International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Once Again, President Trump Is Magnificently Right—This Time About Russia
Source:
PJ Media
URL Source: https://pjmedia.com/spengler/once-a ... -right-this-time-about-russia/
Published: Jul 16, 2018
Author: David P. Goldman
Post Date: 2018-07-16 19:51:31 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 13613
Comments: 69
Once Again, President Trump Is Magnificently Right—This Time About Russia
By David P. Goldman
PJ Media
July 16, 2018
President Trump offended the entire political spectrum with a tweet this morning blaming the U.S. for poor relations with Russia. “Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity,” the president said, and he is entirely correct. By this I do not mean to say that Russia is a beneficent actor in world affairs or that President Putin is an admirable world leader. Nonetheless, the president displayed both perspicacity and political courage when he pointed the finger at the United States for mismanaging the relationship with Russia.
Full disclosure: I was a card-carrying member of the neoconservative cabal that planned to bring Western-style democracy and free markets to Russia after the fall of Communism. As chief economist for the supply-side consulting firm Polyconomics, I got an appointment as an adviser to Boris Yeltsin’s finance ministry and made several trips to Moscow. Of course, the finance ministry really was a family office for Yeltsin’s oligarch friends, who were too busy stealing Russia’s economy to listen to advice. The experience cured me of the neoconservative delusion that democracy and free markets are the natural order of things.
Unfortunately, the delusion that the United States would remake Russia in its own image persisted through the Bush and Obama administrations. I have no reason to doubt the allegations that a dozen Russian intelligence officers meddled in the U.S. elections of 2016, but this was equivalent of a fraternity prank compared to America’s longstanding efforts to intervene in Russian politics.
The United States supported the 2014 Maidan uprising in Ukraine and the overthrow of the Yanukovych government in the hope of repeating the exercise in Moscow sometime later. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland pulled whatever strings America had to replace the feckless and corrupt Victor Yanukovych with a government hostile to the Kremlin. She didn’t say it in so many words, but she hoped the Ukraine coup would lead to the overthrow of Vladimir Putin. Evidently Nuland and her boss, Hillary Clinton, thought that the Ukraine coup would deprive Russia of its Black Sea naval base in Crimea, and did not anticipate that Russia simply would annex an old Russian province that belonged to Ukraine by historical accident.
[...]
The Maidan coup was the second American attempt to install a Ukrainian government hostile to Moscow; the first occurred in 2004, when Condoleezza Rice was secretary of State rather than Hillary Clinton. As I wrote in Asia Times a decade ago, “On the night of November 22, 2004, then-Russian president - now premier - Vladimir Putin watched the television news in his dacha near Moscow. People who were with Putin that night report his anger and disbelief at the unfolding 'Orange' revolution in Ukraine. ‘They lied to me,’ Putin said bitterly of the United States. ‘I'll never trust them again.’ The Russians still can't fathom why the West threw over a potential strategic alliance for Ukraine. They underestimate the stupidity of the West."
[snip]
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 45.
#6. To: nolu chan (#0) (Edited)
It's all great... unless Anatoliy Golitsyn was right.
#7. To: VxH (#6)
It's all great... unless Anatoliy Golitsyn was right.
Golitsyn's decades old conspiracy theories were debunked by Ivan Petrovich Sidorov.
#8. To: nolu chan (#7)
Survey Says, meet the New Nolu Bullshyte...
Same as the Old Nolu Bullshyte.
#9. To: VxH (#8)
Same as the Old Nolu Bullshyte.
Old? Golitsyn's book is 34 years old and Golitsyn is dead. Ivan Petrovich Sidorov remains current.
#10. To: nolu chan (#9) (Edited)
Show us the URL to his "current" debunking or STFU.
#11. To: VxH (#10)
Show us the URL to his "current" debunking or STFU.
Show me the URL to Golitsyn's "current" debunking of Trump or STFU.
#15. To: nolu chan (#11)
LOL. How many results, Nolu Chow?
Maybe if you Google it with your trusty TI calculator you can pull some "facts" out of your arse?
Or NOT... as usual.
#31. To: VxH (#15)
I see you are still incapable of using the Google to find Ivan Petrovich Sidorov and still have no clue who it is. Pathetic.
#32. To: nolu chan (#31)
I see you are still incapable of using the Google to find Ivan Petrovich Sidorov
Well wire up that calculator and show us how it's done, Igor!
#33. To: VxH (#32)
Well wire up that calculator and show us how it's done, Igor!
Your apparent use of a calculator to search the internet may explain your continuing inability to identify Ivan Petrovich Sidorov.
Here's an Ivan Petrovich Sidorov that your calculator failed to find:
https://www.facebook.com/people/Ivan-Petrovich-Sidorov/100004557936311
#34. To: nolu chan (#33) (Edited)
Yawn. A FB link with no content. Is he as Current as Vlad Putin?
"I thought about something just now:The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish,"
Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.
#35. To: VxH (#34)
Yawn. A FB link with no content. Is he as Current as Vlad Putin?
What a stupid comment. Ivan Petrovich Sidorov is always current. He may be one of the most cited people in Russian litigation. You may be one of the least competent users of Google ever.
#37. To: nolu chan (#35) (Edited)
He may be one of the most cited people in Russian litigation.
And yet with regards to his/your alleged "debunking" of Golitsyn...
LOL. FAIL.
#38. To: VxH (#37)
And yet with regards to his/your alleged "debunking" of Golitsyn...
Pearce, Spymaster (2017) at p. 283:
Even when Golitsyn's claims that the Sino-Soviet splid had been a cunning ruse to foil the West were comprehensively debunked — something that should have sent alarm bells ringing — Angleton and his followers agreed that everything else must still be true. They'd invested their whole reputations in their pet defector.
- - - - - - - - - -
LOL. FAIL.
)))
Still too inept to effectively use the Google.
You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.
#39. To: nolu chan (#38)
You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.
.
Do the math, Donkey Breath.
https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
#40. To: VxH (#39)
)))
Still too inept to effectively use the Google.
You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=176#C176
How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?It came along quite well. Anything that travels 1950 feet in 1.06 seconds travels an average velocity of 2122.64 feet per second. The formula is distance divided by time.
How are you coming along with your bullet going splat at ~520 feet ground distance from Mandalay Bay?
How did you work out that negative 33º angle?
Side a represents the vertical height of Paddock's vantage point. At the 32nd floor, and at 10.9 feet per floor, (32-1) x 10.9 = 338 feet.
The VxH specified shooting angle was -33°. This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination. Not all ballistic calculators will even accept a negative angle value, but specify 0 to 90 degrees.
For another calculator, see:
http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/
It appears that VxH drew an imaginary horizontal line d at a vertical height of 338 feet from the ground, and an imaginary 338 foot line e down to the ground, bringing into view a rectangle with a mirror image triangle to that above.
VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.
With a specified shooting angle of 33º at the junction of lines c and d, the angle made by sides c and b would also be 33º, and angle ß, made by sides a and c would be 57º. (The right angle at point A is 90º. The other two angles must add up to 90º.)
With side a being 338 feet, side b would be 520.4743578 feet, and side c would be 620.5944 feet.
As may be seen, disregarding gravity, if the bullet flew downward at the specified 33º from a height of 338 feet, it would fly a straight line of sight path into the ground at ~520 feet from the Mandalay Bay at ground level.
Calculating the bullet velocity after that point may be difficult, even with secret Klingon math.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181
#181. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#179)
VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.Yep. You're almost right - I've been meaning to take another look at the angle with a model in Google Sketchup... which says At 1290' from a height of 338' is -14.7
Damn, you are more screwed up than I thought.
Now you are presenting a triangle with side a being 338 feet, side b being 1290 feet 7 inches (1290.5833 ft), and an hypotenuse of 1009 ft 4 in. I positively can't remember the last triangle I saw where the hypotenuse was shorter than one of the sides. Your Klingon math is magic, and Google Sketchup is a miracle worker.
If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet.
If the angle of elevation is 14.7 degrees, and the range is 1290' 7", then the height would be 345.0311072 feet and each floor would be over 11 feet.
Put down Google sketch and pick up a scientific calculator and do some trigonometry. You can actually get correct results with trig.
You are supposed to be dazzling me with your math skills, not some shit like Google Sketchup.
Google Sketchup? Really?
#42. To: nolu chan (#40)
Do the math, Donkey Breath.
https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
#43. To: VxH (#42)
Any right triangle must have sides and angles where the Sine, Cosine, Tangent, C-Tangent, Secand, and Co-secant correctly compute.
If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet.
Please do demonstrate the trigonometry behind your childish Google Sketchup nonsense.
Do the math. I will get you started.
Sine
SOH - opposite/hypotenuse
Cosine
CAH - adjacent/hypotenuse
Tangent
TOA - opposite/adjacent
Co-tangent
CAO - adjacent/opposite
Secant
SHA - hypotenuse/adjacent
Co-Secant
SHO - hypotenuse/opposite
You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=176#C176
How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?It came along quite well. Anything that travels 1950 feet in 1.06 seconds travels an average velocity of 2122.64 feet per second. The formula is distance divided by time.
How are you coming along with your bullet going splat at ~520 feet ground distance from Mandalay Bay?
How did you work out that negative 33º angle?
Side a represents the vertical height of Paddock's vantage point. At the 32nd floor, and at 10.9 feet per floor, (32-1) x 10.9 = 338 feet.
The VxH specified shooting angle was -33°. This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination. Not all ballistic calculators will even accept a negative angle value, but specify 0 to 90 degrees.
For another calculator, see:
http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/
It appears that VxH drew an imaginary horizontal line d at a vertical height of 338 feet from the ground, and an imaginary 338 foot line e down to the ground, bringing into view a rectangle with a mirror image triangle to that above.
VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.
With a specified shooting angle of 33º at the junction of lines c and d, the angle made by sides c and b would also be 33º, and angle ß, made by sides a and c would be 57º. (The right angle at point A is 90º. The other two angles must add up to 90º.)
With side a being 338 feet, side b would be 520.4743578 feet, and side c would be 620.5944 feet.
As may be seen, disregarding gravity, if the bullet flew downward at the specified 33º from a height of 338 feet, it would fly a straight line of sight path into the ground at ~520 feet from the Mandalay Bay at ground level.
Calculating the bullet velocity after that point may be difficult, even with secret Klingon math.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181
#181. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#179)
VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.Yep. You're almost right - I've been meaning to take another look at the angle with a model in Google Sketchup... which says At 1290' from a height of 338' is -14.7
Damn, you are more screwed up than I thought.
Now you are presenting a triangle with side a being 338 feet, side b being 1290 feet 7 inches (1290.5833 ft), and an hypotenuse of 1009 ft 4 in. I positively can't remember the last triangle I saw where the hypotenuse was shorter than one of the sides. Your Klingon math is magic, and Google Sketchup is a miracle worker.
If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet.
If the angle of elevation is 14.7 degrees, and the range is 1290' 7", then the height would be 345.0311072 feet and each floor would be over 11 feet.
Put down Google sketch and pick up a scientific calculator and do some trigonometry. You can actually get correct results with trig.
You are supposed to be dazzling me with your math skills, not some shit like Google Sketchup.
Google Sketchup? Really?
#44. To: nolu chan (#43)
Do the math, Donkey Breath.
https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
#45. To: VxH (#44)
You do the math.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
As soon as you publish your proof for your mathematical formula c < b.
Even a complete jackass, such as yourself, can see from your original play picture, from your #181 to which I linked, that you showed a hypotenuse of 1009' 4".
Your original play picture shows part of a circle with a radius of 338'.
Your second play picture displays the same radius of the circle as 338' on an up/down line. On a somewhat downward slanting horizontal line, you added a new measurement of the radius of that same circle at 324' 6". How the radius shrinks on one side by 11' 6" is not explained. It's a magic circle, or magic math.
1009' 4" + 338' is 1347' 4".
1009' 4" + 324' 6" is 1333' 10".
Keep changing that side radius distance, make believe it was part of the original hypotenuse, until you get your math to work.
What the magic circle with the changing radius is doing there is a mystery. The difference between level travel to end point and travel from elevation to end point is c - b, not the vertical distance of the elevation.
The 338' up/down radius of the circle indicates the elevation of the shooter, and the circle indicates you had an irresistable impulse to draw a circle and make believe the radius was something other than 338' at another angle. 338' was a stated distance of elevation. 324' 6" appears to be a figure plucked from your ass.
Given angles A (14.70°) and C (90.00°) and side a (338') —
side B and angles b and c may be readily calculated —
just not to the values you give them.
A = 14.70°
B = ?º
C = 90.00°
a = 338.00 ft
b = ? ft
c = ? ft
A + B + C = 180º
A + B = 90º
B = 90-Aº
B = 75.30º
b = sin(B) * a / sin(A)
c = sin(C) * a
Replies to Comment # 45.
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=56433&Disp=46#C46
End Trace Mode for Comment # 45.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]