D_Alex

In addition to siphoning wealth, America has been very successful in siphoning talent. Which is why this kind of news should be pretty concerning:

https://sciencebusiness.net/news-byte/scientists-leave-uk-ch...

Hello again!

>Those leading NATO countries are supporting the regime in Kyiv, the government headed by Zelenskyy

Unfortunately, this is a misleading half-truth.

The truth (this is my opinion, but based on literally hundreds of hours of scouring the internet for information) is that:

1) Zelensky was elected because Ukrainians, especially Eastern Ukrainians believed that he would work to bring peace to Donbas;

2) For a year or so after his election, he actually tried to do that. The West disapproved and pressured him to change course, while the far right nationalists basically told him to f@#k off and made public death threats against him. I don't know if you understand Ukrainian, but at least skim these videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KxLuDpP4_w / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5RRDnF7lKM to get an idea. I think Putin called Ukraine a failed state at that point.

3) After a while, Zelensky basically folded and let foreign backed parties and interests dictate Ukrainian policy. Ultimately leading to where we are today.

So it is not so much that "leading NATO countries are supporting the regime in Kyiv". but rather "the regime in Kyiv is a NATO puppet regime".

>This is very different ... Are you seriously suggesting that Putin explicitly wasn't connecting Zelenskyy to the "far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis" here?

I'm certainly not suggesting that, quite the opposite. He was connecting the two, just not in the way you imply. He quite rightly IMO is saying that Zelensky is carrying out the agenda of far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis. But not "Ukrainians", meaning the people of Ukraine in general.

IMO, Hong Kong's number 1 problem is that its unique position as the gateway to China has faded away, both the role as an intermediary and as a key shipping port.

Everything else is just detail.

>Putin sees the Kyiv regime as Westernized. He doesn't directly state this as a single line...

If you dismiss what he is saying directly, and look for some obscure meaning instead, with some help of semantic distortion you will find what you want to find.

>What foothold would he be talking about here

Very obviously NATO foothold, that's the "North Atlantic alliance".

>What nationality are those people who are those "far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine"?... etc.

They are Ukrainians. And Ku Klux Klan members are American. But you can't interchange the terms willy-nilly. Eg it is wrong to say "Americans advocate the use of violence against people of colour and Jews".

>Kyiv regime isn't Ukranian

I'm not actually arguing that. However: Zelensky was elected largely by the voters in the eastern regions of Ukraine, and largely because he promised to bring peace to those regions. He has failed in that promise and betrayed his voters. Most likely because of Western influence.

>Putin sees the Kyiv regime as Western ... ... he says so in the speech I linked above.... etc.

I read the entire thing and I don't see it. Which paragraph are you talking about? Is it this one:

"...the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia. They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass..."

because that's certainly not about "Ukrainians" in the sense that you keep on implying.

>Could you answer if you believe the Kyiv regime is Ukranian?

Let me try. The current Kiev regime is made up of Ukrainian nationals. However, it is no longer acting in the interests of Ukrainian people. It has become a sock puppet of the NATO countries. So I believe that it is "Ukrainian" in the same sense that the ruling party of China is "communist" or that Donald Trump is a "conservative". Hope that answers your question.

Around US$ 40,000/tonne, $40/kg. Roughly a dollar an ounce, vs nearly $2000 for gold.

>Next thing I know you're going to tell me Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia is a real, sovereign country and totally not just Russia invading a neighbor.

Well, I had to look this up on Wikipedia, but in a nutshell, that is roughly correct. To be precise, Abkhazia is a de facto independent state, and has been since the Georgian-Abkhaz war of 1992. Russia only recognised its independence in 2008, probably in response to Georgia's plans to join NATO.

>DNR/LNR isn't in Russia though

Not sure of you are agreeing with what I said above, or disagreeing. Can you re-read the thread carefully and clarify?

What have I twisted? Look at my opening post, to which you replied "Please stop spreading lies". What was the lie again? You doubled down and had to twist like an eel to try and justify your statements.

As for what I think: I think that we, "the West", are playing a stupid and evil role in this conflict. Furthermore, we are spreading misinformation in order to manufacture consent among the public, often in an incredibly crude manner. I'm prepared to discuss this, but maybe one thing - you pick which - at a time.

Man, there is some heavy semantic distortion happening in this subthread. To make sense of the NATO narrative:

"Western" = "Ukrainian"

"DNR/LNR" = "Russia"

"Threat" = "aggression"

Next, we will be "warmongering" = "peacemaking". Oh wait, this is already a thing. Along with "ignorance" = "strength".

Hmm... You are equating responding to a "massive ground offensive against the DPR/LPR" with Russians "defending themselves against Ukrainian aggression". Are you implying that DPR/LNR are Russian?

>Who's gaslighting

You are.

You are continuing to imply that "Western" and "Ukrainian" are the same to Putin. While in your links, which I read, right near the top, there is a statement about "the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border." Maybe read the whole thing again.

And please stop your gaslighting already.

You are implying that "Western aggression" is the same as "Ukrainian aggression". They are not.

Please quit gaslighting.

I don't think "the Russians" actually said that. Maybe you should use a different example, like when the US lied at the United Nations about WMDs in Iraq.

I strongly agree re "Only accessing secondary sources of information" being a pitfall. Examples abound, here is one:

Headline: China’s Xi threatens ‘catastrophic consequences’ if China confronted

What Xi actually said: ""Our world today is far from being tranquil; rhetorics that stoke hatred and prejudice abound. Acts of containment, suppression or confrontation arising thereof do all harm, not the least good, to world peace and security. History has proved time and again that confrontation does not solve problems; it only invites catastrophic consequences. Protectionism and unilateralism can protect no one; they ultimately hurt the interests of others as well as one’s own."

From https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/01/chinas-xi-threatens...

Likely at least some would have had successful careers as stockbrokers.

Thanks! So, is the 100k visits "a lot" for KataGo, or not so much? I understand that without the special anti AI tactics described in the article this would result in "superhuman" play, but what is the reasonable practical limit for the number of such visits?

Can you ELI5 what "visits" means, in "KataGo, 100K visits"? I can't find a comprehensible explanation via Google...

China was friendly with the USSR only briefly, like in the 1950s. It was desperately poor at the time, and received a lot of aid from the USSR.

I don't know what other friendlies you mean. USSR installed communist/socialist governments in the countries it liberated from German occupation after WW2, but those relationships were... complicated.

That's a fair point.

On reflection, whether communism holds extra appeal in poor countries, or whether it was an accident of history that *rich* capitalist countries faced off against poor communist countries, communism's chances were kind of hamstrung by this enmity. The playing field was uneven.

So which system is truly better at lifting people out of poverty, all other things being equal, remains uncertain.

>Growing from a bad start and where you can copy a more developed nation makes this easier.

True. But you know what really makes economic growth easier? Foreign aid. Also trade.

The USSR otoh had to deal with sanctions.

https://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Embargoes-and-S...

>Communism, or any other system, can’t make that same claim.

I don't really think communism is a viable economic system, because of, you know, people. However, a couple of points should be made:

- Communism has always had to deal with enmity of world's richest and most influential nations (USA and UK in particular). Possibly because communism has had this inbuilt idea that it needs to spread to everywhere, whether they like it or not (kind of like some religions). Could this have been otherwise? I don't know.

- Between 1922 and 1962, USSR's economy grew at an average of about 9% real per annum, despite having to deal with the massive trauma of World War 2. Also, income inequality decreased. Population went from ~140 million in poverty to ~240 million living, um, not in poverty.

So... it is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

A couple of comments ago you were talking about news from "Russian occupied territories", and I was replying to that. The journalists I mentioned were not significant because they are the fountains of truth, but because they report from the occupied territories, rather than from Ukraine itself... where this just happened:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/30/world/europe/zelensky-jou...

Maybe you should see what they have to say. Even if it contradicts the story that YOU would like to be true.

You twisted my words and insulted me. And then you say you regret engaging, and not even because you disagree with what I say, but because I apparently am not a good conversationalist.

Yeah, OK. Bye.

No, Orwell would be shocked that his "war is peace" slogan took root in the West first.

Also, "ignorance is strength".

>Your lack of being informed about the facts on the ground in the Russian occupied territories

It is a bit hard to be well informed, since there are no "approved" journalists reporting from these territories. The only Western journalists there that I know of (Anne-Laure Bonnel, Anna Lipp and the rather hack-ish Patrick Lancaster) are not given much exposure on the mainstream channels. If you have not heard what they have to say, I suggest you correct that before warmongering any further.

Peace is atrocities? and abhorrent?

I read Orwell's 1984 in high school, and I never believed that we'd go there until now.

Wow... I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Apart from your absolutely incredible take on my character - my business area has really profited from the war:

https://www.ft.com/content/7a70cee3-2891-4012-a22d-36363fadd...

"Woodside said that its revenue increased to $5.9bn in the September quarter, up 70 per cent from the previous quarter and a significant jump from the $1.6bn that the Perth-based company reported in the same quarter last year... ...Oil and gas companies have enjoyed a streak of record profits thanks to soaring energy prices caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine."

You are trying to make a point, but it escapes me. Can you be more direct?

I don't want weapons. I want a stop to weapons and a start to peace negotiations.