Plus imperialism or nazism are universals, not specific evils. — Olivier5

Oh come on! You could say democracy and freedom from tyranny were universals. You're clutching at straws.

That is simply not true. In such a deal the parties just have to agree on their future relationship. They don't need to agree on who was right or wrong in the past. — Olivier5

I didn't say they needed to agree on the moral judgement, only that such cards need to be in the player's hands. Each side needs to have a 'wrong' they can offer to right, otherwise they'll be no deal.

The point was that it becomes difficult to fo if you see the fight as part of some cosmic battle between Good and Evil. Note the capital letters. The fight is to redress a particular evil, the invasion, not an absolute Evil. Zelensky is not going to fight all the way to Moscow. — Olivier5

None of Putin's rhetoric implies he's going to wipe out the 'evil' Ukraine either. He talks a lot about how they are his Russian brothers. The 'evil' he's talking about is Neo-Nazisism, imperialism, genocide etc. All clear evils, not Evil capitalised.

You made a claim that I as others find questionable and I addressed it as such. — neomac

What claim do you think you've addressed? Your response was "I don't expect Ukrainians to negotiate". To which 'questionable' claim of mine is that a counter?

To be clear - my claim is that framing the whole conflict as evil, genocidal Russia vs innocent Ukraine does not help achieve peace through negotiation.

What you (or I) expect Ukrainians to actually do is completely irrelevant to that claim.

Peace requires a deal of some sort, and a deal of some sort requires both sides to give, which means both sides accepting some wrong. It doesn't matter what scale the wrong is, a mad tyrant might decide to wipe out a population because their leader insulted his wife, the two sides could still sue for peace with "I'll stop insulting your wife if you stop the genocide".

It's like none of you even know how negotiation works. You know they exchange pizzas for hostages in hostage negotiations, right? Do you think they're somehow claiming that withholding pizzas is the moral equivalent of holding an innocent person hostage at gunpoint? No, of course not - because (thank God) professional hostage negotiators aren't playing on their My First Ethics Fisher-Price toys and instead live in the real world with helping people as a priority over moral sanctimony.

I was talking about my expectations about what the Ukrainians want not about what I want. — neomac

Right. So why did you involve my post? If you want to have a different conversion, don't do so in response to my posts, it's really confusing. I'm talking about what course of action we ought to advocate, not what course of action we expect Ukrainians to do. I don't go around having 'expectations' of entire nations.

Me or Putin? Define "warmonger". — neomac

Both.

Wanting a war to exist where there wasn't one before and wanting a war to continue where it might otherwise end are both acts of warmongering.

I don't expect the victims of an aggression to make peace with the aggressor, especially while the latter is rampaging with the aggression. Unless they are demotivated to fight and defend their rights for themselves, of course. — neomac

Warmongering it is then.

The implication is NOT that something or another is 'unhelpful' per se. It is that essentializing a conflict as good vs evil has a cost: it makes it harder to make peace. This cost may or may not be worth paying depending on the circumstances. It was certainly a good thing to see the fight against Nazism as a fight against evil, for instance. There was no peace to be made with Hitler. — Olivier5

Yep. Which is entirely the reason I quoted all the other parties making the same religious invocations. Here's Zelensky, by the way, lest you feel he's absolved...

With online posts in Hebrew and appeals to Jews to "cry out" in response to Russia's invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has invoked his faith to rally support for his embattled country. — https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2022/03/zelensky-invokes-judaism-rally-support-ukrainian-cause

So all war leaders invoke religion and whether we frame it as 'good vs evil' depends on other factors? So, I'll ask again. Why talk about Putin's religious language making it less likely he'll strike a peace deal? What was the point if religious language has no impact on strategy because everyone does it and the essentialising is done, or not done, for completely different reasons?

they do not say that they are on a crusade against evil. They say that they are defending their land against a ultra-brutal and totally immoral invasion. — Olivier5

How is that any different. "ultra-brutal and totally immoral" just sounds like a synonym for 'evil'.

the problem is that Putin has framed the 'evil neo-nazi Ukrainians vs. holy-war Putin&Russians' is in the first place and that is unhelpful for peace making. — neomac

Why is that more unhelpful for peacemaking than the opposite framing of 'totally innocent Ukrainians bravely fighting a ruthless and hell-bent tyrant, deaf to all pleas'?

Both sound equally unhelpful to peace talks, the essential component of which is some expectation of comprise.

To all holy warriors including Putin, the advice might be something like: If you want to be able to get out of a war at some point through a peace deal, then maybe don't essentialize it as being between Good and Evil. Cause that makes it hard to sign a peace deal, eventually. — Olivier5

So you agree with me that all the framing of this war as 'evil Putin vs. noble Ukrainians' is unhelpful.

You mean, what use could a policy maker make of this indication? — Olivier5

Yes. How does it influence which strategy we might advocate?

For what purpose? What's the policy implication, what do we do with that knowledge?

That is not what he said, again. He pointed out that holy warriors often find it difficult to make peace with their enemies. — Olivier5

Why point that out?

ssu did not say Putin was exceptional in that, though. He just said that holy warriors aren't known for signing peace deals, so Putin is unlikely to seek peace in Ukraine. — Olivier5

Yes. The point was to show how far @ssu's warmongering extended. We can't advocate negotiation with Putin because he's invoked religion... So we can't advocate negotiation with the US, or UK for the same reason. Do you think there's a single war ever been fought without one side or the other invoking, as Dylan put it, God on their Side ?

So what now? No one can be trusted, no one is likely sue for peace...we'll just resort to violence to settle all our disputes then. We might as well just nuke each other now and get it over with.

Person referring to Holy Scripture in the justification of the war he started likely isn't going to cut a peace deal immediately. — ssu

George Bush

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

Tony Blair

Blair ‘believed strongly, although he couldn’t say it at the time, that intervention in Kosovo, Sierra Leone—Iraq too—was all part of the Christian battle; good should triumph over evil’

Joe Biden

“Those who have served through the ages and have drawn inspiration from the Book of Isaiah, when the Lord says: ‘Whom shall I send? Who shall go for us?’ The American military has been answering for a long time. ‘Here I am, Lord. Send me. Here I am, send me.’ Each one of these women and men of our armed forces are the heirs of that tradition of sacrifice, of volunteering to go into harm’s way to risk everything, not for glory, not for profit, but to defend what we love and the people we love.”

Donald Rumsfeld

GQ has an array of daily briefing booklet sent by Donald Rumsfeld to George W. Bush on the Iraq war and the war on terror that featured Biblical sayings. This is the reading prepared for a president who called the war on terror a “crusade.” Such Biblical inspirational sayings as “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death” were coupled with triumphant pictures for the President’s daily briefings.

...notice a pattern?

But yeah, by all means carry on with your Putin exceptionalism, makes a nice cover for your sycophancy.

Just to put into the proper context issues like the idea of the US sponsoring biowarfare labs in Ukraine. — ssu

By 'proper' you mean the one you think is right?

It's like someone ardently wants to discuss Pizzagate in a thread of US politics as a real issue. So let's discuss where the children were kept! No really, where are they? — ssu

Not in the least. The very reason we assume Pizzagate is nonsense is because of the absence of 'rooms where the children were kept', it would be more like saying we cannot discuss any high level collusion in government because that would be "...just like discussing Pizzagate"

The matters being raised here are real. There are Neo-Nazis, NATO is expanding, there are separatists in Dombass, Ukraine is corrupt, arms dealers do influence foreign policy... None of this is the least bit like Pizzagate.
Every single issue I've raised, without exception, has been raised also by either respected investigative journalists or, in most cases, by experts in their field. My citation rate here, I'd wager, is higher than yours.

These are not 'crazy conspiracy theories', these are legitimate foreign policy positions, but then you know that already, don't you?

Yet people have said that the US installed neo-nazis to lead Ukraine's government — ssu

Yep. As I said, its a theory held by people with sufficient expertise in the matter to outrank either of us. That you personally don't buy it is not reason to relegate it.

perhaps the assumption that they rule Ukraine isn't truthful. — ssu

Oh come on! Did you seriously think that would work? I expect a better class of strawman by this stage.

Things like what are Russia's options next would be interesting. Or how this war will affect the wider region. Or how the war might end. Or where is Russia going from here. — ssu

I suggest if you're interested in those questions you read some of the expert commentary, don't come to an unvetted internet forum for it..

Can you explain how you're using these words? — Srap Tasmaner

I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. When someone asks about the use of words, its usually because they find them confusing or incorrect in some way, but without that information I'm not quite sure how to answer. But I'll do my best...

I'm using 'Ban' or 'suppress' as in 'prevent from being published or spoken about'.

Does any of that qualify as "banning" or "suppressing" discussion for you? — Srap Tasmaner

What else would you ascribe to those comments? The idea is quite clearly to shame, insult, excommunicate, ostracise, or otherwise make it less likely the people making those points will continue to do so - ie to suppress such posts. I don't see any justification for assuming the setting up of social taboos is to be treated differently to legal ones when discussing intent. The intent in both cases is the same - to prevent the offending behaviour.

If I disagree with someone about, say, visual processing, I actively want them to continue posting, I encourage their response, to find out more about their position. If I disagree with someone about, say, racism I'll make them feel like they don't deserve to be heard, I'll insult them, ostracise them, make them feel generally unwelcome. The aim is to get them to stop, not to find out more about their racism.

The latter technique is being used against things like Ukrainian Neo-Nazis, NATO expansion, US sponsored biological weapons research, and all strategies for Ukraine other than 'fight to the death'.

Note, I'm not objecting to the use (which I take to be a perfectly normal part of politics), I'm asking why in this instance people are choosing them against those issues.

As I believe we may have spoken about before, I'm significantly more interested in the methods people here use to defend their beliefs than I am in what those beliefs are.

If people want to discuss the issues that Russia is using as propaganda talking points, then it would be good to understand that they are talking about issues that are used as propaganda. — ssu

But you've yet to explain what you want anyone to do about this, nor provided any reason at all for your assumption that they don't already know this.

Sometimes the facts (on which the propaganda is based) are relevant to understanding the issue. You can't just ban discussion of them on the grounds that some current aggressor is using them as a basis for their propaganda. No one here is promoting propaganda. Not one person has said that Ukraine's Neo-Nazi problem morally justified invasion, not one person has said that NATO expansion morally justified invasion. There's been no suggestion that Ukraine is 'rightfully' part of Russia, and no one has claimed that Ukraine are developing biological weapons designed to carry out some kind of Russocide.

So if no one here is promoting Putin's propaganda, why is discussing any of the facts on which it is based so in need of constant suppression?

On the subject of 'misinformation'...

Then came the surfacing of Hunter Biden’s missing laptop, with its library of decadent pictures and business email chains, mysteriously left at a Wilmington repair shop, which found its way to Republican political operatives including Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon, plus the rightwing press and the FBI.

On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation. Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity. — https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden-joe-biden-president-business-dealings

On the oft repeated bullshit about 'supporting Ukraine'...

in a typical colonial way, commentators are homogenizing Ukrainians and misrecognizing the political diversity in a nation of 40 million people. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently tweeted about the principle “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” contrary to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inclination to determine Ukraine’s membership in NATO in a narrow circle of Great Powers. However, the problem is not only deciding “without Ukraine” but also deciding “for” very diverse Ukrainians as if they held identical opinions on the critical issues in question. — Volodymyr Ishchenko, research associate at the Institute of East European Studies, Freie Universität Berlin.,*

*His research focused on protests and social movements, revolutions, radical right and left politics, nationalism and civil society. He authored a number of peer-reviewed articles and interviews on contemporary Ukrainian politics, the Euromaidan uprising, and the ensuing war in 2013-14

Anyone who thinks that 'the Ukrainians' are some kind of homogeneous mass that they can 'support' is talking shite.

NATO can't have it both ways — boethius

Yeah, this is the problem in a nutshell. NATO could still fast track Ukraine membership. But it won't because it doesn't want war with Russia, which means it would never let Ukraine join (since it would be de facto at war because of Russia's occupation of Crimea).

Ukraine would need to essentially invade Russia to get Crimea back, and, as we've just established, NATO's not going to help them do that. So they've no choice there either.

And if NATO aren't going to help in Crimea, they're certainly not going to go to war to return de facto independent states to the control of a previous authority.

So Ukraine are sending men off to die for the right to make a choice they don't even have.

Put the other way round is even more problematic...

No outcome currently on the table could be avoided by any possible military victory. They will not achieve membership of NATO, they will not get Crimea back, and they will not regain full control over the Dombass. So what, I'd like to know, is the strategic objective?

Offered so far has been...

We don't trust Putin - not a strategic objective, and in any case a 'fight to the death option'.

Various forms of 'teaching Putin a lesson' - I can't even believe anyone could describe the horror of Mariupol in one breath and then suggest it's all worth it to see the look on Putin's face if he loses.

you don't get to decide if someone invades you or not, — jorndoe

Imagine you have bully on your block, do people on that block moderate their behaviour to avoid getting punched by him? Of course they do. So conversely it must follow that if you actually want him to punch someone, you'd know pretty much exactly what to do to get that to happen.

Putin is a ruthless tyrant who's made no secret of his views about the proper place of the Russian empire in the world. My first years could haved worked out exactly what behaviours would light his touch paper, imagine what professional consultants in international relations could come up with.

"Russia could shell positions with anthrax... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why would they do that when...

It's fairly shit fired in a shell because VX would kill people much quicker, as would conventional shells. — Count Timothy von Icarus

...and...

The weapons, as I've pointed out, just aren't very useful outside of terrorism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

...?

You just seem to want to have your partisan cake and eat it.

Perhaps you could clarify. Are biological weapons so useless that there's little need to stockpile them (in which case, why are we hyping up the threat of the Russians using them), or are they a viable weapon the Russians might use (in which case, why wouldn't America want to keep a stock somewhere with plausible deniability if they're found)?

Because Nuland is not a CBRN expert either. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yet...

Open hearings after closed ones are where Congressmen like to give themselves ego boosts by answering pointed questions about things they already know the answers to. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which is it, uneducated blunder or pre-prepared propaganda piece? If you're answering the question "does Ukraine have biological weapons?" in a preplanned attempt to ensure the world is abundantly clear they don't, do you not think "No" might have been quite an important part of any answer?

Do you think there was some meeting where Nuland's advisor was saying,

"Now, Victoria, they're going to ask you if Ukraine has biological weapons. They don't of course, and it's vitally important that you make it absolutely clear they don't",

" OK, so I should say 'no' then"

"No, that would be too obvious, we've got an elaborate double bluff planned..."

"...?"

@StreetlightX Worse perhaps even that the Hollywood heroism - the heartless selection of who's in the plot and who isn't...

as someone who has followed and worked on migration and refugee protection for years, it is also maddening to watch this and realize that we were capable of such a response all along. Europe has worked diligently over the last decade or two to build one of the world’s most violent borders; including routine pushbacks that are linked to thousands of drownings every year. Dozens have drowned in the last few days alone.

Then there are the exchange deals of the kind that return people to slavery in Libya, alongside a vast and expanding web of military and surveillance infrastructure policing the sea, and the widespread criminalization of rescuers — Nathan Akehurst in the Jacobin

The role of selective compassion in all this has been commented on at length. In the UK, a Sunday Times newspaper cartoon welcomes refugees from this crisis, in a sharp departure from the section’s previous tasteless racism on the issue. As well as aid, one can even buy military equipment for irregular Ukrainian forces in online crowd-funders; something that in any other case would get you swiftly put on a watch-list or worse.

this is partially because the surge in violence has in this case been driven by a rival power rather than a NATO country or ally, as in the cases of Yemen or Iraq. But Europe’s swift moves to slam the door to Afghans fleeing the Taliban — hardly a friendly regime — last fall suggest that straightforward racial as well as geopolitical concerns inform such markedly different responses.

In my country, suddenly we can afford £350/month per refugee. Two weeks ago we apparently couldn't even afford the dignity of not drowning them.

Try throwing rocks and swear words at ... Defense industry of Russia (Wikipedia), Russia and weapons of mass destruction (Wikipedia), Infographic: Which countries buy the most Russian weapons? (Al Jazeera; Mar 9, 2022), Rosoboronexport (has a number of Putin quotes towards the bottom by the way), ... :D The invader has taken an initiative. Words/rocks ... no difference. — jorndoe

As ever your point is as clear as mud.

The problem with lobbying (I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this) is industries using financial influence to bring about policies that wouldn't otherwise come about.

That Russia has arms manufacturers is irrelevant because, as we're regularly reminded, Satan himself is in charge of Russia in an autocratic dictatorship, so we're not really concerned about the influence the arms industry might have. If he wanted to increase their wealth, they wouldn't need a war as a pretext, he could just order a dozen jets just to sit on the tarmac.

States don't stockpile huge amounts of samples and even if they did, said samples would be fairly useless as weapons outside of infecting spies and having them cough on people. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So why...

we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach — Nuland

Ooooh. Manics is big with me! But I didn't recognize him — StreetlightX

Oh good. I thought I was going mad for a minute there!

Liberals get off on having a Zelensky-like figure available for intellectual reification - it plays right into their Harry Potter fantasies of individual heroes moving the world. He fills a void already cut out in their imaginations. — StreetlightX

This is so true, and also it cements loyalty in this unhealthy way, like there's an active desire, once the hero has been established, not to lose him to the grubbiness of reality so the ever-widening cracks get more and more desperately painted over.

Manics not big in Australia?

idk, I'm just saying someone should maybe, maybe maybe look into war-time heroes and how that tends to play out in like, all of history since the beginning of time. — StreetlightX

Well, there's Aragorn... or am I getting actual events and unrealistic fantasy stories mixed up again, there's been a lot of that going around recently.

Although Zelensky is of course a huge celebrity in the UK already...


Bradfield?


Zelensky?

Surely I'm not the first one to notice?

cannot back up the Ukrainians. — ssu

I've just been through this with @Olivier5. How can support for a particular strategy be support for 'The Ukrainians'?

'The Ukrainians' are not a homogeneous group all single-mindedly in favour of one approach.

You ought to understand that I naturally and normally support the right, and in fact the duty, of legitimate leaders of an attacked nation to defend the nation and themselves. — Olivier5

There are multiple ways a leader could defend their nation. Arming everyone and fighting to the last man in defiance of any offer from your aggressor is not the only one.

Which REAL, identifiable side do you support? — Olivier5

It's not a fucking football match. I support strategies that I think will be best for ordinary people. I don't follow 'leaders', I don't pick sides as if picking out which suit to wear, I don't require a social media movement to validate my assessment.

You wanted to know my reasons for supporting Ukraine. — Olivier5

We've been through this. You can't support 'Ukraine' in a discussion about strategy because 'Ukraine' is not an amorphous mass all agreeing with a single approach. You supported some of the people in Ukraine and opposed others. Some people in Ukraine even supported the Russian invasion, you opposed those Ukrainians, right?

What you supported was an approach, a particular strategy, the one chosen by the elected leader. We've also already been through the silliness of the notion that you supported his chosen strategy simply because he was the chosen leader (it's not, in itself, sufficient ground). So it remains that you had reasons outside of his mandate, to support his strategy.

Well now you know. They are the aggressed, therefore I root for them. — Olivier5

We've been through this as well. All Ukrainians are the aggressed. The ones who support Zelensky and the ones who oppose him. The ones who are prepared to lay down their life for their nation and the ones who've just had enough and would accept the Russian terms. Both are the aggressed. You chose one.

Which side did you chose and why? — Olivier5

I choose the side of those who'd rather avoid all the bloodshed and horror of war than act out their Star Wars fantasies with a population of innocent civilians to boost arms sales.

I argued that they might have good, rational reasons not to sign — Olivier5

I see. And those reasons have gone away now? Just as the media start reporting on peace talks. What a coincidence.

It's funny, but to someone who didn't know what an independent-minded and diligent thinker you really were, it might look a little like you were just polemically regurgitating whatever fervour happened to have gripped the popular media that day, changing your mind like a weathervane... But of course, we know better.

a peace deal now would offer only a temporary -- if welcome -- respite to Ukraine. — Olivier5

I see. So you've been arguing against my view that Ukraine should accept a deal, for the last eight pages...what? By accident? Was your account hacked by a rabid warmonger? I hate it when that happens.

Nope. — Olivier5

So when I asked, and you replied...

Why do you think the Ukrainians should keep fighting and not accept the deal? — Isaac


Because Putin cannot be trusted... — Olivier5

You meant what...?

“Russia is already beginning to talk constructively,” Ukrainian negotiator Mykhailo Podolyak said in a video online. “I think that we will achieve some results literally in a matter of days.”

But I thought...

Putin cannot be trusted, for one. A deal is nothing to him — Olivier5

...and...

Nothing works — Christoffer

...and...

Putin will never compromise. You can’t negotiate with terrorism. — Wayfarer

So I assume you're all dead set against this so called 'peace deal'?

What a bizarre post. In the latter half you graphically depict how gruesome and appalling war is, what a tragic impact it's having on the Ukrainians... Yet in the first half you support those looking to continue the war and condemn those advocating stopping it immediately.

So which is it? Is war the bloody nightmare to be avoided at all costs, or is it a necessary tool, to make sure Putin is put in his place - the death and destroyed lives merely unfortunate but necessary collateral damage?

It's just...

"Morally supporting" Ukraine losing lives, traumatising children (and everyone else), losing homes and livelihoods, to "stick it to the Russians" is not helping Ukrainians, it is harming the Russians with Ukrainians as a tool to do so. — boethius

Yep, and it's not limited to external agents either...

Think tanks were contacted more than 1,100 times by Ukraine’s agents [Yorktown Solutions, Agents representing the Ukrainian Federation of Employers of the Oil and Gas Industry], and more than half of these were directed at one in particular: the Atlantic Council. This extraordinary outreach included multiple meetings with Atlantic Council scholars, like ex-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst, who has advocated for a more militarized approach to Russia amid the Ukraine crisis. Herbst recently told NPR that President Joe Biden should “send more weapons to Ukraine now. By all means, get additional U.S. and NATO forces up along Russia’s border.” Herbst was also at the center of an Atlantic Council kerfuffle last March, when he and 21 other Atlantic Council staff signed a letter opposing the work of two Atlantic Council colleagues who suggested a restraint-based approach to dealing with Russia.

The Atlantic Council has also launched “UkraineAlert” which publishes daily pieces on deterring Russia. A recent article, “Survey: Western public backs stronger support for Ukraine against Russia,” notes the survey in question was commissioned by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation and Yalta European Strategy, which Pinchuk founded; however, the article does not mention that the foundation is a large contributor to the Atlantic Council, donating $250,000-499,000 a year, or that Pinchuk himself — the second wealthiest man in Ukraine — sits on the international advisory board of the Atlantic Council.

After the Atlantic Council, the hawkish Heritage Foundation was the second most contacted think tank by Ukraine’s agents. Heritage has consistently pushed for militarized solutions to the Russia-Ukraine crisis and was contacted 180 times throughout 2021 by Ukraine’s agents. This outreach was targeted at high-level Heritage experts, like Heritage Vice President James Carafano, who has repeatedly belittled U.S. diplomatic efforts related to Ukraine. — https://theintercept.com/2022/02/11/ukraine-lobby-congress-russia/

Invaders set the tempo. — jorndoe

Yep, and Elvis is still alive too apparently

Lest anyone's in any doubt whose agenda you're all slavishly promoting

Speaking to investors on Tuesday, two of the biggest U.S. weapons manufacturers provided estimates on how the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, a war that cost U.S. taxpayers over $2 trillion and took over 243,000 lives, impacted their bottom lines. Both companies also expressed enthusiasm about a bipartisan push to increase the 2022 defense budget by $29.3 billion, a five percent increase over the 2021 budget and more than $10 billion more than President Biden requested.

Approximately half of the defense budget goes to contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, both of whom explained to investors how the end of a 20 year war will impact their profits while still painting a rosy picture of ballooning defense spending driving corporate revenue and padding the bottomline for shareholders. — https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/10/27/weapons-execs-lament-losses-from-afghanistan-exit-tout-dod-budget-increase/

Oh dear, withdrawing from the war in Afghanistan looks like it's going to hit the bottom line...But wait...

Lockheed Martin, in particular, wants to use the “great power competition” [with China] framing to move forward a $4.4 billion acquisition of rocket engine manufacturer Aerojet Rocketdyne, a move that U.S. antitrust regulators are currently reviewing. — https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/03/29/lockheed-cites-great-power-competition-with-china-in-bid-to-consolidate-engine-market/

Phew...Tensions with China have 'come along entirely at random' to save the day... But will they be enough...?

But if you look at [defense budget growth] — and it’s evident each day that goes by. If you look at the evolving threat level and the approach that some countries are taking, including North Korea, Iran and through some of its proxies in Yemen and elsewhere, and especially Russia today, these days, and China, there’s renewed great power competition that does include national defense and threats to it. And the history of [the] United States is when those environments evolve, that we do not sit by and just watch it happen. So I can’t talk to a number, but I do think and I’m concerned personally that the threat is advancing, and we need to be able to meet it. — Lockheed CEO James Taiclet

Well, what stroke of luck...

Oh and if @Wayfarer's still adding to his "Treasonous c***t" collection

[W]e are seeing, I would say, opportunities for international sales. We just have to look to last week where we saw the drone attack in the UAE, which have attacked some of their other facilities. And of course, the tensions in Eastern Europe, the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there. So I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it. — Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes

Tensions in Eastern Europe, really! Who'd have thought it...

For anyone with any kind of shred of human dignity who can't believe their eyes, I'll confirm - yes, the CEO of Raytheon did indeed just refer to the prospect of multiple wars as "opportunities for international sales".

On another note, if China gets involved by aiding Russia, then why not Europe, NATO, ...? Otherwise, it seems like another descent into Rule of the bully. Ukraine still isn't a member of NATO, like Putin demands. — jorndoe

Yeah! Why not...let's have a fucking World War, we haven't had one in ages, it'd be laugh. Poking Putin with a big stick for 20 seems to have finally got him on board with the idea, let's see if we can't get Jinping on board too. Bagsies on the B61-12.

And here is the reason never to vote for another president because all their decisions are always right as long as the right process was followed. — Benkei

Yes, we can now add legitimately sitting elected leaders to the list of people whose decisions we apparently ought never question.

It's little short of terrifying the way we lurch from crisis to crisis with each one being used as the latest excuse not to question the power of authority and the flow of wealth to the ever richer.

Although, frightening though that trend is, I suspect @Olivier5's latest manifestation of it was more a random grasping at post hoc rationalisation than any serious attempt at a global geopolitical strategy.