Yes. While the soviets did have the Korovin Pistol, which chambered the .25 ACP, there is no guarantee there was ammo for it where he was going. Plus he had to execute.. a few hundred, at best that's one bullet per person, so a few hundred bullets.
Major of State Security Vasilii M. Blokhin (a GUGB Administrative-Economic Department functionary and commandant of and NKVD building in Moscow) directed the execution stage. He also, personally, acted as the main executioner, bringing with him from Moscow a whole suitcase full of Walther 2 type pistols used to shoot the Poles.
I have also seen claims, (with no real evidence) that in the terms of the loan is a clause that forces the borrower to create an escrow account that pays the loan in advance of other responsibilities. But as I said, those claims didn’t really back it up with a lot evidence
The liberationnews article did contain this:
But according to analysis by AidData, who obtained a copy of the contract, the airport was not even a source of collateral that the lender could seize in the first place! What the conditions of the agreement did require was that cash collateral be placed in a separate escrow account which could then be seized in the event of default — a fairly standard clause for international projects financing
I don't know much about them, but in what way are they aggressive?
Or that they don’t really care if they get the money back
To some extent, yes.
The second problem with the narrative is that it relies on the assumption that it is Chinese policy to advance predatory loans with onerous terms and conditions to ensnare countries into debt. In reality, China often advances loans at fairly low interest rates, and is often willing to restructure the terms of existing loans to be more favorable to the borrowing country, or even forgive loans altogether. In fact, in August of 2022, the Chinese government announced it was forgiving 23 interest-free loans in 17 African countries. Prior to that, between 2000 and 2019, China had also restructured a total of $15 billion of debt and forgiven $3.4 billion in loans they had given to African countries.
"The USSR was allied with Nazi Germany". You know, I wanna write lot of stuff. But actually, I'm just going to say that "The Cold War and Its Origins" (Denna Frank Flemming) has been a good read, I do recommend it.
I remember reading about Sri Lanka, how it's a prime example of the lie about Chinese debt diplomacy. To quote the article: "Research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota"
Presumably the reasons for the initial attack still exist
Then... they failed? You're saying that if they win, they fail. Or at least, they can't win hard enough to actually get what they want.
You're also assuming Russia wants territory. If Russia wanted, say, Ukraine not being admitted to NATO, and they can get a peace that ensures that, then there isn't a reason for them to invade again. Or if Russia wanted UKR to stop shelling the eastern regions, then annexing just them might stop that, in which case, they don't have any reason to invade again.
But why? Why would Russia invade again in a few years? What's the logic behind that? Just "putler bad", "russia bad". Or is there any actual reasoning on why?
The mango press article was available up until at least June of this year. It was retrieved last year. This shouldn't be news to you. You clearly show knowledge of archive.org by using it, so I don't understand why you have to point that out, when you can check if it was available and now isn't?
The CBS news article is a recounting of one person telling their story of Tianamen. It links, for whatever reason, to another different persons telling of their story.
Ok so, assuming the Russian army is the laughing stock of the world, then why isn't the Ukrainian Army an even bigger laughing stock?
For a long time I heard one thing after another about how incompetent the Russian army is. For 1 and a half years, the most incompetent, laughing stock of the world, army has been... losing?
It really is. At some point I memorized the entire song, too bad I don't speak Russian, so I'm probably absolutely butchering it every time I try to sing it.
Also, I recommend writing "fucking fr*nch" in between attempts, e.g. bourgi.. fucking fr*nch... bourgeisiee
No. They would absolutely go "it's all staged" without any sense of.. anything.
lmao, these are funny. You've earned yourself a link at https://data2.encryptionin.space/fakecovers.zip
Edit: yes this is a permanent link.
Yes. While the soviets did have the Korovin Pistol, which chambered the .25 ACP, there is no guarantee there was ammo for it where he was going. Plus he had to execute.. a few hundred, at best that's one bullet per person, so a few hundred bullets.
Thanks! Well, off to EPUB that book then I guess.
Edit: This is what the source says:
Sauce?
Damn, at least it's not that bad. At least I'm under 6.
The liberationnews article did contain this:
No, you don't understand, I want to be short(er).
I don't know much about them, but in what way are they aggressive?
To some extent, yes.
https://www.liberationnews.org/why-chinese-debt-trap-diplomacy-is-a-lie/
"The USSR was allied with Nazi Germany". You know, I wanna write lot of stuff. But actually, I'm just going to say that "The Cold War and Its Origins" (Denna Frank Flemming) has been a good read, I do recommend it.
I remember reading about Sri Lanka, how it's a prime example of the lie about Chinese debt diplomacy. To quote the article: "Research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota"
Then... they failed? You're saying that if they win, they fail. Or at least, they can't win hard enough to actually get what they want.
You're also assuming Russia wants territory. If Russia wanted, say, Ukraine not being admitted to NATO, and they can get a peace that ensures that, then there isn't a reason for them to invade again. Or if Russia wanted UKR to stop shelling the eastern regions, then annexing just them might stop that, in which case, they don't have any reason to invade again.
But why? Why would Russia invade again in a few years? What's the logic behind that? Just "putler bad", "russia bad". Or is there any actual reasoning on why?
Thanks. Now I feel even worse about my height.
Two things:
A) Education not telling people about the 1930s famine beyond holodomor.
B) The tried and true method for liberals: not reading a book.
ImageMap is crashing the server again (I think). So this time it's gone for good.
The mango press article was available up until at least June of this year. It was retrieved last year. This shouldn't be news to you. You clearly show knowledge of archive.org by using it, so I don't understand why you have to point that out, when you can check if it was available and now isn't?
The CBS news article is a recounting of one person telling their story of Tianamen. It links, for whatever reason, to another different persons telling of their story.
Ok so, assuming the Russian army is the laughing stock of the world, then why isn't the Ukrainian Army an even bigger laughing stock?
For a long time I heard one thing after another about how incompetent the Russian army is. For 1 and a half years, the most incompetent, laughing stock of the world, army has been... losing?
It really is. At some point I memorized the entire song, too bad I don't speak Russian, so I'm probably absolutely butchering it every time I try to sing it.