forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

Like everyone else, I listened to the "specialists" and their various analyses, as well as all sorts of comments, sometimes relevant, often useless or downright counterproductive to anyone trying to understand something about it... Same thing on the forum of Econology (for worse?) with "maouss" discoveries, such as the "ukrosnazis" dear to Christophe and other pranks of the same barrel that it is better to forget (let's be charitable)... It's a bit thanks to a post by Guy that I get down to this tough task that I had been thinking about for some time now. Tough task, because the situation is complex and cannot be reduced to a few dazzling and superfluous considerations on the duplicity of the Americans (which is equal to that of the Russians) or on the unfortunate fate of the inhabitants. of the Sudetes, sorry, from the Donbass...

Before getting to the heart of the matter (no kidding, that would be in bad taste!) and if I ever get into it , it is necessary to understand the general context, at least in its main lines, because it would be pretentious to believe that we can explain everything.
Some have liked to compare the geopolitical situation to a rehash of the Cold War, which is a very practical reference, but hardly useful here, except insofar as it would be a question of considering a "new world balance", as we say. pompously (except that, by definition, dynamic phenomena are out of equilibrium, which singularly harms the beauty of the comparison). The only interest of the formula, if indeed it is not just a cover for intellectual misery, would be to underline a stage of accumulation of tensions which, having reached its tipping point, suddenly reveals what went almost unnoticed. until then, as well as tectonic plates which suddenly come apart after a slow process of accumulation of forces.

Well, that's enough for this post, after all I only have 2 fingers!

It's not a war, it's a "special military operation". You shouldn't start off on a bad footing.

I don't know if I fully understood the essence of your idea but when you talk about pranks it concerns me...

So a good journalistic approach is BFMTV like:

a) ignoring that Ukraine officially funds neo-Nazi battalions?

b) to ignore the flouted Minsk agreements?

c) to ignore the abuses on the dombass since 2015?

d) ignoring that Ukraine is a corrupt country to the core...even Zel denounced it in the servant of the people (which you certainly didn't watch...) but that was before..

Or rather to forget all that because they know it very well…we bring out the archives?

You should propose your vision of journalism to Anne Laure... https://mobile.twitter.com/al_bonnel

sicetaitsimple, thank you for trying to make me correct my blunder which is of the same order as qualifying the "pacification" of Algeria as a war! ...but I'm incorrigible, what do you want!
Christophe, I don't want to give a lesson in journalism to anyone, because that's not my point, quite the contrary. It is, in my opinion, imperative to move away from this kind of considerations which accompany all the wars; counting the dead and attributing them to one or other of the belligerents will not advance the truth an inch. Similarly, to speculate on the greatness/ignominy of poutine or the heroism/duplicity of his Ukrainian counterpart is as futile as celebrating Europe's sense of values ​​(or its stupidity).

Yes ok so what?

Ahmed wrote:Well, that's enough for this post, after all I only have 2 fingers!

Nature has 8 debtor fingers!

...and therefore, you have to be patient!
As for the other eight, they are present, but I keep them carefully in reserve! I am multi-tasking, not multi-tasking!

Thank you for this great moment of solitude

Ahmed wrote:Like everyone else, I listened to the "specialists" and their various analyses, as well as all sorts of comments, sometimes relevant, often useless or downright counterproductive to anyone trying to understand something about it... Same thing on the forum of Econology (for worse?) with "maouss" discoveries, such as the "ukrosnazis" dear to Christophe and other pranks of the same barrel that it is better to forget (let's be charitable)... It's a bit thanks to a post by Guy that I get down to this tough task that I had been thinking about for some time now. Tough task, because the situation is complex and cannot be reduced to a few dazzling and superfluous considerations on the duplicity of the Americans (which is equal to that of the Russians) or on the unfortunate fate of the inhabitants. of the Sudetes, sorry, from the Donbass...

Before getting to the heart of the matter (no kidding, that would be in bad taste!) and if I ever get into it , it is necessary to understand the general context, at least in its main lines, because it would be pretentious to believe that we can explain everything.
Some have liked to compare the geopolitical situation to a rehash of the Cold War, which is a very practical reference, but hardly useful here, except insofar as it would be a question of considering a "new world balance", as we say. pompously (except that, by definition, dynamic phenomena are out of equilibrium, which singularly harms the beauty of the comparison). The only interest of the formula, if indeed it is not just a cover for intellectual misery, would be to underline a stage of accumulation of tensions which, having reached its tipping point, suddenly reveals what went almost unnoticed. until then, as well as tectonic plates which suddenly come apart after a slow process of accumulation of forces.

Well, that's enough for this post, after all I only have 2 fingers!

It is curiously Putin who observed a certain number of things that you express and he therefore goes in your direction or even beyond. So it would be well worth a remedial course on his speeches... In particular, he made people understand the difficulties the Duma was facing in advancing the reforms, joking moreover on the fact that the Russians had a very developed critical sense, and would never accept the policy that Western governments make us swallow... (It is clear that he is right....)
We must not forget either, what he has done with Russia since the USSR, a ruined and adrift country, by bringing it a certain prosperity! Which at the same time almost completely removed the Russian threat in Europe! It is therefore us who have rekindled the tensions (under the leadership of the USA).
It is therefore not so much the criticism of its alleged manipulations that gives the “LA”, but rather the capacity of the Russian regime to follow, by adapting to the capacities of the Russians to evolve and “get into the boat of the development of the country ”....
I have said many times that “humanity” is unfortunately far from mature enough to hope to go further than a “balance of forces” between great powers. It is verified by the facts...!
Well, well, Putin also thinks the same...

It proposes a different approach to the block clash model (east VS west) which was just a completely silly stigma, going instead to a multipolar form with the BRICS...! The world is de facto, people just had to be aware of it, so the idea of ​​​​the coup was quite brilliant, a kind of “Great rock” which creates a diversion towards the so-called “New world order” by setting the record straight in the age of demographic reality!

The BRIC countries represent a population of 3 billion inhabitants, or 41% of the world's population. In geopolitical terms, this figure can be compared to the total population of NATO member countries: 992 million inhabitants, or 14% of the world's population. SourceWikipedia

And even more with new and future members.

The graph I had already published is even out of date...



Also it is not so much that the Russian president wanted to go towards a “new global balance” that it would rather have been born of a prerogative of Westerners who wanted to impose it and arrogate to themselves the exclusivity of the conditions imposed on the other majority players, while excluding them from any decision-making process... Or in any case by wanting to impose the rules of the game on them...

I know you're going to be disappointed by the approach, which ignores your "abstract values" type of narrative and everything ideology the ideal(?) that goes with it, but it's deliberate since you're making an indictment. It should also be emphasized that Western policies are phenomenally stupid, of which we discover new outlines every day, and a completely inconsistent center, which boils down to the confiscation of power from Western peoples over decades... It boils down to a form of dictatorship through lobbying, transformed into supranational powers in the hands of billionaires and multinationals who pay almost no taxes, while benefiting from the infrastructures of the countries, without having to finance them. Do you see the difference with Putin's Russia?
Not sure that here we gain by the change, you yourself are extremely critical on this subject.

In your catch-up, you would also notice that the Russians have stretched out the pole to the Americans on multiple occasions, which they ironically call “our partners”. But without success.

I will not comment on the fact of the war, because I think that if it takes place now, it is to avoid a much more terrible one later, and with even more incalculable consequences... And of course, I do not am not “for” this war (nor for any).

There's a lot of material to develop, thank you for your yarn idea.

PS: you only name two people, but just in case — and I'm by far not the only one here — the search for truth is a common thread that has developed my critical sense and my mental elaboration since childhood. So I'm pretty good at flushing out impostors. And I'm not reluctant to put the book back on the carpet when I'm wrong, which in the end is not so rare. Just like you, it develops flair... Any honest person seeks to confront it, doesn't it?

My approach may seem parallel to that of poutine up to a certain point, in the sense that it is here the actualizer of a major geostrategic change which disturbs the old conceptions of the balance of power with which the old powers find it difficult to accommodate... However, it himself remains a prisoner of forces that go beyond him and remains globally on a classic approach, simply updated...
I see that when you make an effort to look at things other than through the small end of the telescope, things go better, although the acute poutinitis persists!
Here are the two messages that motivated me:
- that of Guy:

What are the diplomatic conditions for peace? After almost 20 years of various provocations, on both sides, annexations here, manipulations there, provocations, violence, increasingly huge lies and mutual aggression, the situation is desperate but is in my eyes only the oh so visible phenomenon of a global geopolitical reorganization which is in its infancy.

- that of Dede2002, speaking too infrequently, probably because he only speaks when he has something to say? Unusual attitude among the other members...

In my opinion, the war is not where you think it is. It generates a tremendous opportunity to increase abstract value dear to our system, not only by the rising profits of the oil companies, but also by the arms factories which have jobs, and the prospect of the reconstruction of all that is broken, which will motivate many credits!

It remains a tad classic as an analysis, but we are already in much more substantial...

There are indeed several focal points for analyzing the situation: from very close we are forced to adopt the point of view of the camp that we choose to observe, with a little more distance we can try to discern the issues present, with an ad hoc focal point, it is possible to see the context in which all this takes place. This last method is more satisfactory, but remains insufficient because all the belligerents or their supporters, although in disagreement, are nevertheless in the same context of competition (in the sense that they have the same criteria of judgment on this context, only the interests diverge). From this last point of view it is also possible to produce a coherent analysis, but where the rub is that it is never possible (and this is true at all levels) to judge a system with the criteria or references which are its own. It is this bias that makes it possible to maintain irremovable divergent opinions: everyone is "right" within the system chosen by them.
It is therefore necessary to choose a sufficiently "solid" exteriority to get out of this bad situation; For a long time, God was the reference, but we know that this is not operative and has only postponed the original dissensions in another sphere: moving a problem is not solving it... Classical philosophy invoked " Sirius' point of view", simple wishful thinking* without further details...

* In two syllables, otherwise it's a post!

work in progress ...