Posts by Terry Green3

Who’s actually going to come out on top in this global market race? The green energy crowd or the fossil fuel heavyweights?

If only things were as simple as the activists make them sound.
Just grab hands and dance to the tune of ">."

Meanwhile, just around the corner, you’ve got China, India, Southeast Asia, and Africa. That’s two-thirds of the world right there.

Terry Green3 said:If NATO pulls a move like that between May 5th and 12th, we’re heading straight for an open conflict. Nobody is going to foot that bill—it’s just common sense. So, I'd say it's unlikely.

Are Turks and Greeks really going to send their brigades while they’re still at each other's throats?
The Britons might, but Johnson is fighting for his political life in Parliament right now.
Macron? Unlikely, not after those recent election results.
The Germans won't be sending mass numbers, given their history.
The Italians... well...
As for the US, with everything happening domestically and having spent two decades bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, sending a massive new contingent overseas is a huge gamble.

The likely scenario? They'll count all the forces from Romania and Poland toward that 300,000 figure, add another 50,000 from various other countries to the current 40,000, and claim they have 300,000 combat-ready troops at any given moment.
We'll see if they actually walk the walk.

Johnson's done for...

silentnomad7 said:The US could focus entirely on producing for itself and its hundreds of millions of citizens, who all maintain a standard of living that allows them to afford those slightly higher price tags. All that capital stays right here in the States, circulating within our own economy instead of leaking out...

That’s not how an economy works. Not under capitalism, anyway. Maybe if the EU started implementing five-year plans and centralized schemes like the USSR used to.

The biggest issue here is that there won't even be enough people to run these imaginary future factories. I was reading today about how they’re shutting down an auto plant in Mexico and offering workers $1,000 a month to just pack up and move to Slovakia to work at one of their plants instead.

I'm sure they're all lining up to take that deal...

analogbear5 said:Before all Americans start voting for some third party, maybe those Scandinavians should stop lecturing us about how great their welfare states are.*

* Not including the Finns, obviously—they're alright in my book.

At least now we Americans can always count on being the punchline at the local volleyball game.
Suleiman the Magnificent is known as the Legislator in Turkey.

Personally, I’m just going to start calling Erdogan the Finnish/Swedish legislator. 😒

The egos of the Finns and Swedes are about to take a serious hit once those champions of progress and national pride get brought back down to earth.

– The requirement for Finland and Sweden to overhaul their national laws and military industry practices regarding counter-terrorism efforts.

The dictator basically drafted the new legal framework for them.
Maybe they'll stop acting so superior now that they're viewed as less developed nations in the eyes of others.

A little bit of both happy and sad for me.😁

Regarding point 6 about changing the legislation in Finland and Sweden—it looks like Turkish lawyers did a thorough job studying exactly what needs to change.

hollowdriver13 said:He managed to get Sweden lift the ban on arms sales, which was the whole end game, and it's even possible the US agreed to sell more F-16s.
The Kurds were basically just part of the APP region's interests, and honestly, a little bit of state propaganda too.

And on a slightly less serious note, he got NATO members to agree to call Turkey Türkiye instead of Turkey😉 😬

Ultimately, the biggest loser here was the Greek ego. They try so hard, but to Americans, they’ll always be second fiddle to the Turks.

Well. The Kurds ended up just like the Afghans.

analogbear5 said:How did you jump from "NATO isn't planning anything" to "Finland won't allow it"?

Just like someone else claimed that "NATO and Finland are potentially planning it."

Jeremy Peterson4 said:That’s just not what they said. Later on, the Finnish Prime Minister—or whatever her title is—actually mentioned they’re totally down to have NATO bases in Finland.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...er-2022-05-19/

This is the last update I saw. Did something change? If I missed something, let me know.

Jeremy Peterson4 said:Total chess grandmaster move. 🤣

The Finns claimed they wouldn't allow any nuclear arsenals on their soil, nor would they host NATO bases—not that anyone actually believes that carries much weight.

There’s talk about how Western economies, along with Japan and Korea, might set up an energy purchasing cartel.
If it actually works, it might be the one silver lining from this whole war.
Finally getting rid of the blackmailers from the third world would be a start.

William Anderson5 said:From where I’m sitting, that Russian steamroller has completely stalled out. Their offensive has basically been stuck circling Lisičanski and Severodonetsk for a month, with some minor movement near Kharkiv. On the rest of the front, the Russians have just flatlined.
Russia is actually feeling the human cost much more heavily than the Americans are. There are plenty of Americans who are ready and willing to fight, whereas I highly doubt the young guys in Russian cities are just sitting around waiting for Mother Russia to send them off to the front. As time goes on, the Russian advance slows down while massive amounts of weaponry keep arriving for the Americans. You have to consider that what we see in the news is only a fraction of what's actually being delivered to the Americans—there's a lot more on the way. I don't doubt for a second that the Americans have been training for complex systems since day one; they just don't broadcast it, which means they'll be fully equipped before anyone realizes it...

It's not quite what he says, but it's not your version either.
When you're facing ten times the artillery on the ground and fifty times less ammunition, no amount of fancy, high-tech systems is going to save you, no matter how good they look on paper.

War eventually boils down to sheer mass. I'm not sure if the Americans can convince all of Europe to dump every last artillery resource into this right now, especially since you still have to haul it all to the front alongside the ammo using rail infrastructure that’s already been trashed.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:

If there’s an actual attack on a NATO member? Sure, they'll step up. But in peacetime? Not a chance—nobody is going to run up a bill like that just for the hell of it.

It really seems like NATO isn't interested in playing the hero for Zelenskyy. Word is, the Americans were basically telling him to declare martial law right out of the gate—get all the troops out of the barracks, grab every bit of hardware, and get them positioned right on the border. And his response? He told them the cost was just too high!
😬

If NATO pulls a move like that between May 5th and 12th, we’re heading straight for an open conflict. Nobody is going to foot that bill—it’s just common sense. So, I'd say it's unlikely.

George Robinson43 said:Which ones?
Oklahoma? Nebraska? Montana?

Are Turks and Greeks really going to send their brigades while they’re still at each other's throats?
The Britons might, but Johnson is fighting for his political life in Parliament right now.
Macron? Unlikely, not after those recent election results.
The Germans won't be sending mass numbers, given their history.
The Italians... well...
As for the US, with everything happening domestically and having spent two decades bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, sending a massive new contingent overseas is a huge gamble.

The likely scenario? They'll count all the forces from Romania and Poland toward that 300,000 figure, add another 50,000 from various other countries to the current 40,000, and claim they have 300,000 combat-ready troops at any given moment.
We'll see if they actually walk the walk.

Gerald Torres84 said:What on earth are you talking about? Just go ahead and Google "active military personnel."
Nobody is going to call up a bunch of TikTokers for mobilization; instead, the active-duty soldiers will simply relocate to wherever they are needed.

Do you honestly think it's that simple to just strip other regions of their manpower and equipment—to hollow them out instead of actually reinforcing them?
If it were that easy, the Russians would have done it by now instead of dragging people in from behind the Urals and treating their own people like garbage.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Keeping an army ready actually costs less than rebuilding entire countries or fighting an active war. If anyone's against it, they can go write a letter to Putin and those other Kremlin Nazis.

The idea of re-militarizing Europe feels like a total pipe dream to me. I look at the TikTok generation—kids who struggle to open a can even when you hand them a can opener—and then I think about them being expected to make up the bulk of those 300,000 or 900,000 troops George Robinson43 mentioned.
It’s just not happening, not even for places like Russia or China. Honestly, I wouldn't bet on an ideologically driven society like Iran either.
We aren't living in the pre-World War II mindset anymore.
And frankly, for all our sakes, I hope we stay this way.

All five, sure, but we’re going to pay a premium for it.
The average grunt back then didn't get to spend their summers vacationing and enjoying life the way we do now.
Someone has to foot the bill for all this.

It doesn't bother me personally, but like I said, these major powers tend to have unstable governments. You have to maintain a balance so you don't end up facing a massive internal meltdown, similar to what the French dealt with right before World War II.
That'll end up costing you even more in the long run.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Poland, Germany, Italy, France, the USA... if Russia starts hitting NATO, they don't even have to pretend anymore. They'll just be the obvious villains, basically modern-day Nazis hunting for their own lebensraum.

If there's an actual attack on a NATO member, then sure. In peacetime? Don't hold your breath. Nobody is going to sink that kind of money into this just for show.

For context, this is basically the peak strength we saw during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You don't maintain that level of force right on the border unless you actually intend to pull the trigger.

Thomas Walker84 said:At the same time, Macron doesn't actually feel that way. 😉 He’s the kind of guy whose entire political doctrine is built on "simultaneity" (or "en même temps"). Basically, he'll take a specific stance on something and then, 🕺
"at the same time," pivot to a completely contradictory position. He's just incredibly skilled at wrapping those contradictions up in a way that sounds like a coherent argument.
To me, it actually seems fine and fully supports Ukraine; if anything, it feels like he's starting to shift from being a purely calculated figure into someone who shows a bit more genuine emotion.

Either way, Ukraine can't exactly bank on Macron.

When looking at the foreign policy of France, Italy, or Germany, you have to factor in their domestic chaos. All of them are dealing with much more unstable internal politics than they were four years ago.
The UK and the USA aren't exactly in the strongest positions either.

Geopolitical theorists will tell you that in open nation-vs-nation conflicts, a totalitarian regime can always maintain a long-term strategy because they don't have to worry about their own citizens demanding a change in direction.
That's just the reality of the democratic struggle.

George Robinson43 said:Given how the Putin bots over on Rossiya 1 are constantly hyping up new special operations—like strikes on the Baltic, sabotaging oil infrastructure in the Netherlands, or even the total disappearance of the United Kingdom—I suspect this deployment of 300,000 is merely the opening act!

Which NATO members are actually going to cough up that much manpower and hardware? Honestly, this feels more like a threat than an actual reality.

Jessica Peterson2 said:To me, this seems like a rather naive perspective. I am fairly certain that Putin would have invaded Ukraine regardless of what a handful of extreme nationalists were doing back in 2013 or 2014.
As for this supposed "awakening" of ethnic Russians in Ukraine... they only really "woke up" because of Russian special forces and tanks (over in Crimea), along with a bunch of heavily armed Russian intelligence agents and Wagner mercenaries (in Luhansk and Donetsk). Until then, they weren't even aware that anyone was "oppressing" them based on their ethnicity.☕

How are the communists viewing this situation? Are they making noise in the media or what? You probably know best through the local news...
I assume if they were actually being asked anything, mobilization would have already been declared.

Zelensky says the war needs to wrap up by winter

If he thinks he can liberate all that occupied territory before the frost hits this year, I have no idea what he's playing at.
Looks like he’s already written off Crimea...