Turkey Steps Back From Confrontation at Greek Border

[Invicta]

You talk so much trash that I am really surprised that you even know to read history books! What rubbish are you talking in the first place?

Turkey was conquered by UK in WW1 and henceforth Turkey remained under UK-USA rule. The very reason Turkey is part of NATO is because Turkey was a puppet state of UK-USA and useful due to its ability to block Bosphorous straits. If Turkey was not a puppet state, it would not be NATO country in the first place. Turkey is a bankrupt country who is funded and sponsored by USA-UK with Arab Petrodollar.

Turkey gas no technology. Forget India, Turkey has lessee technology than Pakistan. Turkey can't even make car engines as they have always relied on workshop model to act as cheap labour for EU and only did lesser technology jobs. Turkey is rich because of its proximity to EU and Arabs and hence higher trade but is definitely not technically advanced.

In such a situation, it was impossible for Erdogan to even become popular without backing. Read on the number of coups which used to take place every 10 years in Turkey to understand how USA-UK used to eliminate those leaders whom it didn't like. Erdogan was even banned for 6 years from politics but was reversed by parliament after elections were won by his party. It would have been impossible to win elections when Turkey was under siege technologically as well as politically unless there was backing from someone very powerful. The only ones I see who would back Islamist Erdogan are Arabs. So, Erdogan was indeed backed by Arabs.


Turkey was a vassal state with leaders imposed by USA-UK and hence was considered moderate. Ataturk was an agent of the west and not a real leader on his own. The real leaders were eliminated by coups every now and then and hence Turkey was considered as NATO ally.


House of Sauds didn't even have food supply to challenge Ottomans. They were tribals living in poverty. Oil was discovered only after WW2. So, it has got nothing to do with Arab-Ottoman rivalry. There was no real rivalry between Arabs and Ottoman at all. Ottomans lost WW1 and hwnce Arabs decided to split instead of being conquered as vassals by UK-USA.


No, UK oil reserve is in 5 billion barrels which is extractable. Rest are just resources. Only about 45-50% of oil is extractable. UK has been extracting since 1980 and hence lot of used up oil field with unextractable resources remains. I am only talking of extractable oil, not total resources.


USA oil is not enough. USA itself is a net importer of oil, though most of it is Canadian oil. So, Muslim oil is the only hedge against Russia. EU doesn't have oil reserves more than for 2 years. Only countries like Norway and UK can survive on their own oil for sometime if they don't share it with other EU states. Other countries will collapse in that case.

Russia has very little interest in trade with EU. Russia is the supplier of critical goods to EU and EU just sells trivial goods. Russia is self sufficient for most of its critical needs. Whatever imports it needs like generic medicines, electronics, machinery etc are easily imported from China and India. EU has very little to offer Russia. So, the power if the trade lies with Russia, not EU. EU can do nothing to Russia whereas Russian sanction to EU can be crippling. That is why Muslim oil act as a hedge against Russian power.


Nonsense. Where do you learn these garbage information? USA was forced to go on energy independence as Arab countries were arm twisting USA. USA oil reserves is not much and will run out by 2030 at this rate of production but is compelled to produce due to Arab arm twisting. The 2014 oil price crash was not due to USA shale oil but due to newly elected government in India who changed the global power equation..

The Arab countries are trying to reduce dependency on oil as their oil reserves can last only till 2050 and hence they need a substitute. This is not due to reduced oil prices. Muslims supply 50-55% of net oil exports and Russians and allies supply 20-25% of net oil exports. Total 75% of bet oil exports is from Muslims and Russians. I am not talking of GCC but general Muslim controlled states.


Saddam was never the boss as he didn't have support from KSA, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar etc. These countries produce most of the oil and they suddenly raised oil production by 60-70% in 1985 to compensate for any losses from Iraq, Russia and Iran and also arm twist Iran and Iraq as they were engaged in a war at that time. This combined with Iraq invading Kuwait, created weakness of Iraq. If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait or engaged in war with Iran, Saddam could have been much more powerful.

Again arbitrary statements without any basis. It is true that none is forcing dollar on Arabs but the reason behind Petrodollar is an alliance against atheist USSR, not stability of US dollars. USA dollar was in no way stable. It is stabilised due to Petrodollar and consequent globalisation of dollar. FDI stats make no sense. None is speaking of stability of countries but of might and self sufficiency. For that matter, Cuba is a very stable country but is it mighty or self sufficient?


Tax laws make it tax haven, not rich. You can call tax havens as rich as it is not their money but someone's money being channeled via them.

Again, talking shit. USA dollar is the currency of all those countries who have adopted it at the request of USA. Arabs have adopted dollar at the request of USA and hence it is Arab's currency too. USA has to accept Arabs' terms while printing dollars.

What nonsense! Why do Arabs need interest from USA? USA interests are just based on deficit which is useless. Unless it is pegged to something usable like rice, gold etc, Arabs don't need interest. Arabs have near Monopoly in oil exports. There is no need for being competitive.

The point here is that USA dollar is pegged to Arabs currencies rather than other way around. USA needs Arab oil more than Arabs needing USA goods. So, it is USA who have to obey the terms of Arabs for the dollar. Arabs didn't beg USA to peg their currency to dollars but it was USA who became desperate after oil sanctions in 1973 and hence begged for pegging of oil to dollars

You contradict yourself in every paragraph and your lack of historical knowledge or economic understanding is evident.

I just cannot be asked to correct you on your misconceptions. Enjoy your foolishness - may one of your many gods grant you some wisdom.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

You contradict yourself in every paragraph and your lack of historical knowledge or economic understanding is evident.

I just cannot be asked to correct you on your misconceptions. Enjoy your foolishness - may one of your many gods grant you some wisdom.

You appear to be mentally unstable. Where did I contradict myself? Show me the proof by quoting my comments where it is self contradictory. I have been very consistent throughout

 

[Georg]

These trucks, cars, medicines etc use oil. Without oil, there will be none of them in the first place. So, where will EU get these things for its own people if Muslims cut oil?

Muslims can get the manufactured items from China and India and raw materials like food from African countries. EU has absolutely nothing to offer in real value. It only sells expensive items by bloating the price and requesting Arabs to buy them to get funds to sustain their economy.


The dollar is a result of Petrodollar. Without petrodollar, the currency of western countries would be worth nothing. Most of the FDI are simply money that went out of the country and hence won't be coming back. Muslims on the other hand have oil reserve under their feet which is used to supply oil to the world daily. The FDI is just a thing if the past and not something useful in the future.

Showing statistics of FDI is simply absurd. Can you explain how Netherlands got so much money to invest? This is funny as hell. USA dollar is printed on behalf of Arabs as it is also the currency of Petrodollar states. So, most of the FDI which you are showing is most likely the money printed by USA on behalf of Arabs and hence is not actual wealth of West but wealth of Muslims. That is how worthless countries like Netherlands can have so much FDI. It is simply the money being routed via western countries.

do you even read a little bit... next to no oil used in EU comes from arab nation....

 

[Smarana Mitra]

do you even read a little bit... next to no oil used in EU comes from arab nation....

45% oil to EU is from Muslim countries including Libya, GCC, Algeria, Nigeria. I have written this in previous comment. Secondly, oil market depends on Muslim oil. If Muslims sanction EU, then EU will suffer. Russia has no obligation to sell oil to EU and will cut oil supply if it sees that EU has no alternative.

 

[vostok]

45% oil to EU is from Muslim countries including Libya, GCC, Algeria, Nigeria. I have written this in previous comment. Secondly, oil market depends on Muslim oil. If Muslims sanction EU, then EU will suffer. Russia has no obligation to sell oil to EU and will cut oil supply if it sees that EU has no alternative.

The only way Russia cut oil supply to EU - if EU stop pay for it. Russia has no issues with European countries. It is UK and US who are anti-Russian, and some their small puppets in Eastern Europe.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

The only way Russia cut oil supply to EU - if EU stop pay for it. Russia has no issues with European countries. It is UK and US who are anti-Russian, and some their small puppets in Eastern Europe.

France is also anti Russia. So are other EU countries due to Roman-Orthodox rivalry. The EU aiding Ukraine to keep is away from Russia shows the reality. Russia has no reason to sell oil except as a means to maintain dependency of EU states. Russia doesn't need anything from EU as everything that it needs can be obtained from China, India except for semiconductor cops which is obtained from USA. Not a single item comes from EU which is not substitutable. Russia has absolutely no use for EU. Why should Russia care for EU payment and forcibly buy things it doesn't need just to maintain trade balance and help EU? Russia is better off preserving its oil reserves for its own future generations rather than share it with EU.

 

[vostok]

France is also anti Russia. So are other EU countries due to Roman-Orthodox rivalry. The EU aiding Ukraine to keep is away from Russia shows the reality. Russia has no reason to sell oil except as a means to maintain dependency of EU states. Russia doesn't need anything from EU as everything that it needs can be obtained from China, India except for semiconductor cops which is obtained from USA. Not a single item comes from EU which is not substitutable. Russia has absolutely no use for EU. Why should Russia care for EU payment and forcibly buy things it doesn't need just to maintain trade balance and help EU? Russia is better off preserving its oil reserves for its own future generations rather than share it with EU.

All Western European countries Anti-Russianism is mostly due to US military and political occupation of Europe. This will end the next day last American soldier leaves the continent. If European countries want to survive - the only way is creation of Europe from Lissabon to Vladivostok. Alternative is de-Europeanization of Europe in all its sence - cultural, racial, linguistic and so on.
China, India can take care of themselves and will be poles in the future world. But none European country can make it. And even Russia is under question. But greater Europe surely can be powerful force.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

All Western European countries Anti-Russianism is mostly due to US military and political occupation of Europe. This will end the next day last American soldier leaves the continent. If European countries want to survive - the only way is creation of Europe from Lissabon to Vladivostok. Alternative is de-Europeanization of Europe in all its sence - cultural, racial, linguistic and so on.
China, India can take care of themselves and will be poles in the future world. But none European country can make it. And even Russia is under question. But greater Europe surely can be powerful force.

No, the real problem is the Roman church. You can look at history where UK, France were always against Russian expansion while tolerated other countries like Dutch, Spain etc from expanding.

In Greece was of independence, UK and France were unsettling to help but went to help reluctantly when they saw that Russia was making the move to liberate Greece. In 1856 Ottoman-Russia war, France and UK helped Ottoman only due to hatred of Russia. Germany was against Russia solely for to Orthodox hatred and in WW2 Hitler decided to invade Russia despite Russia supplying Germany with enough oil and resources. Germany started a second front against Russia despite losing the naval war with UK on the first front only because of its hatred and distrust to Russia.

USA occupation of Europe was facilitated mainly due to affinity of European countries to Roman church who was opposed to Russia. Otherwise there was no reason why USSR couldn't have made inroads into Europe.

Europe was divided on the grounds of Roman and Orthodox along with some conquered territory of Germany and Poland which were Roman christians but ceded to USSR. The fall of USSR also came because of ethnic tensions with Muslims in central asia and Roman Christianity in Poland which resulted in other Eastern countries getting cut off.

Why would anyone think that EU is anti Russia solely due to USA occupation? USA is just the military arm of Roman Christianity. The real problem lies in Roman Christianity rather than USA occupation

 

[vostok]

No, the real problem is the Roman church. You can look at history where UK, France were always against Russian expansion while tolerated other countries like Dutch, Spain etc from expanding.

In Greece was of independence, UK and France were unsettling to help but went to help reluctantly when they saw that Russia was making the move to liberate Greece. In 1856 Ottoman-Russia war, France and UK helped Ottoman only due to hatred of Russia. Germany was against Russia solely for to Orthodox hatred and in WW2 Hitler decided to invade Russia despite Russia supplying Germany with enough oil and resources. Germany started a second front against Russia despite losing the naval war with UK on the first front only because of its hatred and distrust to Russia.

USA occupation of Europe was facilitated mainly due to affinity of European countries to Roman church who was opposed to Russia. Otherwise there was no reason why USSR couldn't have made inroads into Europe.

Europe was divided on the grounds of Roman and Orthodox along with some conquered territory of Germany and Poland which were Roman christians but ceded to USSR. The fall of USSR also came because of ethnic tensions with Muslims in central asia and Roman Christianity in Poland which resulted in other Eastern countries getting cut off.

Why would anyone think that EU is anti Russia solely due to USA occupation? USA is just the military arm of Roman Christianity. The real problem lies in Roman Christianity rather than USA occupation

Do you know that most of Western and moreover Northern Europe countries are not even Catholics? They fought against Rome much harder than against Orthodox.
WW1 and WW2 and most of other wars has nothing to do with religion. It is all about national interests. This time, as it it was many time in history, Russian and most of European countries interests coincide. Progressive antiglobalist forces in Europe rising and they automatically see the only independent country of the continent - Russia - as the ally. Noone except Russia can help Europeans in their push for independence and sovereignty.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Do you know that most of Western and moreover Northern Europe countries are not even Catholics? They fought against Rome much harder than against Orthodox.
WW1 and WW2 and most of other wars has nothing to do with religion. It is all about national interests. This time, as it it was many time in history, Russian and most of European countries interests coincide. Progressive antiglobalist forces in Europe rising and they automatically see the only independent country of the continent - Russia - as the ally. Noone except Russia can help Europeans in their push for independence and sovereignty.

Catholics and Protestant are both Roman christians. Yes, Nordic countries are not exactly roman Christian but they hardly are a major force in EU.

No, very few of them fought against Rome harder than against Orthodox. Yes, the Protestant revolution did fight against Rome but that eventually got merged back with Rome over time. Also, due to lack of any Protestant pope, Protestant denomination can't stay independent and United. So it is severely influenced by Roman church.

This means that at the end of the day, Roman and Orthodox rivalry is the major factor and other denomination is mot significant. WW1 and WW2 were always influenced by religion. The interest of nations are always influenced by religion. T

WW1 started due to ethnic and religious tensions flaring up with slavs and Germanic forces. Ottoman got sucked into it due to their interests of cleansing Orthodox Christianity from Ottoman empire. France entered the war as Germany was not on friendly terms and there was animosity of France-prussian war and UK entered the war to help France. Germany had Lutheran Christianity which was not acceptable to Roman church. Hence France and UK entered the war to prevent Germany from taking over Europe.

WW2 started with Hitler denouncing capitalism and making a treaty with Russia and invading Catholic poland. This created doubt in UK and France which declared war. But Hitler didn't trust Russians in reality and had only made the pro socialism speech to get Russian resources. So in the middle of the war, he showed his true colours by invading Russia. There are many signs to say Hitler was religious. He was against gays, he conducted voting for his presidency by himself voting against his candidature in line with pope elections. He hard Jews as a continuation of Roman hatred of Jews. So, religious angle can't be denied in both ww1 and ww2

 

[vostok]

Catholics and Protestant are both Roman christians. Yes, Nordic countries are not exactly roman Christian but they hardly are a major force in EU.

No, very few of them fought against Rome harder than against Orthodox. Yes, the Protestant revolution did fight against Rome but that eventually got merged back with Rome over time. Also, due to lack of any Protestant pope, Protestant denomination can't stay independent and United. So it is severely influenced by Roman church.

This means that at the end of the day, Roman and Orthodox rivalry is the major factor and other denomination is mot significant. WW1 and WW2 were always influenced by religion. The interest of nations are always influenced by religion. T

WW1 started due to ethnic and religious tensions flaring up with slavs and Germanic forces. Ottoman got sucked into it due to their interests of cleansing Orthodox Christianity from Ottoman empire. France entered the war as Germany was not on friendly terms and there was animosity of France-prussian war and UK entered the war to help France. Germany had Lutheran Christianity which was not acceptable to Roman church. Hence France and UK entered the war to prevent Germany from taking over Europe.

WW2 started with Hitler denouncing capitalism and making a treaty with Russia and invading Catholic poland. This created doubt in UK and France which declared war. But Hitler didn't trust Russians in reality and had only made the pro socialism speech to get Russian resources. So in the middle of the war, he showed his true colours by invading Russia. There are many signs to say Hitler was religious. He was against gays, he conducted voting for his presidency by himself voting against his candidature in line with pope elections. He hard Jews as a continuation of Roman hatred of Jews. So, religious angle can't be denied in both ww1 and ww2

Have you ever heard about 17 ct. religious wars in Europe? Protestants and Catholics fought each other with unseen brutality, the whole cities were burnt to ashes.
Religion on the social, non-personal level is only a tool, it is not the operator. Is is like say hammer is a carpenter. Political elites use religion as ideology, not the other way around - not popes and patriarchs using states to fight each other.
Religion is just an ideological tool, it simply can not define the national interests. States with different or same religion can be today best friends and tomorrow - the worst enemies. Because national interests of states push the elites to act one way or another, not religion. We are not in Stone Age or even in Middle Ages.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Have you ever heard about 17 ct. religious wars in Europe? Protestants and Catholics fought each other with unseen brutality, the whole cities were burnt to ashes.
Religion on the social, non-personal level is only a tool, it is not the operator. Is is like say hammer is a carpenter. Political elites use religion as ideology, not the other way around - not popes and patriarchs using states to fight each other.
Religion is just an ideological tool, it simply can not define the national interests. States with different or same religion can be today best friends and tomorrow - the worst enemies. Because national interests of states push the elites to act one way or another, not religion. We are not in Stone Age or even in Middle Ages.

Countries with different religion can become friends as long as they are not abrahamic religion. For example, India can become friends with China as both are non abrahamic. Similarly, Russia can become friends with India and China as Russia had become atheist state. But in case of Islam or Roman Christianity, it is impossible.

I know of the Protestant and Catholic war. That is why I mentioned that Rome doesn't like Germany. But still, Germany has some Roman attributes due to its legacy as part of Roman empire. So, Germany still hated Russia and Jews, similar to Roman christians.

There can be temporary alliance but only of shirt duration. There can be no long term friendship with Islamic or Roman Christian countries. The temporary alliance will always be uneasy and similar to what we see with Arab - NATO alliance today.

The national interest van be of two types- interest of the people of the nation and interest of the elites. Elites can be separate from the common people and hence choose to act selfishly against the interest of its own people. In that case, there can be different national interest. But if one talks of the interest of people as a whole, the most important basis of interests is culture and nothing else. Culture is often associated with religion and hence it becomes religious struggle.

 

[vostok]

Countries with different religion can become friends as long as they are not abrahamic religion. For example, India can become friends with China as both are non abrahamic. Similarly, Russia can become friends with India and China as Russia had become atheist state. But in case of Islam or Roman Christianity, it is impossible.

I know of the Protestant and Catholic war. That is why I mentioned that Rome doesn't like Germany. But still, Germany has some Roman attributes due to its legacy as part of Roman empire. So, Germany still hated Russia and Jews, similar to Roman christians.

There can be temporary alliance but only of shirt duration. There can be no long term friendship with Islamic or Roman Christian countries. The temporary alliance will always be uneasy and similar to what we see with Arab - NATO alliance today.

The national interest van be of two types- interest of the people of the nation and interest of the elites. Elites can be separate from the common people and hence choose to act selfishly against the interest of its own people. In that case, there can be different national interest. But if one talks of the interest of people as a whole, the most important basis of interests is culture and nothing else. Culture is often associated with religion and hence it becomes religious struggle.

Man, we do not have magical thinking - I meen Europeans, including Russians. Religion has close to 0 impact on Russian and European national politics. If you think overwise you simply can not understand what is going on. Because Russia can ally with Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Hinduists or Judaists, atheists or whatever because of its national interests, not because of religion. Trying to understand national politics through the prism of religion it is like to look at the send instead of the mirror to see your face.
That is the last time I am answering.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Man, we do not have magical thinking - I meen Europeans, including Russians. Religion has close to 0 impact on Russian and European national politics. If you think overwise you simply can not understand what is going on. Because Russia can ally with Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Hinduists or Judaists, atheists or whatever because of its national interests, not because of religion. Trying to understand national politics through the prism of religion it is like to look at the send instead of the mirror to see your face.
That is the last time I am answering.

Ok, answer these questions before making big statements-
1) Why Russia entered WW1?
2) Why Russia helped Greece in liberation against Ottoman if it had nothing to do with religion?
3) Why UK, France, Dutch etc were always concerned about Russian expansion while okay with other western countries?
4) Give me example of Russia allying with Roman christian country except in WW1 France or Muslim country?