Who was it that said that Europe was behaving like a crazy girlfriend in a bar, secure in her "knowledge" that her boyfriend (the US) would take care of any mess that she makes? Yeah, I wouldn't be counting on the boyfriend. Remember: the US evacuated military dogs ahead of any human allies from Afghanistan. And for the record, I consider that to have been an entirely proper thing to do. The dogs didn't ask to be there, after all. The allies, on the other hand, were morons for working with the US and were treated, well, like the morons that they are. Still, Europeans might wish to take note: don't be a moron.
Empire first destroys German high energy based manufacturing economy and then it wants Germany to fight Russia. Yeah, we know how this movie ends! In the past they had to manipulate German leadership into self-destruction; now they just tell them what to do.
1) You only start and escalate such a dangerous conflict, if you consider your own position unassailable and secure. Since no position in EU-rope, barring Britain, is that when it comes to war with Russia, looking at EU-ropean nations for the instigators is looking in the wrong place.
2) You only start and escalate a potentially existential conflict if your back is in a corner, or if you have an emotional stake in it, which trumps real and realpolitik-based considerations. No EU-ropean nation fits either of those; certainly not Ukraine or Georgia or Azerbadjan (ignoring whether or not they are in Europe proper or not, since that's geography, not politics).
3) You must always consider what probable end-goal can be hypothesised from the actual actions taken, beyond rhetoric and such. What end-goal has the EU stated? Peace, that the old border be kept, and that Russia is to pay reparations to Ukraine and that Ukraine join NATO and EU. The first three are free gratis to demand for the EU; the latter two are complete non-starters for Russia leading to inevitable conflict even after a peace agreement where the first three are upheld - ergo, for Russia there's no point in negotiating with the EU at all.
All of the above point not just to the USA, but to factions within USA. Which faction or factions in the USA meet all the criteria? They have to feel safe and unaffected by the war, both physically and financially. They are not in a corner since they are in and of the USA, leaving emotional and financial reasons. Which group in USA has an emotional grudge against Russia? Which factions have a financial grudge against Russia? And what stated end-goal has been put forth by people speaking as members of these factions?
The last one we can answer right away: the breaking up of Russia into dozens of principalities under - ultimately - US control.
Further confirmation can be found in how these groups and factions agitate against anyone calling for peace or bringing up the back-ground reasons for the war. Very reminiscent of another conflict, further south, where the USA too is involved despite having neither claim nor real interests of any kind, beyond emotional/finacial attachments of the factions and groups involved.
As a very educational contrast and comparison, notice the very different approach taken to the war in Jemen, where militant groups are a real and active threat to international shipping, yet despite the ease they could be handled by Saudi Arabia alone (with an army totaling in excess of 500 000 if reserves are activated) that literally nothing real is being done. Why is that? Could it be that the alluded to emotional connection simply isn't there?
I think it's a number of reasons - many in the US "deep state" face a real criminal prosecution with the Trump in power, so they would rather the world burn that let this happen (Netanyahu strategy), the war gives them the chance to remain in power (business continuity, martial law, Zelensky strategy), plus it's very personal for some very influential people which is why they are so irrationally emotionally invested and are ready for the whole west to go bankrupt and burn just to "stick it to Putin". Some say it's the "rotsch××d" gang as the jailed by Putin oligarch Khodorkovsky was his proxy and was supposed to take over Russia, and Mr P prevented that from happening and broke his oil empire. Of course, there is also the very rational business argument (Russia by some estimates has the largest mineral resources in the world, Ukraine is quite rich as well, plus agriculture). MIC also has a lot to gain with the war raging, US energy sector. But the key, probably, is that Mr P's idea of the "new world order" is in direct contradiction with the "Western" unipolar world order which they cannot afford to lose (Russia winning in Ukraine for the world to see directly threatens the hegemony). In other words, lots of reasons for escalating the war for the rich and powerful "deep state", none for any average citizen anywhere, West, Ukraine or Russia.
Who was it that said that Europe was behaving like a crazy girlfriend in a bar, secure in her "knowledge" that her boyfriend (the US) would take care of any mess that she makes? Yeah, I wouldn't be counting on the boyfriend. Remember: the US evacuated military dogs ahead of any human allies from Afghanistan. And for the record, I consider that to have been an entirely proper thing to do. The dogs didn't ask to be there, after all. The allies, on the other hand, were morons for working with the US and were treated, well, like the morons that they are. Still, Europeans might wish to take note: don't be a moron.
Exactly.
Europe's NATO-fied 'leaders™' are betting everything on Uncle Sam to do the heavy lifting--and I doubt this will end well.
US DOD left a ton of dogs on the tarmac that had to be shot.
I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised.
>Ben serves Germany
All I can think of at present are curse words.
Same same, mate.
But it’s by far not surprising.
Empire first destroys German high energy based manufacturing economy and then it wants Germany to fight Russia. Yeah, we know how this movie ends! In the past they had to manipulate German leadership into self-destruction; now they just tell them what to do.
1) You only start and escalate such a dangerous conflict, if you consider your own position unassailable and secure. Since no position in EU-rope, barring Britain, is that when it comes to war with Russia, looking at EU-ropean nations for the instigators is looking in the wrong place.
2) You only start and escalate a potentially existential conflict if your back is in a corner, or if you have an emotional stake in it, which trumps real and realpolitik-based considerations. No EU-ropean nation fits either of those; certainly not Ukraine or Georgia or Azerbadjan (ignoring whether or not they are in Europe proper or not, since that's geography, not politics).
3) You must always consider what probable end-goal can be hypothesised from the actual actions taken, beyond rhetoric and such. What end-goal has the EU stated? Peace, that the old border be kept, and that Russia is to pay reparations to Ukraine and that Ukraine join NATO and EU. The first three are free gratis to demand for the EU; the latter two are complete non-starters for Russia leading to inevitable conflict even after a peace agreement where the first three are upheld - ergo, for Russia there's no point in negotiating with the EU at all.
All of the above point not just to the USA, but to factions within USA. Which faction or factions in the USA meet all the criteria? They have to feel safe and unaffected by the war, both physically and financially. They are not in a corner since they are in and of the USA, leaving emotional and financial reasons. Which group in USA has an emotional grudge against Russia? Which factions have a financial grudge against Russia? And what stated end-goal has been put forth by people speaking as members of these factions?
The last one we can answer right away: the breaking up of Russia into dozens of principalities under - ultimately - US control.
Further confirmation can be found in how these groups and factions agitate against anyone calling for peace or bringing up the back-ground reasons for the war. Very reminiscent of another conflict, further south, where the USA too is involved despite having neither claim nor real interests of any kind, beyond emotional/finacial attachments of the factions and groups involved.
As a very educational contrast and comparison, notice the very different approach taken to the war in Jemen, where militant groups are a real and active threat to international shipping, yet despite the ease they could be handled by Saudi Arabia alone (with an army totaling in excess of 500 000 if reserves are activated) that literally nothing real is being done. Why is that? Could it be that the alluded to emotional connection simply isn't there?
I think it's a number of reasons - many in the US "deep state" face a real criminal prosecution with the Trump in power, so they would rather the world burn that let this happen (Netanyahu strategy), the war gives them the chance to remain in power (business continuity, martial law, Zelensky strategy), plus it's very personal for some very influential people which is why they are so irrationally emotionally invested and are ready for the whole west to go bankrupt and burn just to "stick it to Putin". Some say it's the "rotsch××d" gang as the jailed by Putin oligarch Khodorkovsky was his proxy and was supposed to take over Russia, and Mr P prevented that from happening and broke his oil empire. Of course, there is also the very rational business argument (Russia by some estimates has the largest mineral resources in the world, Ukraine is quite rich as well, plus agriculture). MIC also has a lot to gain with the war raging, US energy sector. But the key, probably, is that Mr P's idea of the "new world order" is in direct contradiction with the "Western" unipolar world order which they cannot afford to lose (Russia winning in Ukraine for the world to see directly threatens the hegemony). In other words, lots of reasons for escalating the war for the rich and powerful "deep state", none for any average citizen anywhere, West, Ukraine or Russia.