I read in other media how some new American weapons can fight certain Russian tanks etc, and now I read about Putin bragging about his new weapons.
My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace.
Of course the Cold War is still happening: America has been exporting war wholesale for decades. Just because Russia hasn't been doing it at the same scale as well, doesn't mean squat.
The US and Russia have had plenty of opportunities to leave each other in peace over the last 30 years. The trouble is, they're not the only parties to this farce. Incredibly powerful, massively entrenched super-power-like military industrial multinational corporations are involved as well, and there is no way in HELL they are going to let their number one revenue source dry up just because we all want peace.
Its quite simple: stop assuming that its sovereign nation states doing all the fire-lighting. We are way, way beyond that point now. If you want to get a grip on war economy you have to stop allowing your politicians to push you - the people - into more and more heinous debt, for more and more heinous reasons (imperialist warfare against innocents), without repercussion.
This is going to be a tough sell. Pretty much everyone using computers to establish themselves in the technology markets today is going to have to deal with a multinational, war-mongering, mega-corporate military-industrial giant. We're well and truly being dominated by those who are quite happy having us all in the abyss, trembling in fear at what would happen if we stopped buying from General Electric, Samsung and co.
The reason I think that is because there is so much GOOD technology out there that would solve our crises of cultures in a heartbeat; we are being prevented from applying this, with every $billion-dollar bomber we build in the heartland, instead of schools, hospitals, universities, infrastructure.
EDIT: btw, I don't think its a "big invisible hand", but that's because I pay attention. I think its more of a "the people are cowards and cannot face up to the facts of their own complicity in the death cult".
I also object to the sentence "the people are cowards and cannot face up to the facts of their own complicity in the death cult". That is hyperbole and grand-standing all around.
Yet, I am sad to disagree with you. Because it is definitely an interesting question why we spend so much on military. Specifically, it is interesting how this relates to industries that benefit from this spending. Though it is also quite relevant to study popular sentiment towards this spending. However, I do not think one should go to conspiracy level explanations here. If one were to go there, it would take heaps and heaps of evidence.
To convince me, and perhaps the rest of the world, start by making smaller claims that are easily proven. Then you can build up to stronger claims that aren't proven but are at least corroborated by evidence.
Or you might just be an astroturfing russian-payed troll to make us distrust government, but I'd like to think otherwise.
Not really, no. Not when you profit directly from peoples hatred, and its sub-product, fear. Hatred of others, fear of others.
America has commercialized hatred and weaponized fear. How else can you explain the invasion of Afghanistan when it should have had KSA in its sights?
But Russia is the number two arms exporter, and it spends a higher percentage of its gdp on defense.
But you're right, everything bad that happens between the two countries is entirely the fault of the US </s>
Which country regularly destroys, utterly, the infrastructure and society of other foreign nations, through both covert and overt means, in its quest for global military domination? (Hint: its not Russia.)
Factually, that may be correct, but in context the numbers spell out a different picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
Russia very much wants to "never get involved in a land war in Asia." To that end, it wants a solid mountain boundary from the Carpathians to the Tien Shan, and the Gobi desert from there to the Pacific. Until then, you can expect continued encroachments on Ukraine, the Caucuses, and steppe Central Asia, and continued buildup of its military capabilities.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5497331ae4b0148a6141b...
Meanwhile, to get decent natural borders around Kazakhstan you need to either see that expanse as a natural border, or take over the entirety of Khazakstan.
Further east than that, and Russia's borders again seem to follow natural obstacles.
Quite true. The problem is that in order to gain the territory, it takes aggressive actions that provoke the very hostility it fears.
Russia's basic problem is it thinks we are still in the pre-nuclear era where great powers regularly invaded each other, and the pre-industrial era where that was the main road to economic wealth.
Agree 100%. Russia's biggest strength is also its biggest weakness: reliance on outdated forms of dominance. What we ought to be doing is working closely with China to develop energy technologies. Not only would it strengthen our interdependence on China (reducing the possibility of war with them), but our ability to cripple Russia economically would be substantially increased if we could build a couple thorium salt nuclear reactors in Eastern Europe and cut off Russia's income from oil exports.
What would be the point of that? And, come to think of it, what do you think the likely outcome of such a situation would be? Good for you, you laid evil Putin low. And what about all the actual people living in Russia? Collateral damage?
Warfare, economic or otherwise, is only the answer for people who lack the ability to think creatively.
These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
Do Americans just not see their own hypocrisy on this issue? Russia didn't invade and destroy entire nation(s) (PLURAL) in order to exercise global military power - it invaded Crimea to secure its own resources in the region. Ukraine did not fall, it has not been utterly destroyed, its infrastructure not-related to offensive actions against the Russian naval bases in Crimea is still intact.
But we cannot say that about America's actions in the forementioned countries, nor can we say that Russian interference in the American 'election' is anywhere near the same order of magnitude as American interference in .. 20+ different democracies around the world. I shan't make a list - this is an exercise for the average American reader to demonstrate for themselves that there is no hypocrisy here.
And .. NATO. The military organization currently doing its best to ensure Russia is encircled by heavy military assets. Tell me again: when was the last time Russia established full operational, offensive bases within 30 km's of the borders of the USA with any of its clients and their military?
Please, do not play this game. It makes no sense and it just makes you sound utterly ill-informed. Russia is in no way on par with the USA when it comes to military aggression. Not even close.
When was the last time the USA threatened Canada and Mexico with annihilation?
Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan.
Iraq however was unjustified. The difference is that more than half of America admits it and thus freely elected a new President from a different party. Match that one Russia.
Bush was reelected after the Iraq War by a larger margin than before, serving out his full two terms.
I dunno. When was the last time Canada and Mexico threatened to impound a US naval base? When was the last time Canada tried to ally with the US' principle military opponent and have its military assets installed on its territory?
>Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan.
This is laughable. Those were Saudi terrorists, funded by the Saudi kingdom. By your (admittedly dubious American) logic, Russia should have invaded Hungary and destroyed its infrastructure entirely, just because Georgia sent some terrorists to Russian territory.
* https://www.stpete4peace.org/Ukraine * https://www.thenation.com/article/congress-has-removed-a-ban...
The problems in mass shootings is a problem, but no one ever wants to ban military weapons from the US military and its PMCs that have killed lots of innocent people in the name of "liberation". Russia has a GDP similar to Mexico, yet the US spends $1 trillion to build the F-35 and Americans cheer because somehow China & Russia will gang up and takeover the world. Plus, you have the Phds and graduates who think we need to fight wars to maintain our standard of living. As if Saddam & Iran would refuse to sell the US oil because they want to keep it and drink it.
One of the things people overlooked, was Osama was getting to be a pain on the Taliban factions. They were willing to give up Osama if the Bush administration could provide evidence. But, the Bush & Neocons wanted to use a war in the Middle East as an excuse to carry out policies: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
I know it's hard to believe, but look at the 9/11 hijackers: They were mostly Saudi and planned the attacks in Germany and Florida, and had financial connections to factions within the Saudi royal government: https://28pages.org/2016/07/20/selected-revelations-from-the...
The US has given weapons to Mexican gangs: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/26360-congr...
And during the Clinton years, Mexico received a bailout... because most of the debt belonged to US politically connected big banks like Citigroup & others. Canada is now going to buy the F-35, so that would explain why the US doesn't really have problems with its neighbors: as long as they give US banks and military contractors money, the US won't interfere with them.
However, when a South American country decides to buy other than US-debt & weapons, it forments revolutions and installs dictators: https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/10-of-the-Most-Le...
* https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11...
* And another one: https://original.antiwar.com/chris_ernesto/2015/01/28/us-ann...
* And another one: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/the-neo-nazi-q...
In short: There is no Nazi in Ukraine. There are some attempts to create nationalistic ultra-right organizations by Russian agents, but they are monitored and destroyed as usual. (I destroyed one of them and deflect attempt to create another by myself when I was in operation).
"Yet some have expressed concern that some of this aid has made its way into the hands of neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion. Last summer the Daily Beast published an interview by the journalists Will Cathcart and Joseph Epstein in which a member of the Azov battalion spoke about “his battalion’s experience with U.S. trainers and U.S. volunteers quite fondly, even mentioning U.S. volunteers engineers and medics that are still currently assisting them.”"
There is also this: "In the course of a little over four minutes, the two American diplomats exchange ideas about who ought to be promoted, and who ought to be demoted, by the United States inside Ukraine, which is suffering through a difficult and even violent political dispute over whether Ukraine will tilt east, toward Russia, or west, toward the United States and Europe. Let it first be noted that it shouldn’t be surprising that Nuland would come off as a would-be imperialist or game player. If anything, she’s long been the neoconservative inside the Obama administration." (https://www.thenation.com/article/not-so-secret-ukraine-phon...)
Can you point to _any_ evidence? (But exclude information from Russian Federation, please: it's completely OK for Russian invaders to have fear of Ukrainian military and throw dirty words and bold statements at them).
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf0vbGj9cO4
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTX6JRpRY_E
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiBXmbkwiSw
https://study.com/academy/lesson/nation-state-definition-exa...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Azov_Bat...
My English is not good, so I don't understand some of the sarcasm you are using. I was asking out of curiosity and to get another opinion. I meant no offense.
I already pointed to source of Azov emblem: it's symbol of French Revolution. IN symbol was used in modern Ukraine since 1991 at least (i.e. from beginning of independence).
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%83%D0%BA...
I'm interested in actual evidence of fascism in Azov, because it will help to uncover yet another Russian agent. Number of Russian agents in Ukraine is estimated to about 20 000 agents.
Absolute nonsense. Neo-Nazi'sm has established itself in all of the Balkan and Eastern-European states, and fascism is on the rise. None are immune to its effects, because its growth is a tool of the military-industrial complex in its effort to derive yet more profit from fear, hatred, inhumanity.
Yesterday, it was terrorists. Tomorrow its neo-Nazi's and fascists. Either way, we're gonna need weapons to defeat them all, aren't we kids ...
https://www.quora.com/Is-Russia-justified-in-its-annexation-...
That's like the US invading Canada and saying "if we didn't do it Canada could have threatened our existence!".
It's a ridiculous statement.
Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation - or is voting only "pure" when America does it (lol)?
Is the USA the only country who is "allowed" to protect its sovereign citizens?
So you're saying that Russia would be a peaceful, friendly nation, except that the military-industrial complex, which is about 5% of the US economy, persuades congress, the State Department and every president (including Obama) to act in ways that force Russia to be militaristic back?
One reason I find this highly improbable is there are lots of powerful political groups that benefit from peace and lower military spending. Are you saying they just stand by and passively let the military-industrial lobby get what it wants? Furthermore, if your conspiracy theory was true, then military spending would be very high, like 10% of gdp like it was during the cold war. Instead it is, as I recall, down around 4%.
The other reason is you seem to be assuming that Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving. That certainly does not fit with Russia's history. I mean, the Russian Empire got to be an empire through a whole lot of military conquest. And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists.
Are you really ignoring the acounting for $Trillion defence debt that gets lost by your Pentagon masters on a regular basis?
>Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving.
Tell me again, how many foreign nations has Russia invaded, destroyed their infrastructure, militarily occupied in the last .. lets just say 30 years? Now, how many has the USA invaded? By comparison, Russia is most definitely more peaceful than the US.
>And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists.
We're not even going to go into the Death Cult to which a significant majority of American military-industrial puppets belong, eh?
Much of the "communist versus capitalist" competition that "justified" the Cold War, was actually just a result of two powers that were going to compete anyway pushing competing views of global economic-political organization.
The competition was not itself about economic philosophies. Rather competition of economic philosophies was the result of conflict.
The United States today is a waning power relative to the rest of the world. However, it's still the de facto superpower.
The American strategy is to keep its foot on Russia's neck and while containing the possible rise of China's power (seeking to keep it to a regional, rather than global setting).
Yes, the Cold War is still going. There's less of a chance of an immediate nuclear exchange, but the US and Russia continue proxy warfare (e.g. Syria, Ukraine, Iran) and propaganda warfare (e.g. US and Russia's interference in one another's elections)
Yes, since the late 90s. Hillary Clinton's whole “reset button” thing in 2009 was about reversing the escalation in that cold war associated with the Russian invasion of Georgia.
> My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace.
That prediction was proven wrong less than a decade into the post-Soviet era.
Yes. Russia wants their empire back. They've already taken back a piece of Georgia, Crimea, and a piece of Ukraine.
Also Crimea IS the piece of Ukraine.
He also says that Russia has a right to intervene in any country that has a substantial number of citizens of Russian decent that he believes are being ill-treated.
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_war_in_Do...
I'd say it's the second. The superpower game never ended but even with the sanctions, trade, travel and politics are not that locked. On the other hand there are those 2.0 war technologies like drones, trolls, cyber warfare...
But they didn't. Or at least the U.S. didn't. Russia has warned for years that the US shouldn't be installing rocket shields so close to its borders. So the US has continued to antagonize Russia pretty much since the cold war was "over".
Now, Russia has started to interfere in US politics, possibly as a consequence of that, and it has also started showing its "might" in Europe.
This won't end well, if the two countries continue to antagonize each other.