6 ms·

Is the US really this desperate to start WW3 (okay, it's likely just going to be Russia v. EU, since China is too clever to play ball) ? I guess all those trill

Is the US really this desperate to start WW3 (okay, it's likely just going to be Russia v. EU, since China is too clever to play ball) ? I guess all those trillions printed in the past two-years can't be spent easily (i.e without inflation) without a war. Talk about monetary constipation.

eldelshell 4y ago
The one tossing the nuclear threat is Putin whenever his tea is too cold.
- MrRiddle 4y ago
  - timeon 4y ago
    How they are pushing? There was no chance for Ukraine to be in NATO since Crimea and Donbas.
  - Mizza 4y ago
    Bullshit fascist apologia, Ukraine is a sovereign democratic nation, end of story.
    - alienicecream 4y ago
      - Mizza 4y ago
        Sure, actions have consequences. You align with free democracies so your fascist, mafia-state neighbor invades you. Your mafia-state neighbor invades, so your democratic friends give you a whole load of weapons so you can humiliate the invading army, blow them up, force them to dig trenches in radioactive mud, blow them up some more, sink their capital ship, isolate their economy and make their joke of a military the laughing stock of the whole world. Actions, consequences.
        alienicecream 4y ago
        Mizza 4y ago
        It is good and righteous to hate tyrants. It is noble to die resisting them. Once people have tasted freedom, they are willing to sacrifice everything to resist bondage. This is what authoritarians always fail to understand.
        alienicecream 4y ago
        You sound like a young fanatic. Most of those words like "freedom" and "tyrants" could have been replaced with other perceived goods and evils throughout history to defend or fight for any number of causes. In the end you just end up being cannon fodder.
        glogla 4y ago
        Over 20000 Russian soldiers are reported dead. Just two days ago 500 died in flash as the flagship went down. I wonder, who is the cannon fodder here?
        alienicecream 4y ago
  - glogla 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - alienicecream 4y ago
      Maybe he has a different point of view and wants to express it?
      - smegsicle 4y ago
        unauthorized information killed millions of people during the pandemic, and must be stopped
        alienicecream 4y ago
        When you don't know if this is sarcasm or not anymore, you're in trouble.
  - kashunstva 4y ago
    So Ukraine and the rest of us who value stability and national sovereignty are required to accept prima facie Putin’s conditions and proposed consequences?
timeon 4y ago
It is not the US per se. But many people are eager to do it. Like with the no-fly zone. I understand that Ukraine was asking for it. They are desperate and already in war. But NATO directly attacking (SAMs inside) Russia and Belarus is probably not the best idea.
- glogla 4y ago
  The other reason is that people of Eastern Europe either have a score to settle with Russia, or at least want to see it damaged as much as posdible so it can't hurt anyone ever again. What Russians are doing - rapes, massacres, destroying children hospitals on purpose and so much more - in Ukraine isn't new for us, it is the same old. Pick a random nation between Germany and Russia and they likely went through this in the last 100 years. Russians are always going to be dangerous as long as their way of thinking of Imperial Russian superiority lasts, but they are less dangerous with their planes shot down, tanks blown up, ships on the bottom of the sea and soldiers dead.
  - alienicecream 4y ago
    - glogla 4y ago
      Carpet bombing of the scale of WW2 is not on the table for any modern war. The bombing campaigns of both Allies and Axis included thousands of bombers, flying thousands of sorties per month. Just London during the Blitz was hit by 18000 tons of bombs. Nobody in the world has that number of planes, crew or even bombs anymore. And any kind of large-scale bombing in a contested airspace is a very bad idea. Same with artillery. Russian Grads are powerful, but they have range of less than 50 kilometers. Once they get in place, they can fire (IIRC) three times before needing new reload which is literally a truckload. Meaning you need surviving Grad 50 km form something you want to destroy and a secure supply line, otherwise that reload will never arrive. Non-rocket artillery has generally more compact ammo but shorter range, so it has similar problems. That puts me in opinion of "Russians couldn't destroy everything even if they wanted to". That of course doesn't necessarily means they want to - but it also should refute the argument "they could destroy everything but didn't, so they are nice people" I've seen a few times. EDIT: TL;DR: "why didn't Russians carpet bomb Ukraine?" "with what?" EDIT2: I looked it up, and Russia has about 25 of their Tu-160 strategic bombers. Just the one S-300 air defense system that Slovakia gave Ukraine had 46 missiles on it - in addition to possibly hundreds that Ukraine already had. Carpet bombing is completely unrealistic at this point.
usrn 4y ago
elzbardico 4y ago
It is not the US, it is the neocon falcons in the Department of State. The Pentagon in several times has shown to be a lot less eager for a war than the DoS. They have been hell bent on using Ukraine situation as a starter on their plan of destroying Russia since the same sinister figures were in the Obama administration. They are the Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheneys of our time, and to compound the tragedy they found in Putin, the Putin of our time. Between they and Wladimir they form the coalition of the eager with the willing. And nobody seems to care that Victoria Nuland and their ilk are happily leading us to the abyss of nuclear war.
kkfx 4y ago
Yes. USA economy is not much better shaped than the same just before 1929 and in that case there is no Roosevelt in sight, instead a neoliberist gang that sometimes call themselves "world government" [1] they push a new New Deal that instead of pushing Keynesian economies (witch was not sufficient without WWII anyway) push even worst/stronger economic crush to maximize very few actors profits. As always they need a war for economic reason, but that's just one aspect, there are also: - China need of food who bring them to South America, the nearest and richest reserve for USA, and to reach their goal China need to expand on the seas where USA and UK base their dominance to a point some call them talassocracies; - both USA and UK (and Canada, even if demographically can't do much and it's still under UK umbrella) are on the brink of a civil war due to neoliberst squeeze of prosperity. A war historically unite their populations accepting no matter what just to "help the Nation", typically against their own Citizens interests as a community, so "the nation against their Demos"; - EU was about to ditch from the anglosphere accepting one of the nth proposal from Russia fed. for a partnership with mutual benefits instead of the unfair one we have with USA and UK, again the war act as an effective excuse to stop such move; - the war hide the covid scandal, at least postponed it and lowering it possibly to a level of the equal scandals from the recent past (see the press, just after H2N2 (1957), H3N2 (1968), SARS-CoV (2003), H5N1 (2004), H1N1 (2009), MERS-CoV (2012) to read them and the pattern of the "while" part); - Russia itself is growing and aspiring to be back as an old empire, a very fragile but very resourceful, a thing both USA and UK can't accept, China is doomed by it's location and demography, Russia is not. The neoliberist west actually live on "monetary constipation" entirely, Europe included, and in an era of scarce resources overthrown the table (Great Reset) hoping it suffice to gain a chance does dot work much. It might work against small and poor opponents, not against growing superpowers. That's is. Oh, BTW that's a not much accepted topic on HN but since the recent opening to not HN-proper topics like politics: many USA and UK people fail to understand what socialists also from UK and USA have well understood in the past, witch means that their ruling class is not their country and actually it's acting against them, so try to be "patriotic" is the exact opposite of what most do, witch is supporting their clepocratic rulers, acting patriotically would be for them demanding the annihilation of neoliberist institutes, private-public cancers that devour their countries not only others ones. They fear if they are not united under their ruler they'll be lost not considering that actually is the exact contrary because no matter what people in the world suffer similar pain caused by similar criminals so others have no interests against them but against their rulers, witch means others have a common enemy. [1] cfr: https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org

eldelshell 4y ago

The one tossing the nuclear threat is Putin whenever his tea is too cold.

MrRiddle 4y ago
- timeon 4y ago
  How they are pushing? There was no chance for Ukraine to be in NATO since Crimea and Donbas.
- Mizza 4y ago
  Bullshit fascist apologia, Ukraine is a sovereign democratic nation, end of story.
  - alienicecream 4y ago
    - Mizza 4y ago
      Sure, actions have consequences. You align with free democracies so your fascist, mafia-state neighbor invades you. Your mafia-state neighbor invades, so your democratic friends give you a whole load of weapons so you can humiliate the invading army, blow them up, force them to dig trenches in radioactive mud, blow them up some more, sink their capital ship, isolate their economy and make their joke of a military the laughing stock of the whole world. Actions, consequences.
      - alienicecream 4y ago
        Mizza 4y ago
        It is good and righteous to hate tyrants. It is noble to die resisting them. Once people have tasted freedom, they are willing to sacrifice everything to resist bondage. This is what authoritarians always fail to understand.
        alienicecream 4y ago
        You sound like a young fanatic. Most of those words like "freedom" and "tyrants" could have been replaced with other perceived goods and evils throughout history to defend or fight for any number of causes. In the end you just end up being cannon fodder.
        glogla 4y ago
        Over 20000 Russian soldiers are reported dead. Just two days ago 500 died in flash as the flagship went down. I wonder, who is the cannon fodder here?
        alienicecream 4y ago
- glogla 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - alienicecream 4y ago
    Maybe he has a different point of view and wants to express it?
    - smegsicle 4y ago
      unauthorized information killed millions of people during the pandemic, and must be stopped
      - alienicecream 4y ago
        When you don't know if this is sarcasm or not anymore, you're in trouble.
- kashunstva 4y ago
  So Ukraine and the rest of us who value stability and national sovereignty are required to accept prima facie Putin’s conditions and proposed consequences?

timeon 4y ago

It is not the US per se. But many people are eager to do it. Like with the no-fly zone. I understand that Ukraine was asking for it. They are desperate and already in war. But NATO directly attacking (SAMs inside) Russia and Belarus is probably not the best idea.

glogla 4y ago
The other reason is that people of Eastern Europe either have a score to settle with Russia, or at least want to see it damaged as much as posdible so it can't hurt anyone ever again. What Russians are doing - rapes, massacres, destroying children hospitals on purpose and so much more - in Ukraine isn't new for us, it is the same old. Pick a random nation between Germany and Russia and they likely went through this in the last 100 years. Russians are always going to be dangerous as long as their way of thinking of Imperial Russian superiority lasts, but they are less dangerous with their planes shot down, tanks blown up, ships on the bottom of the sea and soldiers dead.
- alienicecream 4y ago
  - glogla 4y ago
    Carpet bombing of the scale of WW2 is not on the table for any modern war. The bombing campaigns of both Allies and Axis included thousands of bombers, flying thousands of sorties per month. Just London during the Blitz was hit by 18000 tons of bombs. Nobody in the world has that number of planes, crew or even bombs anymore. And any kind of large-scale bombing in a contested airspace is a very bad idea. Same with artillery. Russian Grads are powerful, but they have range of less than 50 kilometers. Once they get in place, they can fire (IIRC) three times before needing new reload which is literally a truckload. Meaning you need surviving Grad 50 km form something you want to destroy and a secure supply line, otherwise that reload will never arrive. Non-rocket artillery has generally more compact ammo but shorter range, so it has similar problems. That puts me in opinion of "Russians couldn't destroy everything even if they wanted to". That of course doesn't necessarily means they want to - but it also should refute the argument "they could destroy everything but didn't, so they are nice people" I've seen a few times. EDIT: TL;DR: "why didn't Russians carpet bomb Ukraine?" "with what?" EDIT2: I looked it up, and Russia has about 25 of their Tu-160 strategic bombers. Just the one S-300 air defense system that Slovakia gave Ukraine had 46 missiles on it - in addition to possibly hundreds that Ukraine already had. Carpet bombing is completely unrealistic at this point.

usrn 4y ago

elzbardico 4y ago

It is not the US, it is the neocon falcons in the Department of State. The Pentagon in several times has shown to be a lot less eager for a war than the DoS. They have been hell bent on using Ukraine situation as a starter on their plan of destroying Russia since the same sinister figures were in the Obama administration. They are the Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheneys of our time, and to compound the tragedy they found in Putin, the Putin of our time. Between they and Wladimir they form the coalition of the eager with the willing. And nobody seems to care that Victoria Nuland and their ilk are happily leading us to the abyss of nuclear war.

kkfx 4y ago

Yes. USA economy is not much better shaped than the same just before 1929 and in that case there is no Roosevelt in sight, instead a neoliberist gang that sometimes call themselves "world government" [1] they push a new New Deal that instead of pushing Keynesian economies (witch was not sufficient without WWII anyway) push even worst/stronger economic crush to maximize very few actors profits. As always they need a war for economic reason, but that's just one aspect, there are also: - China need of food who bring them to South America, the nearest and richest reserve for USA, and to reach their goal China need to expand on the seas where USA and UK base their dominance to a point some call them talassocracies; - both USA and UK (and Canada, even if demographically can't do much and it's still under UK umbrella) are on the brink of a civil war due to neoliberst squeeze of prosperity. A war historically unite their populations accepting no matter what just to "help the Nation", typically against their own Citizens interests as a community, so "the nation against their Demos"; - EU was about to ditch from the anglosphere accepting one of the nth proposal from Russia fed. for a partnership with mutual benefits instead of the unfair one we have with USA and UK, again the war act as an effective excuse to stop such move; - the war hide the covid scandal, at least postponed it and lowering it possibly to a level of the equal scandals from the recent past (see the press, just after H2N2 (1957), H3N2 (1968), SARS-CoV (2003), H5N1 (2004), H1N1 (2009), MERS-CoV (2012) to read them and the pattern of the "while" part); - Russia itself is growing and aspiring to be back as an old empire, a very fragile but very resourceful, a thing both USA and UK can't accept, China is doomed by it's location and demography, Russia is not. The neoliberist west actually live on "monetary constipation" entirely, Europe included, and in an era of scarce resources overthrown the table (Great Reset) hoping it suffice to gain a chance does dot work much. It might work against small and poor opponents, not against growing superpowers. That's is. Oh, BTW that's a not much accepted topic on HN but since the recent opening to not HN-proper topics like politics: many USA and UK people fail to understand what socialists also from UK and USA have well understood in the past, witch means that their ruling class is not their country and actually it's acting against them, so try to be "patriotic" is the exact opposite of what most do, witch is supporting their clepocratic rulers, acting patriotically would be for them demanding the annihilation of neoliberist institutes, private-public cancers that devour their countries not only others ones. They fear if they are not united under their ruler they'll be lost not considering that actually is the exact contrary because no matter what people in the world suffer similar pain caused by similar criminals so others have no interests against them but against their rulers, witch means others have a common enemy. [1] cfr: https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org