Should the World surge Russia.

ExpressLane said:
I know it is a shit source but....

Russia's economy is hurting despite Putin's bluster


https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/business/russia-economy-ukraine-anniversary/index.html


Russia’s Economy at the End of 2022: Deeper Troubles
Click to expand...

Russia is welding their economy to Chinas now that they have given up on the West, and China is making sure that they do fine....that is the benefit of Joining the New Chinese Empire early...you get the best deals and China will go to the mat for you.

Russia's economy was supposed to be crushed in 2022....it was barely dented.
 
ExpressLane said:
Didn't Putin invade Ukraine because he was afraid they would join NATO?
Click to expand...

The Russians invaded because the Americans demanded war, they had effectively made Ukraine NATO by sleath, and insisted on violating the peace agreement in the East. The Russians dont have fear of the West/NATO...they have contempt.....which has been well earned by our misbehavior.

That goes for China as well.
 
moon said:
The supporters of the war are fools. Russia cannot lose. If the Russians were in any danger of losing they would use nukes.
So would any nuclear-armed country.
NATO is a stupid concept.
Click to expand...

I can see where you and Crazy Trump would get along quite well.
 
ExpressLane said:
If we slowly dole out arms to Ukraine it will lead to a slow drawn out war that will cost lives on both sides. The world should supply Ukraine with as many advanced weapons as fast as we can so it will outstrip Russia's ability to replace weapons. Reagan defeated the Soviet Union by outstripping the Soviets economy's ability to compete with the US economy. Right now Russia is having a problem supplying its army. We need to pick up the pace that we supply Ukraine so they can push Russia back to its borders.
Click to expand...

do that and he starts firing nukes
 
What the mandarins in Washington fail to grasp is that most of the globe does not believe the lie of American benevolence or support its justifications for U.S. interventions. China and Russia, rather than passively accepting U.S. hegemony, are building up their militaries and strategic alliances. China, last week, brokered an agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia to re-establish relations after seven years of hostility, something once expected of U.S. diplomats. The rising influence of China creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who call for war with Russia and China, one that will have consequences far more catastrophic than those in the Middle East.
Click to expand...
https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/...ource=twitter&utm_campaign=auto_share&r=1afom
 
Nordberg said:
NATO was a great idea. The countries stood together to show Russia that they would not be taken over. Russia had a history of taking over its neighbors. Putin showed that was still their world plan. Note, Putin did not attack a NATO country. With Russia being what they are, NATO was a great idea.
Click to expand...

Russia disassembled its empire of its own accord. Its concern has always been American/UK aggression towards it since the end of WW2 when Churchill failed to persuade the US to attack it.
Russia has not threatened European countries and has only reacted to assist pro-Russian regions which have asked for assistance in the face of NATO-hungry governments which have attacked pro-Russian regions.

NATO members are simply America's front line buffer states to protect America. Biden saw Russia and Europe becoming too friendly for American interests and the US has cajoled/ threatened Germany to break off relations and has also instigated a coup in pro-Russian Ukraine and armed Ukraine long in advance of the current conflict.
NATO needs a threat in order to justify the trillions of dollars of arms sales . Just as Zionism is all about hegemony under manufactured threat, so is NATO. By advancing eastward NATO has ensured the war that it is supposed to prevent. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
 
Nordberg said:
NATO was a great idea. The countries stood together to show Russia that they would not be taken over. Russia had a history of taking over its neighbors. Putin showed that was still their world plan. Note, Putin did not attack a NATO country. With Russia being what they are, NATO was a great idea.
Click to expand...

Was. Not is. Was.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Recommended:

Click to expand...

A very good video. My only serious disagreement is with Col. Doug Macgregor's assessment of depleted uranium or DU for short. He thinks that it's essentially benign after its military use, and that Russia is probably only voicing concerns of the UK's sending of it to Ukraine for propaganda purposes, when the truth is the U.S. itself vowed to stop using it in 2015. There's solid evidence that they broke their word and continued using it in the war in Syria, but I believe the reason they at least paid lip service to the idea that they weren't going to use it anymore is because its toxic and even lethal effects on humans are now too well known to ignore. The Harvard International Review published a good article on DU back in September 2021. Quoting from it:

**
In the past, leaders did not pay the necessary amount of attention to the risks of depleted uranium. Documents suggest that the United States may have known about the potential consequences of depleted uranium during conflicts in which it was used. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a 1991 report indicating that deploying depleted uranium in the Gulf War could have caused 500,000 cancer deaths.

However, the United States still used depleted uranium in the Middle East despite the risks, deeming that its military benefits outweighed the potential civilian impact. This calculus reflects a common trend in which western countries justify human rights abuses under the guise of “national interest” or military necessity. The United States and Great Britain might have used a less toxic substance like tungsten instead of depleted uranium. Still, military leaders selected depleted uranium, perpetuating a long-history of imperialism in which western nations prioritize their own interests over the well-being of local communities.

Importantly, depleted uranium did not go unchallenged. In the 1990s, environmental activists and other groups criticized the use of depleted uranium, but the United States continued to deploy it. In 2015, the United States Department of Defense declared that it would no longer use depleted uranium, only to use it for airstrikes in Syria later that year.

But how is this possible? In light of evidence suggesting the dangers of depleted uranium, why were countries still allowed to use it? One might think that international treaties like the Chemical Weapons Convention should have prohibited its deployment. However, further investigation will reveal the opposite. Many of these treaties only ban weapons that have primarily toxic effects or are specifically intended to have toxic effects. This is not the case for depleted uranium. Militaries use depleted uranium to make or destroy armor rather than spread toxic chemicals to enemy combatants. For this reason, such treaties have not prevented countries from using depleted uranium in military operations.

However, the absence of a treaty banning depleted uranium is not the only reason that countries like the United States have been able to justify its use. We might also look to the lack of robust research on its health consequences in former conflict zones.
**

Source:
Depleted Uranium, Devastated Health: Military Operations and Environmental Injustice in the Middle East | Harvard International Review
 
Phoenyx said:
A very good video. My only serious disagreement is with Col. Doug Macgregor's assessment of depleted uranium or DU for short. He thinks that it's essentially benign after its military use, and that Russia is probably only voicing concerns of the UK's sending of it to Ukraine for propaganda purposes, when the truth is the U.S. itself vowed to stop using it in 2015. There's solid evidence that they broke their word and continued using it in the war in Syria, but I believe the reason they at least paid lip service to the idea that they weren't going to use it anymore is because its toxic and even lethal effects on humans are now too well known to ignore. The Harvard International Review published a good article on DU back in September 2021. Quoting from it:

**
In the past, leaders did not pay the necessary amount of attention to the risks of depleted uranium. Documents suggest that the United States may have known about the potential consequences of depleted uranium during conflicts in which it was used. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a 1991 report indicating that deploying depleted uranium in the Gulf War could have caused 500,000 cancer deaths.

However, the United States still used depleted uranium in the Middle East despite the risks, deeming that its military benefits outweighed the potential civilian impact. This calculus reflects a common trend in which western countries justify human rights abuses under the guise of “national interest” or military necessity. The United States and Great Britain might have used a less toxic substance like tungsten instead of depleted uranium. Still, military leaders selected depleted uranium, perpetuating a long-history of imperialism in which western nations prioritize their own interests over the well-being of local communities.

Importantly, depleted uranium did not go unchallenged. In the 1990s, environmental activists and other groups criticized the use of depleted uranium, but the United States continued to deploy it. In 2015, the United States Department of Defense declared that it would no longer use depleted uranium, only to use it for airstrikes in Syria later that year.

But how is this possible? In light of evidence suggesting the dangers of depleted uranium, why were countries still allowed to use it? One might think that international treaties like the Chemical Weapons Convention should have prohibited its deployment. However, further investigation will reveal the opposite. Many of these treaties only ban weapons that have primarily toxic effects or are specifically intended to have toxic effects. This is not the case for depleted uranium. Militaries use depleted uranium to make or destroy armor rather than spread toxic chemicals to enemy combatants. For this reason, such treaties have not prevented countries from using depleted uranium in military operations.

However, the absence of a treaty banning depleted uranium is not the only reason that countries like the United States have been able to justify its use. We might also look to the lack of robust research on its health consequences in former conflict zones.
**

Source:
Depleted Uranium, Devastated Health: Military Operations and Environmental Injustice in the Middle East | Harvard International Review
Click to expand...

I also believe that he is pretty spot on and I point out that he pretty much flat out said that he does not understand why the Russians are talking about depleted uranium. Hopefully you also saw this:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top