Russia launches invasion of Ukraine - MASTER THREAD

[man down]

Chump change

Take out every penny spent in Ukraine by the US and that $32 trillion dollar debt is.......

$31.9+ trillion

Lol

Chump change haha. Someday you'll understand the full impact of what it's cost us.

We've already pushed countries together that hated each other. They've decided they're tired of playing our games.

[Left Hook Tua]

Chump change haha. Someday you'll understand the full impact of what it's cost us.

We've already pushed countries together that hated each other. They've decided they're tired of playing our games.

If Ukraine wins, it was worth it

If Russia wins but it cost them a lot of military and economic losses, it was worth it

The only way the aid wasn't worth it is if we end it without defeating or hurting Russia.

I dont want to waste the money we already spent. Keep the aid flowing.




You think Ukraine war, made China and Russia closer together?

China and Russia relationship is the same as it had been for years

[Citizen Koba]

Iraqis always deployed and massed troops at the Kuwaiti/Saudi border or infiltrated troops into the Kurdish areas.

Like I said saddam liked to play games.

I have no idea when that scott Ritter guy declared Iraq had no more wmd.

But if he said that in 1995, he'd be wrong.

UN was still disposing of chemical weapons way after 1995.

Besides I thought Scott Ritter complained that Bill clinton wasn't doing enough to make sure Iraq got rid of their wmd.

US had every reaon to inflate the Iraqi threat man. It's impossible to prove either way at this point but equally I think it's hard to claim that the US wouldn't exaggereate the threat of Iraqi maneuvers if it felt it was in it's interests given their historical record on truth telling. Ain't really a point worth pursuing further though since we can't know..

Ritter's claims were not that there were zero WMDs in Iraq by 1995 simply that Iraq had neither significant stockpiles nor any capacity to produce more weapons by that point. The haphazard way they'd been dispersed and hidden following Desrt Storm and resolution 687 made it virtually impossible to be sure every last cache had been found but Ritter asserts that they knew by 1995 there was no meaningful large scale threat remeining. What he contends was that by 1997 and 1998 the inspections teams were effectively being leaned on to produce reports which either inflated or left ambiguous the threat posed for a specifically political agenda - namely in order that sanctions would be maintained.

He also claims that sites and dates were deliberately being chosen which would cause problems for the Iraqi security services vis a vis their legimate duties with the apparent aim of making it appear they were being uncooperative.

Good guy Ritter for what it's worth - at least IMO comes across as warm and sincere - - got a knowledge of technical and operational detail which II think you'd appreciate - even if I think his disillusionment with the US State following his relaisation of how shit really works has really skewed his worldview beyond what can be objectively justified.

Anyways - Ima leave this alone now - it's more illuistrative of my broader world view and perception of international relations and geopolitics, particularly US Grand Strategy since WW2 but it abolutely ain't directly pertinent to this particular thread.

If you still read much and are interested in braoder concepts though Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival is a good read -.. even if you don't agree with his conclusions he's pretty thourogh in terms of annotation and referencing which allows you to at least look at source materials and draw your own conclusions.

VisBildeServlet?produktId=139625&width=600.jpg

Globalisation and it's Discontents by Stieglitz is a good one as well and although he's not explicit in his illustation of the IMF and WTO in particular as instruments of US economic imperialism (or Hegemonisation if youy prefer) his firsthand knowledge and descriptions of his experiences as VP and chief economist at the helm of the World Bank paints a picture which tends to lead to just that conclusion.



9780141986661.jpg

(the one illustrated there is the more recent and apparently heavily updated editon - the one my shelf is the original 2002. I'll have to get round to reading the new one at some point)

And of course if you want a more symapthetic take on US Grand strategy from a dude who was front and center for many of my formative years (it always puzzled me when I was a kid why a man with what I thought at the time was a Russian name was so big in US politics) you got the Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski

9200000002918899.jpg


It's obviously politically inexpedient for the US to explicitly reveal to it's public and the wider world what it does and how it does it but in order to understand world affairs and the interactions between nations and alliances you kinda got to understand what drives strategic planners. Anyways as usual I rambled on waaay longer than I meant. Leave you with the thoughts of Cold War planner George keenan in the immediate aftermatch of WW2;

"We have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

• George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning, US State Department, 1948

This ^ is the essence of US international policy, then and now. A ruthless realism - you particularly I think should apprecaite it since you're refreshingly open and honest about your belief in the desirability of US global dominance.

All the bull**** about humanitariasm and democracy is just a convenient fig leaf for public consumption or at the best an expedient means to further these ends... as I pointed out in an early post - America loves democracy mainly cos it's soo damn easy to buy.

[man down]

If Ukraine wins, it was worth it

If Russia wins but it cost them a lot of military and economic losses, it was worth it

The only way the aid wasn't worth it is if we end it without defeating or hurting Russia.

I dont want to waste the money we already spent. Keep the aid flowing.




You think Ukraine war, made China and Russia closer together?

China and Russia relationship is the same as it had been for years

Iranian official: Saudi King invites Iranian president to Riyadh — Reuters

edit.

Iranian political deputy reports that the President of Iran accepted the invitation from Saudi King to visit Riyadh

[man down]

So who's trying to start ww3?

Polish Ambassador to France Jan Emeryk Rościszewski: "Either Ukraine will defend its independence today, or we will be forced to enter into this conflict."

https://twitter.com/AZgeopolitics/st...5hQUxytKA&s=19

[man down]

"If the meeting between Putin and Xi leads to any call for a truce in Ukraine, it will be unacceptable," White House spokesman John Kirby said.

This fuking logic lmao. Who wants this war?

[JimRaynor]

"If the meeting between Putin and Xi leads to any call for a truce in Ukraine, it will be unacceptable," White House spokesman John Kirby said.

This fuking logic lmao. Who wants this war?

Why are you so poorly informed about this war? You sound like an uninformed propagandist when you post this sort of nonsense without context.


Kirbys quote,

“A cease-fire now is … effectively the ratification of Russian conquest,” Kirby said.

“And of course, it would be another continued violation of the U.N. Charter.”


“The reason why the rest of the world is not calling for that right now is because, as I said, it would effectively ratify Russia’s geographic gains inside Ukraine, and it would put Mr. Zelinsky at a distinct disadvantage.”

In other words its in Russias best interest to have a ceasefire so it can it absorb the territories it currently occupies and then regroup to launch another attack in 5-10 years.

You're operating on the level of Neville Chamberlain right now, but worse because you do not even know any specifics of the war or what is at stake. There is a reason that the whole Western world is backing Ukraine and you're over here doing indirect propaganda for Russia who is allied with our biggest geopolitical enemies in China, Iran, and North Korea.

[man down]

Why are you so poorly informed about this war? You sound like an uninformed propagandist when you post this sort of nonsense without context.


Kirbys quote,

“A cease-fire now is … effectively the ratification of Russian conquest,” Kirby said.

“And of course, it would be another continued violation of the U.N. Charter.”


In other words Russia would love nothing more than a ceasefire so it can it absorb the territories it already has and then regroup to more than likely attack again in the next 5-10 years.


You're operating on the level of Neville Chamberlain right now, but worse because you do not even know any specifics of the war or what is at stake, or the fact that whatever the US decides, Ukrainians will still continue fighting.


Posting a bunch of nonsense that you yourself do not grasp isn't helping aid any of your points.

Jim, you can war monger all you want. You can think what you will about me, I don't care. It's been proven time and time again we fuk everything up and only have our interests at heart. I'm sure your ok with that but I'm not.

This war has pushed countries that hated each other together. Congrats! How long before BRICS+?

NATO wants to keep on encroaching on Russia and has been warned time and time again to stop. So who's pushing this war?

You can have your NWO, it's not for me. For that reason alone I hope Russia succeeds. We wanted to play this game, now we face the consequences of what we've done.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...sia-border-evg

You keep advocating for more wars and I'll keep showing what's going on. Don't like it? Ignore it. People are free to make up their own minds.

Oh and save the "Russia is going to attack again in 5 to 10 years while you say there's no men left to fight.

We could have settled this. Now Poland wants in also. This will most likely lead to China supplying Russia. Good fuking luck.

[man down]

Russia intends to discuss the issue of the US invasion of Iraq at the UN Security Council on Monday

March 20 marks the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 on the basis of false accusations of weapons of mass destruction. - RIA Novosti source.

War crimes in Iraq by the US? Naw this can't be!

[Left Hook Tua]

US had every reaon to inflate the Iraqi threat man. It's impossible to prove either way at this point but equally I think it's hard to claim that the US wouldn't exaggereate the threat of Iraqi maneuvers if it felt it was in it's interests given their historical record on truth telling. Ain't really a point worth pursuing further though since we can't know..

Ritter's claims were not that there were zero WMDs in Iraq by 1995 simply that Iraq had neither significant stockpiles nor any capacity to produce more weapons by that point. The haphazard way they'd been dispersed and hidden following Desrt Storm and resolution 687 made it virtually impossible to be sure every last cache had been found but Ritter asserts that they knew by 1995 there was no meaningful large scale threat remeining. What he contends was that by 1997 and 1998 the inspections teams were effectively being leaned on to produce reports which either inflated or left ambiguous the threat posed for a specifically political agenda - namely in order that sanctions would be maintained.

He also claims that sites and dates were deliberately being chosen which would cause problems for the Iraqi security services vis a vis their legimate duties with the apparent aim of making it appear they were being uncooperative.

Good guy Ritter for what it's worth - at least IMO comes across as warm and sincere - - got a knowledge of technical and operational detail which II think you'd appreciate - even if I think his disillusionment with the US State following his relaisation of how shit really works has really skewed his worldview beyond what can be objectively justified.

Anyways - Ima leave this alone now - it's more illuistrative of my broader world view and perception of international relations and geopolitics, particularly US Grand Strategy since WW2 but it abolutely ain't directly pertinent to this particular thread.

If you still read much and are interested in braoder concepts though Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival is a good read -.. even if you don't agree with his conclusions he's pretty thourogh in terms of annotation and referencing which allows you to at least look at source materials and draw your own conclusions.

VisBildeServlet?produktId=139625&width=600.jpg

Globalisation and it's Discontents by Stieglitz is a good one as well and although he's not explicit in his illustation of the IMF and WTO in particular as instruments of US economic imperialism (or Hegemonisation if youy prefer) his firsthand knowledge and descriptions of his experiences as VP and chief economist at the helm of the World Bank paints a picture which tends to lead to just that conclusion.



9780141986661.jpg

(the one illustrated there is the more recent and apparently heavily updated editon - the one my shelf is the original 2002. I'll have to get round to reading the new one at some point)

And of course if you want a more symapthetic take on US Grand strategy from a dude who was front and center for many of my formative years (it always puzzled me when I was a kid why a man with what I thought at the time was a Russian name was so big in US politics) you got the Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski

9200000002918899.jpg


It's obviously politically inexpedient for the US to explicitly reveal to it's public and the wider world what it does and how it does it but in order to understand world affairs and the interactions between nations and alliances you kinda got to understand what drives strategic planners. Anyways as usual I rambled on waaay longer than I meant. Leave you with the thoughts of Cold War planner George keenan in the immediate aftermatch of WW2;




This ^ is the essence of US international policy, then and now. A ruthless realism - you particularly I think should apprecaite it since you're refreshingly open and honest about your belief in the desirability of US global dominance.

All the bull**** about humanitariasm and democracy is just a convenient fig leaf for public consumption or at the best an expedient means to further these ends... as I pointed out in an early post - America loves democracy mainly cos it's soo damn easy to buy.

Chomsky?

not interested.

too anti american.

He writes more anti American activist than he does about his actual field of study.


Scott Ritter is not a good guy.

He's opportunist, attention seeking scumbag that tries to portray himself as just. He's a narcissist.

Let me guess you think the child sexual predator stuff is the cia trying to shut him up?