts that they are, and have been since WW2, in a continuing fight for their very existence.

Mearsheimer does suggest that we may see a cold peace – namely a virtual recreation of the 38th parallel between the Koreas. But is that a sustainable long term solution and does it merely have the effect of pushing Russian and China ever closer? Given China’s (Xi’s) undoubted belief that the East is rising and the West subsiding, what is the possible outcome? Throw Taiwan and the South (and East) China Sea into the mix, and the scenarios for wider ranging conflict are obvious.

Dover named this post “May you live in interesting times” being an english language translation of a Chinese curse. I suspect our times are going to become very interesting.

Bluey
Bluey
June 9, 2023 8:20 pm

Arkysays:
June 9, 2023 at 3:44 pm
Heavens, can people stop referring in every instance to the pre-WW2 period

..
Yes. Let’s ignore the most recent historical example where Germany and Russia ponied up Eastern Europe between themselves, just prior to the war that ended up with Russia occupying all of Eastern Europe, fostering regimes that instituted brutal police states.
Let’s allow Moscow to roll back the borders yet again and ignore the blood and treasure generations expended in Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia and the dozens of other countries around the world where Moscow sponsored communist revolutions from the mid east to Cuba to the crap that went down in South Africa. The repeated attempts to knock off Israel. The destruction of our academies and media (ongoing).
Let’s ignore the decades of left wing infiltration into our institutions paid for by Moscow and Beijing.
Let’s ignore the hundreds of millions murdered by the communist regimes Moscow spawned.
Let’s ignore history and cede to your weird hard on for Putin.
Because election fraud or something.

As far as I can tell your entire argument boils down to assuming modern Russia is still the Soviet union?

Arky
June 9, 2023 8:50 pm

As far as I can tell your entire argument boils down to assuming modern Russia is still the Soviet union?

..
What’s different between Russia after the revolution and Russia now?
The amount of territory?
The name it gives itself?
The ideology it says it adheres to?
In particular, what is different with respect to the territorial ambition, Russia 1917 and Russia 2023?
What great transformation in geopolitics has taken place that gives you and the rest of them here the assurance that now they are a totally different beast, indeed “the good guys”?
And even if one were to accept this puerile simplification of Russia as the vastly misunderstood “good guys”, even if that were true, how is its expansion in my interest? I don’t live there. I live in the West.
So do, probably, do you. Unless you are one of those internationalists who don’t give a shit because you can afford to live anywhere.

Louis Litt
Louis Litt
June 9, 2023 9:50 pm

JC 9/6 @ 5:11
Did you have fantasies of being a pop group manager like Toni Blair, Guzzapina TredeU.

Arky
June 10, 2023 12:41 am

Rather, why was NATO eastward expansion into Russian’s near abroad in the interests of Australia if it worsened relations between Russia

..
F*** Russia.

Arky
June 10, 2023 12:50 am

Russia in 1917 had no territorial ambitions.

..
Really? Why were they advancing into Galicia in June of 1917 then?
And the Bolsheviks sure had long term ambitions to take over as much of the world as possible in the years that followed. Heard of the Comintern? Sure you have.
Both before the bolsheviks took over, and after, Russia was an aggressive military power thrusting Westwards. As it is today.

Plasmamortar
Plasmamortar
June 10, 2023 6:53 am

F*** Russia.

And this here sums up your entire argument…

On this issue you have no interest in competing information because you hate Russia for whatever reason.

Further “discussion” of this topic with you is a complete waste of anyones time.

Roger
Roger
June 10, 2023 7:56 am

So has mine, experience does that.

But what do you make of his stated imperial ambitions?

Arky
June 10, 2023 9:27 am

We have seldom been in worse peril while enduring such comically terrible leadership. And post covid debacle no one with any sense regards our leaders as anything but corrupt and inept. And at the same time people of all parties are obsessing over, of all things transgenderism. It’s fkn painful.
..

And this here sums up your entire argument…

..
Indeed it does, you got me. I don’t know how else to instil the urgency in people of the existential needs of the situation.
But post covid no one is open to persuasion so this conversation serves less than no purpose, as your reply illustrates.
The idea that Russia ever, ever, calculates her intentions based on our disposition towards her is historically unsupported by evidence. No, we DID NOT “make her do this”.
You cannot make anyone do anything. She invaded because she wanted to invade, thus definitively showing her hand to anyone with the eyes to see.

Arky
June 10, 2023 3:18 pm

Congress of Vienna.
No, Russia did not return to her homelands after the defeat of Napoleon.
..
No, we are not responsible for the actions of Russia. Russia is responsible for the actions of Russia.

Arky
June 10, 2023 5:33 pm

dover0beach says:
June 10, 2023 at 4:10 pm
Wars have consequences.

..
Is that your admission that Russia took advantage of the Napoleonic wars to expand her territories contra to your assertion that “ The Russians were hardly aggressive in the 18th or 19th C in a westward direction”?
Almost as bad as someone else’s hinting that the Soviet Union wasn’t essentially a Russian project. Neither the small amount of time passed nor the presence of multiple client regimes within that very Russian endeavour, hide the fact that the communist bloc which blighted the 20th century with murder and bloody revolution, and still exist to this day in Red China, was driven from Moscow.
Current events indicate the bastards can’t wait to get the gang back together.
They hate the West, and in the words of Khrushchev, want to bury us.

Arky
June 10, 2023 5:45 pm

We must never again make the free traders mistake whereby they believed Red China was could be swayed to our side by concessions and a policy of one way open engagement on our behalf. They took the concessions, did all in their power for decades to steal the West’s intellectual property, embedded themselves corruptly in our politics and institutions and did everything in their power to ensure our reliance on that very trade that was supposed to free their citizens of their tyranny. Then, almost too late, they revealed via their wolf warrior diplomacy that they were who they always had been.

Zipster
June 10, 2023 6:57 pm

We must never again make the free traders mistake whereby they believed Red China was could be swayed to our side by concessions and a policy of one way open engagement on our behalf. They took the concessions, did all in their power for decades to steal the West’s intellectual property, embedded themselves corruptly in our politics and institutions and did everything in their power to ensure our reliance on that very trade that was supposed to free their citizens of their tyranny. Then, almost too late, they revealed via their wolf warrior diplomacy that they were who they always had been.

and left us without an industrial base to defend ourselves without resorting to nuclear…

JC
JC
June 10, 2023 8:40 pm

I recall vividly how, in the 80s, the bogeyman was Japan, stealing all our secrets and copying our technology. Japan wasn’t China, of course, and China wasn’t this China until Uncle Xi came along.

China has an imbalance of trade with Australia amounting to a $71 billion surplus. China imports $153 billion from Australia, and we import $82 billion from China. Our manufacturing base was left to competitive forces in the 1980s, which was well before China even began thinking about industrialising. We lowered tariffs, and the nation’s standard of living rose. Big surprise there.

One genius has suggested that we’re now purchasing goods and services from overseas at “below cost”. Yes, we’re cheating ourselves with relatively cheaper imports.

Arky
June 10, 2023 10:29 pm

How dare Russia retain a portion of Napoleonic Poland

..
Yeah, you’re right on with Russia invading anyone, anytime.
We know that already.

Arky
June 10, 2023 11:07 pm

invade
verb
(of an armed force) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.

Arky
June 10, 2023 11:11 pm

And:

occupy
verb [ T ]
US /??k·j??p??/
occupy verb [T] (TAKE CONTROL)
(of an army or group of people) to move into and take control or possession of a place:
Nationalist forces now occupy more than 70% of the country.

..
When you find yourself making distinctions without a difference, maybe you went wrong somewhere.

  1. Headline of the day: The Matildas and Arsenal weapon tasked with filling Kerr-sized hole Fnarrr.

  2. And puts lie to the media’s claim that he held a firearms licence “for recreational purposes”.

  3. The word doing the rounds (as yet unsubstantiated) is a total ban on “recreational” firearm use. Can see a lot…

  4. Outstanding. Just outstanding commentary on the current semitic sentiment in this country. The back end of a Gray Connolly piece…

50
0
Oh, you think that, do you? Care to put it on record?x
()
x