[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: The 7th Thread Itch; scratch it here!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moderator Action: Back to news please.
 
Russia needs to lose this war for its own sake. If Russia "wins", it's totally perverse. If Russia loses, it is all just pointless.
 
Russia needs to lose this war for its own sake. If Russia "wins", it's totally perverse. If Russia loses, it is all just pointless.

Most important thing is that if Russia loses, its people might realize that imperialism isn't the way before attacking a NATO country and sparking WW3.
 
Honestly, I was surprised how the Russian society reacted. I thought they would not support a war against their neighbours and so called “brothers”. It was actually a wake up call that it’s not just Putin, it’s majority of Russians.

Plus that the background and culture of people matter, because they share a completely different value set which is not compatible with ours. Russia pretty much catapulted into my out group.
 

Estonia accuses Russia of weaponising immigration at Europe’s borders​


Arrival of hundreds of people at Finnish and Estonian borders claimed to be ‘fully state-orchestrated’ operation

Since the beginning of November about 800 refugees and migrants have entered Finland, according to the Finnish border guard, prompting authorities to close all but one border crossing and accept support from the European border guard agency Frontex. Estonia accused Moscow of mounting “a hybrid attack operation” on Europe’s eastern border on Wednesday after 75 people attempted to enter the country in the space of a few days, a significant increase on the usual numbers.



 
You may put it this way.
Though >100 billions of US aid eventually led to failed counteroffensive and net loss of territory since the beginning of 2023.

At this point, "not changing anything" seems an outcome more favorable to Russia than to Ukraine.

Any war is profitable to those not directly involved, people dying are Russians and Ukrainians, property destroyed same, people counting their money, all NATO members, your actual enemies.

The Ukrainians could have been your allies (and were for centuries), there was no need at all for this war.

Idk. do not know where the 100 billion figure comes from exactly, but presumably that is budget for the US government, and income for (and investment in) the US arms industry.

I doubt they actually ship the money to Ukraine - do you ?

Edit, Ah, news of course sorry Bird :)

News here was this week, after Russia deliberately targeted a similar gathering in Ukraine few weeks back, revenge was served hot, what else did you expect..



Reports in Kyiv said the strike was retaliation for a deadly Russian on a Ukrainian military awards ceremony.
 
Last edited:
The Ukrainians could have been your allies (and were for centuries)
Allies for centuries, not slaves? Make up your mind.
Idk. do not know where the 100 billion figure comes from exactly, but presumably that is budget for the US government, and income for (and investment in) the US arms industry.
The amount of aid USA sent to Ukraine.
 
I'm a Belgian - if you quote figures I want see the accounts :p

What exactly was sent from the US to Ukraine ? Himars ? Patriot ? Those items are very "expensive", but they are both cost AND income in the US.

Usually in any war the profits are privatized, while the costs are socialized.
 
Those items are very "expensive", but they are both cost AND income in the US.
I never denied it's profitable for US military-industrial complex. It's one, perhaps the most important reason why they prevented Ukraine from signing peace agreement in March 2022, which would essentially return borders back to January state.
 
January of what year ? 2022 ?

No one believes that, do they. That would have required the Russian army to retreat to ... Russia.

Over your presidents dead body. He ordered war, and war is what you have.
 
Last edited:
That's not how it works, though. Otherwise you wouldn't see Germany initiate two world wars - and no one can expect Russia to lose ala Germany in ww2 when it was forced to stop.
Losing here means giving up on what it is doing – i.e. attacking Ukraine – because it offers Russia either prospects that are either perverse, or no prospects at all.

Your frame of reference for war is reeeeally tiny here.

You really think this is WWIII? Wollen Sie dem totalen Krieg?
 
I never denied it's profitable for US military-industrial complex. It's one, perhaps the most important reason why they prevented Ukraine from signing peace agreement in March 2022, which would essentially return borders back to January state.
:lol:
Yeah sure, the USA is the one wanting war when it's Russia doing an invasion it prepared years in advance despite being warned to not do it, after having caused and fanned a covert war for eight years.
Dunno if you're trying to fool yourself or are just stuck in the motion of keeping up the pretense by force of habit.
 
Any war is profitable to those not directly involved

I am not directly involved in this war, so please tell me where is my profit ?

Last time I checked, my energy and fuel bills were higher, and free weapons from the UK are ultimately a cost to the public here.

I'm a Belgian - if you quote figures I want see the accounts :p

As you are a diligent Belgian, you can show me the accounts.
 
You need to invest in the armaments industry obviously. You could also join the British Army, they pay well, are not likely become directly involved anytime soon.

Your new aircraft carriers are warm and cosy in winter I hear, if you're in the Royal Navy, electricity is free there ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't have any investments in the arnaments industry, and I am too old for the army.

Yes; the war may have been profitable for the western miltary-industrial complex (and for the Chinese),
but I rather think that for most countries, most organisations and most people; it is a net loss.
 
Well, yes obviously "no war" was preferable to "war".

That goes without saying, but we did not start the fire, did we :)

For the accounts, I have people who do that that for me :

 
Well, yes obviously "no war" was preferable to "war".

That goes without saying, but we did not start the fire, did we :)

For the accounts, I have people who do that that for me :

Yes, the fact that war is profitable for some people, branches, businesses, is nowhere near the same as war being generally profitable.

It is only profitable if one positions oneself to profit from it. Mostly that happens by everyone else's finances tanking. Which is why war tends to be avoided. On the condition that wars can be made rare and scarce, the potential profits from peace are way higher.

Now, the problem is that this is well understood – Kant's "Von evigen Frieden" is an 18th c. treatise on how the potential for everyone to profit from peace over war should make wars go out of fashion and disappear. That is however part of the problem of Enlightenment rationalism – it always struggled to explain why both people and society acts in irrational, even self-harming, ways.

And here we have the latest Russian offering – lone autocrat long on the job, authoritarianism, religion-based nationalism, providential nationalism, notions of "degeneration" and political entities like states being pseudo-organic, having generations and "ageing".

And all of that gets discounted because there is still that implicit assumption that it all should still somehow be "rational" – and the argument everyone has been taught to just implicitly accept as "rational" by default is the profit motive – certainly in the capitalist west, and nowhere more so than in the US.

And yet for all the irrational Russian takes leading to war in Ukraine there is another aspect of rationality at play – but isn't profit – it is power and survival. Because it has been demonstrated that the way Putin's system works in Russia, if you have power, get close to power, is protected by the power etc., then the profits follow. If you do not have that protection, but just the money, you will lose it all – it will be taken by someone protected by the power. And survival trumps all of this – which is why Russia will not have any profound political change as long as the entrenched people in power oversee the situation – because that would be not just unprofitable for, them, but outright dangerous. It might make them accountable.

It tends to boil down to the split between those analysts looking at Russia and not considering how Russia works internally (poltical "reaslists" of the Mearsheimer cut, or geopolitics pundits like Zeihan – its the arms industry is a kind of unthinking furtehr bastadization of that line of reasoning – vs. those political scientists actually looking at Russian society and history).
 
January of what year ? 2022 ?

No one believes that, do they. That would have required the Russian army to retreat to ... Russia.
To Donbass and Crimea. If you consider them parts of Russia, I'm ok with it.
Over your presidents dead body. He ordered war, and war is what you have.
Our president has published draft of peace agreement which was agreed upon.
But, as has been repeatedly stated before and from multiple sources:

Bennett said that during his mediation, Zelenskyy promised not to join NATO and Putin dropped his main goals of special military operations: seeking "disarmament" and "denazification" of Ukraine, adding in his impression, both Russia and Ukraine want a ceasefire and have drawn about seventeen or eighteen ceasefire drafts, but at some point, the West decided "to crush (Russian President Vladimir) Putin rather than to negotiate."

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom