You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents
nsarchive.gwu.edu
There was no advantage in the US pushing Russia. China is a different story. Once again, we are bringing Russia and China together, and are bankrupting our taxpayers.
Again, you are misunderstanding how the NATO “threat” is used by Putin and Russian ultra nationalists. These people wanted to reconstitute the lands of Russian empire regardless. Saying it’s because of nato they are attacking all of their neighbours is just a convenient political instrument for that the Kremlin uses to shift blame and excuse behaviour. Do you really think Putin would not have already rolled over them Baltic’s if those nations weren’t in NATO? Also it’s perverse to insinuate Russia should get a man effective veto over the security of its neighbours. You are stripping these nations of all agency where they worked hard to join NATO and of which NATO membership is very popular.
It possible that Russia would have taken over Ukraine even if they were assured that Ukraine would not join NATO. I will not argue that point.
Should we continue to fund Ukraine? Perhaps. The battle is well underway. I don't think you can say that we are without blame/credit. Our constant military involvement has advantages. It is why Japan and Taiwan will work closely with us. We will use our military/arms to aid them. Europe probably won't. Taiwan/TSMC will probably expand into places that help their safety as stated in a parallel thread started by Dan regarding TSMC-Germany. Saudi Arabia will probably draw the same conclusion. They need external support. They will never trust their own military to not turn against the kingdome. Just my opinion.
You brought up Russia, I didn't. You are in John Bolton's camp. I am in Pat Buchanan's camp. It is that simple. I believe that the US has antagonized Russia when we instead should have been on friendly terms with them. We had a common enemy. I am speaking in terms of what was better for the US, not the EU. China was/is our biggest problem. IMO, our focus need to be on the Pacific and our own productivity (and taxpayers). At this point, we are just debating what is being debated publicly by John Mearsmith and the hawks. Let's get back to the semis, both technology, predictions on where the foundries will locate, etc.
It possible that Russia would have taken over Ukraine even if they were assured that Ukraine would not join NATO. I will not argue that point.
Should we continue to fund Ukraine? Perhaps. The battle is well underway. I don't think you can say that we are without blame/credit. Our constant military involvement has advantages. It is why Japan and Taiwan will work closely with us. We will use our military/arms to aid them. Europe probably won't. Taiwan/TSMC will probably expand into places that help their safety as stated in a parallel thread started by Dan regarding TSMC-Germany. Saudi Arabia will probably draw the same conclusion. They need external support. They will never trust their own military to not turn against the kingdome. Just my opinion.
You brought up Russia, I didn't. You are in John Bolton's camp. I am in Pat Buchanan's camp. It is that simple. I believe that the US has antagonized Russia when we instead should have been on friendly terms with them. We had a common enemy. I am speaking in terms of what was better for the US, not the EU. China was/is our biggest problem. IMO, our focus need to be on the Pacific and our own productivity (and taxpayers). At this point, we are just debating what is being debated publicly by John Mearsmith and the hawks. Let's get back to the semis, both technology, predictions on where the foundries will locate, etc.
FYI Putin's favourite Tsar is Alexander the III, a Tsar which banned Ukrainian language, prohibited the translation of Russian books in Ukrainian and banned Ukrainian children's books. Alexander the III is best known for his policies of Russification and attempt to exterminate all other cultures within the Russian empire, whether is be Swedish, Finish, Polish, Jewish (ironic) considering Putins denazifying narrative. Putin has a massive hard on for Alexander the III and has brought him into much more prominence in Russian culture. I really dont know how much clearer it could be that Putin wants to replicate him. He even spelled it out in his invasion speech when he ranted about how Ukraine wasn't a real people or culture but just confused Russians that had to be brought home. Have a look at these photos... Yes we should get back to semiconductors but I will continue to fight back and correct false narratives, especially those that advance Russian propaganda objectives.
nsarchive.gwu.edu
