World War III

[AvHdB]

I fear it is going to be a long summer. . .

A number of members have speculated regarding a war between Russia and the west. Below is one example.

Wish the western media would make up their minds as to what country Russia is gonna invade. It's kinda like the flavor of the day, and not knowing which to choose.
With those shiny new missile defense systems in Poland, a Russian invasion should not be a problem.


NATO ON EDGE: Top military chief warns Putin is ready to start World War Three ‘OVERNIGHT

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/692601/NATO-military-chief-warns-Vladimir-Putin-invade-Poland-start-World-War-Three

According the the Express, Putin is often poised to start WW3: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/613902/Vladimir-Putin-massive-Arctic-military-base-expansion

But there are things that are of concern. After the fall of the Soviet Union numerous military bases were decommissioned, some in Ukraine have become operational, very recently. Some of this can be explained by the war in the east, but one base is closer to Warsaw than Moscow.

So what gives?

[andrewfi]

You might want to learn that which you did not yet learn about the Soviet doctrine of echelons. I know that you have not known about this basic stuff in the past. It is likely that the activity you mention is explained by Ukraine, in a similar manner to Russia.

Moving away from echelons and toward regional command structures as per Russia and other forces that cover large geographic areas would lead to the rehabilitation of bases away from the western borders with no other implied or overt intent.

[AvHdB]

You might want to learn that which you did not yet learn about the Soviet doctrine of echelons. I know that you have not known about this basic stuff in the past. It is likely that the activity you mention is explained by Ukraine, in a similar manner to Russia.

Moving away from echelons and toward regional command structures as per Russia and other forces that cover large geographic areas would lead to the rehabilitation of bases away from the western borders with no other implied or overt intent.

What are you driveling about?

You have on a number of threads mentioned the ramping of 'the' war rhetoric. Is it possible a war pitting the NATO forces against Russia (I fear yes). But I hope sanity will hold the upper hand. Instead Andrew as a grand gesture of FiFi deflection you begin to discuss (military) echelons ? ? ?

You are smarter than this, please try. 

[Manny]

Is it possible a war pitting the NATO forces against Russia

Russia is the model of restraint, generally. As we saw when NATO member Turkey shot down one of their planes. They found other ways to make Turkey bleed and finally repent.

But if the US, hiding behind the NATO umbrella keeps on prodding Russia with sharp sticks, sooner or later they will start to bite back.

Russia has made it very clear that it will respond to threats to its interests; what we saw in Crimea.

The US is the one, who under the Clinton woman and her band of corrupt Neocons will keep goading Russia till they get the war they want*. Under Trump, the opposite will be so. So much will depend on the US election, as that will decide if the continual American aggression we see in recent years will continue.

* Remember the Neocon wet dream is to depose Putin and break up Russia so the US world domination roadshow can rock up at the border with China. OK its a fantasy, but they can dream........

[Boris]

I think sometimes people forget Putin is the President of Russia. He acts in the self interest of Russia. Or at least what he perceives that to be. I think he is a better judge of that than most Westerners. I don't see any of his actions to be outside of that...This includes Crimea, Syria and his stance on missiles in countries that border his. Do I agree with all of the tactics used on his behalf? No. But that really doesn't matter. I'm not Russian and he is not my President.

[AvHdB]

I think sometimes people forget Putin is the President of Russia. He acts in the self interest of Russia. Or at least what he perceives that to be. I think he is a better judge of that than most Westerners. I don't see any of his actions to be outside of that...This includes Crimea, Syria and his stance on missiles in countries that border his. Do I agree with all of the tactics used on his behalf? No. But that really doesn't matter. I'm not Russian and he is not my President.

 

Some can see the difference between saber waving and actions.

Presently the 'West' lacks a strong leader. Gone are the days of Maggie or Ronnie. Oddly or perhaps scarily enough the planet is far more dangerous.

[Manny]

I think sometimes people forget Putin is the President of Russia. He acts in the self interest of Russia. Or at least what he perceives that to be. I think he is a better judge of that than most Westerners. I don't see any of his actions to be outside of that...This includes Crimea, Syria and his stance on missiles in countries that border his.

Well said, Boris. 

[Manny]

Presently the 'West' lacks a strong leader. Gone are the days of Maggie or Ronnie. Oddly or perhaps scarily enough the planet is far more dangerous.

True that. Maggie and Ronnie talked to Russia. The west now doesn't so much.

[Tom Cat]

Russia Thinks America Is Going To Attack Her, Will Strike First - Armageddon Approaches

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/armageddon-approaches/ri15821

[Wiz]

Presently the 'West' lacks a strong leader. Gone are the days of Maggie or Ronnie. Oddly or perhaps scarily enough the planet is far more dangerous.

True that. Maggie and Ronnie talked to Russia. The west now doesn't so much.

But Maggie and Ronnie..... followed the Neoliberal plan and policies .... to bankrupt Russia and  the world.

[AvHdB]

But Maggie and Ronnie..... followed the Neoliberal plan and policies .... to bankrupt Russia and  the world.

For what is worth at the time of Maggie and Ronnie the region that you call Russia it was in fact the Soviet Union.

But Maggie and Ronnie are spinning in there graves being described as Neo-Liberal.

Countries such as Norway are doing quite well as you mentioned elsewhere.

[Wiz]

But Maggie and Ronnie..... followed the Neoliberal plan and policies .... to bankrupt Russia and  the world.

For what is worth at the time of Maggie and Ronnie the region that you call Russia it was in fact the Soviet Union.

But Maggie and Ronnie are spinning in there graves being described as Neo-Liberal.

Countries such as Norway are doing quite well as you mentioned elsewhere.

Thank you for the correction....not Russia ... but USSR (the Evil Empire according to Ronnie!)

But do you know what Neoliberalism ideology is?

My guess is you don't so I suggest you read these two articles and learn:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/apr/16/legacy-margaret-thatcher-neoliberalism

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

Just to remind you.... George Bush Senior... called these Neoliberal policies..... "Voodoo Economics"

As about the Norway system and economy....... their system works for the majority, if not for all people of the country and not only for the few members of the ELITE.

As you heard in the previous video the UK, after the WWII had an advancing growing economy and very little unemployment figures in relation to the population. You can search and find the real facts and stats for those years, despite what many people will tell you.

When I arrived in the UK, for first time, in August 1970 .... it was very noticeable that people had very good living standards and money in their pockets and where going on foreign holidays 2-3 times a year. When Thatcher imported these Neoliberal Policies from the US and destroyed the industrial basis of the country......and changed to service economy, now we see the results of her legacy.

Today people have only debts, unsecure jobs and Zero hours contracts and straggle to make ends meet for their families. Brexit won the referendum last month because of the neglect of the ex industrial parts of the country and not because of the immigration fear as many remainers claim.

Yesterday 2 large banks in the UK announced that they will start charging for large current accounts in their banks and for now the exclude the individual accounts from their Negative interests..... Basically the economy and companies will suffer more.

AvHdB you need to read ... alot and learn the real facts instead of taking as gospel and believe what the American and most western Media, controlled by the Elite tell you.

[Manny]

When I arrived in the UK, for first time, in August 1970 .... it was very noticeable that people had very good living standards and money in their pockets and where going on foreign holidays 2-3 times a year.

No they wasn't. They were still holidaying at home on the whole in places like Butlins or caravans.

The middle class started jetting off to spain en masse in the mid seventies. The working class not till the 80s.

The 70s were marred by strikes, shortages, the three day week and crumbling state owned industries. Then in 79, when Thatcher got in, we turned a corner and things got better and better till the Blair creature arrived and opened the door to mass immigration and America's continual wars.

Your memory is faulty.

[Steveboy]

Its the kids I feel sorry for now growing up in the UK..  Poor buggers...

[andrewfi]

OOhhh, I dunno about that. As a kid in the early 70's I spent weekends of boredom stamping brochures, literally tons of them, for companies such as Clarksons and Horizon who specialised in sending mr and mrs Bluecollar away to Magalluf, Arenal and, for the adventurous, Gran Canaria.

The Courtline affair which was the final extinction event of these firms in 1974 was directly analogous to scenes we have witnessed in Russia over the past few years - firms selling holidays to a new generation of tourists at too low prices with spectacular bankruptcies and calls for, too late, legislation for bonding and escrow of client funds.

Even I remember 14 day holidays being sold at £25pax to the 'working classes' in the early 70's. The 1980's bought about other changes such as direct selling of packages by firms such as Tjaereborg.

[Wiz]

When I arrived in the UK, for first time, in August 1970 .... it was very noticeable that people had very good living standards and money in their pockets and where going on foreign holidays 2-3 times a year.

No they wasn't. They were still holidaying at home on the whole in places like Butlins or caravans.

The middle class started jetting off to spain en masse in the mid seventies. The working class not till the 80s.

The 70s were marred by strikes, shortages, the three day week and crumbling state owned industries. Then in 79, when Thatcher got in, we turned a corner and things got better and better till the Blair creature arrived and opened the door to mass immigration and America's continual wars.

Your memory is faulty.

I maybe getting on in age but my memory is very good while you are still in your middle age years and were too young to remember those years. Fact is you are living in the North and I always lived in the south and you know very well about the North and south divide.

What you say about strikes and shortages is probably right but it was not the same down south and especially in London. The package holiday as we would know it today was properly born in the 1950s and the boom began in the 60s.  Even during the winter of discontent..... we were packing our holidays to Corfu (especially) and the Greek islands with no problem, making a very large NET profit, mostly paid in Cash and by the end of January we were full. Then we had to add extra capacity to take advantage of the huge demand.

May I remind you that Holidays abroad was a luxury item at the time and not a necessity, like food, home, schools etc. During the 80’s we noticed a huge shift from paying in cash to paying by credit Cards and you must know what that meant, then.

As about tourism and charter flights abroad...... read HERE

The south was well ahead in that trend and Manchester flights developed in the middle 80's where Gatwick, Luton and later Stanstead were expanding dramatically in comparison with all Northern airports. As you know I was in the business since 1975, just after the collapse of "Clarksons" and while we had no problems finding flights in the south, getting charter tickets from MAN was extremely difficult.

When Thatcher arrived and imported the Neoliberal US Policies, there was around 700K unemployment and 2 years later they reach to 3 million. All Governments, previously, had failed to invest in state publicly run companies and Maggie sold them for a song and the Falklands war saved her for few more years. Then created the “Big bang”, started selling the council houses, creating a shortage of house stock and today no young couple can buy their first house with an average price of 400K, permitted at the same time “Building societies” to become banks and then Merge with the investment banks, and the results of her legacy you see them today. There is no growth in the economy, negative interests and for sure you are looking to save or invest your business money elsewhere, I guess, judging from your reply earlier probably in Iceland or Russia…….

 

[Steveboy]

If I was living in Western Europe I certainly would have an armoury in my house..

Self defence..looks like many others in Europe are thinking the same way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3291978/Shotguns-virtually-sold-Austria-citizens-rush-buy-arms-amid-fears-massive-influx-migrants-dealers-claim.html

[Manny]

today no young couple can buy their first house with an average price of 400K,

Average starter homes are not £400k anywhere sensible.

for sure you are looking to save or invest your business money elsewhere, I guess, judging from your reply earlier probably in Iceland or Russia…….

The best place to put money is property, stock or stuff where it can make more. Only foolish money sits in banks losing money at these interest rates. Back when it was circa 8-9% in the Channel Islands, it was a different story.

[Wiz]

today no young couple can buy their first house with an average price of 400K,

Average starter homes are not £400k anywhere sensible.

Sensible prices maybe can be found up north but not down here.
 A month ago, in the place I live, a 1 bedroom flat went for £225 K. and that was an ex council house.

Nearer to London......are very expensive.

[andrewfi]

Across the country, last year, average first time buyers paid £225K.
Given that prices oop north are around half those darn sarf it'd seem not extreme to suggest something around the 400K number in that part of the world. London Borough of Brent has average FTB prices over £400k. Greater London £385k, South East £257K, Yorkshire & The Humber £133k, North West £139K.

CLICK HERE!

[rosco]

today no young couple can buy their first house with an average price of 400K,

Average starter homes are not £400k anywhere sensible.

Sensible prices maybe can be found up north but not down here.
 A month ago, in the place I live, a 1 bedroom flat went for £225 K. and that was an ex council house.

Nearer to London......are very expensive.

Life exists beyond London Wiz. £400k gets you a lovely town house in the centre of Edinburgh. On the door step you have good jobs, a wide selection of lifestyle choices and a smashing city.

20 miles outside in the better areas, £400k gets you a large 5 bedroom house with an extensive garden.

London isn't the be all and only those who live there think so. Poor souls....

[Manny]

today no young couple can buy their first house with an average price of 400K,

Average starter homes are not £400k anywhere sensible.

Sensible prices maybe can be found up north but not down here.
 A month ago, in the place I live, a 1 bedroom flat went for £225 K. and that was an ex council house.

Nearer to London......are very expensive.

Life exists beyond London Wiz. £400k gets you a lovely town house in the centre of Edinburgh. On the door step you have good jobs, a wide selection of lifestyle choices and a smashing city.

20 miles outside in the better areas, £400k gets you a large 5 bedroom house with an extensive garden.

London isn't the be all and only those who live there think so. Poor souls....

Agree with Rosco. Also his values sound similar to here.

You dont have to go very far above £400k to get something tasty with a pool and big electric gates in the right spot.

Wiz, educate yourself. Here is what £400k buys you in a sensible part of the world:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-54489844.html

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-59074772.html

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-43191363.html

Not starter homes.

[andrewfi]

Thinkin' of moving?
Would the forum indigent person follow you?

[Steveboy]

I would never spend £400K on a house in the Uk , for the same money you can buy 3 reasonable houses in Florida and rent them out.. Or 12 studio apartments in Russia 

Property in the Uk is well over priced and unless you have plenty of cash to buy out right , the moment you move into your £400k house you just join the rat race.. A mortgage in the UK is like a ball and shackle around your ankle for a very very long time.

I would suggest to any first time buyers to move to Russia while the rouble is down 

[Manny]

the moment you move into your £400k house you just join the rat race.. A mortgage in the UK is like a ball and shackle around your ankle for a very very long time.

Only if you borrow it all. Large deposit is key.