Zakaj Rusija ni zasedla Kalifornije, ko je lahko?

Zakaj Rusija ni zasedla Kalifornije, ko je lahko?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Španske kolonije v Kaliforniji, ki so bile delno ustvarjene, da bi preprečile rusko širitev, so bile vojaško šibke. Vojska je imela na celotnem ozemlju le nekaj sto mož in sploh nobenih ladij. Dve uporniški ladji, ki sta leta 1818 odpustili in požgali prestolnico Monterey, sta jo zlahka premagali. Španija je imela vedno preveč vlaganja v razvoj Kalifornije.

Vstopite v Rusijo. Širil se je proti vzhodu z osvajanjem lokalnih družb. Ko je imperij dosegel Tihi ocean, je bilo rusko-ameriškemu podjetju uradno dovoljeno naseliti Aljasko. Tam je ustanovila kolonije, ki jim je trajno primanjkovalo hrane, kar je prispevalo k njihovi prodaji v ZDA. Španski uradniki so se prestrašili in spremljali ruske posege, vendar niso mogli ali nočejo nasprotovati postavitvi ruske postojanke Fort Ross.

Po koncu Napoleonovih vojn je Rusija sponzorirala več deset potovanj na dolge razdalje. Uradniki cesarske mornarice na potovanjih po svetu in ladje rusko-ameriškega podjetja iz Sitke so vzpostavili stike po vsej Kaliforniji. Več ruskih obiskovalcev, ki so zapisali svoje izkušnje, je opazilo neustrezno obrambo pokrajine; nekateri, zlasti Dmitrij Zavališin, so predlagali, da bi Rusija morala kupiti Kalifornijo.

Rusko-ameriška družba ne bi mogla sponzorirati invazije niti naselja Kalifornije, lahko pa bi to storila cesarska ruska mornarica. Ta pridobitev bi lahko rešila problem oskrbe ruskega pacifiškega roba in dramatično razširila rusko vplivno področje. Španija ne bi izvedela več mesecev in bi imela težave pri povračilu, saj so bile tri revolucije naenkrat v revoluciji, vključno s tisto, iz katere bi bilo treba poslati okrepitve za Kalifornijo. Kljub temu, da je njena hvaljena mornarica lahko storila, je Španija izgubila skoraj vse svoje kolonije; Rusija ni bila. Tudi neodvisna Mehika ne bo mogla braniti Kalifornije; Ko so ZDA poslale nekaj ladij, da bi jih prevzele, ni bilo veliko boja.

Zavedajoč se Zavalishinovega zagovarjanja in že na tem območju že imajo eno postojanko, bi lahko carja Aleksander I. in Nikolaj I. med letoma 1815-1845 vzela Kalifornijo za Rusijo. Zakaj niso?


Bilo je strašno predaleč.

Ena stvar je ustanavljanje nekaterih manjših naselij in trgovinskih dejavnosti, druga pa je izvedba vojaške odprave.

Sibirija ni bila razvita, da bi lokalno podpirala takšna prizadevanja, večina južne obale današnjega Daljnega vzhoda Rusije pa je bila del Kitajske (ki jo je odstopila Rusiji v okviru Aigunske pogodbe.

Torej, možnosti za uporabo vojaške sile so bile:

  • Pošljite jih po kopnem, skozi Sibirijo1, do ... kam? nekaj pristanišč je bilo, vendar so bila na severu in nobeno ni bilo dovolj veliko za izgradnjo flote.

  • Pošljite jih z ladjo iz Sankt Peterburga. Morali bodo iti okoli rta dobrega upanja ali rta Horn.

    • Prehod skozi rt dobrega upanja bi podaljšal potovanje,

    • Prehod skozi Cape Horn bi pomenil, da se ne bi mogli znova oskrbeti2 na španski obali, od Argentine do Kalifornije.

    In seveda bi flota minila blizu španske obale, kar bi španski floti dalo priložnost za napad3.

  • Enako zgoraj, vendar iz Črnega morja. Skoraj enako, razen dodatnega vprašanja tveganja srečanja španske flote ob prehodu Gibraltarja.

Mislim, Španija je bila daleč od Kalifornije, toda v primerjavi s tovrstnimi potovanji je bila skoraj sosednja z njo. Španija bi lahko preusmerila čete v Srednjo Ameriko in opravila "kratek" izlet v Kalifornijo, čete pa bi imela na voljo v bolje uveljavljenih kolonijah4.

In vse to5 zavzeti veliko daleč, popolnoma nerazvitih dežel, od katerih je imela Rusija že veliko.

K vsemu temu dodajmo, da je bila vladajoča miselnost vse do druge svetovne vojne, da je Evropa središče sveta, preostanek pa je bil pomemben le kot način pridobivanja sredstev za metropole in je enostavno razumeti, da je takšno podjetje bi veljalo za nesmiselno.


1In ne današnja Sibirija, ampak precej manj razvita Sibirija, s slabšimi cestami in manj mesti -> veliko težav z oskrbo.

2Razen če so napadli španska mesta ... vendar so bila ta veliko bolje razvita kot Kalifornija.

3Seveda takratna Španija ni bila pomorska sila, vendar tudi Rusija ni bila, Španija pa bi imela svoje baze bližje.

4Takrat so bili precej zaposleni v boju proti neodvisnim gibanjem.

5No, in tveganje, da bi imeli težave z neko drugo močjo.


TL; DR: Rusijo ni zanimalo.

Fort Ross je lovil samo morske vidre; vsi poskusi pridelave hrane v razumnem obsegu so bili neuspešni. Kalifornija je bila na splošno puščava s pol divjo pašo in brez obdelovalnih površin, razen morda nekaj Nove Helvecije (ki je začela pridelovati pšenico šele leta 1840, in tudi to je bilo komaj vzdržno). Seveda je bil les odličen, vendar dvomim, da bi Rusija imela kakšen interes za več lesa.

Mehika je bila prav tako nezainteresirana. Ko se je leta 1836 von Wrangel pogovarjal z mehiško vlado o legitimizaciji Fort Ross, se strinjajo glede samo pogoj, da bo Rusija vzpostavila diplomatski odnos z Mehiko. Car Nicolas je rekel, da nikoli ne bo priznal te brezbožne republike. Toliko o interesu obeh strani.

Nočem niti začeti z grozljivo logistiko vojaške odprave v Kalifornijo.

PS: Rusija je imela pred letom 1805 majhno priložnost, da se razširi na oregonsko ozemlje, toda Paul je bil zaseden z malteškim vitezom.


Rusija je imela pacifiško floto šele po tem, ko so Američani prišli v Kalifornijo in Oregon. Območje okoli Vladivostoka je dobil šele leta 1860, prihodnjo bazo pacifiške flote.

Pravzaprav Rusija ni imela mornarice do časa Petra Velikega (1690 -ih). Že takrat je bil v 18. stoletju daleč za flotami Velike Britanije in Francije.

Še leta 1905 je Rusija imela grozen čas, da je svojo baltsko floto poslala na Daljni vzhod (za bitko pri ožini Tsushima). To je bilo v dobi ladij na premog in parno energijo in ko je bil v uporabi Sueški prekop. Okoli rta dobrega upanja (ali rta Horn skozi vode v španskih vodah) in od tam na Aljasko bi bilo zelo težko poslati ladje, ki jih poganja jadro, in od tam na Aljasko, zato Rusija ni poskusila.

Rusija je Aljasko prodala ZDA, ker je bil njen oprijem v najboljšem primeru slab. Kalifornija je bila še južneje (torej stran od Sibirije) in težje obvladljiva. Tudi če bi Rusija lahko nekako "zasedla" Kalifornijo, se ne bi mogla dolgo vzdržati španskega, ameriškega in britanskega pritiska. Ob predpostavki, da se je Rusija nekako dokopala in obdržala Kalifornijo, bi bila verjetno vključena v prodajo na Aljaski.


Ste že slišali za francosko revolucionarno in napoleonsko vojno?

Generacija vklopljenih in izklopnih konfliktov, ki so uničili Evropo in ubili milijone ljudi ter vse spremenili. Ali ne bi pričakovali, da so bili ljudje in celo njihovi vladarji le malce utrujeni in prestrašeni ubijanja in vojne po tem?

Tako so evropske vlade leta 1815 sprejele kongresni sistem ali evropski koncert, ki se je nadaljeval vsaj do zgodnjih 1820-ih in se ni popolnoma razpadel do krimske vojne 1853-1856. Večino obdobja, preden je Rusija leta 1867 prodala Aljasko ZDA, niso bili pripravljeni tvegati velikih evropskih vojn.

In seveda, če bi se Rusija odločila tvegati vojno s Španijo z napadom na španske kolonije, kako bi se lahko Španija in kateri koli zavezniki maščevali? Lahko bi poslali floto skozi Sredozemsko in Črno morje v napad in morda uničili ruske pomorske baze na Krimu. Lahko bi uporabili še eno taktiko iz krimske vojne v petdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja in poslali floto na Baltik. Kaj je bilo najslabše, kar bi lahko naredila španska flota na Baltiku? Zavzelo mesto Sankt Peterburg, ki je bilo slučajno glavno mesto Rusije, to je to!

Po osamosvojitvi Mehike leta 1821. Rusija bi lahko napadla in prevzela Kalifornijo. Če pa bi Rusi v Kaliforniji izkrcali brigado ali kaj podobnega, bi lahko Mehičani poslali eno ali dve diviziji, da bi si povrnili Kalifornijo. Morda so Španija in druge evropske sile morda poslale ladje in vojake, da bi pomagale pregnati Ruse iz Kalifornije.

V 19. stoletju sta bila Rusija in ZDA pogosto v dobrih odnosih. Če pa bi Rusi osvojili Kalifornijo, bi kmalu izgubili ameriško prijateljstvo in posumili, da je ameriška vlada zainteresirana za pošiljanje vojske po kopnem, da prevzame Kalifornijo.


Gallipoli: 5 razlogov, zakaj je bila kampanja prve svetovne vojne neuspešna

Toda za uspeh avstralskega in novozelandskega korpusa (Anzac) pri izklesanju majhnega mostišča v zalivu Anzac je bila kampanja prve svetovne vojne za zajetje polotoka Gallipoli katastrofa, pravi Peter Hart. Pisanje za BBC History Magazine, avtor knjige o katastrofalni kampanji prve svetovne vojne iz leta 2011 ponuja razlago neuspeha zaveznikov leta 1915

To tekmovanje je zdaj zaprto

Objavljeno: 9. aprila 2021 ob 11:11

Kaj se je zgodilo v Gallipoliju?

Galipoljska kampanja je bila grozna tragedija. Poskus zaveznikov, da so otomanskemu cesarstvu odvzeli polotok Gallipoli in prevzeli nadzor nad strateško pomembnimi Dardanelami, je propadel v množici ošabnosti, krvi in ​​trpljenja. Nahaja se tik ob ožini Dardanele iz znamenitega mesta Troy in je s svojimi klasičnimi podtoni ustvaril bogato mitologijo o "grozljivih posledicah" tistega, kar bi bilo mogoče doseči z "malo več sreče". Pristanek na plaži v Hellesu - prvi, ki je bil narejen proti sodobnim orožarskim sistemom - je videl neverjetno junaštvo in morje na plaži V obarval s krvjo.

Gallipoli je danes sinonim za dosežek avstralskega in novozelandskega korpusa (ANZAC) pri izklesanju majhnega mostišča pri zalivu Anzac. Ta labirint zapletenih jarkov in grebenov je za Avstralce še vedno svet.

A kljub vsemu je bila kampanja popoln neuspeh. Vprašanje je zakaj? Tu je pet možnih razlogov ...

Galipoljska kampanja je bila slabo zasnovana

Prva svetovna vojna se je ustavila, ko sta se ogromni vojski Nemčije in Francije na zahodni fronti leta 1914 spopadli s silo. Ko so decembra 1914 Osmanski Turki napadli Ruse v kavkaških gorah, je Rusija odšla k svojim zaveznikom in prosila za pomoč. Britanci so bili v celoti predani drugje, vendar je skupina politikov pod vodstvom Winstona Churchilla, takrat na Admiralitetu, poskušala pomagati Rusiji z napadom na polotoku Galipoli, ki je želel pridobiti nadzor nad ožino Dardanele, ki je ločevala Azijo in Evropo. To bi se lahko pohvalilo, da bi odstranilo enega od zaveznikov, ki "podpirajo" Nemčijo, vplivalo na nihanje balkanskih držav in odprlo morsko pot do ruskih črnomorskih pristanišč za izvoz streliva za prehrano ruskih pušk na vzhodni fronti.

Večina tega je bila neumnost. V Nemčijo ni bilo zaledja, lahke poti do zmage, nobenih zaveznikov, ki so jo podpirali. Nemčija je delovala po notranjih komunikacijskih linijah in tudi v primeru turškega poraza bi le pohitela z okrepitvijo, da bi okrepila svoje avstro -ogrske zaveznike.

Končno Velika Britanija ni imela dovolj streliva za svojo vojsko. Britanija se je morala boriti v vojni, saj vizionarji niso sanjali o tem. Nemške vojske so bile globoko v Franciji in Britanija ni mogla kar tako prepustiti svojega zaveznika njeni usodi. Prednost Zahodne fronte je pomenila, da galipoljski odpravi nikoli ni bilo mogoče dati dovolj ljudi in orožja, da bi imeli možnost uspeha. Kot takega se nikoli ne bi smelo začeti.

Miti o bitki pri Gallipoliju

Profesor Gary Sheffield izpodbija nekatere splošno uveljavljene domneve o tem neuspelem poskusu spreminjanja poteka prve svetovne vojne ...

Britanska vojska ni bila pripravljena

Britanska vojska leta 1915 še ni bila pripravljena na vojno. Za kampanjo v Galipolju ni bilo dovolj pištol ali granat, da bi imeli možnost, da bodo imeli proti turškim četam dobro izkopane bodeče žice, mitraljeze in topništvo. Uspeh je zahteval na stotine neobstoječih pušk, ki so jih izstrelili topniki, ki še niso bili usposobljeni, z uporabo kompleksnih topniških tehnik, ki še niso bile izumljene, in izstrelile na stotine tisoč granat, ki še niso bile izdelane. Zahtevala je pehotno taktiko, ki v žarišču bitke še ni bila boleče razvita, in podporno orožje, ki si ga še ne predstavljamo.

Gallipoli je delil pomanjkljivosti vsake kampanje, ki se je začela v tem slabem letu: pomanjkanje realnih ciljev, brez usklajenega načrta, uporaba neizkušenih vojakov, za katere bi bila to prva kampanja, pomanjkljivo razumevanje ali razširjanje zemljevidov in obveščevalnih podatkov, zanemarljivo topništvo podpora, popolnoma neustrezna logistična in zdravstvena ureditev, grobo podcenjevanje sovražnika, nesposobni lokalni poveljniki-vse to pa je bilo prekrivano z napadi napačno postavljenega zaupanja, ki je vodilo v neizprosno katastrofo.

Gallipoli je bil preklet, preden se je začel. Vsak dan je samo podaljšal agonijo in končal se je s tako katastrofo, da jo je lahko prikril le z hvalevrednim blestenjem.

Nižje vodstvo

Britanski poveljnik je bil general Sir Ian Hamilton, eden največjih britanskih vojakov. Ni bil norec, toda njegovi načrti za Galipoli so bili usodno preveč zapleteni. Izvedel je več napadov, od katerih je bil vsak odvisen od uspeha drug drugega, vendar je ostal osamljen, ko je šlo kaj narobe. Skratka, njegove sheme so bile popolnoma nerealne. Vse je moralo biti v redu, toda njegovi načrti so zahtevali neverjetne junaške podvige, surove čete bi morale delovati kot veterani, nesposobni podrejeni pa kot Napoleon. Njegovi načrti so predvsem zahtevali, da se Turki malo upirajo. Ko pristanek ni uspel, je krivil vse razen sebe.

»Za nami je bil roj škodljivih vplivov: naš generalštab v Franciji, načelnik cesarskega generalštaba Vojne pisarne, prvi morski gospodar Admiralitete, francoski kabinet in najbolje organiziran del britanskega tiska . Usoda je hotela tako. Zdi se, da sta šibka srca in slaba volja nekaj časa zaman žrtvovala Anzaca, Hellesa in Suvlo. Le mrtvi možje so to storili do zadnjega. " - General Sir Ian Hamilton

Hamiltonu je nasprotoval Nemec, general Otto Liman von Sanders. Stalni strokovnjak je Liman zadržal svoje rezerve, dokler ni vedel, kaj počnejo Britanci, preden so jih uničili. Res je imel srečo v enem od svojih podrejenih Turkov, polkovniku Mustafi Kemalu. Ko je Kemal 25. aprila vodil svoj 57. polk v boj proti Anzakom, so se njegove grozljive besede zapisale v legendo: »Ne ukazujem vam napadati - ukazujem vam, da umrete. V času, ki mine, dokler ne umremo, lahko na naše mesto pridejo druge čete in poveljniki. "

Ta nepremagljiv borilni duh je turške čete navdihnil do zmage.

Turki so bili izkušeni in dobro vodeni

Polkovnik Mustafa Kemal, ki je po vojni postal predsednik Kemal Atatürk, je povzel žrtev in odločnost, ki so ga njegovi rojaki pokazali v Gallipoliju. Dober del turških vojakov je imel nedavne izkušnje z boji v balkanskih vojnah 1912–13. Vsi pa so prišli iz države, kjer je bilo življenje težko. Ko so se borili za obrambo svoje domovine, so postali trdi in dobro disciplinirani vojaki.

"Toda pomislite na sovražnika, ki je pristal na obali Ari Burnu, opremljen z najnaprednejšo vojno mehanizacijo, [ti] so bili na splošno prisiljeni ostati na teh obalah. Naši častniki in vojaki, ki so z ljubeznijo do svoje domovine ter vero in junaštvom zaščitili vrata svojega glavnega mesta Carigrada pred tako močnim sovražnikom, so si pridobili pravico do statusa, na katerega smo lahko ponosni. Čestitam vsem pripadnikom bojnih enot pod mojim poveljstvom. Z globokim in večnim spoštovanjem se spominjam vseh, ki so žrtvovali svoja življenja ... « - polkovnik Mustafa Kemal

Nasprotno, večina britanskih zavezniških čet, razen britanske 29. divizije in dveh francoskih divizij, ni bila ustrezno usposobljena. Ni šlo za to, da Anzaki, rezervisti Kraljeve pomorske divizije, ozemlja in prva Kitchenerjeva nova vojska, zbrana leta 1914, le da še niso bili pripravljeni na vojno v tako neprizanesljivem okolju, kot je Galipoli. Turki so bili izkušeni in dobro vodeni. Odločeni so bili zmagati - in to so tudi storili.

To je bila logistična mora

Združeno kraljestvo je bilo oddaljeno približno 2000 milj, najbližje "pravo" oporišče pa je bilo Aleksandrija v Egiptu s svojimi prostornimi pomoli, žerjavi, vžigalniki, vlačilci in obilico delovne sile. Pa vendar je bilo od Aleksandrije do Galipolja skoraj 700 milj. Napredna baza Mudros na otoku Lemnos, približno 60 milj od Hellesa, je imela dobro naravno sidrišče. Toda to je bilo vse, kar je bilo ponujeno - pristanišč ni bilo. Da bi ga zgradili v vojaško oskrbovalno bazo, je bilo potrebno ogromno dela.

V Imbrosu je bilo napredno skladišče oskrbe, toda tudi takrat je bilo do polotoka Gallipoli še 15 milj odprtega morja, kjer je bilo treba na odprte plaže pristati vseh tisoč ton potrebnih živil in streliva. Vse, kar so imeli, so bili pomožni pomoli in ti so bili ob surovi moči morja efemerni. Vsak dan kampanje so na plaže padale turške lupine, kmalu pa so podmornice prikrivale podmornice.

Gallipoli je bila logistična mora, zaradi katere bi si vsak odgovorni uslužbenec štaba raztrgal lase. Kot metoda vojskovanja je bila norost.

Peter Hart je vojaški zgodovinar, specializiran za prvo svetovno vojno. Je avtor Gallipoli (Profil, 2011)


Biden Didn ni potreboval 100 dni, da bi zajebal Ameriko

Komaj čakam, kako bodo minili drugi 100 dni predsednikove funkcije predsednika Bidena.

Doslej je s koreninami raztrgal Trumpovo uspešno politiko priseljevanja, ustavil delo na steni in ustvaril super krizo na južni meji.

On in njegovi mojstri v kongresu se pripravljajo, da bodo bogatili in korporacije zajebali višje davke na dohodek in dobiček.

In ker se je na televiziji neumno strinjal z Georgeom Stephanopoulosom, da je Vladimir Putin & kvotni morilec, & quot; Putin se je razjezil in odpoklical ruskega veleposlanika.

Od prvega dne, ko je ukazal, naj se Keystone Pipeline zapre, je bil prvi ameriški vodja popolna katastrofa.

Konservativci nenehno kličejo valove nezakonitih tujcev, ki se vlivajo v Teksas in zajedajo naše objekte zadrževanja in krizo kvot. & Quot

V redu, ampak to je točno tisto, kar so povabili politika Bidena in priseljenskih skrajnežev.

Biden je v bistvu nezakonitim migrantom in prosilcem za azil povedal - & quotDon 't pridi zdaj. Nismo še pripravljeni. Nimamo dovolj kletk. Mislim na objekte - za 10.000 otrok brez spremstva in še vedno delamo na vašem brezplačnem zdravstvenem varstvu. & Quot

Bidenove napake na meji so obogatile kartele z mamili in trgovce z ljudmi ter odprle vrata teroristom z vsega sveta.

Poleg absurdnega obtoževanja Donalda Trumpa za nedavno invazijo priseljencev je prvih 60 dni na svoji funkciji zmanjšal čudež cepiva Trumpove administracije.

& quotOperacija Warp Speed ​​& quot je prekinila leta vladne birokracije in Big Pharma pripravila stotine milijonov odmerkov v rekordnem času.

Toda Biden si zasluži cepivo, kot sta ga s Kamalo lansko poletje razstrelila v svojem kletnem bunkerju.

Veste, kaj je Bidenin največji dosežek v vojni proti Covid-19 doslej?

Pokličete Moderno in Pfizer in rečete, da potrebujemo nekaj sto milijonov več odmerkov vaših cepiv.

Medtem je bilo to, kar je Biden Stephanopoulosu o Putinu povedal, neverjetno neumno, tudi za predsednika.

Očitno ni imel kartice z napisom z velikimi tiskanimi črkami z diplomatsko pravilnim odgovorom.

Torej, ko je razmišljal na nogah, je predsednik na hitro opozoril na krepost demokratov: ker predsednik Trump Putina ni nikoli neposredno označil za morilca, je Biden ugotovil, da mora.

Kaj je državi koristilo, če je Biden dejal, da je Putin morilec, čeprav je to? Nič dobrega.

Ronald Reagan je imel žalost, ker je Sovjetsko zvezo imenoval "Imperij zla", kar je bilo.

Toda moj oče Mihaila Gorbačova ni označil za morilca, FDR in Truman pa Stalina nista označila za množičnega morilca - ker ko to storite, se ne morete z njim usesti na konferenco na vrhu.

Po petih letih demokrati in polovica liberalnih medijev še vedno ne morejo izpustiti svojih hudičev dvojčkov, Putina in Rusije.

Kljub ničelnim dokazom se še vedno obnašajo, kot da je rusko vmešavanje v naše volitve nekaj novega, kar si je Trump nekako izmislil, da bi Hillary ukradel Belo hišo.

Toda vsak, ki ima zgodovinsko knjigo, ve, da nas Moskva vohuni in večno moti naše volitve.

Vse države si to počnejo med seboj, tudi svojim prijateljem. To počnejo vlade - in še huje.

Med hladno vojno je naša CIA ubijala tuje voditelje in rušila tuje vlade, dokler jim kongres ni rekel, da tega ne smejo več početi.

Ali Gvatemala, Vietnam in Iran zvonijo? Prašičji zaliv?

Kaj ljudje mislijo, da Amerika že dve desetletji počne v Iraku in Afganistanu - razdeljuje letake za kampanjo?

Biden ni samo zanič diplomat. V zgodovini je slab. Tako kot mnogi v teh dneh je očitno pozabil veliko zgodovine, ki jo je preživel in si jo pomagal ustvariti.

Ne bi smel skrbeti za "Ubijalca" za Putina in Rusijo, to je njegov kolega Kitajska.

To je komunistični pekel, ki je gradil svojo vojsko, uničil svobodo v Hongkongu, vohunil za Američani, se vmešal v vse kotičke sveta in dal muslimane v taborišča za prevzgojo.

Če res misli, da je revna, šibka Rusija še vedno naša največja grožnja, Biden ni več v stiku, kot smo vedeli.


Zakaj Rusija ni zasedla Kalifornije, ko je lahko? - Zgodovina

Avtor: LEONID RAGOZIN | Bloomberg | Objavljeno: 10. december 2016

Ura je 13. v Jekaterinburgu in polnoči v Los Angelesu, ko Louis Marinelli, vodja kalifornijskega gibanja, ki se je odcepilo od Združenih držav, sede na kosilo v Double Bar & amp Grill.

Jekaterinburg je prekrit s snegom in zmrzali pri 25 ° F, kar je bilo v primerjavi s -25,6 F prejšnji teden mehko. Četrto največje rusko mesto, na sibirski strani gora Ural, je približno tako daleč, kot ga lahko dobite iz LA-ja. Toda srce kampanje Da Kalifornija bije tukaj.

Kot predsednik Da California, Marinelli organizira državni referendum o neodvisnosti, ki bo potekal leta 2019, če bo do prihodnje jeseni zbral pol milijona podpisov. Gibanje odcepitve vodi od 6.000 milj daleč, medtem ko poučuje angleščino na jezikovni šoli v Jekaterinburgu. Pripravlja teren za & quotembassy of California & quot v Moskvi s pomočjo ostro protiameriške skupine. Avatar na svoji profesionalni Facebook strani prikazuje, kako pozira pred Voskresenskimi vrati, ki se odpirajo na Rdeči trg.

"Kalifornija je veliko bolj odprta, strpna družba, ki vključuje priseljence ali ljudi različne spolne usmerjenosti," je dejal Marinelli. Rojen in odraščal v ZDA, je dejal, da se je vedno imel za trdnega ameriškega domoljuba, v najstniških letih pa si je predstavljal in kvoto kariere služenja Združenim državam. neodvisna Kalifornija.

& quot; Čutil sem, da bomo tukaj lahko dosegli stvari, kot je reforma priseljenstva, priseljencem brez dokumentov dali pravni status, naredili vse druge progresivne stvari, ki sem jih podprl, & quot; je dejal, pri čemer je navedel tudi nadzor nad orožjem in univerzalno zdravstveno varstvo.

Kako se je torej zmešal s prokremaljsko skupino, imenovano Anti-globalistično gibanje Rusije?

Rusija je znana po tem, da se v Evropi udvara skrajnim desničarskim strankam proti ustanavljanju. Desni politiki z vse celine so redni obiskovalci Moskve, Krima, ki ga je Rusija zasedla leta 2014, in krajev Ukrajine, ki jih držijo uporniki, kjer trdijo, da med dvomljivimi volitvami in referendumi glasujejo & opazujejo kvote. Mediji, ki jih nadzirajo Rusi, prekrivajo radijske valove s pozitivnimi deli o trdo desničarskih strankah in povzročiteljih po vsej Evropi in v ZDA. Nazadnje je po podatkih ameriških obveščevalnih služb Kremelj prejšnji mesec poskušal dati glasovanje novoizvoljenemu predsedniku Donaldu Trumpu.

Toda Moskva ohranja tudi tesen stik z levičarskimi in secesionističnimi gibanji, ki nasprotujejo temu, kar vidijo kot globalno ameriško prevlado. Ta prizadevanja pomagajo Kremlju sejati razdor med ZDA in njihovimi evropskimi zavezniki ter razširjati njegovo sporočilo o vprašanjih, kot sta Ukrajina in Sirija, je pokazala nedavna študija (PDF) budimpeštanskega think tanka Political Capital, ki se je osredotočila na vpliv Rusije na skrajno levičarskih strank v Evropi.

Platforma Yes California, ki zaničuje tudi trgovinske dogovore in & quotubsubsidizing & quot revnejših držav ter zvezni obrambni proračun, je bila navdihnjena s škotskim gibanjem za neodvisnost, ki je na referendumu leta 2014 vodilo kampanjo pod geslom Yes Scotland in ni doseglo svojega cilja 5,4 %. . "Vzeli smo baklo," je dejal Marinelli.

Podpredsednik Yes California, Marcus Ruiz Evans, avtor knjige z naslovom Naslednje stoletje Kalifornije, vodi kampanjo na terenu v državi. Marinelli, ki se je septembra z rusko ženo Anastazijo deloma zaradi vizumov preselil v Rusijo, je dejal, da njegova kampanja ne prejema tujih sredstev, vse donacije pa prihajajo iz podpornikov v Kaliforniji prek spletne strani gibanja.

Kalifornijski separatisti so obrobno skupino po Trumpovi presenetljivi zmagi zajeli v središče pozornosti družbenih medijev. Številni volivci v liberalni in v veliki večini pro-Hillary Clinton zvezni državi so bili tako jezni, da so se odločili, da bi Kaliforniji, ki bi bila šestnajsto največje nacionalno gospodarstvo na svetu, če bi bila neodvisna, morda bolje.

Število ljudi, ki jim je bila všeč Facebook stran Yes California, se je z 11.000 pred volitvami povzpelo na 29.000 po njej. To je drobec volilnega telesa države, vendar ni nič. Kalifornijski republikanci imajo na svoji strani 43.000 všečkov, demokrati pa 40.000.

"Zapiramo se jim," je dejal Marinelli.

Zaradi ogorčenja nad izidom volitev je Da California vložila zahtevo pri državnem državnem tožilstvu za izvedbo referenduma leta 2019. Marinelli je dejal, da bo 14.000 privržencev, registriranih na spletnem mestu Yes California, pomagalo pri tem kot prostovoljci za kampanjo. Načrtuje se vrnitev v ZDA, ko se bo kampanja resno začela.

"Vzemite Kalifornijo iz Amerike in Donald Trump je zmagal," je dejal Marinelli. & quot; Verjamemo, da je država kot Titanik, in izvolitev Donalda Trumpa je enakovredna udarcu Titanika v ledeno goro. & quot

Odnos med Rusijo in Kalifornijo je bil pred vključitvijo države v Združene države, je dejal in se skliceval na rusko kolonijo Fort Ross na severu države. Utrdbo in okoliško ozemlje, ustanovljeno leta 1812, ko je bila še španska, so leta 1841. prodali švicarsko-ameriškemu podjetniku Johannu Sutterju. Zapuščina naselja vključuje ime druge največje reke države, Rusko reko in nekatere najzgodnejših vinogradov na severu. V Rusiji je ljubezenska zgodba med carjevim odposlancem in hčerko španskega guvernerja Kalifornije postala zaplet slavnega muzikala iz sovjetskih časov Yunona & amp Avos.

30 -letni Marinelli se je leta 2006, ko je prvič obiskal Rusijo, preselil v Kalifornijo iz New Yorka na poletni program izmenjave študentov z državno univerzo v Sankt Peterburgu, alma mater predsednika Vladimirja Putina. V naslednjih petih letih je zamenjal Kalifornijo in Rusijo, kjer je poučeval angleščino v mestih Samara in Kazan, nato pa se je leta 2011 z Anastazijo ustalil v San Diegu.

V ZDA se je boril proti istospolnim porokam in delal kot strateg za družbena omrežja pri Nacionalni organizaciji za poroko, konzervativni skupini. Če se je družil s protiprotestniki, je na koncu stopil na njihovo stran. Obstajali so tudi osebni razlogi za njegov razpad z ameriško desnico. Ujel se je v birokratsko močvirje nad rezidenco svoje ruske žene v ZDA in se razjezil zaradi retorike proti priseljencem, za katero je menil, da meji na odkrit rasizem. Navdušil se je nad stališči svoje posvojene države.

Kljub novemu liberalizmu je Marinelli glasoval za Trumpa. Z Berniejem Sandersom, kandidatom, ki ga je favoriziral, zunaj kandidature in Clinton, ki je zastopnik & quot; oligarhije & quot;, se je odločil, da Trump predstavlja pravo Ameriko-in da bodo njegove izvolitve & quot; krepile ljudi, da bi razumeli, da ne bi smeli biti del tega državo. & quot

Trump je kot koristni sovražnik pogled, ki ga Marinelli deli s svojimi ruskimi prijatelji. Deset dni po vrnitvi v Rusijo se je Marinelli udeležil letne konference Dialog of Nations, ki jo je v Moskvi organiziralo Antiglobalistično gibanje Rusije. Na konferenci so se udeležili predstavniki večinoma levičarskih separatističnih gibanj iz zahodne Evrope, ZDA in nekdanje Sovjetske zveze, ki je potekala v Ritz-Carltonu in je bila financirana s štipendijo 3,5 milijona rubljev (54.000 USD) Nacionalne dobrodelne fundacije

Nacionalna dobrodelna fundacija, ki se opisuje kot delujoča in pod pokroviteljstvom & quot; Putinove administracije, je ena od številnih ustanov, ki nevladnim organizacijam podeljujejo državna sredstva. Predstavnik fundacije ni želel po telefonu razpravljati o Antiglobalističnem gibanju Rusije in je namesto tega zahteval seznam pisnih vprašanj, ki jih pregleduje.

Antiglobalistično gibanje zagovarja skrajne oblike ruskega nacionalizma in imperializma ter podpira strateško vojaško posredovanje Kremlja v Siriji in Ukrajini. Njen vodja Aleksander Ionov sedi v upravnih odborih Antimaidana in častnikov Rusije, prokremaljskih skupin, ki želijo Rusijo očistiti liberalne opozicije. Leta 2013 se je Ionov srečal s sirskim predsednikom Basharjem Assadom in ga postavil za častnega člana gibanja. Drugi častni član je nekdanji iranski predsednik Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Stran gibanja na ruskem družbenem omrežju VKontakte se večkrat na dan posodobi z gradivi, ki razbijajo Baracka Obamo, Hillary Clinton, ukrajinsko vodstvo in sirsko opozicijo. Objava, objavljena pred volitvami v ZDA, kaže, da je Clinton odšel na vislico in rekel: "Pomagajte Trumpu in Putinu premagati čarovnico."

Ionov vidi, da novoizvoljeni predsednik Trump odpravlja sankcije, uvedene Rusiji po okupaciji Krima, v skladu z intervjujem za pravda.ru. Bolj nenavadno je, da objava z dne 14. novembra poziva Rusijo, naj vzame Aljasko, njeno nekdanje ozemlje, nazaj iz ZDA in zavzame Havaje, za katere avtor meni, da bi lahko postali "drugi krim Rusije", in navaja sporazum med enim od voditeljev Havajev in Ruski raziskovalec v 19.

Ionov's movement courts a number of secessionist groups in the U.S., including some in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida, whose representatives have attended its conferences in Moscow. Yes California is "closely coordinating" with the Texas Nationalist Movement, Marinelli said.

"We don't have an ambition to destroy America, but we stand for the rule of law and human rights," Ionov said. Asked whether the movement was in reaction to interference by Washington in Russian affairs-a thesis favored by the Kremlin-he said, without offering specifics, that some U.S. senators had entertained the idea of supporting separatist movements in Russian regions, but that he wasn't playing tit-for-tat. "This is not revenge," he said. "This is an adequate response to the aggression that comes from the U.S."

Asked about his Russian links, Marinelli cited the example of America's Founding Fathers seeking the support of France and other foreign powers during the War of Independence. Unlike Franklin and Washington, though, "we are not getting Russian Navy to blockade ports, we are not getting Russian soldiers in California, and we are not getting financial and intelligence support from Russia."

He laughs off the idea that Russia is trying to sow strife and division in the U.S. "If they want to divide America, then they are getting in late, because the country is already divided," he said.

Marinelli's Russian connection has created a schism, if not quite the Great Schism, in the breakaway movement with members of the California National Party, a group that is formally affiliated with Yes California but has publicly disavowed Marinelli as a Russian marionette. Silicon Valley investor and Hyperloop co-founder Shervin Pishevar briefly became another standard-bearer of "Calexit," as it come to be known, threatening Marinelli's virtual monopoly on the cause, but backed off, saying he didn't really support secession.

Marinelli calls the California National Party "spineless opportunists." Ionov and the Anti-Globalist Movement "support our right to self-determination," he said. "We may disagree on several issues, but if we have common ground on one issue, why shouldn't we have a dialogue?"

As for Russia's internal affairs, Marinelli said "every country has corruption and skeletons in the closet." Like the American president-elect he largely deplores, he admires Putin, who "knows what to do in order to make his country great again."

"I'd like to meet him someday," Marinelli said. "With the Russian and Californian flags behind us, perhaps."

The domes of St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow on Thursday, Nov. 10, 2016. The Yes California movement is hoping to establish an "embassy of California" in Moscow, with the help of a vehemently anti-American group in Russia.
ANDREY RUDAKOV/BLOOMBERG


Kaj je FDR zasebno rekel o Judih

Maja 1943 se je predsednik Franklin Roosevelt v Beli hiši sestal z britanskim premierjem Winstonom Churchillom. Bilo je 17 mesecev po Pearl Harborju in nekaj več kot eno leto pred dnevom D. Zavezniška voditelja sta pregledala dosedanja vojna prizadevanja in izmenjala razmišljanja o svojih načrtih za povojno dobo. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called “the best way to settle the Jewish question.”

Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) “to spread the Jews thin all over the world.” The diary entry adds: “The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that.”

Roosevelt’s “best way” remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR’s support for “spreading the Jews thin” may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government’s tepid response to the Holocaust.

Here’s the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.

Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn’t the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.

Every president’s policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt’s case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.

Leta 1923 se je Roosevelt kot član upravnega odbora Harvarda odločil, da je na fakulteti preveč judovskih študentov, in pomagal uvesti kvoto, da bi omejili število sprejetih. Leta 1938 je zasebno predlagal, da Judje na Poljskem prevladujejo v gospodarstvu in so zato krivi za provociranje antisemitizma. Leta 1941 je na seji vlade opozoril, da je med zveznimi uslužbenci v Oregonu preveč Judov. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions “should be definitely limited” so as to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.”

There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff” expressing (to a senator ) his pride that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins” and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as “a dirty Jewish trick.” But the most common theme in Roosevelt’s private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were “overcrowding” many professions and exercising undue influence.

This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR’s views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular. In one 1920 interview, he complained about immigrants “crowding” into the cities and said “the remedy for this should be the distribution of aliens in various parts of the country.” In a series of articles for the Macon (Ga.) Daily Telegraph and for Asia magazine in the 1920s, he warned against granting citizenship to “non-assimilable immigrants” and opposed Japanese immigration on the grounds that “mingling Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.” He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had “blood of the right sort.”

FDR’s decision to imprison thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II was consistent with his perception of Asians as having innate racial characteristics that made them untrustworthy. Likewise, he apparently viewed with disdain what he seemed to regard as the innate characteristics of Jews. Admitting significant numbers of Jewish or Asian immigrants did not fit comfortably in FDR’s vision of America.

Other U.S. presidents have made their share of unfriendly remarks about Jews. A diary kept by Harry Truman included statements such as “The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish.” Richard Nixon’s denunciations of Jews as “very aggressive and obnoxious” were belatedly revealed in tapes of Oval Office conversations.

But the revelation of Franklin Roosevelt’s sentiments will probably shock many people. After all, he led America in the war against Hitler. Moreover, Roosevelt’s public persona is anchored in his image as a liberal humanitarian, his claim to care about “the forgotten man,” the downtrodden, the mistreated. But none of that can change the record of his response to the Holocaust.

The observance of Holocaust Memorial Day begins Sunday night. It is the annual occasion to reflect on the Nazi genocide and the world’s response to it. In the case of the United States, it is sobering to consider that partly because of Roosevelt’s private prejudices, innocent people who could have been saved were instead abandoned.

Rafael Medoff is the founding director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington. His latest book is “FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith."Medoff will speak Sunday at the Holocaust Memorial Day service at the Alpert Jewish Community Center in Long Beach.

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

Občasno lahko od Los Angeles Timesa prejmete promocijsko vsebino.


Why didn't Russia seize California when it could? - Zgodovina

President Barack Obama has been vocal in his opposition to Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin’s military intervention in Ukraine. Focus has shifted from the new government in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, to Crimea, a region Russian troops seized control of Saturday.

Meanwhile, politicians and pundits are divided over what the United States’ role should be in the conflict. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius criticized Putin’s actions on Face the Nation, saying Ukraine "is not prepared to go backwards" to a Russian regime. He then offered up some context about Crimea’s history.

"Crimea became part of Ukraine only in 1954," he said. "Crimea was historically part of Russia, and (Nikita) Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine in a gesture that mystified some people."

Ignatius was correct in saying that Ukraine has only controlled the Crimean Peninsula since 1954 -- a claim we also heard from U.S. Rep. Mike Roger, R-Mich., on Fox News nedelja. Not up on your Soviet history? We’ll review the facts.

Crimea is an eastern Ukrainian peninsula located on the Black Sea. It’s connected to the rest of the country by a small strip of land. Out of its 2 million residents, about 60 percent identify as Russian. That’s the highest concentration of Russian speakers in Ukraine. Although the territory belongs to Ukraine, Russia stations part of its Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol as part of a pre-existing agreement between the two countries.

As Ignatius pointed out, Crimea hasn’t always been part of Ukraine. Here’s a quick rundown of what’s happened in the region since the Ottoman Empire used the peninsula as a hub for slave trade.

1783: Russia annexed Crimea.

1853: The Crimean War began, lasting three years. Russia lost to an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain and Sardinia. Crimea remained part of Russia.

1917: Crimea briefly became a sovereign state before becoming a base for the White Army of anti-Bolshevik forces in the Russian War.

1921: The peninsula, now called the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, became part of the Soviet Union.


Why did Russia sell Alaska to the United States?

A petition calling for Russia&rsquos annexation of Alaska that was posted on the White House website gathered more than 35,000 signatures before it was canceled. Many people still think that the Americans either stole Alaska from the Russians or leased it and did not return it. Despite the widespread myths, the deal was an honest one, and both sides had valid reasons to make it.

Alaska before the sale

In the 19th century, Russian Alaska was a center of international trade. In the capital, Novoarkhangelsk (now known as Sitka), merchants traded Chinese fabrics, tea and even ice, which the southern United States needed before the invention of the refrigerator. Ships and factories were built, and coal was mined. People already knew about the numerous gold deposits in the area. Selling this land seemed like madness.

Russian merchants were drawn to Alaska for the walrus ivory (it was as expensive as elephant ivory) and the valuable sea otter fur, which could be procured by trading with the indigenous peoples of the region. Trading was done by the Russian-American Company (RAC), which was started by adventurers &mdash 18th-century Russian businessmen, courageous travelers and entrepreneurs. The company controlled all of Alaska&rsquos mines and minerals, it could independently enter into trade agreements with other countries, and it had its own flag and currency &mdash leather &ldquomarks&rdquo.

These privileges were granted to the company by the imperial government. The government not only collected massive taxes from the company, it also owned a large part of it &mdash the tsars and their family members were among the RAC&rsquos shareholders.

The Russian Pizarro

The main ruler of the Russian settlements in America was the talented merchant Alexander Baranov.

Alexander Baranov. Source:GettyImages/Fotobank

He built schools and factories, taught the native people to plant rutabaga and potatoes, built fortresses and shipyards, and expanded the sea otter trade. Baranov called himself the &ldquoRussian Pizarro&rdquo and took a liking to Alaska not only with his purse, but also with his heart &mdash he married the daughter of an Aleut chief.

Under Baranov, the RAC brought in enormous revenue: more than 1,000 percent profit. When an ageing Baranov resigned his duties, he was replaced by the captain lieutenant Hagemeister, who brought with him new employees and shareholders from military circles. Statute now dictated that only naval officers could lead the company. The strongmen quickly appropriated the profitable business, but it was their actions that ruined the company.

Filthy lucre

The new masters set astronomical salaries for themselves &mdash common officers earned 1,500 rubles per year (this was comparable to the salaries of ministers and senators), while the head of the company earned 150,000 rubles. They bought fur from the local population for half price. As a result, over the next 20 years, the Eskimos and Aleuts killed almost all the sea otters, depriving Alaska of its most profitable trade. The native people suffered and staged uprisings that the Russians quashed by firing on the coastal villages from military ships.

The officers began to look for other sources of revenue. Hence the trade in ice and tea began, but the ill-fortuned businessmen could not organize this sensibly either, and lowering their salaries was unthinkable. Consequently, the RAC was transferred to state subsidies &mdash 200,000 rubles per year. But even this did not save the company.

A check in the amount of $7.2 million, for the purchase of Alaska. Source: Getty Images

Then the Crimean War broke out, and Britain, France and Turkey stood against Russia. It became clear that Russia could neither supply nor defend Alaska &mdash the sea routes were controlled by the allies&rsquo ships. Even the prospect of mining gold dimmed. There was a fear that the British might block Alaska, and then Russia would be left with nothing.

Tensions between Moscow and London grew, while relations with the American authorities were warmer than ever. Both sides almost simultaneously came up with the idea of selling Alaska. So Baron Eduard de Stoeckl, Russia&rsquos envoy in Washington, opened talks with U.S. secretary of state William Seward on behalf of the tsar.

The Russian flag refuses to come down

While the bureaucrats were negotiating, public opinion in both countries opposed the deal. &ldquoHow can we give away land that we have put so much effort and time into developing, land where the telegraph has arrived and where gold mines have been found?&rdquo the Russian newspapers wrote. &ldquoWhy does America need this &lsquoice box&rsquo and 50,000 wild Eskimos who drink fish oil for breakfast?&rdquo the American press asked indignantly.

The press was not alone in this sentiment &mdash Congress also disapproved of the purchase. But on March 30, 1867, in Washington, D.C., the parties signed the agreement to sell 1.5 million hectares of Russian property in America for $7.2 million, or about 2 cents per acre ($4.74/km2) &mdash a purely symbolic sum. At that time, an unproductive plot of land in Siberia with the same surface area could have cost 1,395 times as much on the domestic market.But the situation was critical &mdash the Russians risked not even receiving this.

The official handover of the land occurred in Novoarkhangelsk. The American and Russian soldiers lined up next to the flagpole, from which the Russian flag started its descent to the accompaniment of a canon salute. However, the flag got tangled at the top of the pole. The sailor who climbed up for it threw it down, and it accidentally landed on Russian bayonets. It was a bad omen! Afterward, the Americans started requisitioning the buildings of the town, which was renamed Sitka. Several hundred Russians who decided not to take American citizenship had to evacuate on merchant ships, and they did not reach home until the following year.

A short time passed, and gold started flowing from the &ldquoice box&rdquo: The Klondike gold rush started in Alaska, bringing the States hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course it was insulting. But it is impossible to know how relations between the world&rsquos largest powers would have developed if Russia had not escaped in time from the problematic and unprofitable region, which only talented and courageous merchants, but not navy bureaucrats, could extract revenue from.


10 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Pistachios

In honor of National Pistachio Day, let's celebrate the versatility of this amazing nut with ten bizarre, yet surprising facts you may not have known about the pistachio.

Pistachios are nature’s super nut. What other food can bring happiness, warm your soul, fuel a town and get a mention in the Bible? The pistachio can do it all. In honor of National Pistachio Day, let’s celebrate the versatility of this amazing nut with ten bizarre, yet surprising facts you may not have known about the pistachio.

1. Pistachios Were Once Considered Exclusively The Food Of Royalty

Ja. Because look how regal they are! Photo: Ruth Hartnup / Flickr

Legend has it that the Queen of Sheba declared pistachios were only to be enjoyed by royalty, even decreeing that it was illegal for commoners to grow pistachio trees, which we can all agree is just rude. They say the Queen even took her country’s entire harvest of pistachios for her and her royal court.

2. Mangos Are Distant Cousins Of Pistachios

From this angle, I can kind of see it. Photo: Mattie Hagedorn / Flickr

Personally, I don’t see the resemblance, but it’s true. Both mangos and pistachios come from the evergreen tree family. Their other weird relative? Poison Ivy. Those family parties must be pretty weird.

3. People Used To Eat The Tree Pitch Of Pistachio Trees

The original ‘giving tree.’ Photo: @mrsfawhittaker / Instagram

During the 17th century, pistachio trees were known in the Ukraine as “pitch trees” because they believed eating the tree’s pitch (which is kind of like a sap) would freshen your breath. Who needs mouthwash when you have pistachio trees, am I right?

4. Hearing The Crack Of A Pistachio Shell Is Considered Good Luck

Someone’s about to get lucky. Photo: @joanrpnzl / Instagram

In many countries, such as Israel and Russia, hearing the cracking of the pistachio nut was viewed as a very good omen. And in the Middle East specifically, they regarded the sound as an omen for a happy relationship. So naturally couples would meet under pistachio trees, waiting around for those nuts to assure them that their relationship was going to be a successful one. No judgment here.

5. People From India Believe Pistachios Are Capable Of Warming The Soul – Literally

I feel warmer just looking at them. Photo: @myfuturebakery / Instagram

Looking to cut down on your heating bill this winter? Pistachios could be your answer. In India, during the coldest winter months, people will binge on pistachios, which they call the “hot nut”. They believe that pistachios quite literally have the ability to warm a person from the inside out.

6. Pistachios Are One Of The Oldest Flowering Trees In The World.

#Ageless. Photo: @t.halling / Instagram

It’s thought that pistachios have been snacked upon for about 9,000 years, making the pistachio tree one of the world’s oldest surviving tree species. That being said, it should come as no surprise that…

7. Pistachios Are One Of Only Two Nuts Mentioned In The Bible

Garden of Eden, anyone? Photo: @pistachos_nazaries / Instagram

That’s right, they’re biblical. Pistachios are thought to have been one of the foods that Adam brought with him to Earth (Genesis 43:11) and, therefore, grew in the Garden of Eden. The only other nut to get a cameo in this bestseller? The almond.

8. Harvested Poorly, Pistachios Can Be Deadly.

Test tube baby trees done right! Photo: @marita_bonita / Instagram

On a darker note, pistachios that are not processed or harvested properly are not suitable for human consumption.

Aflatoxin, a chemical which can cause cancerous mold, has been found in some mistreated pistachios and has led to breakouts of disease in some parts of the world. Sometimes, if not caught soon enough, these pistachios can be fatal.

9. Red Pistachios Are A Total Sales Ploy

Nice dye job. Photo: @caresgomez / Instagram

If you don’t remember red pistachios, here’s a quick history lesson –until the 1980s, pistachios were typically a bright red – something U.S. vendors did to make them more appealing.

Traditional harvesting methods overseas made pistachio shells look blotchy – which was unappetizing for the American consumer. So pistachios were dyed red to hide their appearance until about 30 years ago.

10. In 2014, Turkey Started Plans To Fuel A Town Entirely On Pistachio Shells.

Think of all the pistachios you’d get to eat in the process! Photo: @simijois / Instagram

What do you do with all those leftover pistachio shells? Turkey has the right idea. In 2014, the country revealed plans to start the first ever eco-city, which would run entirely off pistachio shells.

The shells would get cooked in a digester, and the gases produced as a result (mostly methane gas) would theoretically fuel the town. The plans are still underway to see if this plan is plausible and we’re crossing our fingers for this pistachio-fueled town.


By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

Simultaneously, the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team in Italy and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany would join NATO forces to head to the fight.

They, alongside NATO forces, would face as many as 22 maneuver warfare battalions that Russia has in its Western Military District along NATO’s border.

Reports cite a window of 36 to 60 hours for Russian forces to reach and begin siege operations on Tallinn and Riga, the capitals of Estonia and Latvia.

“Quality light forces, like the U.S. airborne infantry that the NATO players typically deploy into Riga and Tallinn, can put up stout resistance when dug into urban terrain. But the cost of mounting such a defense to the city and its residents is typically very high,” said a 2016 RAND study on deterring Russia.

/>U.S. Army paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division parachute from a C-17 Globemaster during a Joint Operational Access Exercise mission, Camp Mackall, N.C., June 26, 2013. (Airman 1st Class Cory D. Payne/Air Force)

The Army’s 173rd recognized its own weaknesses if thrust into combat with Russia, according to internal review documents, as reported by Politico.

The report states GPS communications would be disabled easily and quickly, forcing troops to rely on rusty high frequency radio communication skills. The brigade also has limited air defense or electronic warfare units.

NATO forces, especially armor brigades in Poland, would have to cross the Kaliningrad corridor, wedged between where Poland’s border meets Lithuania and hedged on each side by Russian territory and Belarus.

Meanwhile, the Russians could carry out previous promises to attack Polish missile defense systems.

Incremental invasions of small areas of Baltic territory may or may not provoke a NATO response. But, experts agree, an attack on Poland would.

The current two U.S. Army armored brigade combat teams in Europe would race to the fight but be outgunned and likely destroyed quickly.

“A good example is the upgunned Stryker,” said retired Army Col. Doug Macgregor, referring to the new Strykers that are outfitted with a 30mm cannon. “That would be fine on the Mexican border. That formation will be gone in 10 minutes against the Russians.”

A Russian strike through Belarus into the Baltics would be so “quick and overwhelming” that, “like with Crimea,” NATO would have to accept that those states are now in the Russian orbit, said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales.

“I think it’s very easy to consider a scenario where small units of NATO forces, to include American forces, could in fact be overwhelmed in the event of an attack,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Richard Nash, a former commander in Bosnia.

During recent war games, NATO tried to use indigenous forces to assist — “the outcome was, bluntly, a disaster for NATO,” according the RAND study.

NATO infantry was unable to retreat and was destroyed in place.

U.S. land forces, accustomed to air and sea dominance, would face Russian interference with their support and could be on their own for hours, days, and even weeks at a time.

“What cannot get there in time are the kinds of armored forces required to engage their Russian counterparts on equal terms, delay their advance, expose them to more frequent and more effective attacks from air and land-based fires, and subject them to spoiling counterattacks,” according to the RAND study.

While Atlantic-based Navy assets would be ready to engage, naval experts say Russian maritime maneuvering, along with their allies, will be able to delay and tie up the Navy elsewhere.

“We can hardly pull the entire Navy out of the Pacific to do battle in Europe, lest we sacrifice our Asian alliances along with stakes of immense value,” said James Holmes, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College.

China and Iran’s navies could keep major parts of the U.S. Navy bogged down away from Western Europe.

Russian submarines would slow down seaborne reinforcements to the Baltics, Holmes said. The port of Sevastopol, Crimea, gives Russia a staging area for “anti-access” weapons in the Black Sea, Holmes said.

“In short, it could make the Black Sea into a Russian lake — safeguarding that maritime flank,” he said.

/>A man watches Russian military jets performing on Aug. 12, 2017, in Alabino, outside Moscow, Russia. The Russian military says major war games, the Zapad (West) 2017 maneuvers, set for next month will not threaten anyone. (Pavel Golovkin/AP)

The Norwegian government has approved six-month rotations of roughly 300 Marines in Norway through 2018.

In the event of a war with Russia, pre-positioned stockpiles would supply a force of 15,000 for 30 days of fighting and would likely provide the footprint for a larger force of Marines, said Keir Giles, a Russia expert with the Chatham House policy institute in London.

“We shouldn’t see this small contingent . in Norway as a deterrent: It is simply providing a capability for rapid expansion, should it be necessary,” Giles said.

While soldiers, Marines and some pre-positioned equipment could be flown in within days or weeks to reinforce fighting in the Baltics, armor and other heavy items must come aboard ship.

The conflict could stall there, depending on the reaction of NATO forces and its strategic willingness.

Or, fighting could expand. A delay gives Russia time to consolidate its gains, making NATO go on the offensive in one of the more difficult kinds of fighting — regaining lost territory.

“God knows whether you could manage the conflict to bring about a ceasefire and a withdrawal or whether it would go larger,” Nash said.


Russia Is Going to Try to Clone an Army of 3,000-Year-Old Scythian Warriors

When you hold a job like Defense Minister of Russia, you presumably have to be bold and think outside the box to protect your country from enemy advances. And with his latest strategic idea&mdashcloning an entire army of ancient warriors&mdashSergei Shoigu is certainly taking a big swing.

➡ You think science is badass. So do we. Let&rsquos nerd out over it together.

In an online session of the Russian Geographical Society last month, Shoigu, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggested using the DNA of 3,000-year-old Scythian warriors to potentially bring them back to life. Yes, really.

First, some background: The Scythian people, who originally came from modern-day Iran, were nomads who traveled around Eurasia between the 9th and 2nd centuries B.C., building a powerful empire that endured for several centuries before finally being phased out by competitors. Two decades ago, archaeologists uncovered the well-preserved remains of the soldiers in a kurgan, or burial mound, in the Tuva region of Siberia.

Because of Tuva&rsquos position in southern Siberia, much of it is permafrost, meaning a form of soil or turf that always remains frozen. It&rsquos here where the Scythian warrior saga grows complex, because the frozen soil preserves biological matter better than other kinds of ground. Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu knows this better than anyone, because he&rsquos from Tuva.

&ldquoOf course, we would like very much to find the organic matter and I believe you understand what would follow that,&rdquo Shoigu told the Russian Geographical Society. &ldquoIt would be possible to make something of it, if not Dolly the Sheep. In general, it will be very interesting.&rdquo

Shoigu subtly suggested going through some kind of human cloning process. But is that even possible?

To date, no one has cloned a human being. But scientists imeti successfully executed the therapeutic cloning of individual kinds of cells and other specific gene-editing work, and of course, there are high-profile examples of cloning pretty complex animals. Earlier this year, for example, scientists cloned an endangered U.S. species for the first time: a black-footed ferret whose donor has been dead for more than 30 years.

So, why are humans still off the menu?

Blame a technical problem with the most common form of cloning, which is called nuclear transfer. In this process, a somatic cell (like a skin or organ cell, with a specific established purpose in the body) has its nucleus carefully lifted out, and this nucleus is deposited in an oocyte, or egg cell, with svoje nucleus carefully removed. It&rsquos like a blank template waiting to have a new nucleus swapped in.

&ldquoFrom a technical perspective, cloning humans and other primates is more difficult than in other mammals,&rdquo the National Institutes of Health&rsquos (NIH) National Human Genome Research Institute says on its website:

You might remember spindle proteins from your mitosis diagrams back in high school biology. And while there&rsquos a relatively easy way around this problem, it&rsquos almost moot when cloning humans is considered extremely taboo in most of the world. In some places, it&rsquos also explicitly illegal.

&ldquoWe would like very much to find the organic matter and I believe you understand what would follow that.&rdquo

Curiously, the U.S. hasn&rsquot banned the gene editing of embryos. But the NIH doesn&rsquot fund research on the practice, and places like in-vitro clinics aren&rsquot allowed to do any non-U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved manipulation of embryos under any circumstances.

That example starts to illustrate why the problem is so complex&mdashbecause a lot of cutting-edge genetic medicine is walking right up to the line without crossing it. Making laws that address full human embryo cloning, then, requires a jigsaw puzzle of careful language that doesn&rsquot rule out these kinds of therapeutic cloning.

But let&rsquos say Russia ignores all legality in favor of Shoigu&rsquos big plans. In that case, scientists would have to develop a way to lift out the human nucleus without damaging the cell beyond repair.

Scientists have cloned certain monkeys, so primates are at least hypothetically still in the mix, despite the spindle proteins. But the success rate even for non-primate clones is already very low&mdashit took Dolly the sheep&rsquos research team 277 attempts to get a viable embryo.

And what if all of to went perfectly? Well, the Scythians were powerful warriors and gifted horsemen, but scientists&mdashor the Kremlin&mdashmust carefully monitor a cloned baby version of a deceased adult warrior for illnesses and other prosaic childhood problems. Who will raise these children? Who will be legally responsible for their wellbeing?

Shoigu may envision a future race of extremely capable fighters, but . that&rsquos at least 20 years away, with an added coin flip on nature versus nurture. After all, the Scythian warriors didn&rsquot have plumbing, let alone smartphones. This is a whole new world.


Poglej si posnetek: Jak by vypadalo, kdyby Česko napadlo Rusko?