I thought a certain poster had decided to quietly avoid commenting here, due to reaching their limit of supporting Putin's actions, but evidently not.
Ukraine
- Thread starter Silvanus
- Start date
Ah yes, the fearsome UK military-industrial complex. How could the famously subservient UK media complex possibly resist such terrifying and majestic power? Yes, well done for seeing the truth that, despite the ruling party taking vast sums of money from donors close to the Russian government, the UK political complex is in fact completely enthralled to the aligned interests of the military (with its 80,000 active personnel) and the 3 or 4 UK-based defense contractors who ensure it is barely supplied with equipment designed and built in the 80s and 90s.
Having given it some thought, and encountered others who have this same problem, I feel like this is a good example though. You clearly want to be devil's advocate. You clearly see the general political narrative swinging one way and want to offer some kind of correction or dissenting voice, because that's a nice and emotionally validating position to be in. The problem, the very obvious problem, is that you bundle whatever potential for a valid critique of the prevailing media environment with this kind of fucking absurd, laughable shit that immediately discredits you, and you can't even tell the difference. That's what's really sad. You've not found any kind of real alternative voice. It's not like you're even following Russian state media or political figures. You've found a bunch of bored Americans on Twitter playing telephone with each other. You think the entire world is just the same as, and operates on the same rules as, the US, and you won't listen to anything that contradicts that.
Last edited:
It's that big bad NATO that's forcing Russia to fire missiles at hospitals and schools! If it would just go away and allow Russia to take whatever territory it wanted, we could see true peace!
Look, just admit that there's exactly one thing that would make Russia feel "secure", and that is the death and destruction of anyone and anything that could stop it.
Indeed, as many Russian internet yahoos often declare.
Many Americans, of course, did similar during the Iraq war, when they'd talk about turning the Middle East from sand into glass. Of course, the big difference between the American and Russian yahoos is that the American ones live in a state that's powerful enough to meet their boasts, rather than one that gets stymied and humiliated by a less-developed, medium-sized neighbour.
That's part of the reason they want the rest of the old USSR back, of course: to fit their fantasy of being a great power again.
I don't completely agree there. Both Russia and the US have the nuclear capability to meaningfully destroy their enemy, but didn't/don't dare do so. And while Russia has been humiliated by Ukraine from the get go, looking at Iraq now, all the US can really say is the failure took massively longer and cost them massively less.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
Yeah, that's not a good place to be.
Source: I used to be that guy.
Wait you're still taking the stance that the west agreeing Ukraine is real country and not a Russian puppet state is somehow offensive and dangerous to Russia?
Also its worth pointing out again that Russia both initiated and escalated every step of the conflict.
?
It is only small by comparison with the United States, which is true of literally every country on earth other than the United States. BAE Systems alone is the largest defense contractor in Europe and the UK military budget is fifth in the world. The UK also seems to be a nexus of private military companies. Not only that, but anglophone companies tend to have ownership on both sides of the Atlantic, which makes your media and politics susceptible to the same incentives that drive US propaganda.
You keep pointing out "laughable shit" that is just true. I will not currently speculate as to why.
Yeah because Russia keeps trying to subjugate neighbors that aren’t in NATO.
Which is equal to FUCKING BOMBING ANOTHER COUNTRY?! What the fuck is wrong with you?
The U.S. is facing that plus moves away from the petrodollar as well as from the dollar itself:
'It's not a pretty picture': Russia's support is growing in the developing world
Russia's sphere of influence is growing as propaganda and diplomatic efforts gather momentum, analysts suggest.
www.cnbc.com
That's because the country is heavily dependent on the world economy using the dollar for trade and even pricing oil in dollars for it to maintain decades of heavy borrowing and spending to keep its economy afloat:
Krugman and the Pied Pipers of Debt
Investors are celebrating an incipient “recovery,” but the interventions that were responsible for it are sowing the seeds of a more violent contraction...
seekingalpha.com
About NATO:
www.counterpunch.org
As for the Global South:
www.dw.com
That is, we are looking at the effects of NATO expansion driven by warmongering, and now leading to a multipolar world.
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
As for the Global South:
A new world order? BRICS nations offer alternative to West – DW – 04/10/2023
Predictions about the BRICS countries as the fastest growing economies haven't quite panned out. Instead, the alliance is now offering a diplomatic forum and development financing, outside of the Western mainstream.
www.dw.com
That is, we are looking at the effects of NATO expansion driven by warmongering, and now leading to a multipolar world.
Indeed, an act which doesn't infringe any other country's sovereignty, and doesn't slaughter tens-to-hundreds of thousands of people. I'm quite happy saying that was unilateral.
And which was predicated by their neighbour invading, annexing and slaughtering two non-NATO members.
Neither of which circumstances apply to excuse the invasion, annexation and mass, directed civilian slaughter of Ukraine.
- Ukraine wasn't a NATO member.
- the only foreign military bases in Ukraine were Russian before the invasion.
- NATO hadn't invaded anyone, and hadn't even expanded significantly prior to the invasion. Its relevance, dominance and proportionate spending were actually slowing.
- Literally the only party to begin a massive war here is Russia. For territorial expansion.
Mmm, yes, like Finland itself, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, Japan, Korea...
wait, no.
You've mistaken not wanting to be a military target of the United States with a real preference for its domination.
Russia has invaded Georgia and Ukraine, both of which had civil wars involving the repression of a Russian-speaking minority, hostility toward Russia and Russians from their governments, and on top of that made a lot of noise about wanting to join NATO so they could threaten Russia in relative safety.
Russia had security concerns that were quite reasonable to have given the military spending of the United States and its constant meddling in and invading of other countries, its rhetoric about Russia, and its ability to manipulate the entire world into tolerating and much of the world into celebrating its aggression. The United States could have a global order in which by far the most powerful participant doesn't treat other countries like targets or bombing ranges. The United States could have a global order in which the most powerful participant pursues peace and agreement rather than advantage and coercive power. It has that power and it chose otherwise. The polar opposite, in fact. It could have responded constructively to the security concerns of Russia over the meddling by the United States in Russia's neighborhood (to say nothing of the overt meddling in Russian politics that occurred in the 1990s). It could have done that and it did not. And as the most powerful player in the game, the one that has the most control over the rules of that game, it therefore bears responsibility. Everything you could object to Russia doing in Ukraine has a precedent in the actions of the United States, and frankly with better justification than the fabrication at the Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs in Iraq (even if the allegations had been true!), or revenge for the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Russia sees the war in Ukraine as something that was inevitable and easier to have now than it was going to be later when NATO would have further prepared. Most countries are tiny enough that they can be cowed into accepting that NATO might attack them at any moment with whatever advantages might be gained by encirclement, years of preparation, and so on; people in this thread mistake that powerlessness before a rapacious global leader for a guide to proper behavior.
There was a diplomatic way to avoid this conflict but that door was closed to Russia. For years. They made proposals. There is little evidence that those proposals were even considered; and why should they be if NATO is powerful enough to win a war with Russia? The only reason to consider such proposals from NATO's point of view is if you don't want a war like this one. But NATO did want this war. It's a lovely little chance to bleed Russia. It'll only cost a generation or two of Ukrainian men; for the ruling class of the United States, that is a bargain. You'll even hear them say so sometimes.
...Ichkeria, Georgia, Ukraine (twice)....
Well, I said that it was unilateral, which isn't quite the same thing, but anyway. 'Forced', in that context, meaning that they were put in a situation whereby it was clear that if they didn't take the action, they would be under serious threat.
Russia was not under any even remotely comparable pressure or threat. Russia does not have a neighbour that is invading, annexing, and carpet-bombing neighbouring countries. Finland does.
Last edited: