Ukraine

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,253
5,897
118
Country
United Kingdom
The United States is still in Syria liberating the oil and gas. They just stopped protecting Rojava from Turkey.
Not quite, no, but nice try. The Syrian government and China have been claiming that the US has been stealing oil from areas of Syria that are under SDF control.

What actually happened is that the US has approved US non-governmental entities to purchase oil from SDF areas, provided it remains in Syria.


Russia, meanwhile, has maintained a military presence in Syria to the present day, in the form of a neo-Nazi paramilitary with a bloody history of war crimes. But not a peep of objection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestor and CM156

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,368
3,180
118
Country
United States of America
Not quite, no, but nice try. The Syrian government and China have been claiming that the US has been stealing oil from areas of Syria that are under SDF control.

What actually happened is that the US has approved US non-governmental entities to purchase oil from SDF areas, provided it remains in Syria.
you actually used RFA as a source. that is precious. US government denies US government did something! Well, you sure told me. 🤣

Russia, meanwhile, has maintained a military presence in Syria to the present day, in the form of a neo-Nazi paramilitary with a bloody history of war crimes. But not a peep of objection.
Russia has been involved in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government. The United States fought the Syrian government.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,253
5,897
118
Country
United Kingdom
you actually used RFA as a source. that is precious. US government denies US government did something! Well, you sure told me. 🤣
If you look for more than a few seconds, you'll see that article links to numerous outside sources, unrelated to the US gov.

Meanwhile, you've been parroting Russian government affiliates since the start of this thread-- on this very question, you're relying solely on the word of... a theocratic government and a genocidal one.

Russia has been involved in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government.
This justifies neo-Nazi paramilitaries extrajudicially massacring civilians, does it?

Ah well, good to know a government invite lets you off the hook for foreign involvement-- oh! Like the US and Europe in Ukraine, assisting at the invitation of the Ukrainian government.
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
Pff, most of the US allies were never invested in having the US as sole superpower. Or happy with the petrodollar. Or against a multipolar word. Multipolar world usually means that middling powers have more influence as well.

So the amount of gloom about the prospect of the US potentially losing some influence is pretty negligible.

As for the BRICS... well, Brazil, Russia and South Africa are not doing so hot. I don't see a future rise to power and influence for any of them. China is already powerful but has so many problems that it is unlikely to rise much further.


But isn't this thread supposed to be about the Ukraine ?
Completely the opposite! The dollar has been used as a reserve currency since the end of WW2. Oil has been priced in dollars since the mid-1970s.

BRICS and emerging markets not so hot? You're several decades too late:


You're obviously talking about another planet.
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
Except, of course, that Russia has also been manipulating Ukraine-- and much, much more so. The narrative that focuses on the provocative nature of US influence in Ukraine always overlooks and ignores the fact that US meddling in Ukraine is, and always has been, utterly dwarfed by Russian meddling in Ukraine.

The biggest presence of foreign money in Ukraine? Russia. The biggest presence of foreign military in Ukraine? Russia. It is Russia that created and funded an insurgency for 8 years in Ukraine. It is Russia that operated all foreign army bases in Ukraine.
It was the U.S. There are more details here:




As for foreign money if Ukraine, you're talking about another planet:



 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
The article is paywalled but phrase of ''the perils of independence'' seems to imply the writer thinks Ukrainian independence should be curtailed to appease Russia.
That's right. Kennan argued that the U.S. and the West should not meddle in Ukraine and Russia. He gave his final warning as Clinton disobeyed. That led to manipulation via Nuland and co. and the current mess.
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
But don't you understand? The United States is the greatest danger the world has ever known! And if every Ukrainian has to die in Russia's righteous quest to protect the world from imperialism, that's just a price someone else has to pay!
The U.S. has been promoting that policy for some time, i.e., proxy wars:


Now, it stands revealed that most of their people don't want to serve, don't want to fight, and aren't even fit for such:


Meanwhile, more are complaining because they need the aid and are suffering economically. Instead, money is sent to Ukraine, provided by rich creditors, and then used to buy weapons from the defense industry also owned by the rich:


who are now estatic over high sales, while financiers are working to "manage" the Ukrainian economy:


and the aid passed on as debt to the same public.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,734
683
118
Completely the opposite! The dollar has been used as a reserve currency since the end of WW2. Oil has been priced in dollars since the mid-1970s.
Sure, we loved the Dollar dominance so much that we introduced the EURO to get rid of it. Pull another one.

BRICS and emerging markets not so hot? You're several decades too late:
The BRICS are 5 specific countries. Counties that once had tremendous grouwth and a seemingly bright future elevanting them above the rest. Now some of that hopes have materialized, but others have not and are not going to.

If you are still thinking that the same five countries are in exactly the same position as two decades ago, you are the one decades behind. The grouping doesn't even make much sense nowaday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestor

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,253
5,897
118
Country
United Kingdom
It was the U.S. There are more details here:




As for foreign money if Ukraine, you're talking about another planet:



...Several of those articles don't even address the question. The first one is one you've already posted before in response to something else.

All you have here is a bunch of sources talking about American corporate money in Ukraine, which... well, yes, obviously. Nobody here is disputing that. What we're disputing are the notions that 1) US interference in Ukraine was greater than Russian interference, which is categorically absurd; and 2) that US interference justifies a hostile foreign empire invading, massacring, and seizing its territory.

Russian interference and finance dwarfed American interference, even during Maidan. Russia was the only one operating an insurgency for 8 years. Russia was the one operating all foreign military bases in Ukraine. Russia was the one financing right-wing militias more than any other power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestor and CM156

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,031
1,481
118
Country
The Netherlands
That's right. Kennan argued that the U.S. and the West should not meddle in Ukraine and Russia. He gave his final warning as Clinton disobeyed. That led to manipulation via Nuland and co. and the current mess.
In other words we do not need to take the argument seriously.

Also I wonder if the US abusing its power to force an unwilling Ukraine to be Russia's puppet state doesn't count as ''meddling''. America and Russia dividing an unwilling Ukraine, and to some extend an unwilling continent between them strikes me a wee bit like imperialism.

Besides the current mess originated not from Nuland but Putin. He forced Yanukovitch to self destruct. He was the one who attempted to forbid Ukraine and the EU from forming ties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestor

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,253
5,897
118
Country
United Kingdom
In other words we do not need to take the argument seriously.
The article itself states that Kennan drastically underestimated Ukrainian will to be independent.

But it's worth noting that he was right in one respect that most other analysts overlooked: in predicting that a post-Soviet Russia would be unwilling to accept an independent Ukraine for long, and would eventually seek to reclaim it by force, regardless of leader or circumstance.

...of course, if we accept this argument as Ralfy seems to want us to, it also destroys the argument that Ukraine/ NATO/ Nazis forced Russia into it. The two arguments aren't really very compatible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestor and CM156

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,913
1,780
118
Country
United Kingdom
Now that you've clarified that, well, the UK doesn't have a military industrial complex because actually its military industry is tied up supplying the United States, your initial complaint seems extraordinarily shallow and a waste of time.
Whether or not the UK has a military industrial complex depends entirely on how you define a military industrial complex. The UK has a domestic arms industry and a military that utilizes its domestic arms industry, so sure. The UK has a military industrial complex.

The actual point was that anyone with experience of living in the UK or who is familiar with the political environment would be able to tell you that the idea of political decisions being determined by the need to expend military hardware and thereby enrich the domestic arms industry is incredibly silly. Most of the vehicles and systems going to Ukraine now were built in the 80s and 90s. They are not being produced any more. The reason why the UK can be comparatively generous with these systems is that the army is being downsized, and a lot of those systems were doomed to end up on the scrapheap by the end of the decade anyway.

The UK was a military superpower a hundred years ago. It remained a relevant military power during the cold war and had enough left in the tank to play a role in the quote/unquote War on Terror, but that military relevance has been declining for a long time. At the end of the day the UK has no real incentive to maintain a powerful military, and the military has no real incentive to maintain a powerful domestic arms industry.

It's possible the current conflict will change this. Maybe the US will finally get its wish and European states will start feeling the need to contribute to their own defence. I doubt it though, because I think that would be a pretty hard sell even for the psychopathic public schoolboys who run this island.

Same reason there is a Ukrainian-speaking minority in Crimea?
I mean, in the very broad sense that both are the beneficiaries of Russian colonialism, sure.

Do you really want to get into the colonial history of Crimea? Particularly given the treatment of indigenous people in Crimea since the 2014 annexation..
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
Sure, we loved the Dollar dominance so much that we introduced the EURO to get rid of it. Pull another one.

The BRICS are 5 specific countries. Counties that once had tremendous grouwth and a seemingly bright future elevanting them above the rest. Now some of that hopes have materialized, but others have not and are not going to.

If you are still thinking that the same five countries are in exactly the same position as two decades ago, you are the one decades behind. The grouping doesn't even make much sense nowaday.
The Euro was introduced not to get rid of the dollar but to facilitate trade between EU members.

BRICS is composed of five countries plus over forty that make up emerging markets:


It's not "had tremendous growth" but increasing growth. They will be taking over the global economy soon.

Again, you are decades behind, imagining a world that was once dominated by developing economies but now by developed ones. It's the other way round.
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
...Several of those articles don't even address the question. The first one is one you've already posted before in response to something else.

All you have here is a bunch of sources talking about American corporate money in Ukraine, which... well, yes, obviously. Nobody here is disputing that. What we're disputing are the notions that 1) US interference in Ukraine was greater than Russian interference, which is categorically absurd; and 2) that US interference justifies a hostile foreign empire invading, massacring, and seizing its territory.

Russian interference and finance dwarfed American interference, even during Maidan. Russia was the only one operating an insurgency for 8 years. Russia was the one operating all foreign military bases in Ukraine. Russia was the one financing right-wing militias more than any other power.
They do! The U.S. goal is encirclement of Russia, and it started with Clinton as part of electioneering. There was no valid reason whatsoever for NATO expansion.

Part of that involved manipulation of Ukraine via Nuland and co:


That's why Nuland and others were also referring to Biden and the UN Secretary-General. Those were not mere musings by officials with lots of time in their hands.

This is part of color revolutions, among others, have been discussed across the years, and involves not just Ukraine:



From there, connect the aid to American corporate money, and you realize what the U.S. gets from such:


One more point: that's the same Zelensky who, as a comedian, made fun of his own country before Russian audiences and is now echoing Putin's actions by banning the opposition.
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
"That's right"-- so can we take from this that you're advocating Ukrainian independence be revoked?
No. Rather, Ukraine will be decimated if war continues, so the U.S. must meet with China and others and try to hammer out a peace deal with Russia.

There's no way out of this, as there's now news that Japan is buying oil from Russia, EU members have been buying oil from Russia via India, and even France is selling gas to China in exchange for yuans.

You have to understand that a multipolar world is now emerging, and more countries are no longer obeying the U.S. and not even using dollars, including its allies.
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
In other words we do not need to take the argument seriously.

Also I wonder if the US abusing its power to force an unwilling Ukraine to be Russia's puppet state doesn't count as ''meddling''. America and Russia dividing an unwilling Ukraine, and to some extend an unwilling continent between them strikes me a wee bit like imperialism.

Besides the current mess originated not from Nuland but Putin. He forced Yanukovitch to self destruct. He was the one who attempted to forbid Ukraine and the EU from forming ties.
Actually, it's the other way round: we need to take the argument seriously.

The U.S. has been at war for almost all of its existence:


Its most liberal President refers to it as the most warlike in modern history:


and part of a very long history of manipulating, destabilizing, and attacking dozens of countries far away from it, and on a global scale:


It has around 900 military installations now worldwide, with 400 encircling China. It has military spending that dwarfs those of other military powers combined, but funds it through incredible levels of borrowing and spending:




leading to debt that it cannot pay, excluding over $180 trillion in unfunded liabilities:


As explained earlier, more countries are moving away from it, and not just the Global South, which consists of BRICS and over forty countries, with more joining them, but also its own allies: Japan is now buying oil from Russia at higher prices, France is selling gas to China for yuans, and it turns out that EU allies had been buying oil from Russia via India.

One reason why many poor countries and not just BRICS are responding to the U.S. is because they remember that manipulation, destabilization, and intervention.

Another reason is that the U.S. even supported all sorts of authoritarians, and today even has Saudi Arabia as a military ally and China as a major trading partner. Its propaganda of defending "freedom and democracy" doesn't hold water, especially given the point that it's also the primary arms dealer of the world. To make matters worse, they are supporting Zelensky, who has banned the opposition and is making deals with Wall Street.

With that, the only way that most people will heed the U.S. is if it starts working with China and engage in peace deals with Russia over Ukraine.
 

ralfy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 21, 2008
420
54
33
The article itself states that Kennan drastically underestimated Ukrainian will to be independent.

But it's worth noting that he was right in one respect that most other analysts overlooked: in predicting that a post-Soviet Russia would be unwilling to accept an independent Ukraine for long, and would eventually seek to reclaim it by force, regardless of leader or circumstance.

...of course, if we accept this argument as Ralfy seems to want us to, it also destroys the argument that Ukraine/ NATO/ Nazis forced Russia into it. The two arguments aren't really very compatible.
I think what concerned Russia wasn't so much an independent Ukraine but one that would be used by the U.S., and using NATO.

The implication is that in order to imagine that the U.S. had nothing to do with it, one has to assume that Clinton had very good reason for NATO expansion. And the only reason is to create the narrative that Russia wants to form an empire.

Not surprisingly, similar views are raised about China and others. That, in turn, justifies high military spending, which the military industrial complex wants. After that comes, hopefully, regime change, coupled with "rebuilding" given "help" from the IMF-WB via structural adjustment.