If it was purely economical, it never would have started. The only things the last two years has accomplished has been to decimate the military readiness of Central Europe and inject fascist politics into the bloodstream of every country inundated with refugees.
Sure. Same with the US Invasion of Iraq. “Six days, six weeks, I doubt two months” per Donald Rumsfeld.
But that was to sell the war. The real theory of the conflict was going to be that it would repeat South Ossetia / Abkhazia and Crimea. A rapid land grab intended to incorporate a heavily pro-Russia border territory that wouldn’t escalate for fear of reprisal.
What Russia got was an enormous escalation (fueled by NATO) and a protracted conflict. But the conflict didn’t benefit Ukraine, for the same reason an armed revolt in Crimea or Georgia wouldn’t have benefited either of those territories. All it produced was a new Chechnya / Afghanistan. A killing field that obliterated the accumulated wealth of generations and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody is coming out of this ahead.
Funny way of going about it, given that they’ve offered terns of peace every few months and negotiated a ceasefire that the US and its vassal the UK vetoed (hmmm 🤔) a few months in.
Quote:
When we returned from Istanbul, [then-British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘Do not sign anything with them at all; just go to war,’” Arakhamia said.
Rather than report [the real demands] to the public, however, the media in Europe and the U.S. focused on sensational statements that were not actually part of those negotiations.
They’re quoting people who were at the negotiations and when Johnson vetoed the deal, evidence doesn’t become more true or less true because it’s posted by a billionaire’s paper.
But if you like, you can pretend NBC quoted an anonymous source who said it. Or just look for Arakhamia+“do not sign anything with them” and do your own cross referencing instead of sealioning.
All sources have a built in bias jfc. If you think you’ve seen an unbiased source that just means you’re not self aware enough to recognize that it’s just your bias
Yes but your source has an inherent bias against the subjects they are talking about.
Im looking for you to provide someone that backs your claim that isn’t anti-Western. If you claim has validity you should be able to find an less biased source or at least one that isn’t inherently biased against the West.
If the war was purely economical it would have ended by now
If it was purely economical, it never would have started. The only things the last two years has accomplished has been to decimate the military readiness of Central Europe and inject fascist politics into the bloodstream of every country inundated with refugees.
Nobody is winning except the Hitlerites.
They were under the impression that it was a 3 day bonanza, not a long war because they sipped their own propaganda
Sure. Same with the US Invasion of Iraq. “Six days, six weeks, I doubt two months” per Donald Rumsfeld.
But that was to sell the war. The real theory of the conflict was going to be that it would repeat South Ossetia / Abkhazia and Crimea. A rapid land grab intended to incorporate a heavily pro-Russia border territory that wouldn’t escalate for fear of reprisal.
What Russia got was an enormous escalation (fueled by NATO) and a protracted conflict. But the conflict didn’t benefit Ukraine, for the same reason an armed revolt in Crimea or Georgia wouldn’t have benefited either of those territories. All it produced was a new Chechnya / Afghanistan. A killing field that obliterated the accumulated wealth of generations and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Nobody is coming out of this ahead.
Russia hasn’t seized those materials yet and they still believe they can so the war will continue.
Funny way of going about it, given that they’ve offered terns of peace every few months and negotiated a ceasefire that the US and its vassal the UK vetoed (hmmm 🤔) a few months in.
Quote:
Still looking for a valid source on your claim…
They’re quoting people who were at the negotiations and when Johnson vetoed the deal, evidence doesn’t become more true or less true because it’s posted by a billionaire’s paper.
But if you like, you can pretend NBC quoted an anonymous source who said it. Or just look for Arakhamia+“do not sign anything with them” and do your own cross referencing instead of sealioning.
And Im asking for you to establish that those quotes are legitimate by backing them with a source that theoretically does not have a built in bias.
Im asking for you to back your claim with a more valid source because People’s World is equivalent to Fox Cable News when it comes to built in bias
All sources have a built in bias jfc. If you think you’ve seen an unbiased source that just means you’re not self aware enough to recognize that it’s just your bias
Yes but your source has an inherent bias against the subjects they are talking about.
Im looking for you to provide someone that backs your claim that isn’t anti-Western. If you claim has validity you should be able to find an less biased source or at least one that isn’t inherently biased against the West.
Do you have a less biased source? People’s world will default to the anti-western position.