| | | Jacob, I could organize a good election in those independent countries of Eastern Ukraine. Easy.
The United Nations must be willing to provide 100,000 election monitors. The local yokels could provide 200,000. The British could provide 20,000. Russia could provide 100,000. USA could provide 100,000. Those elections inspectors would of course have to be unarmed or they might look like a military force and get up to mischief.
Each polling booth could have a dozen inspectors from the various parties. No bullshit Democrat "mail in" votes from the CIA bunker.
Hold the election one day.
It's probably pretty clear what the populations would want. A close vote is unlikely.
Of course plenty of people have fled to Russia for their lives, so they aren't there to vote. Some have fled to the west of Ukraine to avoid fighting.no doubt, for familly or political allegiance, or fear or whatever reasons.
So of course it wouldn't be a perfect election. Not as perfect as Donald Trump's phone call to Ukraine.
But if there's a 70% or maybe even 90% independence vote, or 70% to join Russia, and 20% to join Ukraine that would be a pretty clear show of what's wanted.
So many people claim to be in favour of democracy but when put to the test, they instantly, knowing nothing, know absolutely that such an election or referendum/vote could not possibly be anything other than a North Korean style 100% vote, or Stalin approval rating.
If I ask them, "How would you propose that the vote be conducted to ensure it's as good as can be?" they of course say Orange Man Bad, Putin wants to conquer the World, Voting is Bad so we have to have nuclear war and destroy the world, or other equally mindless ideas. Rather than figure out how it could be done, they cannot think other than to carry on to Armageddon. I wonder whether as their families and they fry alive they would wonder briefly whether something else could have been done. Such as an election with 10 million inspectors, all inspecting each other. That would be much cheaper than the end of the world.
It's worth going to a lot of trouble to get good enough elections done given the alternative and the all-time historical cataclysmically catastrophic calamity now under way and that will continue until Zelensky and the evil criminals in Eurostan and USA realize they are about to destroy the world.
Oh sure, they could say "Well, if Putin hadn't done such a totally unprovoked attack on cute little children who never did anything at all other than study gender fluidity and shovel kickbacks to Hunter and BigJoe10%, then all would have been well and Russia could have been ordered out of Crimea and we could have put all our weaponry right there on the border. Unprovoked I say. Ignore the murders in 2014 and the years of Donbas carnage and suppression afterwards. Ignore the sanctions/blockade."
But here we are. Where to from here? Looks like Armageddon because Russia can't do anything else, as I predicted BEFORE the invasion and explained that it was another April Glaspie trap for Russia so that once Russia was in Ukraine, the turkey shoot could begin. The vast military conventional power of USA/NATO plus dumb bastards like Jacinda and Australia can easily over power Russia with conventional weaponry. But not if Russia goes nuclear and obliterates Devonport naval base in Auckland for example, which I'd recommend as a good demonstration to the other 4 eyes what they'll get if they continue. Kicking the dog is better than an immediate attack on USA which would make them foam at the mouth and lose their shit.
An obliterated aircraft carrier fleet would be another serious warning option as revenge for Moscova.
One of those superspeed atomic bomb tsunami torpedos would be interesting offshore west coast USA. Close for a big wave or out to sea with low yield for a warning wave of say 10 metres - enough to wet Los Angeles feet at high tide.
Or a 50 km altitude night time demonstration of what 10 megatons looks like and feels like.
Hopefully after a bit of atomic bomb escalation, the USA would figure out that there's no bluff and unconditional surrender by Russia is not going to happen. Obtuse arrogant people can take a lot of persuasion sometimes or they do really stupid stuff like go full scale deflection.
Unfortunately for USA and Eurostan, they have a LOT more to lose than does Russia. 1.1 billion people concentrated in those regions compared with only 150 million people spread across the vastest country in the world. A rich 1.1 billion people evaporated in exchange for only 130 million Russians [ they are spread out so far that the proportion surviving would be much greater than Eurostan/USA].
After the exchange, USA, Eurostan, Russia would all be basically vacant properties. Genghis Khan's descendants could just ride their onagers [or trains, cars and trucks] across what was Russia, taking over all the way to England, up to what was Finland and down to the Mediterranean. With 1.4 billion people, they could announce "free land to settlers" and 400 million Made in China people could help themselves, leaving a billion in China to carry on there [that's enough people to still make it very busy].
South Americans could do a similar takeover of what was USA/Canada, with free land everywhere. There would be a few Preppers feeling pretty smug but that would still leave lots of room to move in.
Famine would be normal everywhere even if not attacked, because USA, Ukraine and Russia vast farms would not be in production. Machinery everywhere would gradually stop working for lack of parts and supplies.
Can Americans really not figure it out? I know they are pretty dum - I have watched for 60 years and it's continual. Sure, they would boast that they are the greatest country there has ever been and that's quite right. But on a scale of 0 to 100, being top of the heap at about 1.7 is barely above chimp level. Hardly a matter for great pride when staring down the barrel of the end of the world.
But yes, you are right, voting in eastern Ukraine would not be totally perfect. Probably better than the 2020 presidential election though and Americans were mostly happy enough that it was good enough [the Rinos and Demos if not the deplorables].
So can you think of a way to make the elections near-enough for government work, or do you think proceeding forthwith to Armageddon is a better idea? I'm sure many would say "Putin should just surrender". But that's not really an option. You could try assassination suddenly, but there is such as thing as a "dead man's switch". And even if there isn't one that works, I guess a lot of Russians would be irate and they'd respond bigly.
Thinking back over 210 years, Napoleons must have thought they'd fold. My British great great grandfather died of wounds from Crimea [Crimean war]. Various other wars. WWI. Then Barbarossa. Totally horrific losses but they've never surrendered. It seems odd to think they'd let American roll over them now. Or Herr Gruppenfuhrer Stoltenberg and horrible harridan coven of Truss, Ursula, Annalena, Sanna, Jacinda, Mahuta, Victoria, Jarrett, Rice, Hillary .... "We came, we saw, he died ... cackle cackle cackle". The Fourth Reich is revving up ready to go [as I predicted 23 years ago though I had no idea what would get them going].
At least we don't have to go along with the ridiculous idea that if women ran the world it would be hunky dory. They are loving it.
Since you think elections are useless, what's your better idea? Do you think that Zelensky's election was totally above board, and as perfect as Donald's phone call?
I like democratic process, preferably with voting 21 and older, no postal votes, and pay $1000 tax for the right to vote which is essentially a vote to spend opm. Or something along those lines. Tighten it up. No criminals. No foreigners. In Donbas, voting could be more liberal, without a fee.
I say imperfect voting beats the end of the world. The UN and $100 billion should cover the cost. $100 billion is much less than the cost of the end of the world. Heck, there are only about 10 million people who might vote. At $1000 each, that's only $10 billion in costs. A bargain. Voting papers and counting are cheap.
A year or two later, another vote could be held to ensure that the right decision was made first time. With everyone settled down, it would be a more reflective, considered vote. People could have returned from their refugee status.
Mqurice |
|
