New Cold War is already a reality

_{Shot from the meeting of the presidents of Russia and the United States in Switzerland}

An increasing number of experts are confident that a new Cold War is going on in the world. At the same time, it differs significantly from the war that went on in the XNUMXth century. Then the world was clearly divided into two poles, and the opponents at least partially recognized the rules of the game and respected each other. At least they respected because the USSR could wipe out the USA from the face of the Earth, and the USA could do the same with the USSR.

Today's Cold War, or Cold War 2.0, looks much more sophisticated. First, a so-called hybrid component has appeared, when the sides are trying to achieve superiority not only by military potential or economic capabilities. For example, cyber opportunities are used, feeding internal destructive forces, imposing their will in certain regions, including border regions. Secondly, the sense of danger from the possible use of nuclear weapons... It's not that not to be afraid of each other, but ... the level of danger "in the minds" is not the same as it was before. Thirdly, a new pole of world politics, economy and military power has appeared - China.

In this regard, The Day channel aired a noteworthy piece in which Igor Shishkin and Konstantin Sivkov reflect, among other things, on the extent to which the Russian Armed Forces today meet modern challenges, to what extent they are ready to confront the threat from countries that openly call the Russian Federation their enemy. ...

Igor Shishkin:

The illusion of eternal peace, that there is no Cold War and there will not be, this is not even for a kindergarten. There is a new cold war, and it is a reality.

Comments

[Russ]

There is a new cold war and it is a reality

It never stopped ... call it whatever ... new, old, eternal ...

[Machito]

Only when everyone is dead will the Great Game end. (WITH)

[Nikolay Ivanov_5]

The greed and pride of people will not allow the wars on the planet to end. The tragedy of our World is to be destroyed by people.

[Shurik70]

Rather not cold, but already hot.
Doesn't blaze too much. Not strong yet. But already.

[Roma 1977]

"Humanity is threatened by one-planetary people!" (with)

[knn54]

The Olympic Cold War has just died down.

[And Makarov]

Quote: knn54

The Olympic Cold War has just died down

One of the battles. The war continues.

[military_cat]

Quote: knn54

The Olympic Cold War has just died down.

And before that there was the Eurovision Cold War.

[ammunition]

Quote: Russia

It never stopped ...

I disagree with this statement. Even 20 years ago, there was no cold war, in view of the fact that 20 years ago the world was one unconditional hegemon (USA).
Even now, the Cold War is not caused by the strengthening of Russia (this strengthening is not so significant). The Cold War is now triggered inevitable, dynamic and guaranteed increasing the power of China. Which will soon far surpass the power of the United States.

[Flooding]

Quote: ammunition

I disagree with this statement. There was no Cold War 20 years ago, in view of the fact that 20 years ago there was one unconditional hegemon in the world (the United States).

Take the Hundred Years War as an analogue.
As an idea of ​​constant confrontation.
Not as one endless collision.
There are declines in activity, ups, overestimation of tasks and tactics.
But no more than that.

[ammunition]

Quote: Flood

Take the Hundred Years War as an analogue
There are declines in activity, ups,

Again, I draw your attention to two fundamental factors that distinguish the situation from the times of H.V. under the USSR, and from the centenary war.
1) Russia by no means does not fight for his hegemony in the whole world. Russia is now fighting to ensure that no one tells us how to live and what values ​​to defend.
2) China. Yes, it is China !!! A powerful force that will soon become even stronger. China claims hegemony .. although it hides it.
-------------------------
Well, think for yourself -)) Please! Don't make me write a long commentary to interpret such trivialities.

[Flooding]

Quote: ammunition

Well, think for yourself -)) Please! Don't make me write a long commentary to interpret such trivialities.

you are not a lecturer, i am not a student
and I am not at all eager to read your teachings.
descend from your heights of omniscience to the level of other opponents.
and demonstrate your intellectual superiority, if any, with logic and reasoning, not bad manners.

[ammunition]

Quote: Flood

intellectual superiority, if any,

Yes, there is no superiority .. rather the opposite -))

Quote: Flood

not bad manners.

I beg your pardon if something offended you. I sincerely don’t understand where I made rudeness or rudeness.
PS Now I am very ill -)) I ask you to take this into account as a softening condition. and as a reason .. it's hard to write a lot.

[Flooding]

Quote: ammunition

I'm very sick now

I wish a speedy recovery.

Quote: ammunition

I sincerely don’t understand - where did I commit rudeness or rudeness?

Maybe I'm wrong, I won't persist. It's subjective.

[Andrei Nikolaevich]

Aim and ammunition! It's so nice to watch an argument between two intelligent people!) I hope it won't come to a massacre. Although, who knows ..))

[mediumpro]

How can you spot some kind of power in China, if this country has an export-dependent economy, if this is not the case, then a consumer society with a population of about 2 billion people, with the PRC's thesis about the elimination of poverty .... it is simply impossible to imagine. 2 billion people cannot live well without exploiting anyone. The quality of Chinese products is low, there are no own ideas .... all this is REPLICATIONS (copies) To the same place .... it is clear that China is not at war with anyone, and it is not clear how large-scale, long-term military operations affect the economy of the PRC. It can be assumed that the military conflict with Taiwan will put an end to the PRC as a hegemon and show it (PRC) the path to feudalism, at least. Well, in fact .... well, China BARIZETS, BARIZETS a lot and outrageously .... but this is just a huckster.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: ammunition

increasing the power of China

a very controversial issue, no one really knows anything about China

[spectr]

Here, in general, an interesting tangle turns out. China is "feeding" technologies to Russia, which is diverting US attention to itself. Using these technologies, Russia is trying to get out of the hole so that it is not economically strangled when the confrontation between the United States and China ends.
No matter how funny it sounds, this time of "uncertainty" is now beneficial to us, despite the sanctions. Unless the "elite" decides to sell the country. Because Some money bags were thrown off, new ones came and made money. Now they have only one task to stay on the local "Olympus". And countries with strong economies can provide them with such guarantees.

[voyaka uh]

"The Cold War is now caused by an inevitable, dynamic and guaranteed increase in the power of China." ///
---
1) This is a new "front". Here you are right.
And it is primarily economic, then military.
2) But also the old "front": the USA-Russia survived. This is the front of nuclear parity and confrontation in Eastern Europe. The economy is a minor factor here.

[ammunition]

Quote: voyaka uh

1) This is a new "front." (China) Here you are right.
And it is primarily economic, then military.

The pace at which China is building up and modernizing its fleet is beyond the imagination of the United States. And the Cold War is being waged against the main competitor. And the main competitor for the United States on the planet (both economically, scientifically, and militarily) is China.
Elements of the Cold War are also used against Iran. .. and what ? The main threat is China.

[Gardamir]

feeding internal destructive forces

And what to feed them? Full bedside tables. Super yachts sail the oceans. They row money like bulldozers and are not responsible for anything.
The same floods, fires need to be prevented in order to reduce losses. But this is money.
So the external enemy is not terrible for Russia if the internal country is torn apart.

[Cron]

Quote: Gardamir

And what to feed them? Full bedside tables. Super yachts sail the oceans. They row money like bulldozers and are not responsible for anything.
The same floods, fires need to be prevented in order to reduce losses. But this is money.
So the external enemy is not terrible for Russia if the internal country is torn apart.

This is all of course interesting and not extremely hackneyed, but what kind of enemy tore the USSR to pieces?

[Gardamir]

what then the enemy of the USSR tore apart?

And what enemy tore apart the Russian Empire? You are not tired of masturbation. As yours say, "article about today" so let's talk about today.

[Cron]

Quote: Gardamir

And what enemy tore apart the Russian Empire? You are not tired of masturbation. As yours say, "article about today" so let's talk about today.

Well, so internal and tore. External, what then, what now uses it to their advantage. Nothing new.

"article about today" so let's talk about today.

Everyone talks only about today, not remembering what happened yesterday.

[Cron]

At least they were respected because the USSR could wipe out the USA from the face of the Earth, and the USA could do the same with the USSR.

What has changed now?

[2 Level Advisor]

There is no USSR .. and a communist country with it .. that is. a war of ideologies is impossible ... i.e. Who is the war?

[Cron]

Quote: 2 level advisor

There is no USSR .. and a communist country with it .. that is. a war of ideologies is impossible ...

I only talk about what is written in the text. To erase from the face of the Earth

[2 Level Advisor]

Well, about the ability to erase, I agree, nothing has changed .. only other players have grown

[tatra]

The enemies of the communists in the West, in Europe, on the territory of the USSR, fiercely hate dissent, even among each other, and they severely punish even each other for this, like Yanukovych, Putin, Trump. And nothing has changed for them - the enemies of the Communists in the West, in Europe, are waging an information war against the Russian Federation according to the templates of the Cold War against the USSR, and the information war that has been waged against the Bolshevik-Communists for 30 years, the enemies of the Communists who have seized the RSFSR are whipping up hysteria , throwing slanderous and unsubstantiated accusations, double standards, with hypocritical "righteous anger" exposing for the crime those whom they have chosen as the "image of the enemy" all the facts that they otherwise justify or "do not notice."

[Stirbjorn]

It is not clear only who is at war with whom, in this New Cold War ?! Groups of oligarchs among themselves, for markets and resources ?! During the Soviet era, there was no capital outflow from the country, but now it is constantly increasing.

[A_Lex]

Quote: Stirbjorn

It is not clear only who is at war with whom, in this New Cold War ?! Groups of oligarchs among themselves, for markets and resources ?!

Subjects are at war. Military forces and equipment in this case are only the conductors of their will. In bourgeois society, the subjects are oligarchs. The same Nazis, in fact, realized the interests of the oligarchs. There is, after all, a well-known caricature, which perfectly reflects the essence, where Hitler is on the podium in front of the masses, and behind him is Krupp and the rest of the gentlemen.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Stirbjorn

It is not clear only who is at war with whom, in this New Cold War ?! Groups of oligarchs

Did you teach history at school? The whole history of mankind is a war.

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: Dart2027

Did you teach history at school? The whole history of mankind is a war.

I will answer you with a quote from Frederick the Great
"If our soldiers understood why we are fighting, there would be no war waged."

[Dart2027]

Quote: Stirbjorn

I will answer you with a quote from Frederick the Great

So what? Does this cancel what I said?

[A_Lex]

The Cold War is fought when an outright war is deemed unprofitable. In this sense, for example, Napoleon's blockade of Great Britain is also a Cold War. Or Western sanctions against the DPRK. And even the civil war in Russia is also almost a cold war on the part of the West, when they mainly operated with the hands of mercenaries like Kolchak or Denikin. Or, for example, the Great Game against Great Britain is also a variant of a cold confrontation.

I mean, nothing fundamentally new in the 21st century has been invented. It's just that new ones have been added to the vast arsenal of already available means.

[tatra]

Churchill, in his memoirs, wrote about Britain's aid to Deninkin's troops: "It would be a mistake to think that throughout this year we fought on the fronts for the cause of the Russians hostile to the Bolsheviks. On the contrary, the Russian White Guards fought for our cause."

[A_Lex]

Quote: tatra

Churchill

Quote: tatra

Russian White Guards fought for our cause

Yes. But the whole problem is that Denikin and the others fought to establish a bourgeois system in Russia. And the bourgeois system in Russia could be built only in the interests of the largest bourgeois player - the West. Those. they would either immediately begin to serve their interests, or they would be forced to do so later by threats or a new war.

I mean that there is no need to PROVE the anti-popular intentions of the White Guards, citing as an example the statements of authoritative figures to whom there is no point in lying in relation to this situation, like Churchill. There is no point in proving, because the situation COULD NOT develop otherwise. And there are plenty of analogies. Bourgeois China is a colony, "communist" is an instrument for the development of the Chinese people. Likewise Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

Those. it is not necessary to prove that the White Guards played against the people. This is obvious, since it happened all the time. It is necessary to prove that the White Guards COULD build a bourgeois state, which would not become another colony of the West. This must be proven as any non-obviousness, such as information about the presence of a goblin in the forest.

[alekseykabanets]

Quote: A_Lex

It is necessary to prove that the White Guards COULD build a bourgeois state that would not become another colony of the West.

It is impossible to prove this, because they could not, for a number of objective reasons, and therefore, for thirty years this statement has been passed off as an axiom. And since it is an axiom, it means that nothing needs to be proved.)))))

[A_Lex]

Quote: aleksejkabanets

It's impossible to prove it

And since it is impossible to prove this, it means that one cannot confidently declare that Denikin and others would work for the good of Russia, meaning by Russia the country and the people inhabiting it. With all that it implies.

And to believe in this, too, does not work very well. Rather, you will believe that the team will score 2 goals 2 minutes before the end of the game. Because the team carries out targeted actions in this direction. Those. In principle, it is possible to score 2 goals, just the probability is small, because time is short. But the fact that for some reason it is in Russia that the bourgeois system would work for the good of the people, and would not be an instrument of the colonial rule of the West, as was the case everywhere - there is no reason to believe in such a thing. There is no reason to believe, because the reason is unknown why in Russia a model that works typically should be worked out in an atypical way.

[alekseykabanets]

Quote: A_Lex

And since it is impossible to prove this, it means to believe that Denikin and others would work for the good of Russia, meaning by Russia the country and the people inhabiting it, is groundless. With all that it implies.

To believe, in whatever may be, is generally unnatural for an adult reasonable person.))) Tell me please, how old were you when you stopped believing in Santa Claus? Unfortunately, a very large number of people do not leave childhood until their death. DN Puchkov has an apt expression for them: "a young stupid person" (I think you understand what I mean, the site rules prohibit writing this word).

[A_Lex]

Quote: aleksejkabanets

To believe, in whatever may be, is generally unnatural for an adult reasonable person.

It is not true. Since a person throughout his history deals with the lack of completeness of information about both the external environment and the internal, i.e. about himself, he constantly has to believe, thus replacing the assumption with the lack of clear and complete knowledge. If a person did not believe, he is not something that America has not discovered, he would not have moved anywhere from Africa. In the end, to believe is to admit possibility. A typical example is an airplane. For so many centuries people have believed in the possibility of flying like a fairy tale, and as a result, this belief has become a reality.

Thus, faith is a completely normal phenomenon for a person. Another thing is that it is inadequate to believe in something that contradicts the typical model. For example, it is inadequate to believe that it is not a fox that lives in a hole in the forest, but a dragon, just very small and shy.

[alekseykabanets]

Quote: A_Lex

Since a person throughout his history deals with the lack of completeness of information about both the external environment and the internal, i.e. about himself, he constantly has to believe.

Not to believe, but to create hypotheses, confirm them and refute them. This is the same as with the Norman theory, as long as there is not enough data to unambiguously confirm or refute it. Although today the supporters of this theory have more proofs, none of them calls to simply believe in it.

Quote: A_Lex

Another thing is that it is inadequate to believe in something that contradicts the typical model. For example, it is inadequate to believe that it is not a fox that lives in a hole in the forest, but a dragon, just very small and shy.

Then the word "suppose" would be more correct.
PS The word faith implies just believing and not looking for some kind of refutation or evidence.

[A_Lex]

Quote: aleksejkabanets

Not to believe, but to create hypotheses, confirm them and refute them.

But after all, initially there was a belief in flight as in the possibility of carrying out the process of moving a person in space through the air using special means for this, and not a rigorous scientific hypothesis that presupposes a rigorous scientific justification.

Quote: aleksejkabanets

Then the word "suppose" would be more correct. PS The word faith implies just believing and not looking for some kind of refutation or evidence.

In this issue, the main point is the possibility of the existence of the alleged phenomenon in the conditions of the environment, in the framework of which it is hypothetically placed. Those. in the end, the alleged phenomenon must not contradict the environment. It's like Atomism in Ancient Greece, when an idea was put forward, which for a very long time could not be reasonably justified, much less proved.

[alekseykabanets]

Quote: A_Lex

But after all, initially there was a belief in flight as in the possibility of carrying out the process of human movement in space through the air, and not a rigorous scientific hypothesis that presupposes a rigorous scientific justification.

First there was a dream. then there was an assumption that this phenomenon (flight) does not contradict the natural course of things, and then only hypotheses and attempts to confirm them in one way or another. "Faith is the recognition of something as true, regardless of factual or logical justification, mainly due to the very nature of the subject's relationship to the object of faith." This definition is from wikipedia, it seems correct to me.

Quote: A_Lex

In this issue, the main point is the possibility of the existence of the alleged phenomenon in the conditions of the environment, in the framework of which it is hypothetically placed. Those. in the end, the phenomenon should not contradict the environment. It's like Atomism in Ancient Greece, when an idea was put forward, which for a very long time could not be reasonably justified, much less proved.

You see, faith presupposes dogma and any "attempt" on this dogma causes an aggressive reaction not based on evidence. Religious movements are a good example. As soon as I begin to deny the existence of God, I am immediately faced not with evidence of his existence, but with accusations of offending the feelings of believers.

[A_Lex]

Quote: aleksejkabanets

"Faith is the recognition of something as true, regardless of factual or logical justification, mainly due to the very nature of the subject's relationship to the object of faith." This definition is from wikipedia, it seems correct to me.

Those. faith is the conviction that now it is impossible to either actually prove or logically substantiate. Simply put, an unfounded conviction. Those. belief in something that doesn't fit into, as you mentioned, "the natural course of things."

The only problem is that it is possible to unequivocally assert that something does not fit into the "natural course of things" only when a full understanding of the "natural course of things" has been achieved and, as a consequence, predictability occurs, when it is possible to literally "sort out" everything in advance. components and say exactly what corresponds to the "natural course of things", which means that it is not only inherent in the "natural course of things", but is also possible within its framework, and what does not correspond and, as a result, is impossible.

Quote: aleksejkabanets

As soon as I begin to deny the existence of God, I am immediately faced not with evidence of his existence, but with accusations of offending the feelings of believers.

And you cannot deny the existence of God, because you can neither prove his existence, nor prove his absence. And the lack of proof is not proof.

[alekseykabanets]

Quote: A_Lex

And you cannot deny the existence of God, because you can neither prove his existence, nor prove his absence. And the lack of proof is not proof.

And I am not going to deny its existence, since the burden of proving its existence lies with the side confirming this postulate.

Quote: A_Lex

Those. belief in something that doesn't fit in, as you mentioned, "the natural course of things."

No, the problem with faith as a phenomenon is that it does not require any proof. Believers believe that no evidence is needed, moreover, doubting the dogmas of a particular faith is a sin. This is what I am talking about, as for me, such a belief is only a sign of an immature mind.

[A_Lex]

Quote: aleksejkabanets

And I am not going to deny its existence, since the burden of proving its existence lies with the side confirming this postulate.

This is formalism, i.e. not solving the problem, but avoiding it. A person believes not because, for example, a fool, but because he is impressed by an idea that is approved in the format of faith. And he behaves this way, as a rule, when he has a real life problem, because it is not for nothing that they say that "as anxiety, so to God." And then there are 2 options: either a purely Soviet way to solve the problems of the average, or to prevent believing simply will not work. Not in vain, by the way, exactly since 91, churches have grown so actively. Because capitalism has created a huge number of problems for people that the authorities serving big business are not going to solve. The second option is dangerous by imposing faith on the entire society, as is happening in Afghanistan.

Quote: aleksejkabanets

No, the problem with faith as a phenomenon is that it does not require any proof.

Evidence is not always available. There are times in life when you just need to grit your teeth and believe. Here's how, for example, in the fall of 41. Otherwise, if you acted purely rationally and melancholy to estimate the chances, you could begin to give up en masse.

And all the more, it is impossible to be sure of anything in the conditions of capitalism, where everyone has their own benefit, which means "their own truth", and as a result, the universal, standard truth becomes simply unprofitable. It even manifests itself purely at the everyday level. You go to the store for sausage, and then you believe that the sausage is made from meat, and not from something else.

Quote: aleksejkabanets

No, the problem with faith as a phenomenon is that it does not require any proof. Believers believe that no evidence is needed, moreover, doubting the dogmas of a particular faith is a sin. This is what I am talking about, as for me, such a belief is only a sign of an immature mind.

In this regard, I immediately remembered the modern economy based on models that were a little more than completely divorced from reality. As a result, "pundits" lament that people, you see, behave irrationally, ie. not the way they should behave if you follow the laws of the models invented by them, i.e. literally from the cradle to go and earn money and generally consider money to be the most desirable gift in the world. This is such a variation on the ancient intellectual theme "oh, we got the wrong people, not the same people," but this time under the guidance of recognized Nobel laureates. And what's interesting is that this dogmatism works great if you watch how offshore accounts swell from year to year.

[alekseykabanets]

Quote: A_Lex

This is formalism, i.e. not solving the problem, but avoiding it.

Yes, there is no problem there, belief in the supernatural, it is the same age as a reasonable person, with an increase in the level of education, this problem is slowly being solved by itself.

Quote: A_Lex

The second option is dangerous by imposing faith on the entire society, as is happening in Afghanistan.

This is the option, it worries most of all.)))) Especially together with the decline in the level of education and the widespread introduction of religious education in schools.

Quote: A_Lex

Evidence is not always available. There are times in life when you just need to grit your teeth and believe. Here's how, for example, in the fall of 41. Otherwise, if you acted purely rationally and melancholy to estimate the chances, you could begin to give up en masse.

I understand what you are talking about, although the example is unfortunate. The Germans lost in the fall-winter of 1941, when they could not carry out a blitzkrieg and could not prevent the evacuation of industry, etc. Perhaps I just do not like the word "faith", it is too discredited, over the past centuries by "sincerely believing people." Starting from inquisitors and Nikonians with Old Believers and ending with various "faithful mujahideen" and other jihadists.

Quote: A_Lex

You go to the store for sausage, and then you believe that the sausage is made from meat, and not from something else.

Not no, you need to be more careful with sausage, I have not bought it for 5 years, but I do it myself, according to GOSTs from 1937, which is what I wish for you. Everything is much simpler than it seems, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVIAXdcWI1Hd-y2XtN_p2AQ look here and don't buy sausage anymore.))))

Quote: A_Lex

.... And what's interesting is that this dogmatism works great if you watch the offshore accounts swell from year to year.

Yes, you can't argue with that. The bad news is that for the time being, few people understand at whose expense these offshore accounts are swelling.

[alekseykabanets]

Quote: A_Lex

But the fact that for some reason it is in Russia that the bourgeois system would work for the good of the people, and would not be an instrument of the colonial rule of the West, as was the case everywhere - there is no reason to believe in such a thing.

Of course, this is not possible in principle, our destiny is peripheral capitalism, that is, a raw material appendage of more developed capitalism. countries. If only for the simple reason that it was built there, in the West, 300 years before us, which means that their bourgeoisie is stronger and more powerful than ours, with all the ensuing consequences.

[Keer]

operated by mercenaries like Kolchak or Denikin

white mercenaries of Britain, fought with the Bolsheviks - the Greman spies Trotsky, Lenin and others. There were so many spies in the ranks of the Bolsheviks that the last of them, of the old Bolshevik spies, L.P. Beria, was disposed of after Stalin. For over thirty years they have been exposed. In fact, the party was supposed to be called the VKP (b) (w). In the end, the spies of the CPSU (w) destroyed the Soviet Union.

[Ross xnumx]

Crap. The closer the elections, the tighter the ring of enemies. There has never been such irresponsibility for governing the country. For thirty years they have been talking, as usual, about a bright capitalist tomorrow, and there is no industry or agriculture in the country.
They throw resources to the left and to the right, nuclear power plants are being built in Turkey, and the country is littered with garbage and 60% of the energy is generated by thermal power plants. Taiga is burning, and Russian rescuers give their lives for the "Turkish coast" ...
Why do we need an external enemy, we will be devoured by the local nouveau riche, and then they will perish themselves ...

[Barberry25]

oh yeah..CX is not so, that, unlike the USSR, we are exporters ... we ordered a nuclear power plant, we are building it ... the CHPP is by the way the legacy of the USSR, and the taiga kind of burned under the USSR, but then apparently it burned differently ... You'd better be so active in the 91st year when, under the bravura speeches of the USSR, you torn Monsieur

[Gardamir]

exporters

and what are you exporting?

under the bravura speeches of the USSR torn

Those who derbanit the current government erect monuments or reward. or here

On June 22, 2018, a decree of President Putin was published on the appointment of Yumashev to the post of adviser to the president on a voluntary basis.Later on the same day, the president's press secretary, Peskov, announced that Yumashev had been Putin's advisor for 18 years.

[Barberry25]

"The export of Russian agro-industrial products at the end of 2020 amounted to $ 29,453 billion, which is 20% more than in 2019, according to the materials of the federal center" Agroexport "under the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the export of cereals over the past year increased by 29% - to $ 10,019 billion, the export of products of the fat and oil industry - by 20%, to $ 4,707 billion, meat and dairy products - by 41%, to $ 1,1146 billion. according to experts, increased by 14%, to $ 4,154 billion, other agricultural products - by 34%, to $ 4,153. At the same time, the export of fish and seafood over the past year decreased by 2% and amounted to $ 5,274 billion. "

So, with your tacit consent, they broke up and jerked off in the 90s, but they just got out of the pit so immediately howling and shouts about "the country was taken away, we are in shit and all that" .. Where were you all ardent communists 30 years ago then?)

[Sling cutter]

Quote: Barberry25

"The export of Russian agro-industrial products at the end of 2020 amounted to $ 29,453 billion, which is 20% more than in 2019, according to the materials of the federal center" Agroexport "under the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation.

They export from us high-quality and for a penny, and sell to their citizens shit stuffed with chemistry mixed with technical palm oil in the tridoroga

[Barberry25]

what are you saying? thank you, I neighing .. I understand when unknowing people start yelling about "feed grain", but when they start about "here's the shit with chemistry" it's already interesting .. don't you tell me how grain from the field is divided into good and "shit with chemistry"?

[Gardamir]

I neigh

you probably better go to the horse forum. For those who remember high-quality bread and the current one, which is always crumbling, moldy in a day. The question of the quality of the products is clear.

[Barberry25]

but to me, on the contrary, they tell me about "it does not grow moldy for a week, but before it immediately became moldy" .. by the way ... have you tried washing the breadbox or keeping bread in the refrigerator? mold

[your1970]

Quote: Stroporez

Export from us of high quality and for a penny

There is a nuance - the harvests are the same as in the USSR, with much smaller sown areas. For example, they are almost 8 times smaller ...
And this means only one thing - that the Soviet people believed in the building of communism, but at the same time dragged grain to their bins. To your personal bins ...

[Barberry25]

already even more, the average harvest is now higher than the best years in the USSR ... and yes, the area has become much smaller, it's a matter of technology

[2 Level Advisor]

and besides grain and sunflower, what else did they overtake the USSR? in the fields there is much more nomenclature of the growing than as now - everywhere grain, grain, sunflower, grain .. but carrots for 100 rubles and Turkish tomatoes and potatoes, including from China .. and do not forget that seeds, fertilizers, harvesting- now it is a cut taller than they were in the USSR, a shame if it were not for more crops being harvested at the same time .. by the way, seeds and fertilizers are unpatriotic - from the west they are the basis, even if we have a type of "doing" ..

[Barberry25]

this is where you live that you have carrots in August for 100 rubles? we have 30 rubles for each ... 70 is it if the perfect washed ..

[2 Level Advisor]

except for carrots, nothing else to answer? Let’s then, without rubles at all, and about this year: Beetroot has risen in price by 2,8 times, carrots - by half, potatoes - by 1,7 times - is it normal?

[Barberry25]

this is a question for you, you wrote it, I answered .. and yes .. how could it rise in price if it fell in price? so where do you have carrots there for 100 rubles?

[2 Level Advisor]

I was wrong with the price of carrots, thanks for correcting looking forward to hearing the rest of my comment. or nothing to answer? well, so - then so - your right ..

[Barberry25]

yes, you were wrong with the rest ... is it meaningful for me to correct every moment?

[2 Level Advisor]

but try otherwise, what was the point just to correct it .. just we both know what to say, in fact, you have nothing to comment on .. although if you think that it is a specific price in rubles for carrots, the meaning of my comment is better and do not answer

[Barberry25]

the meaning of your comment is to shit, because you don't even know the price of carrots, but you continue to carry stories about "Turkish tomatoes and potatoes from China" ... so potatoes, according to 2019, were imported as much as 40 thousand tons ... Provided that Russia itself exported 423 thousand tons of potatoes ... but the main thing is to write a comment about "how is it all bad in this country" ... right?)

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Barberry25

but the main thing is to write a comment about how everything is bad in this country ... right?)

1, the conversation was initially about grain - why did you not have a word about it?
2. And what about the prices of vegetables, is everything good with us? They are ours, well, are they growing?
3. This is where I wrote this, is everything in the country bad? but in agriculture it is far from the level of the USSR, and you tell us, we have already overtaken the Union ...
4. however, it seems that it’s just your credo - everything is fine with us - we are going to the bottom - to the place and out of place .. okay, it’s good to say about the RF Armed Forces, but about agriculture, everything is good .. is it or ignorance question or grunt ..

[Barberry25]

I replied to your comment, where you decided to write "ah carrots dear one hundred" and then you screwed up, then you screwed up with Chinese potatoes and Turkish tomatoes .. about vegetables, you want fresh vegetables in winter, so be ready to pay the price for them- because they are either our greenhouse, or imported greenhouse or imported from afar ... in general, if you cannot write on the case and not in the subject, better not write, otherwise you have already shown the level of competence that your nickname is clearly not about you ... so it's better to keep quiet ... because you are not in the subject ... but you can't swear here ... but then everyone complains ..

[2 Level Advisor]

go to the forest-troll .. sorry for the time spent on you .. as an interlocutor, you are not interesting to me, to put it mildly, too predictable ..

[Barberry25]

here you go ... go ... in peace

[Barberry25]

tomatoes from Turkey-2019, a quota of 100 thousand tons, about 900 thousand tons are grown in Russia ... well, of course, we only have Turkish tomatoes) .. so you better not answer this ..

[Icarus]

There is a nuance - the harvests are the same as in the USSR, with much smaller sown areas. For example, they are almost 8 times smaller ...
And this means only one thing - that the Soviet people believed in the building of communism, but at the same time dragged grain to their bins. To your personal bins ...

This means something completely different. During the Soviet era, there was a significant internal consumption of grain for the maintenance of cattle, so the USSR exported little wheat grain, but almost did not import beef, and now it is the other way around.

[your1970]

Quote: Icarus

This means something completely different. During the Soviet era, there was a significant internal consumption of grain for the maintenance of cattle, so the USSR exported little wheat grain, but almost did not import beef, and now it is the other way around.

Well, yes, yes ...
I'll tell you a secret for our area - we have almost the same cattle as in the USSR
The situation with pork is worse - it eats only grain in our region. Their livestock fell by about a third of the USSR
By the way, the import of cattle meat fell sharply after 2014 - due to the growth of the exchange rate, it became unprofitable to import. The current meat is ours, it is soaked - it's own, not imported

Z. Y. So that you understand - a pig needs a ton of grain for a year, people kept 10-15 pigs. Grain could be ordered from the collective farm for a ton or two, everything else had to be bought at a fairly high price if there were surpluses after the collective farm had fulfilled the plan. He usually wasn't there.
That is why they introduced and did not completely cancel the article of the Criminal Code for feeding cattle with bread.
Therefore, it was easier to steal grain - a harvester bunker cost us a liter.
We had about 40 houses on the street, with an average of 10 pigs.
40 * 10 = 400 tons of wheat was stolen by one street of a small working village in the harvesting area.
We had about 60 streets in the village = 24 tons
Even if they did not steal or keep some pigs, it is still at least 15 tons.
There were 12 villages and settlements in the district ...

[your1970]

Quote: Stroporez

they sell shit stuffed with chemistry and technical palm oil to their citizens in the tridoroga

The Soviet GOST margarine is quite legal, on the basis of GOST - it consisted of palm oil. All varieties ...
And confectionery ALL was based on margarine in the USSR
Well, the entire CA of the USSR was fed with kombat - which was based on palm oil
Everything is strictly according to GOST ...

[tatra]

And WHAT are you proud of? That they began to grow more wheat, and much less other cereals, at times less? And all in order to get more profit, exporting half of the wheat from Russia, and the people grass with low-quality bread with a bunch of chemicals?
And from WHOM did the USSR have to be protected? From you, 30 years of cowardly whining, that you are all "innocent" to responsibility for the seizure, dismemberment of the USSR, and the creation of your States, including the Russian Federation?

[Barberry25]

ooo, another adept "and before the bread was tastier" pulled up) you still tell us about "we are dying out like never before"

[Dart2027]

Quote: tatra

And from WHOM did the USSR have to be protected?

From the communists (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Shevardnadze, etc.).

[your1970]

Quote: tatra

That they began to grow more wheat, and much less other cereals, in TIMES less

Why do you think so??? All cereals are of our production, even rice practically did not become imported. Due to the jump in the dollar, it has become unprofitable for import from Kazakhstan and far abroad.

Quote: tatra

From you, 30 years of cowardly whining, that you are all "innocent" to responsibility for the seizure, dismemberment of the USSR, and the creation of your States, including the Russian Federation?

- if we accept your version as an axiom - then the KGB and the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs are a 100% bunch of scoundrels and traitors, unable to prevent treason to which they swore allegiance ...

[Cron]

There has never been such irresponsibility for governing the country. For thirty years they have been talking, as usual, about a bright capitalist tomorrow, and there is no industry or agriculture in the country.

And why was Gorbachev's irresponsibility more responsible than the current administration?

For thirty years they have been talking, as usual, about a bright capitalist tomorrow,

Well, no matter how thirty. More precisely, not the entire period was the same management.

Let me remind you, nobody won the USSR. He himself decided to retire. There was no such shame in history, there were various wars, internal contradictions, but this was definitely not the case. I mean with the great powers. And who is to blame now? If at that moment there was the Internet, you would be extremely surprised at the stupidity of various comrades who would write almost the same thing as you. Just finding other reasons. And the youth seemed to be shouting, and how they want change. History always repeats itself, and if you do not endure the lessons, it will be even more painful.

[A_Lex]

Quote: Cron

Nobody won the USSR. He himself decided to retire.

The state is not a subject. Subjects are people who influence. People who had influence in the USSR at that time initiated the collapse of the USSR in order to ensure their own interests. And thus they committed a betrayal. Because it is not always some specific people that are betrayed. They betray the common cause.

[Cron]

The state is not a subject. Subjects are people who influence.

By "he" I meant power.

Well, it's over not without these rams)

[A_Lex]

Quote: Cron

Well, it's over not without these rams)

Sheep are animals.

In the picture presented, people who are generally law-abiding and, as a result, are not subjective in the issue under consideration, since they did not have legal leverage to directly influence the political situation in the state.

Putting subjects and non-subjects on a par means sharing the responsibility of the first, who had powers, with the second, who did not have powers.

[Cron]

Quote: A_Lex

Sheep are animals.

Well, in the context of what I wrote, rams are an insult.

In the picture presented, people who are generally law-abiding and, as a result, are not subjective in the issue under consideration, since they did not have legal leverage to directly influence the political situation in the state.

But with the help of these rams, those who had the leverage of direct influence, legitimized their heinous atrocities, spitting on the bulk of the people living in the country.

And I see you like to be smart, I even like these)) Write more

[A_Lex]

Quote: Cron

rams are an insult.

There is no reason for it.

Quote: Cron

But with the help of these rams

The rally did not oblige people in positions of authority to anything. In China, they were suppressed by tanks. And nothing. All responsibility in this case belongs to those who fully understood the situation, had all the necessary resources to prevent the liquidation of the state, and was obliged to do this, proceeding from the very essence of the state posts they held, but either did nothing or did it directly the opposite, which is essentially the same thing.

Quote: Cron

And I watch you like to be smart

Presumably, the bulk does not bother itself with an accurate understanding of causes and effects, in connection with which it can be fed with any invented version of events?

[Cron]

There is no reason for it.

Well, apparently, the one who offends finds grounds for this, guided by his own subjective considerations. Or can this be done only with your permission?

The rally did not oblige people in positions of authority to anything. In China, they were suppressed by tanks. And nothing. All responsibility in this case belongs to those who fully understood the situation, had all the necessary resources to prevent the liquidation of the state, but either did nothing or did the exact opposite, which is essentially the same thing.

And in Gwangju they suppressed. Well, just then we have power and the sheep, who always itch in one place, and itching only when someone needs it, merged in a single impulse. And it happens, what can you do.
And of course, the full responsibility lies with the authorities. Who can argue with that?

Presumably, the bulk does not bother itself with an accurate understanding of causes and effects, in connection with which it can be fed with any invented version of events?

Come on, you are clearly overestimating yourself. And what kind of invented version of events I was trying to feed? I didn't even voice it.

[A_Lex]

Quote: Cron

guided by their subjective considerations.

Subjectivity that does not match reality is not an argument.

Quote: Cron

Well, just then we have power and the sheep, who always itch in one place, and itching only when someone needs it, merged in a single impulse.

People at the rally do not influence the real situation. Unlike people in authority. This is the main thing in understanding the situation. "Twisted in one place" and "merged in a single impulse" are figurative expressions that appeal to emotions, but at least do not clarify the essence of the issue.

Quote: Cron

Come on, you are clearly overestimating yourself.

I didn’t get personal and didn’t discuss you. And you better refrain from such a meaningless offtopic.

Quote: Cron

And what kind of invented version of events I was trying to feed?

You are mistaken. I didn't say that about you.

[Cron]

Subjectivity that does not match reality is not an argument.

What does it mean does not correspond to reality? Did you take on the function of determining which reality is more real? Not an argument at all.

People at the rally do not influence the real situation. Unlike people in authority.

What do you mean do not have an impact? Did you mean to say that you didn’t provide it at that moment, or in general always? Something you completely swam

This is the main thing in understanding the situation.

This is not the main thing in understanding the situation. The main thing here is that you have got it into your head that the situation in the country depends only on the current government. And no one can use a herd of sheep for their own selfish purposes.

"Twisted in one place" and "merged in a single impulse" are figurative expressions that appeal to emotions, but at least do not clarify the essence of the issue.

These are not emotions, these are my value judgments. Emotions have subsided long ago.
How does that not make it clear? Sheep and power merged in one ecstasy. More than clarifies.

I didn’t get personal and didn’t discuss you. And you better refrain from such a meaningless offtopic.

Well, I congratulate you, send you a postcard?

Presumably, the bulk does not bother with an accurate understanding of causes and effects, and therefore it can be fed with any invented version of events

What does bulk mean? And you're kind of taller than that mass, right? And she can still feed anything? And you with us, apparently, the one who is not allowed? Well, they would write on the topic, without offtopic. Teach yourself, what then do you not adhere to? So they would have written that I am not being clever, and you are wrong in this, and in this. And then the mass, feed. Why all this? I like people who can write intelligently and competently without offending anyone, argue their position. Here, willy-nilly, you begin to adapt to the interlocutor. Maximum can be asked to be without insults and the like. But this is not the case with you. With you there are only associations with pompous ..... I would write, but they will probably be banned. So I don't seem to go over the cash, but I throw in a shit. For I understand and know everything in life. But that's how it was.
But I think differently. Someone may still suggest some version. And that's okay. And you only impose your subjective point of view, raising it to the absolute. Which looks pretty comical.

[A_Lex]

Quote: Cron

What does it mean does not correspond to reality?

This means it does not correspond to practice, as the criterion of truth.

Quote: Cron

Did you take on the function of determining which reality is more real?

Of course no. To present the case in such a way as if the interlocutor has assumed the functions of an arbiter is to apply methods from the arsenal of sophistry. Sophistry is a collection of vile, fraudulent methods of dispute.

Quote: Cron

What do you mean do not have an impact?

And what is incomprehensible? Those in power have legal influence. Those who are at the rally, they are just rallying. This is where their legal opportunities to express their public assessment of this or that situation end.

Quote: Cron

You wanted to say that you did not render at that moment, or in general always? Something you completely swam

I only wanted to say what I said. To ascribe to an opponent what he did not say is to use methods from the arsenal of sophistry. What sophistry is, I noted above.

Quote: Cron

The main thing here is that you have got it into your head that the situation in the country depends only on the current government.

We talked about responsibility. The entire responsibility lies with the people in power, with which, by the way, you agreed above. And whether someone went to the rally or not - this does not play a decisive role, because the government has a legal force that is capable of stopping the illegal seizure of power. You don't have to go far for examples: China, Venezuela, Belarus.

Quote: Cron

These are not emotions, these are my value judgments.

These "value judgments" have no practical value because they do not contain an unambiguous concrete meaning.

Quote: Cron

How does that not make it clear? Sheep and power merged in one ecstasy. More than clarifies.

The expression "the sun is shining in the sky" is understandable to everyone with vision, without explanation. What does it mean "merged in a single ecstasy" is incomprehensible precisely because this is a figurative expression and everyone can understand it as they like, depending on what picture they present in their head.

Quote: Cron

Well, I congratulate you, send you a postcard?

No, I don't need a postcard or congratulations. Just write on the topic of discussion. I am not a topic of discussion.

Quote: Cron

What does bulk mean? And you're kind of taller than that mass, right? And she can still feed anything? And you with us, apparently, the one who is not allowed?

I will not comment on your next fabrications about me, since the active use of sophistry methods demonstrates that the one who uses them has nothing to say in the essence of the discussion, so he goes on to discuss the opponent's personality.

[Cron]

Quote: A_Lex

This means it does not correspond to practice, as the criterion of truth.

I'm sorry, what?

Of course no. To present the case in such a way as if the interlocutor has assumed the functions of an arbiter is to apply methods from the arsenal of sophistry. Sophistry is a collection of vile, fraudulent methods of dispute.

Well, good, finish puffing up already. When a person is really worth something, and so it can be seen. It somehow naturally turns out or something, you are just trying to extort something from yourself. For what only, it is not clear.
Do you think it is difficult for me to look on the Internet for the meaning of words that I do not understand? Why make yourself pompous ...? Well, seriously?
And why only sophistry was revealed? I don't understand a lot of what you write. The level is simply prohibitive, I have never encountered such a thing.

We talked about responsibility. The entire responsibility lies with the people in power, with which, by the way, you agreed above. And whether someone went to the rally or not - this does not play a decisive role, because the government has a legal force that is capable of stopping the illegal seizure of power. You don't have to go far for examples: China, Venezuela, Belarus.

Well, you go and try it.

Belarus

I wrote that these people give a reason to legalize their atrocities, hiding behind the will of the "people". That's all. I commented: "Well, not without these here ...".
And I disagree with you. If not for the northern neighbor, the change of power in Belarus would be only a matter of time.

The expression "the sun is shining in the sky" is understandable to everyone with vision, without explanation. What does it mean "merged in a single ecstasy" is incomprehensible precisely because this is a figurative expression and everyone can understand it as they like, depending on what picture they present in their head.

Well, that's why you need to look at the context. For the sophist, this is some kind of discovery or what? I wrote not only this expression.
In your case, maybe someone will think that you mean that the dark times are finally over and the sun has come out? This is not excluded. Why is such a picture impossible to imagine?
If something is not clear, you can ask what is meant? Nothing seems to be complicated.

I will not comment on your next speculations about me, since the active use of sophistry methods demonstrates that there is nothing to say in the essence of the discussion, so he goes on to discuss the opponent's personality.

Not fabrications, but facts, direct quotes. This is called shit, but I will not comment. I'll shove sophistry again, maybe I'll pass for a smart one.

US withdraws troops from Afghanistan

The state is not a subject. Subjects are people who influence.

Great Britain called the withdrawal of US troops a mistake

The state is not a subject. Subjects are people who influence.

Russia decided to compete for Belarusian students

The state is not a subject. Subjects are people who influence.

Russia decided to resume flights to Turkey

The state is not a subject. Subjects are people who influence.

Ukraine decided to use the plan of Mahatma Gandhi

The state is not a subject. Subjects are people who influence.

Well, seriously, without such people it would be boring to live)) Their energy would be, but in a peaceful way ...
If only you like it, as they say

[A_Lex]

Quote: Cron

Well, good, finish puffing up already. you're just trying to get something out of yourself. Why make yourself pompous ...? Well, seriously? I'm smarter than you, you're just stupid so you don't understand this.

He asked not to get personal - in response, outright rudeness went. I wonder what you will demonstrate next.

Quote: Cron

I wrote that these people give a reason to legalize their atrocities, hiding behind the will of the "people".

If desired, extras can always be assembled. The main thing is not extras. She's just a tool. The main thing is the desire of people in power, backed up by their real powers of power.

Quote: Cron

And I disagree with you. If not for the northern neighbor, the change of power in Belarus would be only a matter of time.

And what did the northern neighbor really do? The Belarusian authorities did, the northern neighbor spoke. Deeds decide, not words.

Quote: Cron

Why is it impossible to imagine such a picture?

Because there is no reason for it.

Quote: Cron

US withdraws troops from Afghanistan
Great Britain called the withdrawal of US troops a mistake
Russia decided to compete for Belarusian students

This and so on are just headings of articles from the media. What journalists can't come up with. They also usually write that prices are growing, although prices are not subject and cannot rise by themselves. The prices are always set by the owners by their own decision.

Quote: Cron

But who are you to indicate?

Why did you decide that I am telling you what to do? I can't tell you anything. You write what you want. Internet 2.0 was created for this, so that anyone can write anything. And this is even to a certain extent useful when the interlocutor can say absolutely anything at all without restraining himself in any way.

Quote: Cron

Well, it's not valuable to you, so pass by.

No, one cannot pass by nonsense and lies, otherwise people who have read it may think that this is not nonsense at all, but sensible thoughts. And it is not beneficial for me that others perceive nonsense as something adequate.

Quote: Cron

You are as valuable to me as my value judgments are to you.

It's strange that you even mention such obvious things. You understand that your thoughts about me are not interesting to me. I am not interested in what you say about me, because this information cannot have any impact on anything at all.

Quote: Cron

I'm just writing influence, you give out about legal influence.

And what is "just influence"? If you just throw stones at the law enforcement officers, then you can legally sit down for this. And this is where all the protest activity can end if the authorities show firmness. But the order to the guardians to disperse the unauthorized rally is very legal.

[Cron]

[quote = A_Lex] I asked not to get personal - in response, outright rudeness went. I wonder what you will demonstrate next. [/ Quote]

And then we will demonstrate that you are just a pompous person who uses terms the meaning of which he does not understand. Or he understands, but is not able to correctly apply them at the right time and in the right place. And he does this only to show his mental superiority.

[quote] Sophistry is a collection of dastardly, fraudulent methods of dispute. [/ quote]

Let's start with the fact that "sophistry" is a teaching, a philosophical trend. Using sophisms in discussion.
Therefore, in this case we are interested in sophism itself. This term is exactly what you wrote about.
You claim that I deliberately mislead people using dastardly and fraudulent techniques. Why do you think so? Prove by facts that this is so.

Sophism:
Let's say I would write that I am thin.
You would say it is good for me to get better.
To which I would answer, you want to say that the more I get better, the more useful it will be to me?
Here it is pure sophism. Where I deliberately twist what you said. And he used a sneaky and fraudulent trick.
It is important to use the terms correctly, and not just know their meaning.

What if I'm inadvertently misleading? And I just give out my illiterate conclusions?
But you object and say that you are trying to twist a well-known fact that is known to most of society. Or maybe the fact is that this "fact" is only true for you? If not, then prove it.

[quote] To attribute to an opponent what he did not say is to use methods from the arsenal of sophistry [/ quote
You don't understand at all what "sophistry" is. What you write is more likely just about a lie, being taken out of context, or simply a misinterpretation of what was written.

[quote] You wanted to say that you did not render it at that moment, or in general always? Something you completely swam [/ quote]
With this question, I was just trying to clarify what you meant. So it was not clear to me, it happens and such a thing can be imagined. And he also showed the absurdity of your statement. What does "sophistry" have to do with it? Here "paralogism" is even more suitable. No, though.
If you consider this a well-known fact: [quote] "People at the rally do not influence the real situation." [/ quote]
Prove it. Can't I disagree with him?

[quote] - They are rams
- Do you consider them animals with horns and hair?
- I only wanted to say what I said. [/ quote]
Well, is this really sophistry? You're just floating in terms.

[quote] - They are rams
- Sheep are animals [/ quote]
Have you applied sophistry? You deliberately twisted what I said. I wrote an insult, and you were just trying to be crazy about something. If you write the original meaning to every word that is not used for its intended purpose, are you just a bore? Am I a boor?

For example, millions of Ukrainians think that it was the people who had a decisive influence on the situation in the country, either in 2004 or in 2014.
Are they simply delusional or deliberately misleading?

[quote] If you wish, you can always collect extras. The main thing is not extras. She's just a tool. The main thing is the desire of people in power, backed up by their real authority. [/ Quote]

Well, where did I write what is the main thing from this and what is not? Where are you in the sentence: "Well, and without these ..... not done", saw that I highlight the main thing?

[Quote] And what did the northern neighbor really do? The Belarusian authorities did, the northern neighbor spoke. Deeds, not words, decide. [/ Quote]

It is precisely that the northern neighbor did nothing. And doing nothing is also an action. Although there were plenty of reasons. But they understood that instead of Luke, otherwise, comrades would come, who were much worse.

[quote] Because there is no reason for it. [/ quote]
You again decide for others to find some reason for them, or not. Therefore, you need to look at the context.

[quote] The expression "the sun is shining in the sky" is clear to everyone [/ quote]
And you only decide for others what they understand and what does not.
What if there was a song with that name? Would everyone really understand what is being sung about a celestial body emitting light? Or do you still need to listen to what the author has in mind? So I'm talking about context

[quote] No, I don't need a postcard or congratulations. Just write on the topic of discussion. I am not a topic of discussion. [/ Quote]
I am a person who pops up different terms out of place

[quote] This and so on are just the titles of articles from the media. What journalists can't come up with. They also usually write that prices are growing, although prices are not subject and cannot rise by themselves. Prices are always set by the owners by their own decision. [/ Quote]
What have journalists to do with it? Don't ordinary people or politicians say that, for example, Russia attacked Ukraine? How can Russia attack? The order is given by certain people, and also by certain people. We generally put the correctness of the statement out of brackets, it does not matter in this case.
Well, you just get boring. Or you need to ask what you mean when you say: "The USSR committed suicide."

[quote] Why did you decide that I am telling you what to do? I can't tell you anything. You write what you want. Internet 2.0 was created for this, so that anyone can write anything. And this is even to a certain extent useful when the interlocutor can say absolutely anything at all without restraining himself in any way. [/ Quote]
Well, that's what I'm doing. So what's the problem if I'm even deluded?

[quote] No, you cannot pass by nonsense and lies, otherwise people who have read it may think that this is not nonsense at all, but sensible thoughts. And it is not beneficial for me that others perceive nonsense as something adequate. [/ Quote]
An example of lies and nonsense on my part? Maybe you just think, due to your limitations, that this is a lie and nonsense? You have been empowered by someone to decide where is nonsense and where is not? Or are we here discussing mathematics, some historical facts? This is where you can take and really show that, yes, the person was wrong.

[quote] And it is not beneficial for me that others perceive nonsense as something adequate. [/ quote]
Well, it's not even funny, what benefit or disadvantage can you have? Are you from the Ministry of Scary Schedules, which needs to prove to everyone that nothing depends on the protesters?

[Quote] It's strange that you even mention such obvious things. You understand that your thoughts about me are not interesting to me. I am not interested in what you say about me, because this information cannot have any impact on anything at all. [/ Quote]
Well, where are they obvious then? You yourself climb into philosophy with about zero knowledge in this topic. What if I'm one of those for whom every inhabitant of the Earth is valuable? I made it clear that no. But you call it obvious. Don't you think you're just too pompous? A person who thinks he has already learned all the evidence?
[quote] What is "just influence"? If you just throw stones at the law enforcement officers, then you can legally sit down for this. And this is where all the protest activity can end if the authorities show firmness. But the order to the guardians to disperse an unauthorized rally is very legal. [/ Quote]
Well, you are a philosopher. Just influence is just influence. Speeches about how much anyone had anything legally at all. You are throwing it all out of place again

[tatra]

Let me remind you, nobody won the USSR. He himself decided to retire.

No matter how cowardly nonsense the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people have invented to justify the capture of the USSR by you, and to impose on the country and people YOUR power, YOUR economy, YOURSystem, YOUR ideology, YOUR state symbols, including the tricolor and the other eagle.

[Cron]

Quote: tatra

No matter how cowardly nonsense the enemies of the USSR and the Soviet people have invented to justify the capture of the USSR by you, and to impose on the country and people YOUR power, YOUR economy, YOURSystem, YOUR ideology, YOUR state symbols, including the tricolor and the other eagle.

The USSR ruined itself. What other enemies? The power chosen by the people and destroyed the country. What other enemies? Well, they wanted to get their hands on everything, who doesn't happen to? Who is to blame that this system has rotted from the inside?

, YOUR ideology

We have no ideology

ITS state symbols, including the tricolor and the other headed eagle

They were there long before the USSR. What are you speaking about? It was the Union that imposed its symbols after the revolution.

and imposing on the country and people

Now re-read what you have written and transfer it to the times of the formation of the Union. It was only then that millions of lives were ruined, and most were by no means in battles. Tens of millions left along with the territory.
Oh, I see you are Russian and live in Donbass, now you are Ukrainian. Everything was done exclusively by the will of the people, not otherwise

[Barberry25]

yes, nothing has changed ... just new means and strength

[Nikolay1987]

to what extent today the Russian Armed Forces meet modern challenges, to what extent they are ready to confront the threat from countries that openly call the Russian Federation their enemy

I can say without looking - not enoughotherwise such questions would not have arisen.

[Vladimir61]

Why is Biden in the photo so sad? Did we declare a "cold war" on them, or did they lose theirs?

[Revival]

"A growing number of experts are confident that the world is undergoing a new Cold War."

Here's the news, so the news!
Eureka is simple!
Like snow on your head, and after all, no one suspected ...

[hermit]

This is not a cold war. The situation is more similar to the one before the First World War. The struggle for sales markets, the rivalry of the imperialist states.

[nikvic46]

Already a lump, to whom and Konstantin Sivkov, I believe in his analyzes of military operations. Our ideological struggle is bad. In America, think tanks operate at different levels. Congress bakes different reports like pancakes. With this in mind, our legislature comes to mind as they learned to write dictation.

[Al_lexx]

Our legislature is not ours.
Otherwise, I agree.

[Al_lexx]

Nothing has changed in the last 500 years.
Maybe tools, but nothing more.

[Petrik66]

In Chekhov: Every newly born baby should be thoroughly washed and, after giving him a break from the first impressions, strongly whipped with the words: “Don't write! Do not write! Don't be a writer! " If, in spite of such execution, the aforementioned infant begins to show writing inclinations, then you should try affection. If the caress does not help, then wave your hand at the baby and write “lost”. Writer's itch is incurable.