• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Paul Craig Roberts: Sanctions May Lead To War

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by Erth, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. Erth

    Erth The last(?!) unapologetic Christian

    871
    +42
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Sanctions against Russia issued by Washington and the EU have as their deliberate purpose to undermine political and economic relations between Russia and the EU, Paul Craig Roberts argued (in September), saying that such measures have historically often led to large-scale open wars between the parties. Roberts views this development as dangerous and wants to see a change.

    Washington?s War Against Russia ? praag.org breaking news bold views


    I personally oppose the sanctions because what I see is that Washington and the EU are deliberately making enemies with Russia. There is a strong dislike, among the most influential Western elites, of Russia's tendency to go her own way, and I believe that is the real reason for the sanctions. The West has dressed herself in an all-or-nothing attitude to relations with Russia. Russia doesn't want to become more Western and the West then tries to isolate Russia.

    Is there a real danger?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. danny ski

    danny ski Newbie

    +486
    Judaism
    Private
    Russia's too weak for any conflict with the West. The falling oil and gas prices and few mild sanctions in response to open thuggery are a good dose of reality for Putin.
     
  3. StarTemple

    StarTemple Newbie

    135
    +16
    Non-Denom
    Well the Islam religious global polarity now has the Cold War 2.0 ultimate political polarity dynamic with Russia so about all possible "bogey man" scenarios are contained in those two. China is just the cherry on top.

    Truly this is an astounding scale and nature of potential destabilization, I mean MASSIVE. But well see how it goes, I'm not a "doomsdayer", I think it is a cycle to world stability a number of years into the final cycle.

    Gauging the way this all "emerges" into the media it seems a bit "predictive" if you ask me, of the future of the two polarities actually, imo, preparing to merge into a uni-polarity by "force" if need be, and I don't mean just military force, but also financial and the quasi-spiritual.

    Imo the masses are so distracted the program of the play has to explained before the play begins, or no one would figure out just what they are supposed to think as these things intensify. Imo, many Americans and others need someone to outright tell them EXACTLY what to think, sort of like a human drone.

    Global NATO is the core entity that has goals of monopoly, which is actually logical. Whatever it is I do not think it is "doomsday", and it will take some time to fully unspool and rewind on one reel, imo.

    I think it could actually get very serious, depending on how the game is played, or what its true intent is, sometimes world war is the only way to recover according to the current model of "productivity", it really is an age old cycle, but now it is also "globalizing".

    I like to throw a curve, so I say it will "end" in "world peace", by virtue of military monopoly (and financial system monopoly globalized), not the "doomsday" many "predict". It can get very bad for certain entities and groups, national sovereignty in general, and the like, but the core will get stronger, always has. This round of consolidation may just be the one to actually install a functional true world government, imo.

    The worse it looks in general, the more acceptable and hopeful world government will be, imo, people will be begging for it in the mass global populace. The stressing cycle aids that presentation and it actually is the only solution this deep in the game in human terms. Strangely the core wealth system is the one that will "recommend" itself by these kinds of serious events. (And I mean the globalizing wealth system, not the monetary, credit and financial system big wealth merely runs as symbolic models based on belief, I mean core global gold and asset OWNERSHIP. Like the one in Daniel 11:42-43, imo.)
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2014
  4. faroukfarouk

    faroukfarouk Fading curmudgeon

    +16,301
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Part of it seems to be the pretence that the US, if its nuclear fleet were in Odessa and threatened by street protesters in Kiev, would just allow its fleet to be controlled by them.

    The US would not allow this; and neither did Russia.
     
  5. Erth

    Erth The last(?!) unapologetic Christian

    871
    +42
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    I disagree entirely with how the West has backed a revolution in Ukraine. I disagree with the sanctions too. The portrayal of recent events as a Russian invasion of Crimea is a falsification. (See The Gift of Crimea for historical background.)

    Ordinary people have nothing to gain from the sanctions. It is on the contrary very bad for all economic, political and personal relations between EU countries and Russia, and it's also bad for the political situation in the world. The sanctions isolate the rest of the world more and more from Russia. People are talking about a return of the cold war, but this is something much worse. Communism was a valid ideological reason for the non-communist world to be on guard, but the pendulum has swayed. Now it is the West that enforces isolation in combination with a materialistic humanism not entirely unlike communism, in spite of differences between present day economic models and those of the past.
     
  6. Erth

    Erth The last(?!) unapologetic Christian

    871
    +42
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    And that was predicted last summer already, but the EU keeps stepping it up.

    I was reminded about this because I saw a news report on TV saying that Finland's entire economy is now noticably affected.

    TASS: World - New EU sanctions against Russia to affect Finnish, Estonian economies ? Estonian PM

     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2014
  7. danny ski

    danny ski Newbie

    +486
    Judaism
    Private
    Ordinary people overwhelmingly supported Putin's Crimea adventure. Now, it's time to pay the piper. Pretty simple, really.
     
  8. JackofSpades

    JackofSpades Väinämöinen

    +66
    Seeker
    Single

    Russia is top trading partner for Finland, so Finlands economy is to a certain degree dependent of Russia. It's no easy decision for finns to stop trading with their top trading partner.

    However, Finlands interest on this is double-edged. If Russias increasing agression is left unsanctioned, it's not unrealistic to assume that somewhere in future, Finland herself would become target for such agression, the country sharing a long land border and some historical ties with Russia.

    According to polls, people of Finland support the economic sanctions: 59% said they support it, and 19% were against them. So, most finns likely feel same way as I do, that limiting Russian agression in some way is more important than short term economic interest.
     
  9. Erth

    Erth The last(?!) unapologetic Christian

    871
    +42
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    I don't think "short term" fits well here. Neither do I think that diplomatic relations will get better with the sanctions. The opposite is true.

    It is also questionable to talk about Russian aggression. America and the EU have been backing a revolution in Ukraine for a long time, and finally our leaders accomplished it. Then there was conflict. Then Russia got involved in that conflict. It looks more to me like the Western powers have been aggressive.
     
  10. JackofSpades

    JackofSpades Väinämöinen

    +66
    Seeker
    Single

    Well, this is useless to argue because we have different view about who is the bad guy in the situation. If we agreed on that, it would be much easier to agree on what kind of consequences are acceptable.



    I would be more likely to buy into that if there was no pattern of similar Russian agression first in Chechnya, then Georgia and now in Ukraine. It just keeps happening that Russia finds always new areas to "protect". Also, there are no EU or NATO troops fighting in Ukrainan soil. But there are Russian troops and they for sure haven't came there by request of legal government of the country.

    I have no illusions about Western nations being totally innocent. But it appears that pro-western policy has large popular support in Ukraine and whether Ukraine wants to be friends with west or Russia should be left for people of Ukraine to decide. Presence of Russian troops in their country isn't excactly serving that purpose.

    If there starts to appear proof that there are Europeans or Americans (not individual volunteers, but troops sent by someone) fighting secretly in Ukraine, I'm open to change my mind.
     
  11. Erth

    Erth The last(?!) unapologetic Christian

    871
    +42
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Do you agree or not that the revolution in Ukraine was backed by America and the EU? I know for a fact that it was, and I think it should be very obvious to anyone who kept half an eye open to what happened there.
     
  12. JackofSpades

    JackofSpades Väinämöinen

    +66
    Seeker
    Single

    Very likely it was backed up by western nations.

    Do you agree that there are Russian troops in Ukraine? Giving political or economic support is far less bad guyish as sending troops over the border of an independent nation.
     
  13. Erth

    Erth The last(?!) unapologetic Christian

    871
    +42
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Both sides have gotten some kind of help from over the borders. Neither side can claim to be impartial.

    If the Finns in Finland attacked or mistreated the Swedish-speaking Finns, then I would support sending Swedish troops to Finland. The same logic applies to Ukraine where Russians are part of the indigenous population.

    You have to understand that Russian leaders are concerned about Russians, as they should be. I do NOT want a world of conflict. That is why I respect the different indigenous ethnic groups of any land and their rights, just as I respect the souvereignity of nationstates. For Western powers to cause enmity between Ukrainians and Russians by backing a revolution - as they have - is a very bad idea.
     
  14. JackofSpades

    JackofSpades Väinämöinen

    +66
    Seeker
    Single
    Bring it!
     
  15. Erth

    Erth The last(?!) unapologetic Christian

    871
    +42
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    I don't think that's necessary.
     
  16. JackofSpades

    JackofSpades Väinämöinen

    +66
    Seeker
    Single

    Hey, don't ruin the fun! I've always thought it would be nice to have a friendly little finno-swedish war.
     
  17. Kalevalatar

    Kalevalatar Supisuomalainen sisupussi

    +858
    Finland
    Christian
    Private
    Your logic here is just as forced as Putin's.

    If the Americans in America mistreated the Spanish-speaking Americans, Spain should send troops to defend the Hispanic and Latino Americans because, duh, they speak a form of Spanish too!

    Oh boy. :doh:

    Do you realize that just that a Finn speaks Swedish does not make that Finn or his family and ancestors any more "Swedish" than the Finn who speaks Finnish? I should know, I married one whose Swedish-speaking family has lived here in Finland since time immemorial and have nothing to do with Sweden.

    Both the Finnish and the Swedish (and the Sami and the Karelian languages and the sign language) speaking Finns were once part of the Swedish realm as a colony, just as the United States of America used to be a European colony, and then part of the Russian realm, during which time many adopted the Russian language, Marshal Mannerheim for example. Does not make Mannerheim Russian any more than being from a Swedish-speaking family makes him Swedish; Mannerheim's family was German. Mannerheim's loyalty, however, was to Finland, obviously, despite the fact that he hardly spoke Finnish.

    Common language does not common allegiance make.
     
  18. JackofSpades

    JackofSpades Väinämöinen

    +66
    Seeker
    Single

    I think it's worth to note that with excactly same logic after 9/11 or after some random riot, Great Britain would have right to invade USA to protect everyone who speaks English in America. Ancestors of English-speaking americans have usually been citizens of British empire at some point in history. That means they are british and should be treated as a citizens of GB by British government, right?

    Oh and btw, if we ignore the language (it can change over time) and go on with ancestors, Britain itself have been historically part of Roman empire, nowadays known as Italy, that would also mean that all americans and british are actually Italians, and Italy should treat them as their citizens.

    Should I go on or do we get the point?

    Language + ancestorial connection = Not citizenship of some other country than ones own.
     
  19. Erth

    Erth The last(?!) unapologetic Christian

    871
    +42
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Most of Western and Southern Finland was originally settled by Swedes, and Finland in its entirety used to be a part of Sweden. The first official language of Finland was Swedish. Swedes built the cities in the West and South and all over the place, and started the oldest Finnish universities. "Finland" and "Finn" are Swedish words. The population of Åland is ethnically Swedish and Swedish-speaking. Genetic studies have showed that Swedish-speaking Finns have greater affinity with Swedes than other Finns.

    Originally, Swedish-speaking Finns are Swedes. Ethnicity has many aspects, and therefore it matters little that a few Finns adopted the Swedish language solely for the sake of opportunity. In other words, Swedish-speaking Finns are an ethnic group with Swedish heritage. In Swedish we call them "Finlandssvenskar", which means Finland's Swedes, which is a better description of reality. Swedish culture was handed down from Finland's Swedes to their descendants, and the Swedish language still has a special status in Finland because of it. Swedish is the first language of Swedish-speaking Finns. In summary, they are ethnoculturally different from other Finns, and they have ethnic and cultural affinities with Swedes. It's no wonder that they are usually loyal firstly to Finland, because Finland was a Swedish land and is culturally Swedish to a great extent.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2015
  20. Erth

    Erth The last(?!) unapologetic Christian

    871
    +42
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Neither is it exchangable to anyone who wants to treat human beings with respect and dignity. Ethnicity is not the same thing as citizenship, and indigenous ethnic groups should have equal rights and recognition also when there is more than one ethnic group in the same country.
     
Loading...