The comparison to David is exquisitely stupid in many ways. David was being offered heavy weapons, and rejected them. 1 Samuel 17:38-39:
Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. “I cannot go in these,” he said to Saul, “because I am not used to them.” So he took them off.
Oh, you jumped at that one right away: I'm in 112% agreement with you on this one.
Not merely because, like you, I very well remember what the Bible says about that fight, but also what it meant: two individuals fighting this out so that the many may not die. It would, of course, involve honour, an idea so tragically devoid of current practitioners in the West (see, yet again, what Merkel and Hollande said about Minsk I and II) that Zelenskyy's quip is quite telling:
'We are all David', to my mind, means, contrary to what is written about this episode in the Bible, that the 'Western' side did never intend to honour the agreements that, let's not forget about this, too, are UN Security Council resolutions, i.e., binding parts of international law.
While I'd tend to agree with the appeal of such a 'match', I'd posit that the collective West would be more akin to the Philistines than the other way 'round…
Since I've an unerring instinct for focusing on the wrong thing, the Law of the Jungle is always in effect. We dress it up, construct rituals around it, invent idols we call Justice and Moral and Good, and then proclaim that these idols have shown us the way.
And the moment someone not on the side of Power, and not a power strong enough in their own right, objects and worse proves they are in the right according those holy and wholly manmade idols?They are squashed by violence. Because law is written by power to serve power, and the only check on power is power.
The simple, sad and true principles are:
If you win, you are right. If your method brings victory it was right.
The rest is semantics, and that we feel better if we can imagine our rulers being bound and guided by man-made eidolons of ideals, than acknowledging that they knowingly or not rule by the only true principles mentioned.
A dog care not whether master is good or evil, dog only cares about how master treats dog.
That is the ideal for any master. And the "elected" see themselves as masters.
It’s not that clear. 1. Russia is having more trouble reconstituting its units and equipment than Ukraine. 2. Despite an initial 3-to-1 advantage across the board (manpower, tanks, artillery, aircraft) Russia couldn’t put away Ukraine in the first year. This demonstrates military incompetence that continues unabated. 3. The Russians are fighting to conquer a land that is not theirs. The Ukrainians are fighting for their liberty. That is a motivational advantage that transcends numbers. 4. Putin would not stop short of the Atlantic Ocean if he was successful. So, the war will be fought in Ukraine or Poland or Germany or France. Ukraine is better. 5. If it was my country I wouldn’t stop fighting until every enemy soldier was killed, captured or driven out. And I’d beg, borrow or steal everything I could get to do it. 6. The general strategic incompetence of the leaders of the Western allies is troubling. The corruption of those leaders (who have been using Ukraine to recycle foreign aid to their own bank accounts) is even more troubling. The corruption must be stopped and punished. That incompetence and corruption has caused horrific damage to Ukraine and its citizens. And, it puts us all at risk of another World War. 7. The Chinese are bidding their time to attack Taiwan.
Or, we will see the conflict "frozen" so the "West" can re-arm itself and better position for its next attempt to conquer Russia similar to Minsk agreements (why would the neocon crazies give up their plans?). Of course, Russia will also see it for what it is and will further arm itself. Not much hope for a peaceful future until the "West-residing" hawks are somehow neutralized, but do not see it happening. Talk about privatizing benefits and socializing costs...
No western nation is interested in conquering Russia. Can you imagine the cost in materiel and manpower? $200 000 000 000 annually wouldn't be enough.
What the US and its sycophants and serfs wants is control of Russia's natural resources.
Such a deal was in the works in 2008 when the then owner of Gazprom was about to sell about 60% of the russian oil, gas and coal deposits to a US company with deep ties to the Clinton-sphere of influence.
It was after Putin, using technically legal but in reality not means to effectively nationalise Gazprom, that the US virtually overnight decie dRussia was now a Bad Guy; during the Jeltsin years there was no end for the praise from the White House as Russia's remaining infrastructure continued to either rot away or was sold off for pennies on the dollar to US-owned businesses. Putin was initally endorsed by US personnel as a substitue for Jeltsin once the latter's overt corruption become too much even for russians, as it was believed Jeltsin's people would on behalf of the US be able to "guide" Putin.
NB: I do not support neither Putin nor Russia, but neither am I partisan in such a way that I believe the US in anyway represents "Good Guys"or has any altruist motives anywhere, at any time.
So no invasion of Russia will take place; the US intends to bleed Russia white, while bribing all other powers to stay out of it. As an aside, Venezuela should start looking to China for protection. In just a few years, it would not be unreasonable to expect a US "peacekeeping and liberation-mission" to Venezuela's oilwells.
Russians are well aware that the "West" is after their resources, and they are nothing more than American Indians which ideally are to be eliminated, just better armed. It's an existential war for them. I think there was also plan to overtake Russia via Yukos (Khodorkovsky), which is why he was jailed
I'd merely add that 'the West' wouldn't mind high numbers of Russian casualties, but that is par for the course, so to speak, and has nothing to do with Russia per se.
Contrary to other rulers, the US elites don't seem to mind grift, corruption, or working towards one's own pockets, too, as long as the general alignment stays in place.
It's probably true for many rulers, but with the US power stretching across the world, the corruption stretches the same distance, and no way for non-US citizens to vote them out.
It seems obvious that Russians' fault is mainly just occupying that piece of land stretching to the East of Europe which happens to be rich in resources. Should Swedes or Norwegians reside there, the story would be the same (and what is a "Russian" anyway, some mixture of Vikings and Slavs plus a bunch of smaller indigenous nations residing there?). And as for high numbers of Russian casualties, well, the current Western rulers do not seem to mind high casualties even for their own population, and Russians seem to be aware of that, too, which is why regime-change in Russia for a Western puppet of early-90s' nature is so unlikely. So war it is.
The comparison to David is exquisitely stupid in many ways. David was being offered heavy weapons, and rejected them. 1 Samuel 17:38-39:
Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. “I cannot go in these,” he said to Saul, “because I am not used to them.” So he took them off.
Oh, you jumped at that one right away: I'm in 112% agreement with you on this one.
Not merely because, like you, I very well remember what the Bible says about that fight, but also what it meant: two individuals fighting this out so that the many may not die. It would, of course, involve honour, an idea so tragically devoid of current practitioners in the West (see, yet again, what Merkel and Hollande said about Minsk I and II) that Zelenskyy's quip is quite telling:
'We are all David', to my mind, means, contrary to what is written about this episode in the Bible, that the 'Western' side did never intend to honour the agreements that, let's not forget about this, too, are UN Security Council resolutions, i.e., binding parts of international law.
Nearly every person on the planet would tune in to watch Putin vs Zelensky. David chose rock and sling so there you go Zelly.
While I'd tend to agree with the appeal of such a 'match', I'd posit that the collective West would be more akin to the Philistines than the other way 'round…
Normal everyday propaganda!
Since I've an unerring instinct for focusing on the wrong thing, the Law of the Jungle is always in effect. We dress it up, construct rituals around it, invent idols we call Justice and Moral and Good, and then proclaim that these idols have shown us the way.
And the moment someone not on the side of Power, and not a power strong enough in their own right, objects and worse proves they are in the right according those holy and wholly manmade idols?They are squashed by violence. Because law is written by power to serve power, and the only check on power is power.
The simple, sad and true principles are:
If you win, you are right. If your method brings victory it was right.
The rest is semantics, and that we feel better if we can imagine our rulers being bound and guided by man-made eidolons of ideals, than acknowledging that they knowingly or not rule by the only true principles mentioned.
A dog care not whether master is good or evil, dog only cares about how master treats dog.
That is the ideal for any master. And the "elected" see themselves as masters.
It’s not that clear. 1. Russia is having more trouble reconstituting its units and equipment than Ukraine. 2. Despite an initial 3-to-1 advantage across the board (manpower, tanks, artillery, aircraft) Russia couldn’t put away Ukraine in the first year. This demonstrates military incompetence that continues unabated. 3. The Russians are fighting to conquer a land that is not theirs. The Ukrainians are fighting for their liberty. That is a motivational advantage that transcends numbers. 4. Putin would not stop short of the Atlantic Ocean if he was successful. So, the war will be fought in Ukraine or Poland or Germany or France. Ukraine is better. 5. If it was my country I wouldn’t stop fighting until every enemy soldier was killed, captured or driven out. And I’d beg, borrow or steal everything I could get to do it. 6. The general strategic incompetence of the leaders of the Western allies is troubling. The corruption of those leaders (who have been using Ukraine to recycle foreign aid to their own bank accounts) is even more troubling. The corruption must be stopped and punished. That incompetence and corruption has caused horrific damage to Ukraine and its citizens. And, it puts us all at risk of another World War. 7. The Chinese are bidding their time to attack Taiwan.
The US part of the West will have great trouble rearming as it is broke, and getting broker.
Or, we will see the conflict "frozen" so the "West" can re-arm itself and better position for its next attempt to conquer Russia similar to Minsk agreements (why would the neocon crazies give up their plans?). Of course, Russia will also see it for what it is and will further arm itself. Not much hope for a peaceful future until the "West-residing" hawks are somehow neutralized, but do not see it happening. Talk about privatizing benefits and socializing costs...
No western nation is interested in conquering Russia. Can you imagine the cost in materiel and manpower? $200 000 000 000 annually wouldn't be enough.
What the US and its sycophants and serfs wants is control of Russia's natural resources.
Such a deal was in the works in 2008 when the then owner of Gazprom was about to sell about 60% of the russian oil, gas and coal deposits to a US company with deep ties to the Clinton-sphere of influence.
It was after Putin, using technically legal but in reality not means to effectively nationalise Gazprom, that the US virtually overnight decie dRussia was now a Bad Guy; during the Jeltsin years there was no end for the praise from the White House as Russia's remaining infrastructure continued to either rot away or was sold off for pennies on the dollar to US-owned businesses. Putin was initally endorsed by US personnel as a substitue for Jeltsin once the latter's overt corruption become too much even for russians, as it was believed Jeltsin's people would on behalf of the US be able to "guide" Putin.
NB: I do not support neither Putin nor Russia, but neither am I partisan in such a way that I believe the US in anyway represents "Good Guys"or has any altruist motives anywhere, at any time.
So no invasion of Russia will take place; the US intends to bleed Russia white, while bribing all other powers to stay out of it. As an aside, Venezuela should start looking to China for protection. In just a few years, it would not be unreasonable to expect a US "peacekeeping and liberation-mission" to Venezuela's oilwells.
Russians are well aware that the "West" is after their resources, and they are nothing more than American Indians which ideally are to be eliminated, just better armed. It's an existential war for them. I think there was also plan to overtake Russia via Yukos (Khodorkovsky), which is why he was jailed
I do think you're right about this.
I'd merely add that 'the West' wouldn't mind high numbers of Russian casualties, but that is par for the course, so to speak, and has nothing to do with Russia per se.
"You're free to run your nation however you want, as long as you do it so it's profitable for the owners of the US."
Exactly.
Contrary to other rulers, the US elites don't seem to mind grift, corruption, or working towards one's own pockets, too, as long as the general alignment stays in place.
It's probably true for many rulers, but with the US power stretching across the world, the corruption stretches the same distance, and no way for non-US citizens to vote them out.
It seems obvious that Russians' fault is mainly just occupying that piece of land stretching to the East of Europe which happens to be rich in resources. Should Swedes or Norwegians reside there, the story would be the same (and what is a "Russian" anyway, some mixture of Vikings and Slavs plus a bunch of smaller indigenous nations residing there?). And as for high numbers of Russian casualties, well, the current Western rulers do not seem to mind high casualties even for their own population, and Russians seem to be aware of that, too, which is why regime-change in Russia for a Western puppet of early-90s' nature is so unlikely. So war it is.