The Crazy SOB Actually Did it!

[ralfy]

I got you figured out, ralfy, you're CIA, aren't you? You're sitting there giving us these inside warnings wearing your black suit and black tie and those special shoes for sneaking up on.... Wait that's what those punks in the FBI wear. What do spooks dress in? Oh! You're sitting there in a ball cap and dark glasses, nondescript T-shirt, trying to benevolently tip us all off with your covert intelligence. Hey, did I get it right? Please say I got it right! 

The CIA would say the opposite of my points.

[ralfy]

^ ER, you are on fire today!   

...If I'm not mistaken, this is part of an off-topic discussion section, and thus not part of banter that is natural for topics on bad movies.

Also, the event described is a very serious one, as some believe that it may lead to a third world war. Right now, it is leading to high inflation, and although offset by what might be revenge shopping (hence, a 5+ pct world GDP bounce) I don't know if the latter will last.

I get this feeling that you are not aware of either, which is why you choose to post memes and smiley icons.

It's still a bad movies forum.  Deep political discussions are perhaps better served elsewhere.  Certainly nothing to invest in or express anger about.  But feel free, it is a democracy. 

You can choose to hit a panic button, but I'd rather not.  "The event described"...?  Which event?  War in Ukraine?  The ascension of the United States?  German philosophies regarding Russians?  World War 3?  (Questions are merely rhetorical.) 

Yes, in an off-topic discussion section, which is where we find this thread.

As for the the rest of your questions, I will address them in my subsequent (and last) posts on the matter.

[ralfy]

To recap, my point is that Putin attacked Ukraine not because he wants to revive some Soviet Empire but because he's countering NATO enlargement

I agree with this and also that this war is abut the US and it's actions in Eastern Europe in general.

Driving more nations into nato and getting Germany to increase her military budget plus getting European nations to even talk about a European union military are not very wise ways to deal with an expanded nato.

In Europe people are better educated about world history than the typical American, and remember how Hitler started out seizing small neighboring states ,they also are educated about how well that worked. (It sucked, to be honest.)

As far as Pooty goes he is be very unpopular in Russia now. In fact I hear he's staying in a Bunker to avoid windows...

I think it's the U.S. that's driving more nations not only into NATO but into the U.S. sphere of influence. The reason has to do with ensuring continued use of the dollar as a reserve currency. That, in turn, allows the U.S. to create more debt and give part of it as military aid to countries that are being driven into that sphere.

Notice, too, that the U.S. has had a long history of playing both sides. For example, recall what happened during the first oil shock: Saudi Arabia cut supplies, protesting U.S. military aid to Israel. The solution of the U.S. was to provide military aid to Saudi Arabia as well in exchange for the Saudis pricing oil in dollars and then investing part of profits they won't use right away in Wall Street banks.

The results:

Oil supplies resumed.

The Saudis got their military aid, and Israel, too.

Since oil was priced in dollars, this made the world more dependent on U.S. dollars, and thus allowed the U.S. to borrow and spend heavily. That included the military aid sent to the Saudis, the Israelis, etc.

The dollars earned by the Saudis were put in Wall Street banks, which made the U.S. rich richer, and allowed the U.S. to provide more cheap loans (petrodollar recycling) to even more countries that it wanted to make part of its orbit of influence.

Bonus: the military aid taken from created loans was passed on as public debt to the gullible American masses. The defense industry became richer because they earned from arms sales to the U.S. government and to the foreign recipients of military aid.

The same masses didn't mind and care because they were too busy borrowing and spending heavily using the same petrodollar recycling scheme.

Finally, it looks like they're doing the same for Ukraine: aid provided by corrupt U.S. politicians are being deposited by corrupt Ukraine politicians in cryptocurrency, etc., then laundered. Both sets of politicians get their cut, while the aid is passed on as public debt again to the same gullible masses, this time complaining that the aid should have gone to them.

[ralfy]

Only going to bother responding to a few points here. The post is too long and rambling to address everything.

No, my response concerning how the U.S. defines WMDs is in response to your claim that WMDs don't involve explosives. According to the U.S., it's anything that causes great harm to masses of people. An example of that would be MOABs.

Still thinking that the US defines what WMDs are. I didn't say explosives weren't WMDs as nuclear weapons funnily enough are very explosive. I said they are not officially defined as WMD because there is no official designation of a WMD. It is just a mistake made by armchair generals. That however was just a side note to your assumptions on how such weapons would be used which I felt was a lot more important.

Finally, how are those two points connected? By showing that WMDs don't involve explosives, you can show that U.S. use of MOABs isn't part of that, and therefore what it does isn't criminal.

Maybe if MOABs were effective they might count. My point was (and this is the part you keep failing to understand, although as mentioned in a previous post it is a very minor point compared to the errors you made in how those weapons could be used) that there is no legal definition of WMD. Post as many links as you want, each country can define it differently and no centralised body has yet to give an official designation that will count beyond one country's borders. Using them by themselves isn't criminal, but where you use them is. Look up LOAC and The Law of Proportionality if you wish to know more.

As for Saddam and WMDs, don't waste your time. The U.S. didn't prove anything then, and hasn't until now. That's why even Bush made a joke of it:

Shame. If you'd looked into my points you might have discovered I was agreeing with you there. I have never said Saddam didn't support terrorists or that he had stockpiles of WMDs ready to use on the west. I never raised or really went into it beyond mentioning there was some stuff you might want to look into that if you liked studying that kind of thing, might just interest you. Check it out or not. Either way it doesn't really affect me. If you are thinking that in some way I was supporting the US in this matter, you are entirely wrong. I didn't believe the claims when they were made never mind waiting until after the invasion.

Right, which is why the U.S. used MOABs. And yet they commit mass destruction, too.

And yet according to the US military's own reports into them, they didn't really achieve much and were rather ineffectual at taking out enemy troops and didn't have much effect even as a psychological weapon. Indeed there is some evidence that their inability to take out Taliban mountain strongholds increased their morale. The Russians have a nuclear weapon that can wipe out an entire country the size of Germany or France. MOAB is a cherry bomb next to that. Other countries have bigger conventional bombs. Time to move on.

You? Where did you get the idea that I'm Russian?

Where have I said you are Russian? Do you suffer from hallucinations and often read things that aren't there, because multiple times you've made comments that just come out of nowhere referring to things that haven't been said.

Russia and the U.S. are neck and neck:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/09/03/country-with-most-nuclear-weapons/7845467001/

I can't access your link, but the best estimates have Russia possessing roughly 500 more (5977 against 5428), meaning that Russia has more nuclear weapons. Much of what they have is smaller tactical ones (battlefield use), but at the top end of their arsenal, they have more powerful weapons than the US has, all in all giving them a greater range of tactical and strategic options.

Would you like to look at numbers of military bases and installations next, plus what's deployed for each of them?

You may not have noticed but you have already posted that multiple times already. It isn't going to add anything more than it has already.

Why would Russia want to be a major world power? It will just end up like the U.S., i.e., affected by the Triffin dilemma. Why do you think none of the members of BRICS want to use their currencies as a reserve and instead want SDRs?

You'd have to ask Putin why he wants it to be a major world power. My guess is it all comes down to his ego, national pride and his experiences when he was in East Germany when the communist block collapsed. I really believe much of his policies and how he has run things really goes back to that as a major formative event in his life. Perhaps the world isn't run by ivory tower intellectuals? Asking that question screams that you have missed much of history though as it is something countries repeatedly reach for. Think the BRIC nations aren't?

And how on earth do ground commanders become experts on geopolitical events? You're not making any sense.

I didn't say they did. You are the one who replied about foreign policy experts when we were discussing ground warfare. We keep coming back to this point.

What else is the reason why the U.S. would have such a large military budget, set up over 700 military bases and installations worldwide, and commit so much mayhem that its own former President refers to it as the most warlike in modern history?

And if you're going to give some Reagan "evil empire" speech or Dubya's "either you are with us, or you are for the terrorists," then I'll be very disappointed.

Again with the number of bases worldwide. See my comment below about the military-industrial complex, and maybe sometime we could have a chat separate from this thread about why I think the US has such a large military budget (although when you compare it to the total US budget it is pretty damn small).

Don't get confused: I wasn't referring to ground commanders. You were.

I guess you missed your own multiple references to ground commanders then. I guess I am not the only one who has been skipping through your posts. I keep having to mention this to you and it doesn't seem to get through. I mentioned ground commanders when we were discussing ground warfare. You mentioned foreign policy experts. I'll ignore the rest of your stuff there, as it really is just more of the same. My point when it was first made still stands. You can keep trying to twist it away from that if you wish, but I will keep bringing it back to that.

Who are these "ground commanders"?

Simple answer to that one. People who command troops on the ground.

I've cut out all the stuff about BRIC, because while I find it interesting it isn't really on topic. Again, if you want to discuss it, I am happy to do so elsewhere.

I can't think of any other reason why the U.S. has been spending heavily on its military, especially in light of Ukraine:

I can think of one really important one, but to explain it, I'd have to know more about what you think the military-industrial complex is, in your own words rather than using quotes and outside sources. Even then I suspect I'd be wasting my time. You do too much reading of things that aren't there and taking one part of a conversation, then joining it to an entirely different part of a conversation for such a talk to be really worthwhile.

FWIW, those "Youtube links" consist of interviews with Chomsky, Sachs, and others, as well as lectures from political scientists and full-length documentaries from Pilger. They've also written articles, reports, and books on the same, so there's no need to congratulate me for going beyond certain sources. I've been there from the start.

I wasn't congratulating you on moving beyond those sources. I was congratulating you for not just posting up new Youtube links that merely result in big blank spaces in your posts that put people off of reading them.

See, that's what I mean. This is not a black-and-white issue about one "crazy SOB" and being condemned by non-crazy, non-SOBs. Rather, we are looking at multiple military and economic powers engaged in shifting as part of realpolitik.

Everything you have posted says it is a black-and-white situation caused purely by the US and NATO. This is why I keep saying you are only seeing half the picture. This is something another reason why I've not clicked on most of your links and sources. I do not disagree with you that the actions of the west have contributed to this situation, however, I am also aware of what Putin has done and how he exploits the situation. If you are trying to show that it isn't a single issue topic, then I am sorry but you have failed very badly.

That's why India and others are neutral, might shift from that, or might be neutral for some policies but not for others.

I would say India and others have been neutral because of the trade deals they have with Russia myself. It is a debatable point but one that would be for a different topic/forum.

At this point, I hope that you realize that I've been on-topic from the start: I've been trying to explain what made the "crazy SOB" do it, and the answer lies way beyond the simpleton narrative that Putin simply wants to bring back the Soviet Empire.

I am aware it is not as simple as Putin wanting to build a new empire. What I am trying to get through to you is that it isn't as simple as Putin has been pushed by the west. Ever wondered to yourself, why do these countries like Ukraine and the Baltic States want to join NATO? All your posts say this is entirely the west's fault (specifically the US). I see no sign of balanced reporting (although I do admit I may have missed it thanks to skimming over some of your posts) if that is what you are trying to do. Believe me, I am not some flag-waving American patriot. Hell, I am not even American. I've made more than one post on this forum criticising the US and its international actions. Doesn't mean I hate it or love it for that matter. I do recognise when it has done right and done wrong though and can call it out or blame it as the situation deserves and requires. It is no different in its actions really from any of the other empires that came before it, nor different from any that will come after it I suspect.

Apologies for not addressing all of your points. As mentioned before I simply don't have enough time.

The official definition of WMDs came from the U.S. government the U.N., as explained to you earlier.

Now, we're looking at laws of proportionality. Reminds me of McNamara.

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1	Small | Large

The point I was making concerning WMDs and the claim that Saddam was supporting terrorists is to show that the decision to invade was based on false flags, as both points were not proven.

Next, the point isn't effectivity but usage. I understand amoraal view of the matter, but that's not the tone of this thread.

Where did you think that I'm Russian? "As to arguing that the US doesn't have WMDs, are you not aware you have the world's second-largest supply of nuclear weapons?" Who's "you"?

Do you understand what "neck and neck" means? The difference between the two numbers is around 10 pct.

The reason why I posted that fact about U.S. military bases is because you don't seem to be aware of it or its implications. Why are there so many of them spread around the world?

Where did you get the idea that Russia (not Putin) wants to be a major military power? Or is it because you need to repeat that in order to justify U.S. military spending, among others?

Where did you get the idea that we've been talking about ground warfare? The decision to attack Iraq was not based on that but on the claims that Saddam possessed WMDs and was supporting terrorists. Neither could be proven.

I did not refer to ground commanders. My sources are political scientists, historians, government officials, journalists, economists, etc.

Earlier you argued that I should expand my sources. Now, I'm reading too much. Reminds me of that "too many notes" line from Amadeus:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1	Small | Large

Next, Youtube links: click on the link below the blank space and you can view them.

I never argued that it's a black-and-white situation. If any, I've been countering that claim. See for yourself: the dominant black-and-white situation discussed in this thread is that Putin is crazy, Russia wants to form an empire, and the West is here to save the day. I'm questioning that.

Right, trade deals. There's also recent news that the Netherlands is trying to resist U.S. claims about chip restrictions for China. Oh, the irony: free trade must prevail unless it's disadvantageous to the U.S., right?

Finally, about Putin being pushed by the West, wait for my subsequent posts. I have a lot of evidence for that.

[ralfy]

Wow has this thread strayed...

As a minor point people refering to BRIC (Brazil Russia India China) might want to note that South Africa is now often counted in this, making it BRICS.

It hasn't strayed: BRICS and almost forty countries have been experiencing very high economic growth the last two decades, and will eventually be taking control of the global economy.

The U.S., in turn, needs them to continue using the dollar so that the U.S. can maintain its borrowing and spending binge. That includes spending on a very expensive military that it needs to coerce and control other nations. The two ideologies it employs are neoconservatism (anyone who goes against the U.S. is against freedom and democracy, and must be dealt with using foreign policies and the military) and neoliberalism (freedom must prevail, whether countries want it or not; they must be pried open for trade, and thus for exploitation by stronger nations).

It needs to do that because when more countries start moving away from the U.S. dollar, then the U.S. will weaken considerably and even fall apart. And the only way for them to remain dependent on the dollar is to make sure that they are kept weak and dependent.

That's why NATO has been enlarging even without a Soviet Union, making more countries part of its sphere of influence, to counter Russia.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

That's also why the U.S. has over 700 military bases and installations worldwide, with around 400 of them need to counter China:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1	Small | Large

Thus, the thread strays if one sticks to the simpleton narrative, which the U.S. prefers, that Putin is nuts, that Russians are violent and barbaric, and that the U.S. stands for good and must save the world from the "evil empire":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0NXs_uWPgg

And that anyone who goes against her is with the terrorists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB145D3XJzE

The problem is that more people started studying the matter and discovered a reality that shows that the narrative is questionable. I'll explain in more detail in subsequent posts.

[ralfy]

Kudos for not applying a US-hegemony-is-the-cause-of-everything filter to China.

Putin is, of course, the ultimate hypocrite for complaining about another country's political assassinations. (Being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're wrong; Jeffrey Dahmer would be right to criticize Charlie Manson's morals).

It's not so much an issue of applying a U.S.-is-the-cause-of-everything filter but applying a the-enemies-of-the-U.S.-is-the-cause-of-everything filter.

The latter is very clear in both the topic thread and the majority of messages in this thread.

Finally, I don't think Putin is the ultimate hypocrite as he's already been judged as a "crazy SOB". What we should wonder about are his rivals: they're the ones implicitly basing views on exceptionalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

[ralfy]

Putin pulled an assassination in England using a nerve agent that injured a non involved British citizen, and he was allowed to get away with it without consequences. This sort if thing just emboldened him over and over.

From what I remember, he came from the KGB and was supported by Russian oligarchs, the latter thinking that they could manipulate him, after which he turned on his own handlers.

Barring Communism, the U.S. and NATO had to find other reasons to apply pressure on not only Russia but even on China and those who trade with them. Hence, the illusion that he wants to recreate some Soviet Empire.

This also explains why NATO advisers have to see Russians as violent and non-European.

Why the need to apply pressure? Because the one who creates the reserve currency of the global economy must remain as top dog. How else can it continue borrowing and spending heavily?

[ralfy]

"Is Ukraine a 'proxy war'?"

https://noahcarl.substack.com/p/is-ukraine-a-proxy-war

In 2019, the RAND corporation published a report on strategies to “overextend and unbalance” Russia. The report identified “providing lethal aid to Ukraine” as one that would “exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability”. (Interestingly, it concluded that any increase in aid would need to be “carefully calibrated” to avoid provoking “a much wider conflict”.)

...

“The key,” Brands noted, “is to find a committed local partner — a proxy willing to do the killing and dying”. You then “load it up with” arms so that it can inflict “shattering blows” on your adversary. “That’s just what Washington and its allies are doing to Russia today.”

[ralfy]

"What would George Kennan say about Ukraine?"

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/591787-what-would-george-kennan-say-about-ukraine/

Kennan’s critique of a divided Europe survived even the fall of the Soviet Union. Writing in 1997 at age 92, he declared that expanding NATO to the east “ would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

“Such a decision,” he went on, “may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations.”

"A Fateful Error"

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html

But something of the highest importance is at stake here. And perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.

Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. And, last but not least, it might make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to secure the Russian Duma's ratification of the Start II agreement and to achieve further reductions of nuclear weaponry.

[ralfy]

"The Tragedy in Ukraine That Could Have Been Avoided"

https://www.apln.network/news/member_activities/the-tragedy-in-ukraine-that-could-have-been-avoided

Leading American realists from Henry Kissinger back to George Kennan, architect of the strategy of containment of the Soviet Union, argued that the peace and stability of the region could be guaranteed by acknowledging Russia’s sphere of influence.

When US President George W. Bush officially sought to make Georgia and Ukraine members of NATO in a summit in Bucharest in 2008, Kissinger argued that those two countries should be left neutral instead of being added to NATO. He was concerned that Russia might regard NATO’s eastward drive as signaling a change in the status quo.

On Jan. 19, a month before the invasion of Ukraine, US current events journal Foreign Policy carried an article by Harvard University professor Stephen Walt titled “Liberal illusions caused the Ukraine crisis.” In it, Walt predicted that the US and the West’s aggressive values-based foreign policy could provoke Russia to invade Ukraine, a prediction that proved only too true.

"The NATO Critics Who Predicted Russia’s Belligerence"

https://newrepublic.com/article/165562/nato-critics-predicted-russia-putin-belligerence-ukraine

Joe Biden was confident. “This, in fact, is the beginning of another 50 years of peace,” he declared while serving as ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1998. The Delaware Democrat was proud of his role in helping the bipartisan congressional vote to approve the addition of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as full NATO members.

Not everyone was so optimistic, however. One month earlier, during a Senate debate, New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan cautioned, “We’re walking into ethnic historical enmities.” He added: “We have no idea what we’re getting into.”

[ralfy]

"3 NATO gambles that have played a big role in the horrors of war in Ukraine"

https://theconversation.com/3-nato-gambles-that-have-played-a-big-role-in-the-horrors-of-war-in-ukraine-178815

"Kennan's revenge: remembering the reasons for the Cold War"

To understand how Russians regard Ukraine today, one needs to view events there through this lens. Following its "victory" in the Cold War, the West made a serious mistake by refusing to concede any form of regional hegemony to Russia, even in countries like Ukraine and Georgia that had once formed part of the historic Russian state.

Rather, under the banner of democracy and human rights, the West actively sought to pry the ex-Soviet countries from Russia's orbit. Many of them were eager to escape the Kremlin's gravity, and NATO expanded eastward into the former Soviet bloc in Central Europe, and even into the former Soviet Union, with the admission of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. In 1996, the 92-year-old Kennan warned that NATO's expansion into former Soviet territory was a "strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions."

[ralfy]

"Kennan Revisited: NATO Expansion into the Former USSR in Retrospect"

https://www.foreignaffairsreview.com/home/kennan-revisited-nato-expansion-into-the-former-ussr-in-retrospect

Kennan was not alone in his fears – they were championed and echoed by Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Sam Nunn, and Thomas Friedman – all of whom warned in the 1990’s of the inevitability of a ‘new cold war’ if NATO were to be expanded without the inclusion of Russia. While its proponents make the case for NATO enlargement on the grounds of historical determinism – that twice in this century central and eastern Europe were the cause of Great Wars – the notion that enlargement would ‘lock in the dividends’ of the Cold War’s end is one firmly dispelled by the Ukrainian crisis.

Kennan was right.

"Opinion: A different perspective on Ukraine"

https://www.concordmonitor.com/My-Turn-Ukraine-45415553

In 1989, at the end of the Cold War, the U.S., the EU and NATO promised Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch” eastward. Effectively, the end of the Cold War rendered NATO irrelevant. Nevertheless, in 1996 the Clinton administration began NATO expansion eastward. Many figures in the U.S., George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, Sam Nunn, Bill Bradley, Robert Gates, Jack Matlock among them, said then that NATO expansion was a bad idea.

Kennan, the architect of containment after WW2, warned that NATO expansion “would be the most fateful mistake of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” His warning was ignored then, in the name of political expediency, and forgotten by most now. Since the reunification of Germany that marked the end of the Cold War, we’ve added 14 nations to NATO, all to the east of Germany. The promise to Gorbachev and the warnings by leading foreign policy experts? All memory-holed.

"NATO and the Ukraine war: It took 30 years for Russia and the West to create this disaster"

https://www.salon.com/2022/06/30/nato-and-the-ukraine-war-it-took-30-years-for-and-the-west-to-create-this-disaster/

As NATO holds its summit in Madrid this week, the war in Ukraine is taking center stage. During a pre-summit June 22 talk with Politico, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg bragged about how well-prepared NATO was for this fight because, he said: "This was an invasion that was predicted, foreseen by our intelligence services." Stoltenberg was talking about Western intelligence predictions in the months leading up to the Feb. 24 invasion, when Russia insisted it was not going to attack. Stoltenberg, however, could well have been talking about predictions that went back not just months before the invasion, but decades.

Stoltenberg could have looked all the way back to when the USSR was dissolving, and highlighted a 1990 State Department memo warning that creating an "anti-Soviet coalition" of NATO countries along the USSR's border "would be perceived very negatively by the Soviets."

[ralfy]

"Whose Bright Idea Was It to Extend NATO Membership to Ukraine?"

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/whose-bright-idea-was-it-to-extend-nato-membership-to-ukraine/

But the specter, however far-fetched, of NATO encirclement did offer Putin a pretext for invasion—more credible, at least, than the claim that Ukraine was a Nazi regime. But blaming NATO for forcing Putin to bombard Ukraine’s civilian population is a little like blaming Hitler’s decision to make war on Europe, Russia, and the U.S. on the Treaty of Versailles, which, as John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1920, levied ruinous reparations on Germany. Yes, the treaty was a bad idea that helped the Nazis come to power, just as the 2008 invitation that NATO extended to Ukraine and Georgia was a bad idea, too, one which, as George Kennan noted about NATO’s eastward expansion, was an act of first-rate geopolitical stupidity, a gratuitous insult to Russia.

And whence that insult? From none other than George W. Bush, who forced it on a reluctant NATO because he wanted to “lay down a marker” for his legacy before his term in office ran out, as The New York Times, quoting one Bush counselor, reported at the time. At NATO’s 2008 conference in Bucharest, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands strenuously objected to inviting those two nations to join, as neither seemed remotely ready for the task and as Russia—with or without Putin—would clearly view the invitation as an affront. According to the Times, “Germany and France have said they believe that since neither Ukraine nor Georgia is stable enough to enter the program now, a membership plan would be an unnecessary offense to Russia, which firmly opposes the move.” Among Europe’s major nations, only the U.K., under the Blairite Gordon Brown, stuck with Bush on this, as it had on the Iraq War.

"Ukraine is a Pawn on the Grand Chessboard"

https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/ukraine-is-a-pawn-on-the-grand-chessboard

The basic premise of “The Grand Chessboard” is outlined in the introduction: 

*with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States is the sole global power

* Europe and Asia (Eurasia) together have the largest land area, population, and economy 

* U.S. must control Eurasia and prevent another country from challenging US dominance

[ralfy]

TL-DR: The idea is containment, first of the Iron Curtain in the name of freedom, and next of Russia, China, and others in the name of the U.S. dollar given the dissolution of that Curtain.

Various reasons for containing them--that one leader plans to form an empire, than another wants to spread terrorism, that a third is autocratic and thus against freedom, that a fourth has WMDs, etc.--are all contrived.

The U.S. needs onerous foreign policies, covert activities, and military presence, intervention, and aid to achieve containment.

The U.S. economy gains from that containment because the same countries are weakened and thus remain dependent on the dollar, which allows the U.S. to borrow and spend heavily.

The politicians they favor in those countries gain because they get a cut from military and financial aid. Oligarchs in the same countries also gain because they receive a lot of invenstments from donor nations.

The military gains because they receive a larger budget, more armaments, etc.

The defense industry gains because they make more sales to the government and to other governments that receive military aid.

The catch: according to critics mentioned earlier, this will backfire on the U.S. and NATO as the same countries become stronger thanks to the same use of the dollar as a reserve currency (see the Triffin dilemma) and start moving away from the U.S. orbit of influence: bilateral relations, their own economic blocs, and even the use of a basket of currencies.

That, in turn, may lead to escalation of conflict as countries trying to remain neutral have to contend with a more aggressive U.S. while trying to maintain trade with Russia, China, and others. Even the U.S. might be affected in unusual ways, as China is one of its major trading partners.

[ralfy]

"U.S. military-industrial complex: Wins big from Russia-Ukraine crisis"

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-05-05/U-S-military-industrial-complex-Wins-big-from-Russia-Ukraine-crisis-19MWjZTqe08/index.html

While in Alabama, President Biden reminded Congress that he wanted that body to fast track his proposed $33 billion in military aid to Ukraine. "I urge the Congress to pass this funding quickly to help Ukraine continue to succeed against Russian aggression, just as they did when they won the battle of Kyiv and to make sure the United States and our allies can replenish our own stock of weapons to replace what we've sent to Ukraine," he said. 

Biden told the truth in one of his rare moments of speaking accurately and transparent. He sees the perfect opportunity for America to put its current military hardware to use so that even more such hardware can be produced by corporations such as Lockheed Martin and purchased by America's government. It is a bizarre win-win situation since those new munitions will be used somewhere around the world and likely sooner rather than later. The military-industrial complex must be continuously fed.

"Defense contractors eye long-term profits from Ukraine war "

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/10/19/defense-contractors-eye-long-term-profits-from-ukraine-war/

Notably, it’s unclear whether these weapons would actually be useful in the case of a U.S.-China war. 

“It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war in the future,” Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Defense News. “This is not the list you would use for China. For China we’d have a very different list.”