|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you don't believe in NATO at all then? I believe it served a tremendously important purpose during the Cold War, and I think if it had transitioned to a purely peacekeeping organization, a la its role in Kosovo, it would continue to be relevant. But the fact that it never really has given up its "Contain Russia" mission has only fanned the tensions between the West and Russia. quote:Look, the whole reason Russia was scared of Ukraine joining NATO in the first place is Ukraine in NATO meaning they can't push it around the way they want to. I'm sure that's part of it, but another part of it is that they just don't want an anti-Russian government armed by NATO right on their borders. It's hard to blame them - as others have pointed out, the US wouldn't stand for a China-aligned, Beijing-armed, anti-US Mexico on its border.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
Majorian posted:But like I said, that's a big part of the reason for why neither Ukraine nor Georgia is a NATO member in the first place. Nobody wants to go to war with Russia over Eastern Ukraine. So why continue to loudly pursue a policy of making them members when A, it's not going to happen anytime soon, and B, it worsens tensions in the region already? Nobody is loudly pursuing a policy of making them members. Everybody knows Ukraine is decades away from being eligible to join, so it's all just so much posturing. The US's consistent position is that Ukraine is free to apply for membership whenever it is ready, rather than telling them they'll never be allowed to join whatever they do. If Russia doesn't like that, then tough poo poo for them is also the deliberate message.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
I still find the China-Mexico counterfactual to be ridiculous, if only because it doesn't make sense, but also Mexico has spent something like the past seven years in bloody civil war and at no point did it get floated "Hmm, guess it is time to conquer Puerto Penasco as a lot of Americans live there and it is a great vacation spot."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But the fact that it never really has given up its "Contain Russia" mission has only fanned the tensions between the West and Russia. Gee, I'm wondering why this was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Nobody is loudly pursuing a policy of making them members. I just posted a quote of John Kerry saying that the US wants to do this with Georgia. Here it is again: quote:Since Russia first occupied Crimea last month, Georgian officials have been encouraged by Congress, the State Department and NATO leadership to further integrate with NATO. John Kerry announced further U.S. assistance “to help support Georgia’s European and Euro-Atlantic vision” and expressed his hope that Georgia would sign a partnership agreement with NATO this year. These sentiments were expressed personally to Georgian Prime Minister Garibashvili during his trip to Washington, D.C. last month. quote:Everybody knows Ukraine is decades away from being eligible to join, so it's all just so much posturing. The US's consistent position is that Ukraine is free to apply for membership whenever it is ready, rather than telling them they'll never be allowed to join whatever they do. Taking such a policy isn't worth making more of an adversary of Russia, especially when we need their cooperation on so many other vital issues worldwide. Berke Negri posted:I still find the China-Mexico counterfactual to be ridiculous, if only because it doesn't make sense, but also Mexico has spent something like the past seven years in bloody civil war and at no point did it get floated "Hmm, guess it is time to conquer Puerto Penasco as a lot of Americans live there and it is a great vacation spot." I know, it'll never happen, but just suspend disbelief for a second. Or, if you can't, imagine the US had another neighbor besides Mexico and Canada, and that it suddenly aligned itself with China, got armed by China, and elected a very anti-US government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I believe it served a tremendously important purpose during the Cold War, and I think if it had transitioned to a purely peacekeeping organization, a la its role in Kosovo, it would continue to be relevant. But the fact that it never really has given up its "Contain Russia" mission has only fanned the tensions between the West and Russia. No, answer the question dude. You're claiming NATO doesn't defend anything, you don't get to back that up by saying "well it's outlived its usefulness" especially since it hasn't, as Russia is literally invading countries. The "tensions" with Russia have been fanned solely by Russia being led for over 10 years by the same violent expansionist guy. But look what they got: an actually straight up anti-Russian government soon to be armed by at least some members of NATO on their doorstep. That's what loving happens when you seize one chunk of a country and have an ongoing mission trying to seize another chunk. All Russia had to do to not have anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine was to not, essentially, act like Russia has been acting towards Ukraine. Deteriorata posted:Nobody is loudly pursuing a policy of making them members. Everybody knows Ukraine is decades away from being eligible to join, so it's all just so much posturing. The US's consistent position is that Ukraine is free to apply for membership whenever it is ready, rather than telling them they'll never be allowed to join whatever they do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Italy was in NATO from day 1. Italy has absolutely no territory touching the Atlantic, northern or otherwise. You can arguably say the Mediterranean is part of the Northern Hemisphere Atlantic waters. Not so with Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I just posted a quote of John Kerry saying that the US wants to do this with Georgia. Here it is again: That's not loudly promoting it! That's him saying "yeah we'd love if they joined". Notice how there's no forcing going on? McDowell posted:You can arguably say the Mediterranean is part of the Northern Hemisphere Atlantic waters. Not so with Georgia. The point is North Atlantic Treaty Organization simply refers to the fact they didn't want to call it the gently caress Commies Organization, and European Defense Organization or something similar was considered not appropriate as half of Europe was the Enemy at the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I just posted a quote of John Kerry saying that the US wants to do this with Georgia. Here it is again: And the article you posted says in its very first line that Obama says it ain't happening, whatever anybody else says. Somehow that doesn't come across as particularly forceful pushing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
So in Majorian-Reality Russia simultaneously believes that: A) NATO is a paper tiger unwilling to go to war over its minor members at the Russian border. It is sure enough about this point that it is willing to bully and even attack them. B) NATO is a major threat because it is expanding to include minor members at the Russian border. So why does Russia give a flying gently caress if NATO expands to include Georgia if Russia also knows that NATO would be unwilling to support a NATO Georgia against Russian aggression. An event that would destroy NATO's legitimacy overnight. Is Russia trying to protect NATO from destroying itself? Edit: Of course in Majorian-reality he also thinks the Russian government opposed the ABM site in Eastern Europe because it was going to be a covert first strike MIRV IRBM site because you see kinetic kill vehicles would never work against ballistic missiles. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, answer the question dude. You're claiming NATO doesn't defend anything, I didn't say that. I just said that the willingness to defend Ukraine against Russia isn't there. Sorry if that's vexing to you, but it's pretty manifestly true. quote:You're claiming NATO doesn't defend anything, you don't get to back that up by saying "well it's outlived its usefulness" especially since it hasn't, as Russia is literally invading countries. You're leaving out the fact that NATO's continued expansion eastward is one of the big reasons why Russia is invading countries. quote:All Russia had to do to not have anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine was to not, essentially, act like Russia has been acting towards Ukraine. Once again - I'm not defending Russia. I'm pointing out that NATO hosed up in its policy towards Russia and Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:So in Majorian-Reality Russia simultaneously believes that: Where are you getting that I think Russia believes this? Deteriorata posted:And the article you posted says in its very first line that Obama says it ain't happening, whatever anybody else says. Somehow that doesn't come across as particularly forceful pushing. Which statement do you think Russia is going to believe is true? Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Once again - I'm not defending Russia. I'm pointing out that NATO hosed up in its policy towards Russia and Ukraine. Once again - everybody is telling you that your definition of "hosed up" is really dumb. NATO didn't actually do anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I didn't say that. I just said that the willingness to defend Ukraine against Russia isn't there. Sorry if that's vexing to you, but it's pretty manifestly true. Of course the willingness isn't there. Ukraine isn't in NATO. But you claimed they wouldn't defend it if it was in NATO. Explain yourself. Wrong, Russia is invading countries because they are led by a war-loving rear end in a top hat. If you aren't defending Russia then you have a serious problem writing out your thoughts. Also, you're claiming to point out something that's manifestly untrue - NATO's policy is that Ukraine and Georgia aren't ready to join NATO soon. This has been NATO's policy since the early 90s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Yeah, this can factually be linked to the EU loving up which should be no surprise. NATO is an after the fact buy-in to bring US into Maidan so that it is an appropriate great powers struggle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Which statement do you think Russia is going to believe is true? Please show how any of the statements included is a pushing Georgia to join anything, ever. If your argument is that Russia will make up a thing to oppose, then you should realize that Russia can do that no matter what anyone says!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Once again - everybody is telling you that your definition of "hosed up" is really dumb. NATO didn't actually do anything. NATO hasn't done anything because Germany and France won't let it. The US, on the other hand, has even pushed for Georgia to be able to bypass the MAP: quote:Georgia’s supporters had resisted the “all elements” reference in the run-up to Chicago, but could not block it. The US, some other supporters of Georgia in NATO, and Tbilisi itself take the position that MAP must not be deemed indispensable or obligatory. However desirable in itself, MAP can be substituted by the existing, NATO-approved mechanisms: NATO-Georgia Commission and Annual National Plan (ANP), both operating since 2008. Although initially designed as a partial consolation for the MAP denial, the Commission and ANP can be upgraded to fulfill MAP’s functions in promoting inter-operability and conducting performance reviews. Nintendo Kid posted:Of course the willingness isn't there. Ukraine isn't in NATO. But you claimed they wouldn't defend it if it was in NATO. Explain yourself. It would at the very least be a political fiasco for Europe's and the US' leaders. Nobody wants to spend the money or risk the lives necessary to face off against Russia, especially if it's over a region those country's citizens have probably never even heard of. quote:Wrong, Russia is invading countries because they are led by a war-loving rear end in a top hat. You're being willfully ignorant. Russia is invading countries because it feels its security is being threatened. e: Thomas Graham says it better than I could: quote:Tellingly, throughout this crisis, no prominent Western leader has seen it fit to make a major address to explain what is at stake in Ukraine and to request significant sacrifices to advance Western goals. Indeed, it was the upsurge of public outrage over the downing of Flight MH17 and the desecration of the crash site that compelled reluctant European Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:NATO hasn't done anything because Germany and France won't let it. The US, on the other hand, has even pushed for Georgia to be able to bypass the MAP: A suggestion was raised, and promptly denied. Why do you keep hyping it up? You just keep proving the US isn't able to exercise unilateral will in NATO, proving NATO does not constitute a real threat to a peaceful Russia. Majorian posted:It would at the very least be a political fiasco for Europe's and the US' leaders. Nobody wants to spend the money or risk the lives necessary to face off against Russia, especially if it's over a region those country's citizens have probably never even heard of. It wouldn't be a fiasco because the invasion wouldn't happen, because Russia isn't suicidal enough to risk being at war with 70% of the world's military spending. Why don't you get this. If Russia really thought NATO wouldn't lift a finger for countries, then they would have absolutely no reason to be afraid of its expansion. Your premises contradict each other inherently. Majorian posted:You're being willfully ignorant. Russia is invading countries because it feels its security is being threatened. Because they're bunch of war hungry fuckers in government who view peace as a threat. Their view of security is war. You know who else felt threatened? George Bush.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:A suggestion was raised, and promptly denied. Why do you keep hyping it up? You just keep proving the US isn't able to exercise unilateral will in NATO, proving NATO does not constitute a real threat to a peaceful Russia. The point is, the signal we're sending to Russia is that the US intends to encircle it. Whether or not that's what we're ACTUALLY trying to do (and I believe it isn't) is completely irrelevant; what matters is that our policy is sending threatening messages their way. quote:It wouldn't be a fiasco because the invasion wouldn't happen, because Russia isn't suicidal enough to risk being at war with 70% of the world's military spending. Why don't you get this. What's especially ridiculous about this counterfactual that you're sperging out about is that it could almost certainly never happen anyway. Even if all NATO members were behind a Ukrainian MAP, its NATO accession wouldn't happen at the drop of a hat. Giving them an MAP would have pretty much guaranteed a Russian invasion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:NATO hasn't done anything because Germany and France won't let it. The US, on the other hand, has even pushed for Georgia to be able to bypass the MAP: You are still inventing "proof" out of thin air. Since France and Germany are capable of overruling the US's desires, the US's desires by themselves don't mean anything. And yet you argue that the US's desires are what make Russia afraid of NATO. The only fact extant is that Ukraine applied to join NATO and NATO said no. That's it. Everything else is you making things up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The point is, the signal we're sending to Russia is that the US intends to encircle it. Whether or not that's what we're ACTUALLY trying to do (and I believe it isn't) is completely irrelevant; what matters is that our policy is sending threatening messages their way. We're not sending Russia that signal. Russia's leadership is sending that signal- to their population, to justify their current political hegemony. Russia's government has, repeatedly, demonstrated its willingness to make the false claim of encirclement and interference regardless of all facts to the contrary, because that is how they continue to maintain legitimacy. As I said before, spheres of influence aren no longer a thing that policymakers believe in. They're a rhetorical tool. Eastern Europe: It's not Homonazi if the Spheres don't Touch Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You are still inventing "proof" out of thin air. Since France and Germany are capable of overruling the US's desires, the US's desires by themselves don't mean anything. And yet you argue that the US's desires are what make Russia afraid of NATO. Russia knows that the US is the strongest state in NATO by far. It knows that the US can wear down Germany and France's resolve over time. And how am I "inventing" anything? I didn't write the article or dream up the quote that I posted. Discendo Vox posted:We're not sending Russia that signal. You saying it's not true doesn't make it so. e: I mean, I'm hardly the first Westerner to bring this poo poo up. Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What's especially ridiculous about this counterfactual that you're sperging out about is that it could almost certainly never happen anyway. Even if all NATO members were behind a Ukrainian MAP, its NATO accession wouldn't happen at the drop of a hat. Giving them an MAP would have pretty much guaranteed a Russian invasion. So you keep repeating exactly why Ukraine wanted to join NATO and not getting it. Here let me break it down since you have trouble understanding things. OPTION 1: NATO will defend members Results: NATO can pose a threat to Russia if Russia wants to be warmongering assholes. Russia can't attack NATO members or people actively joining though. OPTION 2: NATO won't defend members Results: NATO can't pose any threat to Russia since it can't do anything. Russia has no reason to be afraid of NATO at all. You've posited that half the results of Option 1 are true, but option 2 is also true without any of the results being true. Do you not see how this means you're full of poo poo Majorian posted:You saying it's not true doesn't make it so. No, the fact that it is true makes it true. Russia is inventing signals because they want an excuse, exactly like George W Bush invented Iraqi WMDs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
OK, let me rephrase. There is nothing that anyone, the US included, can do that the Russian government will not interpret and present as a threat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you keep repeating exactly why Ukraine wanted to join NATO and not getting it. Here let me break it down since you have trouble understanding things. As I've pointed out time and time again, Russia's fear is that it will be encircled, and that its ability to maintain strategic parity with NATO. That has nothing to do with its ability to invade Ukraine. Discendo Vox posted:OK, let me rephrase. There is nothing that anyone, the US included, can do that the Russian government will not interpret and present as a threat. Not true. As Steve Walt has proposed, working out a way to guarantee Ukraine's neutrality will not likely be interpreted as a threat, or at least as enough of a threat to continue its current aggressive policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:As I've pointed out time and time again, Russia's fear is that it will be encircled, and that its ability to maintain strategic parity with NATO. That has nothing to do with its ability to invade Ukraine. Russia has been encircled since the Soviet Union collapsed. If they fear it happening in the future then it's because they're too stupid to understand their own situation. It's also never, ever, had strategic parity with NATO, not even when it was the Soviet Union. Ukraine does not want neutrality. Ukraine had neutrality and look how much Russia respected that! The only thing that can protect Ukraine is staunch non-neutrality. You really do need to remember that on the north side there's the US and Canada, on the eastern side there's the US and Japan, and on the western and southern sides there's been at the very least absolute control of the sea routes to Russia by NATO members. And the existence of missiles means that mere land distance doesn't improve Russia's chances. Russia fuckin' delenda est Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Russia has been encircled since the Soviet Union collapsed. If they fear it happening in the future then it's because they're too stupid to understand their own situation. It's also never, ever, had strategic parity with NATO, not even when it was the Soviet Union. "Strategic parity" refers to nuclear weapons. The USSR did effectively have strategic parity with the US, and Russia continues to do so. And what, exactly, is "their own situation"? One in which they can still undermine the US' interests substantially if we treat them like a vanquished enemy? quote:Ukraine does not want neutrality. Ukraine had neutrality and look how much Russia respected that! The only thing that can protect Ukraine is staunch non-neutrality. Ukraine's "neutrality" was undercut by statements like "These countries will become part of NATO." Ukraine is free to align itself with whichever country it likes, but NATO also has a say in whether or not Ukraine will be allowed to join. France and Germany have decided that it's not worth it. I'm hoping the US keeps this policy for the longrun as well. quote:You really do need to remember that on the north side there's the US and Canada, on the eastern side there's the US and Japan, and on the western and southern sides there's been at the very least absolute control of the sea routes to Russia by NATO members. And the existence of missiles means that mere land distance doesn't improve Russia's chances. Russia fuckin' delenda est Yes, that's nice that you live in a world where Russia can't make things much more difficult for us to protect our interests. The reality is, though, that our new war in Syria and Iraq is going to be a lot harder if we don't have their cooperation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"Strategic parity" refers to nuclear weapons. The USSR did effectively have strategic parity with the US, and Russia continues to do so. So according to you NATO expansion does not change strategic parity then! No one's treating them like a vanquished enemy: we got into this mess by pretending Russia could be treated as an equal who wouldn't gently caress around. Perhaps we should try treating them like a vanquished enemy for once, see if that gets different results? No, Ukraine's neutrality was undercut by Russia immediately invading territory as soon as Putin's pet president was ousted from power. That and nothing more. Unless you believe Lil' Putin's government was secretly in league with the west? Which would be loving bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So according to you NATO expansion does not change strategic parity then! Russia's fear is that it will, over time. Planting ABM sites in Poland do not exactly inspire confidence in that regard, even if they were intended to shoot down medium-range missiles from Iran and other rogue states. quote:No one's treating them like a vanquished enemy: we got into this mess by pretending Russia could be treated as an equal who wouldn't gently caress around. Perhaps we should try treating them like a vanquished enemy for once, see if that gets different results? We did already, in the 90's. We got Putin and an aggressive Russia. quote:No, Ukraine's neutrality was undercut by Russia immediately invading territory as soon as Putin's pet president was ousted from power. That and nothing more. I know it's troubling to have your black-and-white conception of the world challenged, fishmech, but complex situations have complex causes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Putin isn't an aberration, he's a logical progression of Yeltsin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Russia's fear is that it will, over time. Planting ABM sites in Poland do not exactly inspire confidence in that regard, even if they were intended to shoot down medium-range missiles from Iran and other rogue states. Then Russia's fear is absolutely unjustified, as America can nuke their cities into the ground within the same amount of time no matter where some alternate missile sites are located. This is fact. Wrong, we got Putin because Yeltsin was a senile gently caress who got to pick a successor. It is you who has a black and white conception of the world. Russia unambiguously undercut neutrality by invading Ukraine. And anything you can possibly claim about the west undercutting neutrality by supporting Maidan, Russia did 10 times over by literally backing and supporting their little Quisling president for years beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Russia's fear of encirclement, while no doubt real, seems more like a convenient rationalization to justify their heavy-handed reaction to Yanukovych's ouster more than a good explanation for why they attacked Ukraine to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Russia's fear of encirclement, while no doubt real, seems more like a convenient rationalization to justify their heavy-handed reaction to Yanukovych's ouster more than a good explanation for why they attacked Ukraine to begin with. Precisely. It has nothing whatever to do with anything NATO has done and everything to do with Russia's own internal dynamics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
"encirclement", like "spheres of influence", is a rhetorical tool, not a reality. Russia is only encircled to the extent that it defines itself oppositionally. It defines itself oppositionally because it needs to do so to justify its domestic political order. The external world, and facts, don't matter, because these rhetorics continue to function in Russia's domestic order.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Encirclement is a real problem if it stops you from invading your neighbors at will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Russia is only encircled to the extent that it defines itself oppositionally. I suspect it's made a pretty good self-fulfilling prophecy now, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Encirclement is a real problem if it stops you from invading your neighbors at will. The weird part is that after you invade those neighbors you're just encircled again with new neighbors!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Aggression was a real concern under the Bush years but that's largely because the Bush admin worked under similar "reality is malleable" approaches to geo-concerns as Putin does. edit: But it has been half decade since then and until Ukraine American had been re-focusing on its actual concerns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Like, in seriousness, Russia has always been encircled since the end of World War II when Japan was forcibly brought into the Western orbit. The only side without continuous "Western" allied countries is the southern part of the Asian segment, which itself presents problems for expansion due to various strong countries and countries that are weak but difficult to invade. Even if NATO never expanded past West Germany, they'd still be encircled in practice, with every major port they have either easily blocked by closing some straits, or still relatively easily blocked by patrolling nearby seas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Aggression was a real concern under the Bush years but that's largely because the Bush admin worked under similar "reality is malleable" approaches to geo-concerns as Putin does. I'm trying to compare the relative level of duplicity between the Bush administration and Putin's gang but I'm finding it hard to be objective about it, given that I was about thirteen when the Iraq war started and I've lived in the US all my life. In Iraq I suppose the United States didn't pretend they had nothing to do with it? edit: but then, there was even less the rest of the world could have done about it, than they can do about Russia right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 05:22
|
|