It's a unipolar gobal economy dominated by the dollar used as a reserve currency.
Ukraine
- Thread starter Silvanus
- Start date
The U.S. manipulated Ukraine and Russia to keep the dollar propped up. It manipulated Ukraine after that to encircle Russia also to keep the dollar propped up. It's now arming Ukraine using the same war machine that arms Israel to keep the dollar propped up.
It's doing the same thing to Israel for the same reason.
As for Russian Empire storyline, it's similar to the Chinese Empire storyline, and part of the storyline that portrays both and even North Korea and Iran as threats to the global economy. That's why even Stoltenberg said that the four are so:
and to global financial system dominated by the same dollar.
The idea that it's all about Russia, or China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or whatever country where the U.S. also supported dictatorsh, death squads, helped foment terrorists, instigated color revolutions, and manipulated through military deals in exchange for pricing oil in dollars or even playing both sides of the field, is made morally bankrupt by the fact that the one making such accusations is no different, if not worse than, the one making such accusations.
That's why the same neolibs-turned-neocons are crickets when it comes to the U.S. using the same war machine that arms Ukraine also arming Israel, and when U.S. media outlets claim that China is committing genocide while maintaining trade relations with the latter, and when the U.S. and the EU imposes sanctions on Russia but still buys uranium and gas from the latter, and so on.
When money talks....
Propaganda against Russia. At least you got something right.
In a unipolar global economy, most aren't independent actors. That's why it's unipolar in the first place.
To add to what you said, Russia was not only terrorizing Ukraine, so was Poland and other neighbors. Meanwhile, Ukraine worked with the other Soviet Republics, then sided with the Nazis, then went back to the allies, and so on.
It's similar to the U.S. that's been playing both sides for decades, engaged in centuries of warfare, and is arming Ukraine using the same war machine that arms Israel and engaged in mayhem in the Middle East.
Costs of War
The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
watson.brown.edu
At some point, and after getting the point about U.S. propaganda against Russia, you'll follow through and realize that you're looking at two Russias fighting over Ukraine. Or two United States if you prefer to see things that way.
Ukraine has been in the crosshairs of every neighbor plus the West, and especially the latter since the early 1990s.
In this case, the U.S. wants to replace Russia. The claim that the U.S. is only doing this to "free" Ukraine from Russia is Reaganite/Dubya propaganda.
Take it from this guy, who unwittingly says the truth about U.S. military and financial support:
I've no idea who this Absent is, but I came back here because I felt that the mods wouldn't pick on me in this forum unlike in other. Given that, my point is very clear about this issue, and I'd rather talk about that than myself:
My point is the same as those of George Kennan, Thomas Friedman, Jeffrey Sachs, Noam Chomsky, Melvin Goodman, John Mearsheimer, John Pilger, and others, but especially George Kennan, who did not live to see this issue happen but was warning about it. If the U.S. and NATO engage in enlargement, then it will eventually cross red lines, and that will lead to war. And that's precisely what happened.
Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine
The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the
www.counterpunch.org
What is the basis of such enlargement? According to Kennan, it's encirclement. In short, it started with containment of the Iron Curtain, and then led to encircling not only Russia but also China to maintain a unipolar global economy.
Why is that needed? Because according to the CFR and others, what allows for that unipolar characteristic is the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency. Reference to the CFR and even Stoltenberg of NATO also removes the ridiculous claim made against me that I'm issuing tinfoil points, or that my sources are Russian propagandists.
From there, I'm still waiting for an intelligent response from forum members concerning points made by Kennan and others, and even implicit admissions made by the likes of the Council of Foreign Relations and NATO.
The U.S. was manipulating former Soviet Republics right after the Union collapsed:
Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine
The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the
www.counterpunch.org
Not only that, but they were even moving back and forth, e.g,. tacitly arguing that there was no need for NATO expansion because the Soviet threat was gone, but calling for expansion anyway to encircle what were seen as growing rivals to U.S. superpower status, working with Russia over Afghanistan and then against Russia over Syria, calling for sanctions but still buying uranium and gas, and then facing issues concerning ammo and other shortages because the bigger rival turns out to be the one supplying various needs via its industrial base: China.
That's why Wolfowitz's doctrine still applies today, and explains why the war machine and what funds it are actively participating in not only arming Ukraine but continuing to arm Israel, while at the same time playing both sides in Asia through Taiwan.
The catch is that the very thing that feeds that machine, the dollar, is threatened by the growing economic rise of various members of BRICS and emerging markets in the Global South, and they are answering back at not only the U.S. but also G-7 and the EU. Meanwhile, various industrialized countries start fighting with each other, complaining about having to send more money to a Ukraine that has one of the most corrupt governments in the region while many of its youth are either unfit or don't want to serve.
And then there's the issue of soaring debt for the U.S., which many of its citizens, most of whom according to polls can't even identify Ukraine on a map, think can go on indefinitely.
Almost every point that he says is similar to mine, and I'm not even a conservative or a Trump supporter.
Here's a recap of some of those points: the U.S. is wholly dependent on the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency, because that's what allows it to take on incredible levels of debt not only for consumer but even for military spending. The latter together with Wall Street are needed to control other countries and ensure the use of that dollar as a reserve currency.
The problem is that more countries, especially those from BRICS and the Global South, and including both Russia and Ukraine, have been answering back at the U.S. and its G-7 and EU allies because they've been growing stronger economically. And as that global economy starts switching from a unipolar to a multipolar one, then that may only anger the U.S. more.
interesting and unexpected admission
but you're still fluoridated water is ruining our precious bodily fluids levels of out there. I am nowhere near patient or invested enough to have an alt on this forum. I don't even have an alt on twitter.
Moreover, you specifically are also just not that important to me. yes, you have displayed cartoonish levels of paranoid anti-communism, this accusation being among your crowning achievements in that regard, but that inclination is more amusing than it is threatening.
You are not merely "opposing invasions and annexations around the world". You are supporting the Empire's planned response to certain invasions (both present and theoretical future), repeating the propaganda of the Empire about the reasons for them, and denying the extent of its provocations and responsibility. You are also encouraging Ukraine to exhaust its people fighting for territory whose inhabitants don't even appear to want to be part of Ukraine. So that's lovely.
In Ukraine, the Empire is weakening its perceived enemy, a country it chose to alienate long ago, helping it to maintain its hold on power and perhaps eventually take over that country. The Empire also deliberately provoked that enemy. The Emprie knew that what it was doing in Ukraine was unacceptable to Russian leadership for decades. It is documented in diplomatic cables, influential think tank articles, academia, and so on. They knew it would result in something like this. They pressed forward anyway because they wanted this war to happen or they wanted the undermining of Russian security that would have resulted had this war not happened. Russia, it must be noted, made efforts to diplomatically resolve this issue. Meanwhile agents of the Empire and you specifically have denied that Russia had the right to even consider the NATO-Ukrainian relationship an issue to be resolved. That's how wars happen; the continuation of diplomacy by other means happens when diplomacy is closed off as a means to resolve serious problems.
Rather than advertising an intent to make Ukraine some kind of bulwark the Empire could have instead pursued a path lightly tread in ages past between it and the Soviet Union: multilateral arms control and reduction. And it could have attempted to act in the spirit of that, not just the letter. I imagine you would have supported this? Or am I being too generous in my assessment of your inclinations?
Thinking that and yet denying that the United States and NATO manipulated the circumstances to provoke Russia into war with Ukraine is champion-tier mental gymnastics. Though it seems to have been the plan, I'm not so sure it is true, though; NATO has expanded, but it is also showing cracks and the rest of the world tires ever more of American hypocrisy. The situation in Palestine has obviously devastated what little perception of moral credibility America had, but outside of white countries Ukraine hasn't exactly been a great conversation topic for perpetuating American influence either. Humans are pattern-recognizing creatures, and patterns there are to recognize. In any case, the price and tragedy of all this has been carried mostly by Ukrainians with very little input from them and, despite its rhetoric, the US and friends have not in any way meant to change that. They support any decision Ukrainian leadership (such as it is) makes so long as that decision is continuing to fight.
And one neighbour has gone far further than any other, being the only one to attempt the full invasion and annexation. And that's the one you have no problem with.
The reasons for the invasion are blindingly obvious, and we even have sources straight from the horse's mouth: from Putin giving his speech about how Ukrainian independence was a mistake and should be rectified, to the Russian soldiers who attested their goal had been to take Kyiv and depose the government.
The bit about Eastern Ukrainians not wanting to be part of Ukraine is also bollocks. Even those regions voted for independence from Russia when last they were polled, but here you are flag-waving for their forced reabsorption, so don't pretend to give a shit what they want. You seem to be inferring their wishes just from the presence of the Russian proxy insurgency that claims to speak on their behalf and said it wanted independence before then clamouring for annexation.
You talk about provocations, and there were indeed some from the US. Yet nothing they did ever approached the level of manipulation and provocation from Russia, with which you have zero issue. So why this double standard? If we have a third country, supposedly sovereign, why should we (on the one hand) condemn the manipulations and provocations of the US, while (on the other hand) accept and endorse the far greater manipulations and provocations of Russia?
Obviously I supported arms control and reduction. I'd like the same from Russia. But once one of those powers decides to invade and annex a third country regardless, then the conversation has obviously shifted, and defending it from Imperial rapaciousness becomes pretty important.
"Russia's actions benefitted NATO, so therefore those actions of Russia must somehow be the fault of NATO too".
Russia controls its own policies and decided to launch insurgencies and invasions. Stop trying to absolve the actual invader of responsibility for their invasion.
Last edited:
We are not talking about China or Iran or North Korea or Syria or Afghanistan or Iraq. Those are all very different countries with different circumstances and the only common trend is that the US didn't like them. They also all aside from Iraq did not actually invade their neighbors to conquer them since at least the 70ies.
They are not relevant to the Ukraine war. Because the US is not that relevant to the Ukraine war. The relevant parties are Russia and Ukraine. Then the other countries around them, who nearly all fear Russia as well. And only then maybe the US.
And the Ukraine is also very much different from Israel. That the US supports both is pretty much the only thing they have in common.
As for "all for the Dollar", i hope you are aware that most countries sending military help to the Ukraine would rather prefer the Euro over the dollar as world reserve currency. They certainly are not doing it to prop up the Dollar. They are doing it because they don't want an aggressive empire successfully conquering countries next to them.
Last edited:
Not really. The Romanovs, the Soviets and now the current gangsters in the Kremlin all want to spread their power over an unwilling eastern Europe. That's three strikes. they're out. It be propaganda to pretend Russia hasn't always been out to get their neighbors.
That's not how it works. That's not how it as ever worked. No matter how powerful the top dog is countries always have their own desires, agency and goals.
Every country has some beef against others but Poland hasn't been out to subjugate Ukraine and all their neighbors in every single incarnation of its state, nor do they have a desire to do so currently. Russia is unique in that particular regard. Also ''working with the soviet republics'' is a pretty curious way of spelling ''conquered against their will and then starved because Stalin found it funny''
Not really. Assuming Ukraine is an independent country is not a ''provocation''. Its only a provocation if we humor Russia's claims that it still owns or ought to own Ukraine.
Uh no they didn't. Russia got a panic attack over a trade deal, forcefully paraded the Ukrainian president around as a puppet and then invaded when this backfired. Russia has been the one to initiate every single escalation while the west was pussyfooting not to lose their precious Russian gass.
Almost as if the Russian stance was utterly illigitimate to begin with. We shouldn't surrender the sovereignty of countries just to make Russia feel good. Russia has no inherent right to determine the foreign policy of its neighbors, and the only reason it even wants to do this is so that it can subjugate those neighbors it forcefully withheld NATO protection from.
Where to even start? The Holodomor? The partition of Poland? The Soviet conquest of Poland? The Prague Spring? Decades of being occupied and terrorized for just about all of Russia's neighbors.
What reasons to Russia's neighbor have not to be in NATO? Especially after Russia proved exactly what happens to neighbors who lack NATO protection.
Fair enough. I'll probably maintain the accusation at some level cause it's funny, but like, how much more fun would it have been if I was right?
The NATO enlargement requires the unanimous decision of all members and the candidate.
Maybe the US consented because encirclement, maybe not. Honestly don't care much.
But the candidates joined because they feared Russia might change its mind and conquer/subjugate them again. And most of the already NATO Europeans agreed for the same reason : To continue being protected from Russia, to protect others from Russia, to have allied instead of hostile neighbors, because they shared strategic concerns with the newcomers and, at worst, to have a buffer between them and Russia.
The NATO expansion was defensive at its very core, giving new countries security and having more allies in case of being attacked. Of note is also that at the same time, as every member can veto any major NATO decision, the expansion makes it significantly harder to use NATO as an offensive tool.
Well, one of the things about being American (and to a lesser extent British, French, etc.) is having less motivation to think about or empathise with citizens of countries for whom the USA is not the greatest threat. Or citizens of countries whose people toiled away in relative poverty and underdevelopment for decades, only to thrive when they finally got capitalism. (The GDP/capita of the Baltic states and Poland is nearly ten times larger than at independence just over 30 years ago.)
Russia shills, some on this very forum love pretending Russia's actions are defensively but they never quite make a convincing argument about what Russia is defending itself from.
Vague complaints about NATO ''encirclement'' not only ignores the sovereignty of all Russia's neighbors but also completely misreads the geopolitical situation. What's the fear exactly? That NATO is going to outright invade Russia? Its just not going to happen. Even if America did have the intentions then Europe wouldn't go along with it. If it took this much for Europe to even consider sanctioning Russia for actual crimes, and even actual murder of European citizens then they would never join the US in an unprovoked attack on Russia.
Besides the age of a ground war between global powers is long over. A conventional invasion of the Russian heartland is impossible as long as Russia has its nukes. Sometimes the argument is made that if Ukraine is an independent nation then NATO nukes can be on Russia's borders but NATO already borders Russia.
The more likely fear of the Kremlin is that if a functioning democracy emerges in the ''Russian world'' then Russian citizen might demand change in their own government, and that this could lead to an uprising. But who's fault is that? This is only a reason for concern because the Kremlin refuses to behave as an actual government, and could be immediately fixed if they tried being one.
There are also grumblings of Russia being somehow humiliated and kept down after the cold war and that this would naturally create tension. But that's nonsense. For a former totalitarian state that collapsed under its own ineptitude they got off extremely well. Russia was allowed to grow rich and fat from lucrative gas deals, they were allowed total sovereignty inside their own borders and their pretensions of still being an empire was humored(as long as it was in Asia and not in Europe) despite Russia no longer having the resources and prestige to justify this unique status. For all the humiliation Russia supposedly endured the US still allowed them to have an Imperial status they allowed for no other nation.
Vague complaints about NATO ''encirclement'' not only ignores the sovereignty of all Russia's neighbors but also completely misreads the geopolitical situation. What's the fear exactly? That NATO is going to outright invade Russia? Its just not going to happen. Even if America did have the intentions then Europe wouldn't go along with it. If it took this much for Europe to even consider sanctioning Russia for actual crimes, and even actual murder of European citizens then they would never join the US in an unprovoked attack on Russia.
Besides the age of a ground war between global powers is long over. A conventional invasion of the Russian heartland is impossible as long as Russia has its nukes. Sometimes the argument is made that if Ukraine is an independent nation then NATO nukes can be on Russia's borders but NATO already borders Russia.
The more likely fear of the Kremlin is that if a functioning democracy emerges in the ''Russian world'' then Russian citizen might demand change in their own government, and that this could lead to an uprising. But who's fault is that? This is only a reason for concern because the Kremlin refuses to behave as an actual government, and could be immediately fixed if they tried being one.
There are also grumblings of Russia being somehow humiliated and kept down after the cold war and that this would naturally create tension. But that's nonsense. For a former totalitarian state that collapsed under its own ineptitude they got off extremely well. Russia was allowed to grow rich and fat from lucrative gas deals, they were allowed total sovereignty inside their own borders and their pretensions of still being an empire was humored(as long as it was in Asia and not in Europe) despite Russia no longer having the resources and prestige to justify this unique status. For all the humiliation Russia supposedly endured the US still allowed them to have an Imperial status they allowed for no other nation.
And that was in reaction to what one non-neighbor did. The latter, apparently, considers the whole world its neighborhood.
We should because the same country that manipulated Ukraine and is now arming it is also dealing with the rest. That's why Stoltenberg mentioned them, and implicitly gave the reason why the West is going against China, Russia, and the rest, and is arming Ukraine: they are a threat to the dollar-dominated global financial system:
It's when people yak too much that the truth eventually comes out.
Eastern Europe is preyed upon by two sets of gangsters, and one doesn't consider itself so. Rather, it's the "hero" of the world:
American exceptionalism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It has committed dozens of strikes across the decades:
leading to many dead:
Costs of War
The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
watson.brown.edu
but it can't be "out" because it controls the global financial system, as one of its commanders points out:
and that system needs to be protected.
That's why the same "gangster" that was manipulating Ukraine and even Russia is now arming Ukraine, but also arming Poland, Israel, Taiwan, and others. Meanwhile, it continues to buy uranium from Russia, makes deals with China, arms Saudi Arabia, etc.
When money talks....