While "we" as in "most of us" have limited insight into and no influence on the course of things, the leaders and classes who do are by no means "sleepwalking".
Such wording is of course an allusion to Australian author Christopher Clark's 2012 book The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. The book is very detailed, but still a big lie in the overall narrative, meant to gloss over the fact that a clique in the British establishment had spent at least ten years organizing and preparing this war; yes, with their indispensable associates in France and Russia, but masterminded in London, as explained by Scottish authors Docherty and Macgregor in Hidden History.
I'd urge caution about Hidden History - it's a bit of a conspiracy theorist rant by non-historians, and its central thesis (shadowy cabals of politicians and bankers plotted for decades to bring about the long-term destruction of Germany) isn't really supported by the evidence.
I'd encourage anyone interested to first read more than one of the works listed in order to better appreciate the various arguments - perhaps Max Hastings' Catastrophe 1914 as a very readable restatement of the mainstream position to contrast with Clark's Sleepwalkers - before approaching fringe material like Hidden History.
I sometimes wonder if Ukraine is to World War III what the Spanish Civil War was to WWII. However, I have also heard that Russia is a lot closer to collapse than they let on. But if they did collapse it could be very messy and I fear what Putin might do if he feels he has nothing to lose.
The Spanish Civil War, or the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. The US put sanctions on Japan after they invaded Manchuria, and restricted trade of items that could help them with war. That's a big part of why Japan chose to attack the US.
> However, I have also heard that Russia is a lot closer to collapse than they let on.
I mean it seems like they were until someone just decided to give them huge infusion of money, remove all sanctions passed against them and throw them a huge lifeline. Oh and can't forget "remove sanctions for oligarchs".
This is where the Trump administrations mindless stupidity works in our favour. While Trump continues to prevaricate on aid and throws lifelines of paltry diesel deals, Putin will stay his hand on nuclear weapon use.
Exactly what happened to the USA after they used "atomic bombs" against Japan.
If "nukes" were an option, Russia could have used them in March '22 after the failure of the invasion (a mock invasion really), when it must have been painfully apparent to the Kremlin that the bear had entered a giant bear trap, and the Kremlin been victim to a strategic deception.
They wouldn't have had to use them in a terrorist manner, such as the USA did against Japan in dozens of instances, summing up all the firebombing attacks.
They could have used them in a demonstrative manner in the March 13, 2022 atack on the Javorov military training ground, surrounded by miles of forest, where foreign volunteers were said to be preparing.
They could have used them to destroy major roads close to the borders with Poland and Romania, to “send a message” to what it would mean for these countries to host supply hubs to the Ukraine, such as Rzeszów.
They could even have used them to destroy some of the massive Soviet bridges, to cut off supply routes and thus force the enemy to use airlift, which has disadvantages compared to road (and rail) transport.
The reason they used none of these options, in my firm conviction, has to do with the nature of the atomic bomb itself. It belongs entirely to the realm of what rramadass focuses on in his long comment 50148581 here on this page.
I think its fair to say everyone in the know, knows very well that Russia has not been a threat for a long time. Notice when both Ukraine invasions started, no NATO country made any large actions to prepare for an actual threat. I think that says a lot. From the beginning the USA has crippled or "helped" Ukraine just enough to let the Ukrainians slowly bleed Russia.
« From the beginning the USA has crippled or "helped" Ukraine just enough to let the Ukrainians slowly bleed Russia. »
Let's not understate the US effort here. Total aid supplied to the Ukraine, adjusted for inflation, has been more than twice the lend/lease volume supplied to the Soviet Union.
The USA is interested in a protracted war at Europe's and Russia's expense in order to MAGA. To a large extent, its GDP is one of death and destruction. This is reflected in Usanian “cultural” products such as movies, where most often the solution is presented in the form of a gun (“troubleshooting”). They pride themselves of being able to bomb everywhere (“global strike” etc). The underlying mindset is one of a robber and rapist: he takes from others what he thinks is his to enjoy.
Of course, just as the mafia don walks about in fine clothes and strives for social acclaim, the USA also wants to “look good” and portray itself not as a rapacious jerk or terrorist but as a “policeman” of sorts.
The Ukraine has indeed been socially prepared for at least two decades, and militarily since at least 2014 (#TrainToWin). Nuland said circa 2014 the USA had invested some 5 billion dollars into socially engineering the Ukraine into conflict with Russia.
The USA also employed Germany and other vassals in order to prepare the Ukraine for a war that would be waged not only against Russia but also against Germany's strategic interests (which of course was and is peaceful economic integration along the East-West axis towards China).
If the USA had any regard for “the Ukrainians” it would never have set the country up for war but instead stayed out of meddling in Eastern Europe, just as it should also have left Western Europe a long time ago.
> Let's not understate the US effort here. Total aid supplied to the Ukraine, adjusted for inflation, has been more than twice the lend/lease volume supplied to the Soviet Union.
Typical American.
How many Ukrainians have died defeating the Russians ? I suppose for Americans the hundreds of thousands of dead who tried are worth nothing.
Abrams have been useless, because they are too heavy, for the mud that happens in that area after the cold winter. Theres a reason why Russian tanks and armoured vehicles are lightly armoured, because they understood the problem of the mud.
Next, most of the shells and other equipment was going to be destroyed. Bombs and other explosives have a limited life, and thats what the Ukrainians received from the US and other European countries.
How much is a Ukranian hero efforts and life worth. They are doing the hard deadly work, but your comment shows you price that at nothing.
> The Ukraine has indeed been socially prepared for at least two decades, and militarily since at least 2014 (#TrainToWin). Nuland said circa 2014 the USA had invested some 5 billion dollars into socially engineering the Ukraine into conflict with Russia.
No idea why you are telling the world this.
> If the USA had any regard for “the Ukrainians” it would never have set the country up for war but instead stayed out of meddling in Eastern Europe, just as it should also have left Western Europe a long time ago.
You dont appreciate the responsibilities of being a super power. Theres a cost in maintaining a military, but in exchange for that America gained something far more, being the default world currency. You cant have both. Its hardly a coincidence that trying to run away also results in an economic downfall, because suddenly the USA dollar is no longer supreme.
« How many Ukrainians have died defeating the Russians ? »
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died in this war on both sides.
« I suppose for Americans the hundreds of thousands of dead who tried are worth nothing. »
You nailed it. Exactly nothing. They care about the people fighting for them as they would for their tools, their assets, their expendables and consumables. Plus, as they can't tell Ukrainians apart from Russians … why do you think they would care? In the end, who knows, could be that what they really want to achieve is to make Russia into a willing weapon against China just as they made the Ukraine into a willing weapon against Russia.
As I said, if they had any love for the Ukraine they wouldn't have used the country to set up a war, in a systematic and concerted effort spanning at least two decades. So they don't care about the Ukrainians. They care about themselves.
Also, check the background of key people like Nuland, Kagan, Friedman, Blinken(stein). Where did they come from? Are they taking historic vengeance of some sort, at least in their own twisted logic?
« They are doing the hard deadly work, but your comment shows you price that at nothing. »
They are destroying their own country and Russia, being paid by other countries further West, whose oligarchs will end up owning the Ukraine. It's an understatement to say that I price that at nothing. I price that at a huge net negative. They are total fools and idiots, being lured by a pied piper named Uncle Sam, flattering them as "heros", flattery which they readily fall for, in every sense of the word.
« No idea why you are telling the world this. »
Because "the world", in an act of collective dementia praecox, pretends that history started on February 24, 2022. "The world" even forgot about the "most blatant coup in history", the Maidan massacre and coup d'etat of February 2014, organized by Uncle Sam, to bring to power extremist divisive forces to implement US planning.
« super power … military … default world currency »
I do understand the parasitic nature of the USA's modus vivendi, they live on debt they don't intend to pay back, printing dollars, issueing fiat money they impose as a tribute. They're committed to maintaining their position at the expense of their vassals and victims. Blooding down the Ukraine and having Europe pay for it is part of that strategy.
> Because "the world", in an act of collective dementia praecox, pretends that history started on February 24, 2022. "The world" even forgot about the "most blatant coup in history", the Maidan massacre and coup d'etat of February 2014, organized by Uncle Sam, to bring to power extremist divisive forces to implement US planning.
This is just a mix of Russian tropes that's circulating on the social media. If we analyze the events, it's impossible to call an unanimous parliamentary vote of no confidence "a coup", especially if it was followed up by a popular election. Popular election and a coup are polar opposites.
Russians tried to pursue the "illegitimate junta" narrative for a few months in 2014, but gave up after it gained no traction. So this talking point expired 12 years ago.
So you're dismissing evidence such as the Ashton/Paet intercept, the Nuland/Pyatt intercept, the Micalessin documentary on the Maidan snipers, and the forensic evidence that can be seen from videos. To you, it's all just expired Russian talking points on social media.
What this means is that you have no desire to find truth or facts, but rather to hush up. So the usefulness of talking to you must be very cautiously evaluated.
« unanimous parliamentary vote of no confidence »
Quote from Who Perpetrated the Maidan Massacre? Who Overthrew the Ukrainian Government in 2014? … by Ivan Katchanovski:
The deputy parliament head from Svoboda also opened a parliament session on February 22 to remove Yanukovych from the presidency. The parliament vote to oust Yanukovych for “abandoning [the] presidency” was unconstitutional. It did not follow the impeachment procedures specified in the Ukrainian Constitution, and the tally lacked the required constitutional majority of 338 votes. Further, the vote was done under duress, and many of the 328 “yes” votes that were recorded were fabricated. According to the official parliament record, 248 deputies out of 450 were registered at the opening (Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 2014). Many Yanukovych party deputies switched loyalty, but many others voted under threat of violence by the far-right group of Maidan snipers, the Maidan Self-Defense, and a mob which surrounded the parliament. The commander of the far-right-linked Maidan company of snipers admitted that his group impelled, by force, deputies from the Yanukovych Party of Regions to vote for his removal. The number of present deputies in various videos of this vote was about 262. Davyd Zhvania, a member of Maidan leadership, who headed a parliamentary committee, stated that Maidan opposition leaders seized duplicate cards of absent deputies and used them to fraudulently inflate this vote […]
The things you post are simply factually not true.
For example:
> The parliament vote to oust Yanukovych for “abandoning [the] presidency” was unconstitutional. It did not follow the impeachment procedures specified in the Ukrainian Constitution, and the tally lacked the required constitutional majority of 338 votes.
This is incorrect, because the Ukrainian parliament did not initiate impeachement procedure at all. Instead, the parliament adopted a resolution to replace the president through early elections. The elections were held three months later and about 18 million people cast their vote. "Coup" is commonly defined as an illegitimate takeover of power by a small group of people, and this was the polar opposite: renewal of mandate from the electorate, set in motion by the the national legislature.
Likewise:
> Further, the vote was done under duress, and many of the 328 “yes” votes that were recorded were fabricated. According to the official parliament record, 248 deputies out of 450 were registered at the opening (Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 2014).
This is no proof of fabrication. The session was opened at 10 in the morning and the vote on the resolution took place 7 hours later, at 5 in the evening. It is common for parliamentary attendance to change during a session, with members arriving after the opening registration or leaving before the session ends, especially during such long sessions. The session was broadcast live, so any doubters can do a headcount if they want.
Katchanovski is a well-known conspiracy theorist, and it shows. And like most of them, he is lazy and assumes the same of his readers.
Back then there was more lo-tech, today there's more hi-tech. I was referring to the money figures given. It was $11 billion of lend/lease for the Soviet Union, which today would be around $230 billion. The combined aid for the Ukraine (US+UK+EU) has exceeded $500 billion.
Ukraine is to WW3 as Belgium was to WW1. A hot, stagnant land war in the heart of the continent.
This piece is one of several I've noticed lately in the British press [1, 2], preparing the country for a broader war.
I'm deeply fucking concerned, to be frank. I'm also upset that no major political actor seems to be putting their hand up and suggesting this might be a terrible idea.
I think it's fair to be sceptical about some of the comment coming from the UK defence sector - much of it seems aimed at encouraging an increase in spending without first improving the (incredibly wasteful) state of defence procurement.
The comparison with WW1 is instructive in that regard. Then, the view that conflict with Germany was inevitable was surprisingly widespread - particularly in the wake of Agadir, though it had been steadily building over a couple of decades. It's just that the nature and scope of the conflict that caught them by surprise - a land war rather than being primarily naval.
Vast amounts of money had been poured into building up the navy (always controversial - Gladstone's final premiership was ended by his opposition to a 'vortex of militarism', and Lloyd George and Churchill made similar arguments 15 years later) but those very expensive warships spent most of the conflict at anchor. Most of the pre-war spending was essentially wasted.
If we were to double our defence spending today, we might well end up pissing it up the wall on the same old mix of Trident, aircraft carriers, helicopters, unworkable AFVs, and the most limited carrier variant of F35 when the actual threats are cyberattacks, disinformation, and a variety of hybrid attacks.
« The comparison with WW1 is instructive in that regard. Then, the view that conflict with Germany was inevitable was surprisingly widespread »
What is surprising about that? The Northcliffe propaganda press and writers such as H.G. Wells had been nurturing the idea of the inevitability of war with Germany for years, so, unless they really sucked at propaganda, at least some "positive effect" would be the expected outcome.
« It's just that the nature and scope of the conflict that caught them by surprise - a land war »
Maybe, in some respect. But they had factored in the armies of France and Russia, hadn't they (in 1904 and 1907 already), so they were certainly expecting some land war scenarios.
The reason they didn't tell their people they were willing to sacrifice them on the order of a couple hundred thousands may have had to do with the lack of popular support for such an honorable prospect.
Both can be characterised as long-running, festering land wars on our continent, causing immense destruction and going nowhere fast.
Both were about an outsider trying to rewrite the terms of system from which they felt excluded. WW1 was loosely states with an empire vs. those without.
Both have involved massive miscalculations on all parts as to how quickly and easily this will be over. Russia thought Ukraine would fold, NATO thought Russia would.
We need to be realistic here. This is bad and could get substantially worse.
China isnt that stupid. Russia is hopeless in Ukraine, theres no way they would dare try China or even Europe. America is only capable of winning against Venezuela.
Its a joke the Houthis who dont have an air force, navy or army today are laughing at the USA and all Western forces.
The USA is unable to attack by land or sea the Houthis because it is not capable to provide significant extra support to the Arabian peninsula. The real strength of the USA in the past was not their equipment but their ability to have support bases very close by. Today the only close base to the Gulf is Diego Garcia which is thousands of KM away.
We are seeing a new Dreadnought era, all current weapons systems are basically useless. Drones are the new equalizer.
> What are Houthis winning other than terrorising shipping?
Control. They’re profiting and in power. The Houthis don’t govern with popular consent. Warlords’ politics revolve around access to weapons and the normalization of violence.
Strengthening their control over most of the populated areas of the country, bogging down the Transitional Government forces in a likely-doomed attempt to hold on to their remaining towns, humiliating the Saudi air force, stirring tensions between and within Saudi and the UAE.
And that's before you even get into the question of how it affects the US/Iran conflict.
By reading up Moneagle's books and the recent paper from Beatriz Villarroel something up in the atmosphere will mess with the timeline to avoid further issues.
I was thinking the other day that China is playing it smart. They just have to keep doing what they are doing and they'll win.
Xi isn't doing anything ostentatious like sending his navy to the Persian gulf or overtly dropping weapons supplies in the Middle East.
After all they are going for the economic win- something that always eluded the USSR.
Let Trump hang himself and the Chinese make it out like the good guys. After all the most important thing nations want is not human rights it's stability.
China didn't elect anyone, let alone an anti-immigration populist, but their population is falling, and they don't have any plans to open up to immigration.
Who needs people to fight wars when you've got robots? "China’s armed forces are testing humanoid robots against combat requirements and studying how the machines might fight alongside soldiers." -- MSN
I hate to agree the Chinese government is competent in foreign affairs, but it's true.
Fundamentally China isn't Russia or USA which both have a proclivity to become entangled in foreign problems. For the US (I'm american) the civil side has four strategic risks:
- weak to no show congress which has ceded war making to the executive branch
- civilian leadership who think bomb it and declare success which is naive
- the inability to stop being suckered in by our own hurbris when others say but we can't get it done without US involvement
- an economy post WWII built on cheap oil, which has tentacles into the mideast
Meanwhile after having pissed away 50 years of culture wars particularly since newt gingrich and the tea party, the US fiscal situation is deplorable.
Most maddening? We did this to ourselves. Blaming immigrants isn't the flex people think it is
« a proclivity to become entangled in foreign problems »
That's a funny way of putting it. The USA has about 900 military bases abroad. (Russia also has two or three.) A bit like saying, gosh, that poor serial rapist continues to be exploited by really problematic women.
Portraying oneself as "weak", "naive", "unable", manipulable and full of "hubris" amounts to a picture of someone who's not really accountable. This is what US propaganda very successfully instills in the part of its population that is, perhaps, too educated to go along with, or embarrased by, what an obvious narcissistic pervert like Trump represents (a "coming-out" of sorts for the US).
« We did this to ourselves. » — Poor USA. The world is sorry for you. … Sarcasm aside, it is curious and conspicuous how in this kind of reflection no attention is paid to the victims of US aggression, and instead a display of self-pity is offered. Please don't take it personally, I know that kind of "canned excuse" and rationalization is 100 % the result of what rramadass explains in his important comment 50148581 on this page/topic, and that is beyond the "thinking habits" of most people, not necessarily because they're dumb but because they don't want to think that they're part of something bad.
Trump doesnt need to hang himself today or tomorrow, the USA military has been shown to be just as ineffective as the Russian equipments.
I think its reasonable to say as a world power, America today cannot be compared to America of WW2 or the British Empire during the 19th century. YT is full of videos making fun of Saudi Arabia being unable to defeat the Houthis, but lets not forget America which has a military budget nearly 20x larger than the Saudis also cant defeat the Houthis.
America as a super power should be able to steamroll Iran and Houthis, but it cant do much to either. Ospreys which were built because of the Iran hostage situation of the 80s, today cannot fly more than 15minutes from a base.
I think its possible to say the USA was never actually that powerful, they just looked it, similar to the USSR, and when tested they both are while deadly and destructive not actually able to convincely win. Big difference between Hollywood and reality.
I think the US military is still pretty powerful but they are unable to do so much with Iran and the Houthis due to Trump not wanting to put boots on the ground.
he is absolutely doing bold, belligerent moves towards Taiwan
> Let Trump hang himself and the Chinese make it out like the good guys. After all the most important thing nations want is not human rights it's stability.
> Russian strikes on Ukraine kill more than 100 civilians across the country
> As a journalist ... It was at the three-day Munich Security Conference that ended on February 20 2022
Ah yes, nothing was happening in the world in previous 30 years and some countries absolutely didn't insist on being involved in the military conflicts on the other side of the globe. Nothing happened and it was kumbyaya everywhere. And no civilian casulties, of course.
WWIII is all but certain and the root cause is Geopolitics of Europe/USA/UK/Russia. Look at history from the time of British Empire vs. Russia (before WWII) later Soviet Union vs. USA/Europe/UK and then Russia vs. USA/Europe/UK. The new factor in current times is China which would like nothing better than have the above combatants finish each other off, so its supremacy is automatically established.
The current example is how Ukraine was manipulated into being the sacrificial lamb in order to draw Russia into invading it thus expending its resources while USA/Europe/UK don't suffer as much.
The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action.
Propaganda employs encirclement on the individual by trying to surround man by all possible routes, in the realm of feelings as well as ideas, by playing on his will or his needs through his conscious and his unconscious, and by assailing him in both his private and his public life.
Propaganda is concerned with timeliness since an individual is only moved to action if he is pushed towards a timely one by propaganda..."Operational words" are used to penetrate an individual's indifference...Incidentally, there are also the undecided, people whose opinions are vague, who form the majority of citizens within the collective. These citizens are the most susceptible to control of public opinion that is dictated by propaganda.
Political Propaganda involves techniques of influence employed by a government, a party, an administration, or a pressure group with the intention of changing the behavior of the public...The methods of political propaganda are calculated in a precise manner and its main criterion is to disseminate an ideology for the very purpose of making various political acts acceptable to the people.
Sociological propaganda aims to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature by developing compliance with or defense of the established order through long term penetration and progressive adaptation by using all social currents. The propaganda element is the way of life with which the individual is permeated and then the individual begins to express it in film, writing, or art without realizing it...This propaganda reinforces the individual's way of life and represents this way of life as best. Sociological propaganda creates an indisputable criterion for the individual to make judgments of good and evil according to the order of the individual's way of life.
Information is indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion".
Citizens are aware that political decisions affect everybody and governments cannot govern without the support, presence, pressure, or knowledge of the people. Yet the people are incapable of making long term policy so opinion must be created to follow the government because the government cannot be led by opinion. All of this describes the "Mass-Government" relationship characterized by people demanding what has already been decided, in order to appear as though the government is actually caring about what the people need.
The propagandist cannot be constrained by the ideology of his State but must operate in service of the state and be able to manipulate the ideology as if it were an object. The ideology merely provides the content for the propagandist to build off since he is limited to what already is present within the group, nation, or society. The fundamental ideologies are nationalism, socialism, communism, and democracy.
Since democracy depends on public opinion, it is clear that propaganda must be involved...However, as discussed in early chapters Ellul described the masses are incapable of making long-term foreign policy and the government needs to make these decisions in a timely manner. This is where propaganda comes into play and projects an artificial reality to the masses to satisfy their need to participate in government while the decisions are really made behind the scenes. .. Democratic regimes develop propaganda in line with its myths and prejudices. Propaganda stresses the superiority of a democratic society while intensifying the prejudices between democratic and oppressive.</i>
A most informative comment/quote on how propaganda works!
« how Ukraine was manipulated into being the sacrificial lamb in order to draw Russia into invading it »
Yes, this is of course really sad, but also fascinating and instructive. At the core, I think, there is the implantation of the transformative idea that "the Ukraine is not Russia, but something better than Russia", in order to forge a new identity ex negativo by constantly referring to Russia as a negative example and almost compulsively stating one's being different, and of course superior. (Which really begs the question of how different they are: usually it's outright lies that are repeated over and over again by propaganda.)
It's a sort of flattery: "You're showing promise, you have potential, you're really good already. You could really be part of our shiny vassal system (Europe), but there's a tiny problem … Russia won't like it, and there might be a war. But don't worry, if you persevere in your efforts, we're going to support you, and we are really strong, as sure you know. Ready whenever you are, but as for the timing and planning, we may have some suggestions, as we happen to have a lot of experience in freedom fighting."
The second part about "drawing Russia in" is also interesting. I think the bear was poked and provoked, but also blinded and distracted; not lured (as was the Ukraine), but encouraged as part of a con game (where con is short for confidence), so as to dare to make a move that it would otherwise not dare to make.
For example, the Russian contingent deployed to Syria helping the government fight the islamist NATO proxies was allowed to do so for a long time, when it would have been possible for the West block powers (which have vastly more resources in the area) to disrupt and suppress the Russian contribution. But they didn't.
While "we" as in "most of us" have limited insight into and no influence on the course of things, the leaders and classes who do are by no means "sleepwalking".
Such wording is of course an allusion to Australian author Christopher Clark's 2012 book The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. The book is very detailed, but still a big lie in the overall narrative, meant to gloss over the fact that a clique in the British establishment had spent at least ten years organizing and preparing this war; yes, with their indispensable associates in France and Russia, but masterminded in London, as explained by Scottish authors Docherty and Macgregor in Hidden History.
I'd urge caution about Hidden History - it's a bit of a conspiracy theorist rant by non-historians, and its central thesis (shadowy cabals of politicians and bankers plotted for decades to bring about the long-term destruction of Germany) isn't really supported by the evidence.
There are, inevitably, a wide range of views on the origins of WW1 - Wikipedia actually has a really good overview at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_causes_o...
I'd encourage anyone interested to first read more than one of the works listed in order to better appreciate the various arguments - perhaps Max Hastings' Catastrophe 1914 as a very readable restatement of the mainstream position to contrast with Clark's Sleepwalkers - before approaching fringe material like Hidden History.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50148581
https://archive.is/Ri9lN
Would you like to know more...
I sometimes wonder if Ukraine is to World War III what the Spanish Civil War was to WWII. However, I have also heard that Russia is a lot closer to collapse than they let on. But if they did collapse it could be very messy and I fear what Putin might do if he feels he has nothing to lose.
The Spanish Civil War, or the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. The US put sanctions on Japan after they invaded Manchuria, and restricted trade of items that could help them with war. That's a big part of why Japan chose to attack the US.
oil sanctions specifically
> However, I have also heard that Russia is a lot closer to collapse than they let on.
I mean it seems like they were until someone just decided to give them huge infusion of money, remove all sanctions passed against them and throw them a huge lifeline. Oh and can't forget "remove sanctions for oligarchs".
This is where the Trump administrations mindless stupidity works in our favour. While Trump continues to prevaricate on aid and throws lifelines of paltry diesel deals, Putin will stay his hand on nuclear weapon use.
If Putin uses nukes, everyone will stop trade with them. Russia would be shunned. It would be suicide.
Exactly what happened to the USA after they used "atomic bombs" against Japan.
If "nukes" were an option, Russia could have used them in March '22 after the failure of the invasion (a mock invasion really), when it must have been painfully apparent to the Kremlin that the bear had entered a giant bear trap, and the Kremlin been victim to a strategic deception.
They wouldn't have had to use them in a terrorist manner, such as the USA did against Japan in dozens of instances, summing up all the firebombing attacks.
They could have used them in a demonstrative manner in the March 13, 2022 atack on the Javorov military training ground, surrounded by miles of forest, where foreign volunteers were said to be preparing.
They could have used them to destroy major roads close to the borders with Poland and Romania, to “send a message” to what it would mean for these countries to host supply hubs to the Ukraine, such as Rzeszów.
They could even have used them to destroy some of the massive Soviet bridges, to cut off supply routes and thus force the enemy to use airlift, which has disadvantages compared to road (and rail) transport.
The reason they used none of these options, in my firm conviction, has to do with the nature of the atomic bomb itself. It belongs entirely to the realm of what rramadass focuses on in his long comment 50148581 here on this page.
I think its fair to say everyone in the know, knows very well that Russia has not been a threat for a long time. Notice when both Ukraine invasions started, no NATO country made any large actions to prepare for an actual threat. I think that says a lot. From the beginning the USA has crippled or "helped" Ukraine just enough to let the Ukrainians slowly bleed Russia.
« From the beginning the USA has crippled or "helped" Ukraine just enough to let the Ukrainians slowly bleed Russia. »
Let's not understate the US effort here. Total aid supplied to the Ukraine, adjusted for inflation, has been more than twice the lend/lease volume supplied to the Soviet Union.
The USA is interested in a protracted war at Europe's and Russia's expense in order to MAGA. To a large extent, its GDP is one of death and destruction. This is reflected in Usanian “cultural” products such as movies, where most often the solution is presented in the form of a gun (“troubleshooting”). They pride themselves of being able to bomb everywhere (“global strike” etc). The underlying mindset is one of a robber and rapist: he takes from others what he thinks is his to enjoy.
Of course, just as the mafia don walks about in fine clothes and strives for social acclaim, the USA also wants to “look good” and portray itself not as a rapacious jerk or terrorist but as a “policeman” of sorts.
The Ukraine has indeed been socially prepared for at least two decades, and militarily since at least 2014 (#TrainToWin). Nuland said circa 2014 the USA had invested some 5 billion dollars into socially engineering the Ukraine into conflict with Russia.
The USA also employed Germany and other vassals in order to prepare the Ukraine for a war that would be waged not only against Russia but also against Germany's strategic interests (which of course was and is peaceful economic integration along the East-West axis towards China).
If the USA had any regard for “the Ukrainians” it would never have set the country up for war but instead stayed out of meddling in Eastern Europe, just as it should also have left Western Europe a long time ago.
> Let's not understate the US effort here. Total aid supplied to the Ukraine, adjusted for inflation, has been more than twice the lend/lease volume supplied to the Soviet Union.
Typical American.
How many Ukrainians have died defeating the Russians ? I suppose for Americans the hundreds of thousands of dead who tried are worth nothing.
Abrams have been useless, because they are too heavy, for the mud that happens in that area after the cold winter. Theres a reason why Russian tanks and armoured vehicles are lightly armoured, because they understood the problem of the mud.
Next, most of the shells and other equipment was going to be destroyed. Bombs and other explosives have a limited life, and thats what the Ukrainians received from the US and other European countries.
How much is a Ukranian hero efforts and life worth. They are doing the hard deadly work, but your comment shows you price that at nothing.
> The Ukraine has indeed been socially prepared for at least two decades, and militarily since at least 2014 (#TrainToWin). Nuland said circa 2014 the USA had invested some 5 billion dollars into socially engineering the Ukraine into conflict with Russia.
No idea why you are telling the world this.
> If the USA had any regard for “the Ukrainians” it would never have set the country up for war but instead stayed out of meddling in Eastern Europe, just as it should also have left Western Europe a long time ago.
You dont appreciate the responsibilities of being a super power. Theres a cost in maintaining a military, but in exchange for that America gained something far more, being the default world currency. You cant have both. Its hardly a coincidence that trying to run away also results in an economic downfall, because suddenly the USA dollar is no longer supreme.
« How many Ukrainians have died defeating the Russians ? »
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died in this war on both sides.
« I suppose for Americans the hundreds of thousands of dead who tried are worth nothing. »
You nailed it. Exactly nothing. They care about the people fighting for them as they would for their tools, their assets, their expendables and consumables. Plus, as they can't tell Ukrainians apart from Russians … why do you think they would care? In the end, who knows, could be that what they really want to achieve is to make Russia into a willing weapon against China just as they made the Ukraine into a willing weapon against Russia.
As I said, if they had any love for the Ukraine they wouldn't have used the country to set up a war, in a systematic and concerted effort spanning at least two decades. So they don't care about the Ukrainians. They care about themselves.
Also, check the background of key people like Nuland, Kagan, Friedman, Blinken(stein). Where did they come from? Are they taking historic vengeance of some sort, at least in their own twisted logic?
« They are doing the hard deadly work, but your comment shows you price that at nothing. »
They are destroying their own country and Russia, being paid by other countries further West, whose oligarchs will end up owning the Ukraine. It's an understatement to say that I price that at nothing. I price that at a huge net negative. They are total fools and idiots, being lured by a pied piper named Uncle Sam, flattering them as "heros", flattery which they readily fall for, in every sense of the word.
« No idea why you are telling the world this. »
Because "the world", in an act of collective dementia praecox, pretends that history started on February 24, 2022. "The world" even forgot about the "most blatant coup in history", the Maidan massacre and coup d'etat of February 2014, organized by Uncle Sam, to bring to power extremist divisive forces to implement US planning.
« super power … military … default world currency »
I do understand the parasitic nature of the USA's modus vivendi, they live on debt they don't intend to pay back, printing dollars, issueing fiat money they impose as a tribute. They're committed to maintaining their position at the expense of their vassals and victims. Blooding down the Ukraine and having Europe pay for it is part of that strategy.
This is just a mix of Russian tropes that's circulating on the social media. If we analyze the events, it's impossible to call an unanimous parliamentary vote of no confidence "a coup", especially if it was followed up by a popular election. Popular election and a coup are polar opposites.
Russians tried to pursue the "illegitimate junta" narrative for a few months in 2014, but gave up after it gained no traction. So this talking point expired 12 years ago.
So you're dismissing evidence such as the Ashton/Paet intercept, the Nuland/Pyatt intercept, the Micalessin documentary on the Maidan snipers, and the forensic evidence that can be seen from videos. To you, it's all just expired Russian talking points on social media.
What this means is that you have no desire to find truth or facts, but rather to hush up. So the usefulness of talking to you must be very cautiously evaluated.
« unanimous parliamentary vote of no confidence »
Quote from Who Perpetrated the Maidan Massacre? Who Overthrew the Ukrainian Government in 2014? … by Ivan Katchanovski:
The deputy parliament head from Svoboda also opened a parliament session on February 22 to remove Yanukovych from the presidency. The parliament vote to oust Yanukovych for “abandoning [the] presidency” was unconstitutional. It did not follow the impeachment procedures specified in the Ukrainian Constitution, and the tally lacked the required constitutional majority of 338 votes. Further, the vote was done under duress, and many of the 328 “yes” votes that were recorded were fabricated. According to the official parliament record, 248 deputies out of 450 were registered at the opening (Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 2014). Many Yanukovych party deputies switched loyalty, but many others voted under threat of violence by the far-right group of Maidan snipers, the Maidan Self-Defense, and a mob which surrounded the parliament. The commander of the far-right-linked Maidan company of snipers admitted that his group impelled, by force, deputies from the Yanukovych Party of Regions to vote for his removal. The number of present deputies in various videos of this vote was about 262. Davyd Zhvania, a member of Maidan leadership, who headed a parliamentary committee, stated that Maidan opposition leaders seized duplicate cards of absent deputies and used them to fraudulently inflate this vote […]
https://econjwatch.org/File+download/1340/KatchanovskiMar202...
The things you post are simply factually not true.
For example:
This is incorrect, because the Ukrainian parliament did not initiate impeachement procedure at all. Instead, the parliament adopted a resolution to replace the president through early elections. The elections were held three months later and about 18 million people cast their vote. "Coup" is commonly defined as an illegitimate takeover of power by a small group of people, and this was the polar opposite: renewal of mandate from the electorate, set in motion by the the national legislature.
Likewise:
This is no proof of fabrication. The session was opened at 10 in the morning and the vote on the resolution took place 7 hours later, at 5 in the evening. It is common for parliamentary attendance to change during a session, with members arriving after the opening registration or leaving before the session ends, especially during such long sessions. The session was broadcast live, so any doubters can do a headcount if they want.
Katchanovski is a well-known conspiracy theorist, and it shows. And like most of them, he is lazy and assumes the same of his readers.
> check the background of key people like Nuland, Kagan, Friedman, Blinken(stein). Where did they come from?
Could you perhaps say plainly whatever you are alluding to here? I'd like you to state your position clearly.
You’re arguing with a troll with karma in the negatives. Stop feeding it.
Re aid being twice soviet lend lease, that seems iffy. From Wikipedia
>In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease:
>over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks...);11,400 aircraft ...
Ukraine had received nothing like that.
Back then there was more lo-tech, today there's more hi-tech. I was referring to the money figures given. It was $11 billion of lend/lease for the Soviet Union, which today would be around $230 billion. The combined aid for the Ukraine (US+UK+EU) has exceeded $500 billion.
Ukraine is to WW3 as Belgium was to WW1. A hot, stagnant land war in the heart of the continent.
This piece is one of several I've noticed lately in the British press [1, 2], preparing the country for a broader war.
I'm deeply fucking concerned, to be frank. I'm also upset that no major political actor seems to be putting their hand up and suggesting this might be a terrible idea.
Winter is coming.
[1] https://news.sky.com/story/army-chief-says-politicians-to-st...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmn0jke547r5o
I think it's fair to be sceptical about some of the comment coming from the UK defence sector - much of it seems aimed at encouraging an increase in spending without first improving the (incredibly wasteful) state of defence procurement.
The comparison with WW1 is instructive in that regard. Then, the view that conflict with Germany was inevitable was surprisingly widespread - particularly in the wake of Agadir, though it had been steadily building over a couple of decades. It's just that the nature and scope of the conflict that caught them by surprise - a land war rather than being primarily naval.
Vast amounts of money had been poured into building up the navy (always controversial - Gladstone's final premiership was ended by his opposition to a 'vortex of militarism', and Lloyd George and Churchill made similar arguments 15 years later) but those very expensive warships spent most of the conflict at anchor. Most of the pre-war spending was essentially wasted.
If we were to double our defence spending today, we might well end up pissing it up the wall on the same old mix of Trident, aircraft carriers, helicopters, unworkable AFVs, and the most limited carrier variant of F35 when the actual threats are cyberattacks, disinformation, and a variety of hybrid attacks.
« The comparison with WW1 is instructive in that regard. Then, the view that conflict with Germany was inevitable was surprisingly widespread »
What is surprising about that? The Northcliffe propaganda press and writers such as H.G. Wells had been nurturing the idea of the inevitability of war with Germany for years, so, unless they really sucked at propaganda, at least some "positive effect" would be the expected outcome.
« It's just that the nature and scope of the conflict that caught them by surprise - a land war »
Maybe, in some respect. But they had factored in the armies of France and Russia, hadn't they (in 1904 and 1907 already), so they were certainly expecting some land war scenarios.
The reason they didn't tell their people they were willing to sacrifice them on the order of a couple hundred thousands may have had to do with the lack of popular support for such an honorable prospect.
> Ukraine is to WW3 as Belgium was to WW1. A hot, stagnant land war in the heart of the continent.
Belgium is a buffer state that has a port. Ukraine is a breadbasket with lots of soviet era industry and critical accesses to the Black Sea.
Belgium was a speedbump for the Germans, just a way to get to the French and block off the British. Ukraine is the actual goal.
Both can be characterised as long-running, festering land wars on our continent, causing immense destruction and going nowhere fast.
Both were about an outsider trying to rewrite the terms of system from which they felt excluded. WW1 was loosely states with an empire vs. those without.
Both have involved massive miscalculations on all parts as to how quickly and easily this will be over. Russia thought Ukraine would fold, NATO thought Russia would.
We need to be realistic here. This is bad and could get substantially worse.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50148581
Who would actually be involved in WW3 ?
China isnt that stupid. Russia is hopeless in Ukraine, theres no way they would dare try China or even Europe. America is only capable of winning against Venezuela.
Its a joke the Houthis who dont have an air force, navy or army today are laughing at the USA and all Western forces.
The USA is unable to attack by land or sea the Houthis because it is not capable to provide significant extra support to the Arabian peninsula. The real strength of the USA in the past was not their equipment but their ability to have support bases very close by. Today the only close base to the Gulf is Diego Garcia which is thousands of KM away.
We are seeing a new Dreadnought era, all current weapons systems are basically useless. Drones are the new equalizer.
What are Houthis winning other than terrorising shipping?
> What are Houthis winning other than terrorising shipping?
Control. They’re profiting and in power. The Houthis don’t govern with popular consent. Warlords’ politics revolve around access to weapons and the normalization of violence.
Yes and they believe they are free, so in their own eyes they are winning.
> and they believe they are free
This strikes me as unfalsifiable and irrelevant.
> in their own eyes they are winning
Geostrategically and domestically—from a power projection perspective—they are.
Strengthening their control over most of the populated areas of the country, bogging down the Transitional Government forces in a likely-doomed attempt to hold on to their remaining towns, humiliating the Saudi air force, stirring tensions between and within Saudi and the UAE.
And that's before you even get into the question of how it affects the US/Iran conflict.
By reading up Moneagle's books and the recent paper from Beatriz Villarroel something up in the atmosphere will mess with the timeline to avoid further issues.
It costs minimal effort to provide links and names to the vague allusions you’re making.
I was thinking the other day that China is playing it smart. They just have to keep doing what they are doing and they'll win.
Xi isn't doing anything ostentatious like sending his navy to the Persian gulf or overtly dropping weapons supplies in the Middle East. After all they are going for the economic win- something that always eluded the USSR.
Let Trump hang himself and the Chinese make it out like the good guys. After all the most important thing nations want is not human rights it's stability.
Aren’t they going to lose about half their population in the next 75 years?
That’s… problematic
Given the course of climate change, that's likely to happen everywhere. That includes the US.
That's the trend in most populations over the next 100 years anyway.
Well, not countries which have large amounts of immigration and robust systems to integrate immigrants.
Unless of course they elect anti-immigration populists and ruin their appeal. Then they're doomed to shrink.
China didn't elect anyone, let alone an anti-immigration populist, but their population is falling, and they don't have any plans to open up to immigration.
Who needs people to fight wars when you've got robots? "China’s armed forces are testing humanoid robots against combat requirements and studying how the machines might fight alongside soldiers." -- MSN
What is a country worth if it isn't made up of people? Sounds like a hollow victory at best if not a total self-capitulation.
the economy exists for the people, to benefit the people.
if no people, then why have an economy?
The most stable systems are parliamentary democracies.
Sure, you might be switching governments often (and that's a feature, not a bug) at times, but things change slowly.
Which is what you need in a mature rich democracy.
The last thing you want is to elect hard to boot and control individuals like in presidential and semi presidential republics.
"It is often easier to not do something stupid than it is to do something smart."
I hate to agree the Chinese government is competent in foreign affairs, but it's true.
Fundamentally China isn't Russia or USA which both have a proclivity to become entangled in foreign problems. For the US (I'm american) the civil side has four strategic risks:
- weak to no show congress which has ceded war making to the executive branch
- civilian leadership who think bomb it and declare success which is naive
- the inability to stop being suckered in by our own hurbris when others say but we can't get it done without US involvement
- an economy post WWII built on cheap oil, which has tentacles into the mideast
Meanwhile after having pissed away 50 years of culture wars particularly since newt gingrich and the tea party, the US fiscal situation is deplorable.
Most maddening? We did this to ourselves. Blaming immigrants isn't the flex people think it is
« a proclivity to become entangled in foreign problems »
That's a funny way of putting it. The USA has about 900 military bases abroad. (Russia also has two or three.) A bit like saying, gosh, that poor serial rapist continues to be exploited by really problematic women.
Portraying oneself as "weak", "naive", "unable", manipulable and full of "hubris" amounts to a picture of someone who's not really accountable. This is what US propaganda very successfully instills in the part of its population that is, perhaps, too educated to go along with, or embarrased by, what an obvious narcissistic pervert like Trump represents (a "coming-out" of sorts for the US).
« We did this to ourselves. » — Poor USA. The world is sorry for you. … Sarcasm aside, it is curious and conspicuous how in this kind of reflection no attention is paid to the victims of US aggression, and instead a display of self-pity is offered. Please don't take it personally, I know that kind of "canned excuse" and rationalization is 100 % the result of what rramadass explains in his important comment 50148581 on this page/topic, and that is beyond the "thinking habits" of most people, not necessarily because they're dumb but because they don't want to think that they're part of something bad.
Trump doesnt need to hang himself today or tomorrow, the USA military has been shown to be just as ineffective as the Russian equipments.
I think its reasonable to say as a world power, America today cannot be compared to America of WW2 or the British Empire during the 19th century. YT is full of videos making fun of Saudi Arabia being unable to defeat the Houthis, but lets not forget America which has a military budget nearly 20x larger than the Saudis also cant defeat the Houthis.
America as a super power should be able to steamroll Iran and Houthis, but it cant do much to either. Ospreys which were built because of the Iran hostage situation of the 80s, today cannot fly more than 15minutes from a base.
I think its possible to say the USA was never actually that powerful, they just looked it, similar to the USSR, and when tested they both are while deadly and destructive not actually able to convincely win. Big difference between Hollywood and reality.
I think the US military is still pretty powerful but they are unable to do so much with Iran and the Houthis due to Trump not wanting to put boots on the ground.
> Xi isn't doing anything ostentatious
he is absolutely doing bold, belligerent moves towards Taiwan
> Let Trump hang himself and the Chinese make it out like the good guys. After all the most important thing nations want is not human rights it's stability.
literally 50-cent army posts
any one have a non paywall link?
https://app.ft.com/content/3a56575e-ecfb-4fa9-af70-01aebd869...
> Russian strikes on Ukraine kill more than 100 civilians across the country
> As a journalist ... It was at the three-day Munich Security Conference that ended on February 20 2022
Ah yes, nothing was happening in the world in previous 30 years and some countries absolutely didn't insist on being involved in the military conflicts on the other side of the globe. Nothing happened and it was kumbyaya everywhere. And no civilian casulties, of course.
Were pie and punch served?
Thank you very much, you skipped the main part.
WWIII is all but certain and the root cause is Geopolitics of Europe/USA/UK/Russia. Look at history from the time of British Empire vs. Russia (before WWII) later Soviet Union vs. USA/Europe/UK and then Russia vs. USA/Europe/UK. The new factor in current times is China which would like nothing better than have the above combatants finish each other off, so its supremacy is automatically established.
All the above participants use "Reflexive Control" against each other to Manipulate and Propagandize in furtherance of their goals - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_control
The current example is how Ukraine was manipulated into being the sacrificial lamb in order to draw Russia into invading it thus expending its resources while USA/Europe/UK don't suffer as much.
One way to understand this is via Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes by Jacques Ellul - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:_The_Formation_of_M...
The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action.
Propaganda employs encirclement on the individual by trying to surround man by all possible routes, in the realm of feelings as well as ideas, by playing on his will or his needs through his conscious and his unconscious, and by assailing him in both his private and his public life.
Propaganda is concerned with timeliness since an individual is only moved to action if he is pushed towards a timely one by propaganda..."Operational words" are used to penetrate an individual's indifference...Incidentally, there are also the undecided, people whose opinions are vague, who form the majority of citizens within the collective. These citizens are the most susceptible to control of public opinion that is dictated by propaganda.
Political Propaganda involves techniques of influence employed by a government, a party, an administration, or a pressure group with the intention of changing the behavior of the public...The methods of political propaganda are calculated in a precise manner and its main criterion is to disseminate an ideology for the very purpose of making various political acts acceptable to the people.
Sociological propaganda aims to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature by developing compliance with or defense of the established order through long term penetration and progressive adaptation by using all social currents. The propaganda element is the way of life with which the individual is permeated and then the individual begins to express it in film, writing, or art without realizing it...This propaganda reinforces the individual's way of life and represents this way of life as best. Sociological propaganda creates an indisputable criterion for the individual to make judgments of good and evil according to the order of the individual's way of life.
Information is indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion".
Citizens are aware that political decisions affect everybody and governments cannot govern without the support, presence, pressure, or knowledge of the people. Yet the people are incapable of making long term policy so opinion must be created to follow the government because the government cannot be led by opinion. All of this describes the "Mass-Government" relationship characterized by people demanding what has already been decided, in order to appear as though the government is actually caring about what the people need.
The propagandist cannot be constrained by the ideology of his State but must operate in service of the state and be able to manipulate the ideology as if it were an object. The ideology merely provides the content for the propagandist to build off since he is limited to what already is present within the group, nation, or society. The fundamental ideologies are nationalism, socialism, communism, and democracy.
Since democracy depends on public opinion, it is clear that propaganda must be involved...However, as discussed in early chapters Ellul described the masses are incapable of making long-term foreign policy and the government needs to make these decisions in a timely manner. This is where propaganda comes into play and projects an artificial reality to the masses to satisfy their need to participate in government while the decisions are really made behind the scenes. .. Democratic regimes develop propaganda in line with its myths and prejudices. Propaganda stresses the superiority of a democratic society while intensifying the prejudices between democratic and oppressive.</i>
A most informative comment/quote on how propaganda works!
« how Ukraine was manipulated into being the sacrificial lamb in order to draw Russia into invading it »
Yes, this is of course really sad, but also fascinating and instructive. At the core, I think, there is the implantation of the transformative idea that "the Ukraine is not Russia, but something better than Russia", in order to forge a new identity ex negativo by constantly referring to Russia as a negative example and almost compulsively stating one's being different, and of course superior. (Which really begs the question of how different they are: usually it's outright lies that are repeated over and over again by propaganda.)
It's a sort of flattery: "You're showing promise, you have potential, you're really good already. You could really be part of our shiny vassal system (Europe), but there's a tiny problem … Russia won't like it, and there might be a war. But don't worry, if you persevere in your efforts, we're going to support you, and we are really strong, as sure you know. Ready whenever you are, but as for the timing and planning, we may have some suggestions, as we happen to have a lot of experience in freedom fighting."
The second part about "drawing Russia in" is also interesting. I think the bear was poked and provoked, but also blinded and distracted; not lured (as was the Ukraine), but encouraged as part of a con game (where con is short for confidence), so as to dare to make a move that it would otherwise not dare to make.
For example, the Russian contingent deployed to Syria helping the government fight the islamist NATO proxies was allowed to do so for a long time, when it would have been possible for the West block powers (which have vastly more resources in the area) to disrupt and suppress the Russian contribution. But they didn't.