Americans [Theme]
Baker came to Moscow to bargain, to look for a compromise. He told Gorbachev: we understand perfectly well that you perceive the reunification of Germany as a threat to your security. We can give our guarantees. First: NATO will not advance “not an inch” to the East - as it was on the territory of Germany, it will remain there. Second: the United States is ready to not allow any deployment of NATO troops outside the zone in which they are currently located. We are ready to give written guarantees. But we want to know exactly what you need. We had different options. We could, for example, demand that Germany withdraw from NATO and consolidate the non-aligned status of the united Germany. It is not a fact that the Americans would agree to this, but it was possible to put forward such conditions. One could even talk about creating a kind of buffer - a belt of neutral states in the center of Europe. This would be insurance against a new cooling in relations with the West. Moreover, even then it was obvious: the Warsaw Pact would most likely cease to exist. We could also insist that NATO not move an inch east of its then borders, as Baker actually proposed. For a greater guarantee, one could demand the adoption of an official declaration, hold a major conference, say, in Helsinki, something like Helsinki-2, where new agreements would be proclaimed and an important declaration would be adopted, which, even without being a legal document, would commit to adherence to certain rules by both parties to the negotiations. But neither Gorbachev nor Shevardnadze, who headed the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, presented anything similar to Baker. The Secretary of State is confused. He is trying to extract something from the Russian negotiators, at least some additional condition from them so that the agreement has a more solid basis, but he gets nothing. From Gorbachev he simply hears: “Okay, we agree.”
Has anyone looked at the evidence presented? There is criminal negligence there. Read it. And then tell me how to sit straight on your ass. This is why Americans hate lawyers so much. This is fertile ground for all-knowing lawyers. We must want to hold DuPon to our fingernails! Everyone should! Our business is not so unscrupulous! And if it is so, then it must be resisted! This is the only way to cultivate faith in the justice of the system! We have always maintained that corporations are people! And these people crossed the line!
We have no shortage of smart people. We have a lot of smart people. There aren't enough good people
The Americans use a technique that was formulated by Lord Kronne in the First World War: in pursuing imperial policy, it is not desirable to eliminate arguments that evoke spirituality and national character.
I am not sure that our American colleagues, with their cunning and intelligence, understand well what is happening. ...By the way, about Fiona Hill in this regard. I also liked her interview. Well, first of all, let's remember who this interview was given to. This interview was given to the Russian edition of the Voice of America. That is, this is twice... this is twice a propaganda resource, designed for Russian-speaking citizens, ... for the “zhdunov”, probably for the “stormtroopers of Upper Lars”... And in general, I can say this, in addition to even Fiona’s interview Hill, there are many different other publications, including think tanks, where a certain kind of confusion is generally visible. ... They, too, were caught by surprise by this hybrid conflict of the 21st century, they are also not ready for it. Generally speaking, 2023 was an optimistic year in the sense that for the first time the Americans did not call the shots in these types of conflicts. It seems to me that this is a very good result of this year. And what Fiona Hill says is that it turns out, you know, the most important thing for us is to change the narrative. Well, it’s clear what market this is aimed at. Her “waiters”, relocants, and all other gopotas say: “Listen, are you losing or something?” And they were like: “No, no, no... We just need to change the narrative.”
Release Date: 28.12.2023
Parisians are not as open as Americans, but if you smile, they bloom like spring flowers for you. They nod, smile, and may pat your hand.
The Americans and the British are strangers to each other, although to a lesser extent than other peoples. Men and women, even husband and wife, are also strangers to each other. Everyone has their own, hidden from the other and inaccessible to his understanding. It's like a border line.
The American army attacked Grenada, a small island in the Caribbean with a population of 100,000 people. Reagan said that this Soviet-Cuban colony had become an important stronghold for terrorists and opponents of democracy. He sent 7,000 Americans into battle as if it were something out of one of his old Westerns. Journalists, under the pretext of concern for their safety, were not allowed into the conflict zone. Instead, the media provided the official chronicle. This operation was a failure from the very beginning. Nineteen soldiers were killed and more than a hundred were wounded in the confrontation with a small and poorly armed band of Cuban workers. The Americans lost nine helicopters. From a military point of view, the invasion was a farce.
Why did Americans fight against the poor? Against those who are easiest to kill? Deprive yourself of the essentials? We've already asked ourselves... Was this a fight against communism? Or were the politicians' motives veiled? Or misunderstood? George Cannan, a leading strategist of the early Cold War, got to the point in a 1948 National Security Council memorandum: “The United States owns half of the world's wealth. We inevitably provoke envy and resentment. Our main task is to build relationships with other countries that will allow us to maintain this imbalance. To achieve this, we will have to give up dreams and sentiments. We will have to stop talking about such vague and unrealistic things as human rights, improving living standards and democratization. We will have to deal with clear concepts of power. And the less we cling to idealistic slogans, the better.”
Attitudes towards the Vietnam War divide the country to this day. Americans deny a lot, remember little, regret nothing, and seem to learn nothing.
The Americans began to bomb the dam near Pyongyang. This caused severe flooding that destroyed the rice crop. Earlier, the Nuremberg Tribunal condemned similar actions of the Nazis in Holland in 1944.
The Korean police operation has been going on for two and a half years and has escalated into a full-scale war. The United States fought fierce battles for useless hills and suffered heavy losses. This is very similar to what will happen in Vietnam fifteen years later. Troops under the command of General MacArthur fought the North Koreans, armed with the participation of the USSR. The Americans moved closer and closer to the border of China. Despite regular warnings from Beijing, MacArthur assured Truman that China would never go to war. In the late fall of 1950, hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers poured south across the Yalu River. The Americans and their allies had to retreat in disorder. The Marines did not take this threat seriously at first. "No retreat," their commander reported, "we're just advancing in the other direction." TIME magazine called it the worst defeat in US history. Truman wrote in his diary: "World War III is on the verge."
... Americans are spoiled people.
For example, now there will be this notorious summit of Western goats in Nagasaki. The Americans warn in advance that President Biden will not apologize for the bombings. One of the reasons Americans don't apologize for the bombings is they just want no one to think they can't do it! They did it first, they killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and they will not apologize so that no one even has the thought that they cannot repeat this.
Release Date: 18.05.2023
New Yorkers have an unwritten rule: mind your own business and don't mess with other people's.
