Nobody really gives a shit about Ukrainian people, because they are no different to Afghans or Iraqis or anyone else for that matter. There are other deep routed matters involved here. We are all plebs to you. Your government will keep spinning it all the way, using you as stupid sheep.
Russia & Ukraine
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
Russian shills waste no time turning tragedy to their advantage.
You quoted the Jamestown Foundation, a Conservative thinktank, yesterday and George Soros today. Interesting to see that some of their interests overlap. Earlier today, I attempted to respond to a post by Nine_Ender in my evidence for Election Fraud thread, but my lengthy post glitched out and disappeared. Much of my inline response below to the George Soros article below will contain much the same content.
Judging by recent posts and media stories, it seems many feel our civilization is at a defining moment. A turning point. The Russian-Ukrainian War comes to mind, as the "winner" of this war will be the side who is willing to risk WW III the most, but not actually cause it. How is that safely achieved? obviously, it can't be safely achieved.
QUOTE="Atlantic, post: 5766132, member: 8067"]https://www.georgesoros.com/2023/02/16/remarks-delivered-at-the-2023-munich-security-conference/
George Soros
Remarks Delivered at the 2023 Munich Security Conference
February 16, 2023
I feel greatly honored to be addressing you this evening.
I’ve spent my entire life trying to understand the world I was born into, and I can claim some modest success. At a relatively early age I realized that our understanding is inherently imperfect.
That’s because we are part of the world in which we live. We are both participants and observers. As participants we want to change the world in our favor. As observers we want to understand reality as it is. These two objectives interfere with each other.
The interference doesn’t affect all domains of reality equally. For instance, natural scientists like astronomers can come close to perfect knowledge because they have an objective criterion, like the movement of the stars, that allows them to judge whether their predictions are correct.
Social scientists don’t have it so easy. People’s behavior already reflects their imperfect understanding. Therefore, it doesn’t provide as reliable a criterion for social scientists as the movement of stars does for astronomers.
So how can we understand the current state of affairs? We must find a way to distinguish what is important from what is less so.
So far, so good. George Soros is a genius who has laid the foundation for simplifying complex ideas.
Let me start with a bold assertion. While two systems of governance are engaged in a fight for global domination, our civilization is in danger of collapsing because of the inexorable advance of climate change. This is a very succinct statement, but I believe it provides an accurate summary of the current state of affairs.
Now George starts to go off the rails. While I agree with him our civilization is in danger, the reasons at the most fundamental level are not related to climate change. They are related to humans with different interests unable to reach an accord one another. Until influencers such as Soros realize this, we are just spinning our wheels as we head into the abyss.
My statement links climate change, which belongs mainly to natural science, with systems of governance, which is a social concept. I’ll discuss climate change first and systems of governance later.
I have always been fascinated by the Greenland ice sheet which is several kilometers deep and has built up over a thousand years.
In July 2022, an extreme weather event occurred in Greenland. It was so warm that scientists there could play volleyball in short sleeve shirts and shorts.
When I saw this, I sent a team of photographers to Greenland to gather visual evidence. They were present when a second event occurred in September, and they recorded it live.
The melting of the Greenland ice sheet would increase the level of the oceans by seven meters. That poses a threat to the survival of our civilization. I wasn’t willing to accept that fate, so I tried to find out whether anything could be done to avoid it. I was directed to Sir David King, a climate scientist who had been chief scientific advisor to previous British governments.
A seven meter rise does not, in fact, threaten out civilization directly. Indeed, a warmer planet can be more biologically productive, as long term geological records have shown. Besides, wouldn't the land masses of Greenland and Antarctica become more accessible the the ice sheets melted? While many say the real problem is too many people, there is a friendly and obtainable way to address this. More on this later.
He has developed a theory which is widely shared by climate scientists. It holds that the global climate system used to be stable but human intervention disrupted it. The Arctic Circle used to be sealed off from the rest of the world by winds that blew in a predictable, circular, counter-clockwise direction, but man-made climate change broke this isolation.
The industrial revolution is less than 150 years old. Before that, Earth's climate has vacillated from ice ages to warner periods many times. Has not our civilization benefitted from our planet's exit from its last Ice Age? Yes, most humans live on the coasts and may need to be relocated if seas levels rise sufficiently, but we are facing more immediate problems. Problems that have the potential to end us within a decade or two, if not sooner.
The circular wind used to keep cold air inside the Arctic Circle and warm air out. Now cold air leaks out from the Arctic and is replaced by warm air that’s sucked up from the south.
This explains, among other things, the Arctic blast that hit the United States last Christmas and the cold wave that hit Texas recently.
The Arctic Ocean used to be covered by pristine snow and ice that reflected the sun in what is called the “albedo effect”. But rising temperatures have caused the ice to melt and the Greenland ice sheet is no longer so pristine; it is covered by soot from last year’s forest fires on the West Coast of America, Arctic shipping and other causes.
Sir David King has a plan to repair the climate system. He wants to recreate the albedo effect by creating white clouds high above the earth. With proper scientific safeguards and in consultation with local indigenous communities, this project could help restabilize the Arctic climate system which governs the entire global climate system.
One thing to note here is Soro's "Consultation with local indigenous communities" language. This show internal consistence with some of his other ideas, to be expanded upon in detail, later.
The message is clear: human interference has destroyed a previously stable system and human ingenuity, both local and international, will be needed to restore it.
Broadly speaking, I am in complete agreement with the above statement.
At present, practically all the efforts to fight climate change are focused on mitigation and adaptation. They are necessary but not sufficient.
The climate system is broken, and it needs to be repaired. That’s the main message I’d like to convey this evening.
It seems to me "main message" is "If we can get them to agree to our 'climate change initiative' they will effectively have accepted our political and economic theories".
The message is urgent because we are dangerously close to breaching the 1.5-degree limit set in the Paris Agreement in 2015. We are already at 1.2 degrees and if we maintain our current course, global warming will reach more than 2.5 degrees around 2070.
Anyone care to look up the geologic record of planetary temperature?
That would take us past several tipping points such as the melting of the Arctic permafrost. Once that happens, the amount of money needed to re-stabilize or repair the climate system grows exponentially. This is not well understood. In all honesty, I am concerned about built up methane found in organic matter in the permafrost and methane clathrates on our continental shelves being released, potentially causing adverse temperate feedback loop. Methane is considered 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so calculations of potential release quantities in a warming world are important to properly define this concern.
The accelerating pace of climate change will also cause large scale migration for which the world is ill prepared. Unless we change the way, we deal with climate change, our civilization will be thoroughly disrupted by rising temperatures that will make large parts of the world practically unlivable.
Such a statement screams for support. What is it about relocating people that would make our planet practically unlivable, again? Sure the rich could lose their waterfront properties and investments certain cities, but wouldn't relocating be a refreshing change of view for residents of Leftist stronghold cities such as Baltimore, MD?
We must reorient our international financial institutions, particularly the World Bank, to focus on climate change. The president of the World Bank, David Malpass, who was a climate denier, resigned yesterday.
What is it about "reorienting" our financial institutions you are not telling us about? It is related to directing funds and management towards politically related imperatives?
Since pictures can be more powerful than words, I’ll show you a short video of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet with a commentary by Sir David King.
Now, I should like to turn to geopolitics. There are two systems of governance that are fighting for global domination. I’m talking about open and closed societies. Interesting characterization that we only have two systems of governance and that these two systems can be defined as "Open" and "Closed". However, let's go with this for now.
I have defined the difference between them as simply as I can: in an open society the role of the state is to protect the freedom of the individual; in a closed society the role of the individual is to serve the interests of the state.
The devil is in the details. An open society where individuals use their freedom in counter-productive ways will cause systemic failure of that open society. Again, it is intrinsic to the long term survival of any system, however it may be defined, that enough members support it. For example, in the United States Conservatives seem to place their belief in a higher power than themselves. These higher powers include ideas such as God, country, community, and family. The Left, through Hollywood, CNN, the music industry, and education has been promoting the opposite. We have seen this with "Woke" content in movie scenes, commercials, cartoons, and music videos. The question is, why does the Left promote the sexualization of children, alternate gender identity, and homosexuality? Why does the Left say they are against racism and other prejudicial behavior while actively engaging in those behaviors? Why does Soros and the Left say they want individual freedom while promoting censorship on social media? More to follow.
As the founder of the Open Society Foundations, open societies are obviously close to my heart, and I consider them morally superior to closed ones.
Soros has certainly created a vast organization in support of social and environmental causes. In the United States, I actually considered applying to one these organizations, have actually participated in anti-Iraq war demonstrations, and gathered signatures for a petition. After actually reading one of the petitions in detail I was promoting, I concluded we were being used as pawns in another person's political agenda. Soro's money has heavily supported Leftist political candidates, including attorney generals. We have seen our justice department and the FBI become politicized, increasing the political divide. Now the Democrats are looking radically expand the IRS. It appears Soros is using environmental and social causes to further his self-admitted political agenda.
When we talk about moral superiority, however, we encounter a difficulty: both systems consider themselves superior. Open societies must therefore distinguish themselves by actually protecting the freedom of the individual. That would certainly attract people living in closed societies.
Why are we so eager in attracting people from closed societies, again?
Of course, repressive states may still prevail because they may be able to force their subjects to serve them.
The fact is, both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. By understanding them better we can improve our understanding of the world.
Ok, George is now back on track.
I have distinguished between open and closed societies. This leaves out many countries that have gone to great lengths to avoid tying themselves irrevocably to one side or the other.
India is an interesting case. It’s a democracy, but its leader Narendra Modi is no democrat. Inciting violence against Muslims was an important factor in his meteoric rise.
Modi maintains close relations with both open and closed societies. India is a member of the Quad (which also includes Australia, the US, and Japan), but it buys a lot of Russian oil at a steep discount and makes a lot of money on it.
Looking at the fall of crude and natural gas prices lately, it does seem likely Russian energy is hitting the market in quantity. Qatar has been getting its massive gas field online as well. Africa and certain other places have tremendous potential for energy reserves, so we can wean ourselves off Russian energy long term if we have to.
Erdogan’s Turkey is perhaps even more interesting. He is actively engaged with both sides of the Ukrainian war and established himself as a neutral intermediary between them.
Erdogan has much in common with Modi. But, while Modi seemed to be firmly in the saddle until recently, Erdogan has mismanaged the Turkish economy and will face elections in May. All his efforts are focused on winning the elections.
He has moved closer to Putin who will make Turkey a distribution hub of Russian oil which will give him the money he needs for the elections.
So many places to politically influence and so little money!
He has also turned more autocratic at home. He is trying to jail his most powerful opponent, the mayor of Istanbul, and to ban the Kurdish party from participating in the elections. But he will not be able to break the tradition that allows the political parties to supervise the counting of the votes. This will make it difficult to falsify the results.
I thought election fraud was not possible. Or is that only in the US? Grin.
The 7.8 magnitude earthquake that hit Turkey earlier this month is a tragedy. The shock is turning into anger in many affected areas because of the government’s slow response and desire to control all aid efforts.
This was not fate. Turkey’s lax construction practices and Erdogan’s construction-driven growth model made everything worse. The best way to address these issues is to hold elections.
Reverting to India, Modi and business tycoon Adani are close allies; their fate is intertwined. Adani Enterprises tried to raise funds in the stock market, but he failed. Adani is accused of stock manipulation and his stock collapsed like a house of cards. Modi is silent on the subject, but he will have to answer questions from foreign investors and in parliament.
This will significantly weaken Modi’s stranglehold on India’s federal government and open the door to push for much needed institutional reforms.
I may be naïve, but I expect a democratic revival in India.
There are many other regional powers that can influence the course of history. Brazil stands out. The election of Lula at the end of last year was crucial.
Nothing like a victory lap. Unfortunately for the Republicans, having an in-depth international perspective on politics is an advantage, including domestic politics.
On January 8th there was a coup attempt much like January 6th, 2021, in the US. Lula handled it masterfully and established his authority as president.
Back off the rails, again. Anyone else notice how Soro's narratives mimics what we see on CNN, etc? A reminder, Soros was not born in the United States.
Brazil is on the front-line of the conflict between open and closed societies; it is also on the front-line of the fight against climate change. He must protect the rainforest, promote social justice, and reignite economic growth all at the same time.
He will need strong international support because there is no pathway to net zero emissions if he fails.
Ah, the compounding of political power. See the power of an in-depth international perspective? One world government, influenced by George Soros, anyone?
The current situation has some similarities with the Cold War, but the differences are much greater. There is a real war going on in Ukraine and that has changed everything.
Actually, lets go back to the Holodomor and Holocaust genocides and the multi-generational effects it had on the political imperatives of a small cabal of elderly, yet highly intelligent individuals, of which, George Soros is a member of. While I understand the imperative for self-protection, much of the efforts of this cabal is ultimately counter productive to society at large and perhaps even their very own security. "Everybody has a plan until they get hit by WWIII", for example.
Until October, Ukraine was winning on the battlefield. Then Russia, with the help of Iran, introduced drones on a large scale. Their aim was to deprive the civilian population of electricity, heat and water and undermine their morale. This has put Ukraine on the defensive.
The regular Russian army is in desperate straits. It is badly led, ill equipped and demoralized. Putin recognized this and took a desperate gamble. He turned to Yevgheny Prigozhin who owns an army of mercenaries called the Wagner Group and is eager to prove that he can do better than the regular army. Prigozhin has a criminal background and knows how to deal with criminals. Putin allowed him to recruit prisoners from jails. That violates Russian law, but Putin doesn’t obey any laws.
The gamble worked. With the prisoners help, Wagner started gaining territory.
The Ukrainian army slowed down their advance, but it was losing more than a hundred trained soldiers a day which it could ill afford. Ukraine faced a strategic choice: either get bogged down in holding Wagner at bay or hand Russia a propaganda victory and preserve its limited resources for a counterattack.
On December 22, Ukraine’s President Zelensky flew to Washington to discuss the situation with President Biden.
They agreed that the only way to end the war is to win it.
Remember what I said about what it would take to win in Ukraine? One side willing to risk WWIII more than the other side? Seems to me, peace is a safer pursuit. Perhaps a little more focus on this idea? Please.
But Biden warned Zelensky that there were limits to what he is willing to do. A Third World War must be avoided at all costs and Europe’s support for Ukraine must be preserved.
Oh come on now, George should know us by now. Half measures have not won in Vietnam or Afghanistan. Why wouldn't half measures work in Russia? If we were serious, not that we necessarily should be, NATO would sanction Russia's enablers. In other words, the use of escalation in an attempt to win a war. Long story short, opposing interests, political or otherwise, whether external as in international, or internal, as in domestic, need to find a way to reach common ground. It is easier to reach common ground with a competing or even adversarial entity by respecting their place in the world.
The Biden administration is providing Ukraine with the weapons – air defense, tanks, and plenty of ammunition – which are needed to defeat a Russian assault and to deter future ones. But opposition from the Republican-led House of Representatives makes another large bi-partisan funding package from the US unlikely.
Hazard a guess why Republicans are getting sticky on Ukraine spending? Could it be seen as supporting an opposing political entity, domestically and Internationally? Could it be the lack of transparency in sending funds to known corrupt leadership that could otherwise be spent on domestic priorities? Could it be related to escalation concerns? If you thought all of the above, you are probably on track. Are we now getting the sense how over politicization of issues can be counter productive for potentially all?
Zelensky went on a diplomatic offensive in European countries urging them to deliver more tanks faster. He also asked for fighter planes and European countries have agreed to start training Ukrainian pilots to fly state of the art planes.
Prigozhin has been ordered by Putin to produce a victory before the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24th.
He is trying to surround the Ukrainian defenders of the town of Bakhmut where he enjoys numerical superiority.
It is possible that he will succeed but I consider it unlikely because the Ukrainian army is putting up strong resistance and once Ukraine can use the weapons it has been promised the tables will be turned.
But Moldova’s president, Maia Sandu, warned that Putin is planning a coup d’etat against Moldova. That threat could be executed before the anniversary.
On February 11th, Prigozhin gave an interview to The Guardian in which he admitted that he won’t be able to trap the Ukrainian defenders of Bakhmut. “There are many roads out and fewer roads in” he said. He took a two-to-three-year perspective talking about occupying the Donbas.
This gives Ukraine a narrow window of opportunity later this Spring, when it receives the promised armaments, to mount a counterattack which would determine the fate of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The countries of the former Soviet Union can hardly wait to see the Russians defeated in Ukraine because they want to assert their independence.
This means that a Ukrainian victory would result in the dissolution of the Russian empire. Russia would no longer pose a threat to Europe and the world.
All the more for Putin to risk WWIII for a victory in Ukraine? Again, all parties concerned should consider all-out peace efforts rather than risking all-out war. At least try. At least try hard for peace.
That would be a big change for the better. It would bring huge relief to open societies and create tremendous problems for closed ones.
Turning to China, Xi Jinping would be an obvious loser. His close association with Putin would hurt him. But China may be already undergoing a revolution. Most of Xi Jinping’s problems are self-inflicted. He started mismanaging the economy right from the beginning of his rule when he went out of his way to undo Deng Xiaoping’s reformist achievements.
Xi’s Zero Covid policy was his biggest blunder. It imposed enormous hardship on the population and brought them to the verge of open rebellion.
Then, in response to popular pressure, Xi suddenly abandoned the policy without putting anything else in its place. The result was Armageddon.
George, "love" your characterizations. Keep them coming!
Without proper inoculations, infections spread like wildfire. Hospitals and morgues were overwhelmed and an untold number of people, most of them elderly, died within a very short period of time. The regime stopped providing information, but people could see what was going on when their relatives and friends began to die.
The first, urban wave of infections peaked in January; the second, rural wave is doing so just about now, but it will take another month or so for the health system to start functioning normally.
The chaotic way Xi Jinping exited Zero Covid shook the Chinese people’s trust in the Communist Party under Xi’s leadership. The current situation fulfills all the preconditions for regime change or revolution. But this is only the beginning of an opaque process, whose repercussions will be felt over a longer period of time.
In the short term Xi is likely to remain in power because he is in firm control of all the instruments of repression.
But I am convinced that Xi will not remain in office for life, and while he is in office, China will not become the dominant military and political force that Xi is aiming for.
Fortunately for Xi, he is not personally threatened from abroad because Biden is not interested in regime change in China. All he wants is to reestablish the status quo in Taiwan.
It seems inevitable that China will become the world's sole superpower. Soro's and the West short sighted vision will ensure that, in my opinion. The Chinese are smart and culturally strong with their solid work and saving ethic, while the West is losing their cultural advantage of personal initiative due to the coordinated promotion of dysfunction for political gain. Civil War in the US is not unthinkable. How effective can a country be internationally if it is at war with itself? Perhaps a successful resolution in Ukraine requires a successful coming to terms with political and philosophical differences in the West.
Due to his weak position at home, Xi responded positively to Biden’s offer in Bali to lower temperatures between the United States and China.
Back to interesting characterizations again, are we? Could it be that XI has a broader view than as characterized? I know I'm sounding like a Chinese apologist here, but as a practical matter, a country with 1.4 billion people, a large industrial base, and a focused leadership is a force to be fully recognized. Remember George's discussion of the perception of reality?
But the discovery of a Chinese surveillance balloon traversing the length of the US soured relations and it is on its way to poisoning them all together.
Preliminary examination of the remains indicate that it was designed to spy military targets, not for meteorological purposes.
I doubt few fully appreciate the power of certain types of close electronic surveillance. It can be a problem, but nothing that a little diplomacy couldn't resolve, I'd hope.
In any case, Xi Jinping’s conversion to cooperation would have been only temporary and tactical. He would not be who he is if he could abandon his deeply felt beliefs so easily.
The fact is, we are witnessing a historic process in China whose significance is not widely appreciated.
To complete the geopolitical picture, I must also examine how democracy is functioning in the United States. Obviously not very well. When Donald Trump became president in 2016, he posed a real threat to our democracy.
Almost half the voters felt the opposite. Until the Left admits why Trump became so popular, they will continue pushing the same system threatening, counter productive policy ideas upon all of us.
Trump is a deeply flawed character, a confidence trickster whose narcissism grew into a disease.
He feels no commitment to democracy; democracy merely provides him with a stage on which to perform. As president, he was more interested in hobnobbing with dictators than in promoting democratic principles.
Holy Harvey Weinsten, Batman, Soros is trying to Bernie Madoff us! Who does he think we are, a political friend of Jeffery Epstein?
Trump’s role model was Putin, who amassed a fortune while asserting total control over his country.
Didn't Trump increase sanctions on Russia during his term?
Trump attracted a lot of non-educated white followers, but his biggest backers were the mega-rich – and he certainly delivered for them.
First, he cut their taxes. Second, he nominated to the Supreme Court ideologues who embraced an extreme version of the Republican agenda.
Third, he brought the Republican party under his control by threatening those who didn’t swear loyalty to him with a challenge in the primaries.
Lastly, he encouraged Republican-controlled states to introduce outrageous measures of voter suppression to ensure that his party would remain in power indefinitely. With that program, he was almost re-elected in 2020.
Other than color of skin, for the most part, is not Biden doing the same things Soros is accusing of Trump of in the last four paragraphs, above?
My hope for 2024 is that Trump and Governor DeSantis of Florida will slug it out for the Republican nomination.
Trump has turned into a pitiful figure continually bemoaning his loss in 2020. Big Republican donors are abandoning him in droves.
DeSantis is shrewd, ruthless and ambitious. He is likely to be the Republican candidate.
"Ruthless"? Why does it seem that Soros rails against all Republicans? Soros is an extremely wealthy foreign born individual who is very influential and has a well defined political agenda for us. My question to you is this: Do you believe George Soros is qualified to be our spokesperson? To be effectively our leader, perhaps through the World Bank and the United Nations?
This could induce Trump, whose narcissism has turned into a disease, to run as a third-party candidate. This would lead to a Democratic landslide and force the Republican party to reform itself.
I do agree with the characterization the Republican Party needs to reform itself, although not in the way I vision as Soros may be hoping.
But perhaps I may be just a little bit biased.
Har har or eyeroll, depending on mood, I suppose.
To conclude, I want to repeat what I said at the beginning: while open and closed societies are in a fight for global domination our civilization is in danger of collapsing because of the inexorable advance of climate change. I believe this sums up the current state of affairs accurately.
"...in a fight for global domination..." Open societies are comprised of individuals with a wide range of personal beliefs. I know I'm not personally fighting for global domination. I don't have the will or resources. How about you? Which individual might have the influence and resources? Did George Soros's name come to mind?
I also believe that an open society is superior to a closed society, and I grieve for people who must live under repressive regimes, like Assad’s Syria, Belarus, Iran and Myanmar.
How about US citizens serving hard time accused of insurrection who only protested for a couple of hours in the US or small business owners who are struggling against corporate lobbyist derived anti-competitive policies?
Thank you.[/QUOTE
There we have it. The world according to Soros. What is the world according to you? Don't be shy. Post your opinion.
Judging by recent posts and media stories, it seems many feel our civilization is at a defining moment. A turning point. The Russian-Ukrainian War comes to mind, as the "winner" of this war will be the side who is willing to risk WW III the most, but not actually cause it. How is that safely achieved? obviously, it can't be safely achieved.
QUOTE="Atlantic, post: 5766132, member: 8067"]https://www.georgesoros.com/2023/02/16/remarks-delivered-at-the-2023-munich-security-conference/
George Soros
Remarks Delivered at the 2023 Munich Security Conference
February 16, 2023
I feel greatly honored to be addressing you this evening.
I’ve spent my entire life trying to understand the world I was born into, and I can claim some modest success. At a relatively early age I realized that our understanding is inherently imperfect.
That’s because we are part of the world in which we live. We are both participants and observers. As participants we want to change the world in our favor. As observers we want to understand reality as it is. These two objectives interfere with each other.
The interference doesn’t affect all domains of reality equally. For instance, natural scientists like astronomers can come close to perfect knowledge because they have an objective criterion, like the movement of the stars, that allows them to judge whether their predictions are correct.
Social scientists don’t have it so easy. People’s behavior already reflects their imperfect understanding. Therefore, it doesn’t provide as reliable a criterion for social scientists as the movement of stars does for astronomers.
So how can we understand the current state of affairs? We must find a way to distinguish what is important from what is less so.
So far, so good. George Soros is a genius who has laid the foundation for simplifying complex ideas.
Let me start with a bold assertion. While two systems of governance are engaged in a fight for global domination, our civilization is in danger of collapsing because of the inexorable advance of climate change. This is a very succinct statement, but I believe it provides an accurate summary of the current state of affairs.
Now George starts to go off the rails. While I agree with him our civilization is in danger, the reasons at the most fundamental level are not related to climate change. They are related to humans with different interests unable to reach an accord one another. Until influencers such as Soros realize this, we are just spinning our wheels as we head into the abyss.
My statement links climate change, which belongs mainly to natural science, with systems of governance, which is a social concept. I’ll discuss climate change first and systems of governance later.
I have always been fascinated by the Greenland ice sheet which is several kilometers deep and has built up over a thousand years.
In July 2022, an extreme weather event occurred in Greenland. It was so warm that scientists there could play volleyball in short sleeve shirts and shorts.
When I saw this, I sent a team of photographers to Greenland to gather visual evidence. They were present when a second event occurred in September, and they recorded it live.
The melting of the Greenland ice sheet would increase the level of the oceans by seven meters. That poses a threat to the survival of our civilization. I wasn’t willing to accept that fate, so I tried to find out whether anything could be done to avoid it. I was directed to Sir David King, a climate scientist who had been chief scientific advisor to previous British governments.
A seven meter rise does not, in fact, threaten out civilization directly. Indeed, a warmer planet can be more biologically productive, as long term geological records have shown. Besides, wouldn't the land masses of Greenland and Antarctica become more accessible the the ice sheets melted? While many say the real problem is too many people, there is a friendly and obtainable way to address this. More on this later.
He has developed a theory which is widely shared by climate scientists. It holds that the global climate system used to be stable but human intervention disrupted it. The Arctic Circle used to be sealed off from the rest of the world by winds that blew in a predictable, circular, counter-clockwise direction, but man-made climate change broke this isolation.
The industrial revolution is less than 150 years old. Before that, Earth's climate has vacillated from ice ages to warner periods many times. Has not our civilization benefitted from our planet's exit from its last Ice Age? Yes, most humans live on the coasts and may need to be relocated if seas levels rise sufficiently, but we are facing more immediate problems. Problems that have the potential to end us within a decade or two, if not sooner.
The circular wind used to keep cold air inside the Arctic Circle and warm air out. Now cold air leaks out from the Arctic and is replaced by warm air that’s sucked up from the south.
This explains, among other things, the Arctic blast that hit the United States last Christmas and the cold wave that hit Texas recently.
The Arctic Ocean used to be covered by pristine snow and ice that reflected the sun in what is called the “albedo effect”. But rising temperatures have caused the ice to melt and the Greenland ice sheet is no longer so pristine; it is covered by soot from last year’s forest fires on the West Coast of America, Arctic shipping and other causes.
Sir David King has a plan to repair the climate system. He wants to recreate the albedo effect by creating white clouds high above the earth. With proper scientific safeguards and in consultation with local indigenous communities, this project could help restabilize the Arctic climate system which governs the entire global climate system.
One thing to note here is Soro's "Consultation with local indigenous communities" language. This show internal consistence with some of his other ideas, to be expanded upon in detail, later.
The message is clear: human interference has destroyed a previously stable system and human ingenuity, both local and international, will be needed to restore it.
Broadly speaking, I am in complete agreement with the above statement.
At present, practically all the efforts to fight climate change are focused on mitigation and adaptation. They are necessary but not sufficient.
The climate system is broken, and it needs to be repaired. That’s the main message I’d like to convey this evening.
It seems to me "main message" is "If we can get them to agree to our 'climate change initiative' they will effectively have accepted our political and economic theories".
The message is urgent because we are dangerously close to breaching the 1.5-degree limit set in the Paris Agreement in 2015. We are already at 1.2 degrees and if we maintain our current course, global warming will reach more than 2.5 degrees around 2070.
Anyone care to look up the geologic record of planetary temperature?
That would take us past several tipping points such as the melting of the Arctic permafrost. Once that happens, the amount of money needed to re-stabilize or repair the climate system grows exponentially. This is not well understood. In all honesty, I am concerned about built up methane found in organic matter in the permafrost and methane clathrates on our continental shelves being released, potentially causing adverse temperate feedback loop. Methane is considered 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so calculations of potential release quantities in a warming world are important to properly define this concern.
The accelerating pace of climate change will also cause large scale migration for which the world is ill prepared. Unless we change the way, we deal with climate change, our civilization will be thoroughly disrupted by rising temperatures that will make large parts of the world practically unlivable.
Such a statement screams for support. What is it about relocating people that would make our planet practically unlivable, again? Sure the rich could lose their waterfront properties and investments certain cities, but wouldn't relocating be a refreshing change of view for residents of Leftist stronghold cities such as Baltimore, MD?
We must reorient our international financial institutions, particularly the World Bank, to focus on climate change. The president of the World Bank, David Malpass, who was a climate denier, resigned yesterday.
What is it about "reorienting" our financial institutions you are not telling us about? It is related to directing funds and management towards politically related imperatives?
Since pictures can be more powerful than words, I’ll show you a short video of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet with a commentary by Sir David King.
Now, I should like to turn to geopolitics. There are two systems of governance that are fighting for global domination. I’m talking about open and closed societies. Interesting characterization that we only have two systems of governance and that these two systems can be defined as "Open" and "Closed". However, let's go with this for now.
I have defined the difference between them as simply as I can: in an open society the role of the state is to protect the freedom of the individual; in a closed society the role of the individual is to serve the interests of the state.
The devil is in the details. An open society where individuals use their freedom in counter-productive ways will cause systemic failure of that open society. Again, it is intrinsic to the long term survival of any system, however it may be defined, that enough members support it. For example, in the United States Conservatives seem to place their belief in a higher power than themselves. These higher powers include ideas such as God, country, community, and family. The Left, through Hollywood, CNN, the music industry, and education has been promoting the opposite. We have seen this with "Woke" content in movie scenes, commercials, cartoons, and music videos. The question is, why does the Left promote the sexualization of children, alternate gender identity, and homosexuality? Why does the Left say they are against racism and other prejudicial behavior while actively engaging in those behaviors? Why does Soros and the Left say they want individual freedom while promoting censorship on social media? More to follow.
As the founder of the Open Society Foundations, open societies are obviously close to my heart, and I consider them morally superior to closed ones.
Soros has certainly created a vast organization in support of social and environmental causes. In the United States, I actually considered applying to one these organizations, have actually participated in anti-Iraq war demonstrations, and gathered signatures for a petition. After actually reading one of the petitions in detail I was promoting, I concluded we were being used as pawns in another person's political agenda. Soro's money has heavily supported Leftist political candidates, including attorney generals. We have seen our justice department and the FBI become politicized, increasing the political divide. Now the Democrats are looking radically expand the IRS. It appears Soros is using environmental and social causes to further his self-admitted political agenda.
When we talk about moral superiority, however, we encounter a difficulty: both systems consider themselves superior. Open societies must therefore distinguish themselves by actually protecting the freedom of the individual. That would certainly attract people living in closed societies.
Why are we so eager in attracting people from closed societies, again?
Of course, repressive states may still prevail because they may be able to force their subjects to serve them.
The fact is, both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. By understanding them better we can improve our understanding of the world.
Ok, George is now back on track.
I have distinguished between open and closed societies. This leaves out many countries that have gone to great lengths to avoid tying themselves irrevocably to one side or the other.
India is an interesting case. It’s a democracy, but its leader Narendra Modi is no democrat. Inciting violence against Muslims was an important factor in his meteoric rise.
Modi maintains close relations with both open and closed societies. India is a member of the Quad (which also includes Australia, the US, and Japan), but it buys a lot of Russian oil at a steep discount and makes a lot of money on it.
Looking at the fall of crude and natural gas prices lately, it does seem likely Russian energy is hitting the market in quantity. Qatar has been getting its massive gas field online as well. Africa and certain other places have tremendous potential for energy reserves, so we can wean ourselves off Russian energy long term if we have to.
Erdogan’s Turkey is perhaps even more interesting. He is actively engaged with both sides of the Ukrainian war and established himself as a neutral intermediary between them.
Erdogan has much in common with Modi. But, while Modi seemed to be firmly in the saddle until recently, Erdogan has mismanaged the Turkish economy and will face elections in May. All his efforts are focused on winning the elections.
He has moved closer to Putin who will make Turkey a distribution hub of Russian oil which will give him the money he needs for the elections.
So many places to politically influence and so little money!
He has also turned more autocratic at home. He is trying to jail his most powerful opponent, the mayor of Istanbul, and to ban the Kurdish party from participating in the elections. But he will not be able to break the tradition that allows the political parties to supervise the counting of the votes. This will make it difficult to falsify the results.
I thought election fraud was not possible. Or is that only in the US? Grin.
The 7.8 magnitude earthquake that hit Turkey earlier this month is a tragedy. The shock is turning into anger in many affected areas because of the government’s slow response and desire to control all aid efforts.
This was not fate. Turkey’s lax construction practices and Erdogan’s construction-driven growth model made everything worse. The best way to address these issues is to hold elections.
Reverting to India, Modi and business tycoon Adani are close allies; their fate is intertwined. Adani Enterprises tried to raise funds in the stock market, but he failed. Adani is accused of stock manipulation and his stock collapsed like a house of cards. Modi is silent on the subject, but he will have to answer questions from foreign investors and in parliament.
This will significantly weaken Modi’s stranglehold on India’s federal government and open the door to push for much needed institutional reforms.
I may be naïve, but I expect a democratic revival in India.
There are many other regional powers that can influence the course of history. Brazil stands out. The election of Lula at the end of last year was crucial.
Nothing like a victory lap. Unfortunately for the Republicans, having an in-depth international perspective on politics is an advantage, including domestic politics.
On January 8th there was a coup attempt much like January 6th, 2021, in the US. Lula handled it masterfully and established his authority as president.
Back off the rails, again. Anyone else notice how Soro's narratives mimics what we see on CNN, etc? A reminder, Soros was not born in the United States.
Brazil is on the front-line of the conflict between open and closed societies; it is also on the front-line of the fight against climate change. He must protect the rainforest, promote social justice, and reignite economic growth all at the same time.
He will need strong international support because there is no pathway to net zero emissions if he fails.
Ah, the compounding of political power. See the power of an in-depth international perspective? One world government, influenced by George Soros, anyone?
The current situation has some similarities with the Cold War, but the differences are much greater. There is a real war going on in Ukraine and that has changed everything.
Actually, lets go back to the Holodomor and Holocaust genocides and the multi-generational effects it had on the political imperatives of a small cabal of elderly, yet highly intelligent individuals, of which, George Soros is a member of. While I understand the imperative for self-protection, much of the efforts of this cabal is ultimately counter productive to society at large and perhaps even their very own security. "Everybody has a plan until they get hit by WWIII", for example.
Until October, Ukraine was winning on the battlefield. Then Russia, with the help of Iran, introduced drones on a large scale. Their aim was to deprive the civilian population of electricity, heat and water and undermine their morale. This has put Ukraine on the defensive.
The regular Russian army is in desperate straits. It is badly led, ill equipped and demoralized. Putin recognized this and took a desperate gamble. He turned to Yevgheny Prigozhin who owns an army of mercenaries called the Wagner Group and is eager to prove that he can do better than the regular army. Prigozhin has a criminal background and knows how to deal with criminals. Putin allowed him to recruit prisoners from jails. That violates Russian law, but Putin doesn’t obey any laws.
The gamble worked. With the prisoners help, Wagner started gaining territory.
The Ukrainian army slowed down their advance, but it was losing more than a hundred trained soldiers a day which it could ill afford. Ukraine faced a strategic choice: either get bogged down in holding Wagner at bay or hand Russia a propaganda victory and preserve its limited resources for a counterattack.
On December 22, Ukraine’s President Zelensky flew to Washington to discuss the situation with President Biden.
They agreed that the only way to end the war is to win it.
Remember what I said about what it would take to win in Ukraine? One side willing to risk WWIII more than the other side? Seems to me, peace is a safer pursuit. Perhaps a little more focus on this idea? Please.
But Biden warned Zelensky that there were limits to what he is willing to do. A Third World War must be avoided at all costs and Europe’s support for Ukraine must be preserved.
Oh come on now, George should know us by now. Half measures have not won in Vietnam or Afghanistan. Why wouldn't half measures work in Russia? If we were serious, not that we necessarily should be, NATO would sanction Russia's enablers. In other words, the use of escalation in an attempt to win a war. Long story short, opposing interests, political or otherwise, whether external as in international, or internal, as in domestic, need to find a way to reach common ground. It is easier to reach common ground with a competing or even adversarial entity by respecting their place in the world.
The Biden administration is providing Ukraine with the weapons – air defense, tanks, and plenty of ammunition – which are needed to defeat a Russian assault and to deter future ones. But opposition from the Republican-led House of Representatives makes another large bi-partisan funding package from the US unlikely.
Hazard a guess why Republicans are getting sticky on Ukraine spending? Could it be seen as supporting an opposing political entity, domestically and Internationally? Could it be the lack of transparency in sending funds to known corrupt leadership that could otherwise be spent on domestic priorities? Could it be related to escalation concerns? If you thought all of the above, you are probably on track. Are we now getting the sense how over politicization of issues can be counter productive for potentially all?
Zelensky went on a diplomatic offensive in European countries urging them to deliver more tanks faster. He also asked for fighter planes and European countries have agreed to start training Ukrainian pilots to fly state of the art planes.
Prigozhin has been ordered by Putin to produce a victory before the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24th.
He is trying to surround the Ukrainian defenders of the town of Bakhmut where he enjoys numerical superiority.
It is possible that he will succeed but I consider it unlikely because the Ukrainian army is putting up strong resistance and once Ukraine can use the weapons it has been promised the tables will be turned.
But Moldova’s president, Maia Sandu, warned that Putin is planning a coup d’etat against Moldova. That threat could be executed before the anniversary.
On February 11th, Prigozhin gave an interview to The Guardian in which he admitted that he won’t be able to trap the Ukrainian defenders of Bakhmut. “There are many roads out and fewer roads in” he said. He took a two-to-three-year perspective talking about occupying the Donbas.
This gives Ukraine a narrow window of opportunity later this Spring, when it receives the promised armaments, to mount a counterattack which would determine the fate of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The countries of the former Soviet Union can hardly wait to see the Russians defeated in Ukraine because they want to assert their independence.
This means that a Ukrainian victory would result in the dissolution of the Russian empire. Russia would no longer pose a threat to Europe and the world.
All the more for Putin to risk WWIII for a victory in Ukraine? Again, all parties concerned should consider all-out peace efforts rather than risking all-out war. At least try. At least try hard for peace.
That would be a big change for the better. It would bring huge relief to open societies and create tremendous problems for closed ones.
Turning to China, Xi Jinping would be an obvious loser. His close association with Putin would hurt him. But China may be already undergoing a revolution. Most of Xi Jinping’s problems are self-inflicted. He started mismanaging the economy right from the beginning of his rule when he went out of his way to undo Deng Xiaoping’s reformist achievements.
Xi’s Zero Covid policy was his biggest blunder. It imposed enormous hardship on the population and brought them to the verge of open rebellion.
Then, in response to popular pressure, Xi suddenly abandoned the policy without putting anything else in its place. The result was Armageddon.
George, "love" your characterizations. Keep them coming!
Without proper inoculations, infections spread like wildfire. Hospitals and morgues were overwhelmed and an untold number of people, most of them elderly, died within a very short period of time. The regime stopped providing information, but people could see what was going on when their relatives and friends began to die.
The first, urban wave of infections peaked in January; the second, rural wave is doing so just about now, but it will take another month or so for the health system to start functioning normally.
The chaotic way Xi Jinping exited Zero Covid shook the Chinese people’s trust in the Communist Party under Xi’s leadership. The current situation fulfills all the preconditions for regime change or revolution. But this is only the beginning of an opaque process, whose repercussions will be felt over a longer period of time.
In the short term Xi is likely to remain in power because he is in firm control of all the instruments of repression.
But I am convinced that Xi will not remain in office for life, and while he is in office, China will not become the dominant military and political force that Xi is aiming for.
Fortunately for Xi, he is not personally threatened from abroad because Biden is not interested in regime change in China. All he wants is to reestablish the status quo in Taiwan.
It seems inevitable that China will become the world's sole superpower. Soro's and the West short sighted vision will ensure that, in my opinion. The Chinese are smart and culturally strong with their solid work and saving ethic, while the West is losing their cultural advantage of personal initiative due to the coordinated promotion of dysfunction for political gain. Civil War in the US is not unthinkable. How effective can a country be internationally if it is at war with itself? Perhaps a successful resolution in Ukraine requires a successful coming to terms with political and philosophical differences in the West.
Due to his weak position at home, Xi responded positively to Biden’s offer in Bali to lower temperatures between the United States and China.
Back to interesting characterizations again, are we? Could it be that XI has a broader view than as characterized? I know I'm sounding like a Chinese apologist here, but as a practical matter, a country with 1.4 billion people, a large industrial base, and a focused leadership is a force to be fully recognized. Remember George's discussion of the perception of reality?
But the discovery of a Chinese surveillance balloon traversing the length of the US soured relations and it is on its way to poisoning them all together.
Preliminary examination of the remains indicate that it was designed to spy military targets, not for meteorological purposes.
I doubt few fully appreciate the power of certain types of close electronic surveillance. It can be a problem, but nothing that a little diplomacy couldn't resolve, I'd hope.
In any case, Xi Jinping’s conversion to cooperation would have been only temporary and tactical. He would not be who he is if he could abandon his deeply felt beliefs so easily.
The fact is, we are witnessing a historic process in China whose significance is not widely appreciated.
To complete the geopolitical picture, I must also examine how democracy is functioning in the United States. Obviously not very well. When Donald Trump became president in 2016, he posed a real threat to our democracy.
Almost half the voters felt the opposite. Until the Left admits why Trump became so popular, they will continue pushing the same system threatening, counter productive policy ideas upon all of us.
Trump is a deeply flawed character, a confidence trickster whose narcissism grew into a disease.
He feels no commitment to democracy; democracy merely provides him with a stage on which to perform. As president, he was more interested in hobnobbing with dictators than in promoting democratic principles.
Holy Harvey Weinsten, Batman, Soros is trying to Bernie Madoff us! Who does he think we are, a political friend of Jeffery Epstein?
Trump’s role model was Putin, who amassed a fortune while asserting total control over his country.
Didn't Trump increase sanctions on Russia during his term?
Trump attracted a lot of non-educated white followers, but his biggest backers were the mega-rich – and he certainly delivered for them.
First, he cut their taxes. Second, he nominated to the Supreme Court ideologues who embraced an extreme version of the Republican agenda.
Third, he brought the Republican party under his control by threatening those who didn’t swear loyalty to him with a challenge in the primaries.
Lastly, he encouraged Republican-controlled states to introduce outrageous measures of voter suppression to ensure that his party would remain in power indefinitely. With that program, he was almost re-elected in 2020.
Other than color of skin, for the most part, is not Biden doing the same things Soros is accusing of Trump of in the last four paragraphs, above?
My hope for 2024 is that Trump and Governor DeSantis of Florida will slug it out for the Republican nomination.
Trump has turned into a pitiful figure continually bemoaning his loss in 2020. Big Republican donors are abandoning him in droves.
DeSantis is shrewd, ruthless and ambitious. He is likely to be the Republican candidate.
"Ruthless"? Why does it seem that Soros rails against all Republicans? Soros is an extremely wealthy foreign born individual who is very influential and has a well defined political agenda for us. My question to you is this: Do you believe George Soros is qualified to be our spokesperson? To be effectively our leader, perhaps through the World Bank and the United Nations?
This could induce Trump, whose narcissism has turned into a disease, to run as a third-party candidate. This would lead to a Democratic landslide and force the Republican party to reform itself.
I do agree with the characterization the Republican Party needs to reform itself, although not in the way I vision as Soros may be hoping.
But perhaps I may be just a little bit biased.
Har har or eyeroll, depending on mood, I suppose.
To conclude, I want to repeat what I said at the beginning: while open and closed societies are in a fight for global domination our civilization is in danger of collapsing because of the inexorable advance of climate change. I believe this sums up the current state of affairs accurately.
"...in a fight for global domination..." Open societies are comprised of individuals with a wide range of personal beliefs. I know I'm not personally fighting for global domination. I don't have the will or resources. How about you? Which individual might have the influence and resources? Did George Soros's name come to mind?
I also believe that an open society is superior to a closed society, and I grieve for people who must live under repressive regimes, like Assad’s Syria, Belarus, Iran and Myanmar.
How about US citizens serving hard time accused of insurrection who only protested for a couple of hours in the US or small business owners who are struggling against corporate lobbyist derived anti-competitive policies?
Thank you.[/QUOTE
There we have it. The world according to Soros. What is the world according to you? Don't be shy. Post your opinion.
give it up, loser
ukraine made a decision to fight and be free
the free world made a decision to support this
ukraine will be an important and valuable part of EU and NATO, sooner or later
(moldova and georgia will follow some day)
this war started only because of the stupid decision of one single sick and crazy person - your "president" putin
do YOU hate freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights - just like HE does?
then go - fight and die for him, so that he and his mafia can keep on stealing
russian assholes
"russia" is not a country
"russia" is done.
Putin's iron fist begins to rust.
Faint cracks emerge in the facade of Putin’s rule, one year after Ukraine invasion
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/19/europe/russia-ukraine-war-anniversary-intl-cmd/index.html
Faint cracks emerge in the facade of Putin’s rule, one year after Ukraine invasion
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/19/europe/russia-ukraine-war-anniversary-intl-cmd/index.html
Do you think it was staged
They staged the air raid siren to make it look more dangerous for TV??
We told the Russians that Biden was getting escorted by jets into Kiev
Last edited:
I shudder to think of how Joe will recall his trip to Ukraine in future campaign gaffs. First of all, he will get Ukraine and Russia mixed up, because, well, they all look alike in the dark. And, well, y'all will recall that he went to South Africa once and was arrested and imprisoned with Nelson Mandela, except no one else other than Joe recalls that.
Hillary had little memory problems too. She went to Kosovo and landed under intense fire but powered through it because I guess she is an action figure our something. Except no one else other than Hillary remembers the intense fire part.
It's not just the trip with these clowns. You have to deal with the spin later.