Maybe.

Then again Greece doesn't have much of a military itself, so a war in that situation would be rather quick and favor Turkey. Of course, if you have alliances then it can become a big problem.



I think they need to save face on both sides and Ukraine should stay out of NATO, maybe get some "concessions" from Russia. If that's appeasement then, I rather that than war.

Yea. They still had staff and "in service" equipment, but they weren't prepared to actually use it. — frank

Ummm...yes! That the whole idea with nuclear weapons. They are for deterrence, not for use.

And if you have doubts on Russian missiles working? Well, a glimpse on Russian missile technology working can be seen either from the Soyuz-rockets or from the banned medium range nuclear missiles: the latter the US decided to just demolish, but the Russians shot every missile as testing (without warheads, of course). None of them had any problem in functioning.

And btw, the US nuclear weapons are very, very old. Far older than their Russian counterparts.

(Military.com, Jan 2021) The aging Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles that have formed the land-based leg of the nation's nuclear deterrent triad for half a century can no longer be upgraded and require costly replacements, Adm. Charles Richard, head of U.S. Strategic Command, said Tuesday.

"Let me be very clear: You cannot life-extend the Minuteman III [any longer]," he said of the 400 ICBMs that sit in underground silos across five states in the upper Midwest.

"We can't do it at all. ... That thing is so old that, in some cases, the drawings don't exist anymore [to guide upgrades]," Richard said in a Zoom conference sponsored by the Defense Writers Group. Where the drawings do exist, "they're like six generations behind the industry standard," he said, adding that there are also no technicians who fully understand them. "They're not alive anymore."

The submarine ICBM's are younger though: the missile system was deployed only 30 years ago and the upgraded version of the Trident is planned to be in service until 2042.

Maybe.

Then again Greece doesn't have much of a military itself, so a war in that situation would be rather quick and favor Turkey. Of course, if you have alliances then it can become a big problem. — Manuel

A war that didn't / hasn't happened is in history naturally unprovable, but when talking about wars, that "maybe" is a good thing. But do note that PRIOR to Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 NATO was genuinely focused in everything else but Russia.

In fact, even if the Baltic States joined NATO in 2004 there was no plans to defend them. One NATO member considered it too "provocative" to even have plans for a defense of the new member states. Russia might get upset! What really got Russia alarmed was the "new mission" when NATO started a war in Kosovo. That was the real red-line they crossed for Russia. Yet NATO member countries understood Russia's worries.

That changed when Russia had it's war with Georgia in 2008. And finally, actual real training, US troops in the Baltic states, started when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.

So the idea of NATO hawks going all these years for the jugular of Russia simply is wrong. And this is why I do have the opinion that Russia could easily have prevented the membership of Ukraine in NATO with smart diplomacy (which the US would have found utterly annoying) and not with wars and annexations. It's Putin himself that is basically hammering NATO back to it's original role.

. If that's appeasement then, I rather that than war. — Manuel

History teaches us that appeasement frequently invites further aggression and war.

History teaches us that appeasement frequently invites further aggression and war. — frank

Only with those who want war and have imperial aspirations.

Only with those who want war and have imperial aspirations. — ssu

Who else would you appease?

Who else would you appease? — frank

Someone who thinks you are going to attack them or have those imperial asperations yourself!

States usually try to have good relations...because if they don't have those, then you know what military planners have to (it's their job, you know) prepare for.

I'm not seeing your point.

It's mind boggling that after Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS, people who normally lambast the media for being BS artists, now rely on these same sources as being a good source of info for yet another potential war. Craziness. — Manuel

Not only that, but the same people systematically manipulate and distort media reports and even historical records in order to paint Russia as the “incarnation of evil” and “enemy of the human race”!

And in the same way they demonize Russia, they seek to dehumanize and demonize anyone that disagrees with them by calling them “Russian trolls”!

Clearly, this is a diversionary tactic intended to deflect attention from justified criticism of America’s New World Order.

In particular, what they are trying to hide is (1) that Western powers had a hand in the revolutionary events of 1917, and (2) that the same powers planned to dismember Russia and place it under their control.

In his annual news conference of December 23 2021, Putin stated that in 1918 US government advisers proposed the dismemberment of Russia.

Of course, the Western press correspondents pretended not to understand what Putin was saying, but he was absolutely right. In fact, already in 1917, the same proposal had been made by Britain and France who even came to an agreement (signed by Lord Milner and Georges Clemenceau) detailing Russia’s dismemberment into zones of control (exactly as they did with Germany):

A careful study of the latest and most authoritative documents dealing with the allied intervention in Russia in 1917-1920 reveals the startling designs of Great Britain and France to bring about the complete dismemberment of the Russian realm for their own political and commercial advantage … France and Great Britain came to an actual understanding and agreed to an actual dismemberment of Russia in L’Accord Franco-Anglais du 23 Decembre, 1917 … ‘The zones of influence assigned to each government shall be as follows: The English zone: The Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan. The French zone: Bessarabia, the Ukraine, the Crimea … ‘

L. I. Strakhovsky, “The Franco-British Plot to Dismember Russia”, Current History, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 839-842

See also:

Louis Fischer, The Soviets in World Affairs, p. 617

W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166

P. Walsh, Battle for the Caucasus: Britain versus Russia 1918-20

Obviously, if implemented, the plan would have given Britain and France, and their American associates, control over Russia’s resources, such as the oil fields of the Caucasus, control over Ukraine and Crimea, hence control over the Black Sea, etc., etc.

So THIS is what the pro-EU and pro-NATO propaganda is trying to cover up. Without much success though …. :grin:

It's part of the same old playbook, if you agree with out economic policies, you're in the club, if you don't, we don't care.

Some European countries can ignore this on some occasions. As can China and Russia, but not others. Obviously this isn't liked by the powers at be.

Because history, and/or geography, 'we', the righteous, will not be defending Ukraine. So Putin's calculation will be the cost/benefit analysis of invasion and occupation. War with Europe and the US is not a risk, but sanctions are, and the possibility of a protracted destabilising resistance also. As against the prospect of an uncontested win against the West, consolidation of gains in Crimea, Kudos from the folks, respect from China, and the prospect of Europe getting gas hungry. What else? Or the laugh of the ungodly getting their knickers in a twist over some military manoeuvres.

Or the laugh of the ungodly getting their knickers in a twist over some military manoeuvres. — unenlightened

Well, if America wins, you might have to say "panties" instead of "knickers" :smile:

But the reality is that Ukraine is located right on Russia’s south-western flank which would be exposed to NATO (the world's largest military alliance, not some charity organization!) if Ukraine decided to join.

If Ukraine is justified to fear Russia, Russia is equally if not more justified to fear NATO nuclear systems potentially stationed on Ukrainian soil. The ideal solution would be for NATO and/or Ukraine to give Russia some kind of reassurance. NATO's refusal to do so doesn't bode well.

History is important because it reveals patterns of behavior that show that the West is not always a bunch of cute and cuddly angels.

if America wins, — Apollodorus

If America wins what? You think Russia and America are going to war?

Wars aren't always fought by military means. There are culture wars, economic wars, propaganda and info wars, some wars are overt, others are covert, etc., etc.

We can only hope that reason will prevail on all sides.

The Russian economy is in the toilet and with the pandemic and rising inflation it's obvious that war becomes a way to distract the Russian people from those problems.

Putin, with his KGB roots, is an expert in disinformation. His whole power is based on a shadow play to lure the people into believing the nation is better off than it actually is. And plenty in the west look upon Putin as a strong leader and Russia as a powerful entity. This is exactly how Putin wants himself and Russia to be viewed, both internationally and nationally.

But you can only take it so far. Many in Russia are right now on the brink of poverty, barely able to make it. And what might the result of a Ukraine conflict be? If the US and the west initiate their sanctions, and if Germany is able to cut off Nordstream, then the economic collapse of Russia is probably very likely.

Putin could try and wage war all he wants to distract even further, but there will come a time when the emperors' clothes fall off and his KGB methods won't work anymore and the people will initiate a revolution. He can try disinformation, he can try and kill off his own people if they oppose him, but that can only go so far before he's publically hanged on the Red Square.

All it takes in that chaos, is another leader who gets enormous popularity within that chaos and there will be a massive shift in how Russia operates.

If Putin attacks Ukraine full-on, it could very well become the starting point for a Russian collapse and Putin's fall from power.

Of course, there's also a chance he escapes all of this unscathed. But how much shit can the Russian population take before they have enough? All leaders who make their own people suffer will eventually be taken out by the people.

propaganda and info wars — Apollodorus

These are even the main starting point of every war. We live in an era full of fake news and disinformation. Spreading a lot of lies can lead the people to follow the wrong path.
This conflict is clearly a good example. There are a lot of information floating around that makes a paranoia feeling when we do not really know if a war would happen in the coming months.

This is a very good point.

The most offensive view that still goes around is that Russia and Russians cannot have democracy and that they need a strong leader, a tough central government or otherwise the country collapses. That somehow democracy cannot work in Russia. Of course Russia is a mixture of various people and ethnic groups and is the largest country. Yet we aren't thinking that India will collapse, even if it too has a multitude of different people and languages. And for Canada or Brazil the size of the country isn't a huge problem. The so-called "strong leaders" usually suck.

An Russian opposition leader (now living in the West) said once that Russians are very like Americans in their distrust of big government. Those Russians we just don't see, the people that might be fed up with war all the time. The Russians weren't so excited about Russia going to Syria, and note that all the deaths of the "volunteers", meaning the Russia forces that fought in the Donbas, were kept out of the media, sometimes so that the families had problems to get their sons bodies back.

Just as in Belarus, the amount of love Russians have to their leaders is an open question, but it is doubtful it's as high as said. On the other hand, they are those who support Putin and I guess later when Vladimir isn't around, you will have the babushka on some demonstration carrying the photo of the "saviour" of Russia, who gave them Crimea back.

Logically there are also lots of people with good memories of Soviet russia. They're old and dying off, younger people without memories of the Soviet era don't have that kind of attatchment and just want better living conditions. They view other nations and see the potential they can have and they don't like Putin at all.

On top of that, the retaking of natural resources from the oligarchs into Putin's inner circle of KGB people have made Moscow extremely rich and the view from the outside is that Russia is a rich nation with western standards. This is so far from the truth. The money flow goes through the largest cities and the front propaganda of the nation. The real population around these areas is living in third world standards. With falling infrastructure and unable to live on their wages or pensions, especially now with inflation and the pandemic as well as how it could be if the US cut Russian banks ability to transfer internationally or with dollar currency.

So everything with Putin and Russia is just a big smokescreen. If nothing is properly done to remedy this situation, I think Russia will fall in a couple of years. As the elders die off, young people take over, the economy collapses and soldiers are killed in the Ukraine conflict.

The worst thing about this is that Putin is acting like a deranged child. If Russia collapses, he could very well just hit the big red button and send off nukes just because things didn't go his way. If people were afraid of what Trump could do, just imagine the manchild that is Putin.

:cool: :100:

I think Russia will fall in a couple of years. — Christoffer

There's has been for a long time a tendency to write off Russia, as it cannot overcome it's real problems. Well, perhaps it cannot find solutions to truly solve and overcome it's fundamental problems, but it doesn't mean Russia will go away or cease to exist. It can simply hang on. Russians are good at that.

The tragic thing here is that Putin needs the huge, larger than life enemy in order to justify his position and to justify his crackdown on civil liberties etc. The US has to be the great evil... or at least America's evil foreign policy community. And I assume he truly thinks that the West is out to destroy Russia, to carve it up and has that the West has this fixation on doing this. Hence any kind of opposition or civil disobedience that emerges in Russia is instantly seen as something artificially created by the intelligence services of the West or their proxies, people like George Soros and the like. This naturally isn't the case, but the truth doesn't matter.

What is also lacking in this mindset is the understanding that third parties and countries can have independent agendas and objectives. For example: NATO bombs couldn't overthrow Milosevic, but the little assistance to the Serbian opposition that the US State Department gave was highly successful and Milosevic was ousted. This is something that Putin clearly observes as an example of a "color revolution" and hence the whole "Gerasimov doctrine" is viewed only as a counter to US hybrid warfare: because they do it, we have to do it also. Yet what here is forgotten that despite of this, Serbia is still a close ally to Russia and isn't at all wanting to join NATO. You see, bombing a country does have an impact on the way the people think of you and if the opposition does take money from an outside entity, it doesn't mean they obey you afterwards.

And then there is the way how Putin's Russia sees NATO. In a testimony for the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe just this month, Fiona Hill puts quite well:

As far as NATO is concerned, Russia sees the institution as an extension of the United States, not an alliance based on mutual interest, collective defense, and voluntary association. Moscow continues to view the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Cold War terms, as the equivalent of the Warsaw Treaty Organization that USSR created as a mirror image and coerced Eastern Europe into. Russian officials and commentators routinely deny any agency or independent strategic thought to any NATO member other than the United States. Note, for example, that Russia has not sent any similar documents to our North American neighbor, Canada, challenging its role in European security, despite its membership in both NATO and the OSCE and close ties to Ukraine. Canada and other countries barely exist in Russia’s calculations.

Similar views (as the current regime in Russia has so aptly described by Hill) have been given even in this thread.

These are even the main starting point of every war. We live in an era full of fake news and disinformation. Spreading a lot of lies can lead the people to follow the wrong path.
This conflict is clearly a good example. There are a lot of information floating around that makes a paranoia feeling when we do not really know if a war would happen in the coming months. — javi2541997

Correct. America and Britain's wars are always "just" and "holy" (and never have anything to do with oil :smile: ). Anyone else's wars are "evil". This divides mankind into two diametrically opposed worlds. Propaganda and fake news are the means by which this is achieved.

Yes, Germany has it tough in terms of military. France used to have an independent path in world affairs - more or less - and did not join NATO until rather recently. If they so wished, they could theoretically form a kind of military union with the UK, though again, one would have to see what the US says about this.
I mean, I agree, NATO has no reason anymore, to continue as an entity. Alliances between countries should more than suffice. The USSR no longer is a threat, not that was a big threat before - compared to US power anyway. — Manuel

That’s a very good observation, actually.

I think the importance of Germany to the correct assessment of the nature and function of the EU-NATO combine cannot be emphasized strongly enough.

We must stop pretending that Germany’s situation and position in Europe are “normal”, because they aren’t. In fact, Germany is a perfect illustration of why the whole European system is rotten to the core and from top to bottom. A continental system (Europe) that is dominated by a foreign power (America) is, by definition, based on inequality. And inequality leads to injustice, corruption, propaganda, and lies.

When Germany signed up to the Marshall Plan (1949) that obliged it to work for European integration, and to the European Coal and Steel Community (1951) that laid the foundations on which the European Union (EU) was built, it was NOT a sovereign state.

When Germany joined NATO in 1955, it was nominally sovereign. However, (1) it had been under absolute Allied control for ten years, as a consequence of which it was run according to a system and by leaders that had been put in place by the Allied military governors (which was the whole purpose of Allied occupation!), and (2) it had already ceded some of its powers to Allied-controlled institutions.

In addition to pledging itself to European integration when it accepted the Marshall Plan, and to “ever-closer union among European nations” when it signed the 1951 Treaty of Paris, Germany in 1952 signed the Bonn-Paris Conventions that ended Allied occupation (effective 1955), and granted it some sovereign powers while restricting others:

Article 1
1. The Federal Republic shall have full authority over its internal and external affairs, except as provided in the present Convention.
Article 2
1. The Three Powers retain, in view of the international situation, the rights, heretofore exercised or held by them, relating to (a) the stationing of armed forces in Germany and the protection of their security, (b) Berlin, and (c) Germany as a whole, including the unification of Germany and a peace settlement.
2. The Federal Republic, on its part, will refrain from any action prejudicial to these rights and will cooperate with the Three Powers [US, UK, France] to facilitate their exercise …

Convention on relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany (Bonn, 26 May 1952) – CVCE

Similarly, the Paris Agreements of October 23, 1954, state:

The Federal Republic shall accordingly [after termination of the occupation regime] have the full authority of a sovereign state over its internal and external affairs.

However, the truth of the matter is that Germany acquired “full national sovereignty” only in 1990 (!) with the Treaty of Final Settlement a.k.a. Two Plus Four Agreement signed in Moscow that allowed the reunification of Germany which until that point had been divided into an US-controlled Western half and a Russian-controlled eastern half.

Moreover, in addition to ceding some of its sovereign rights, Germany also renounced some of its eastern territories, and the manufacture, possession of, and control over nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, while at the same time allowing the continued presence of Allied forces on its soil, including US-controlled nuclear systems.

Already the 1954 Convention on the Presence of Foreign Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany, which replaced the Occupation Statute, allowed eight NATO members, including the US, to have a permanent military presence in Germany, and this remains in force even now.

In short, what actually has happened is that while Germany officially became a “free and sovereign state”, in reality, it has been transformed into America’s European Command (EUCOM) headquarters (based at Stuttgart) that controls all US military forces across 51 European (and other) countries.

The mission of EUCOM, of course, is NOT to protect Germany or any other European country, but to protect and defend the US by deterring conflict, supporting partnerships such as NATO, countering transnational threats, and keeping Germany down. It follows that Germany is an instrument of US interests and so are NATO and the EU.

During the Cold War with Russia into the 1980’s, America had some 250,000 troops in Germany, i.e., about twice as much as Russia has now on Ukraine's borders. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, US military presence in Germany was reduced to less than 100,000 and to currently 35,000.

However, even though East Germany, Poland, and the Baltic states gained their independence from Russian control, shifting “free” Europe’s eastern flank much further east, US troops remained in Germany. Why? Either Russia is a problem or it isn’t. If it is a problem, then the US troops should be moved eastward to Poland and the Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), or even Ukraine if they want to, NOT Germany!

Not only does Germany continue to hold the largest number of US troops in Europe but, as demonstrated above, Germany’s foreign policy continues to be dominated by US interests. So, basically, Germany which is at the center of Europe is the headquarters of the armed forces of America - the architect of the post-WW2 New World Order and creator of NATO as an instrument for the enforcement and defense of the American world order.

This is why Germany cannot be a sovereign nation and Europe cannot be a sovereign continent unless and until America gets out of Europe.

I don’t think this is being “anti-American”. I think it is perfectly logical, democratic, and just. If Europe has no troops in America, then America should have no troops in Europe. Otherwise, there is no equality, and no justice. And without justice there is no peace.

IMO it is unacceptable, in a free world, that European (and other) countries can do nothing without kowtowing to Washington or Wall Street. It's time for some radical changes in the world order, otherwise conflicts much larger than Ukraine will soon be on the horizon.

Russia says it is pulling back some of its troops stationed near Ukraine's border

What do you think? Are we closer to finish this tension? Is it a strategic plan from Putin?

Perhaps he'll look like a hero to his fans. He looks kind of silly to me at the moment.

Yes, you are right. This situation is even useless. I don't even know why he did this. It looks like he is kind of negligent

But maybe that's just what he wants us to think!

What do you think? Are we closer to finish this tension? Is it a strategic plan from Putin? — javi2541997

Well, of course Putin has a strategic plan. But we need to avoid focusing exclusively on Ukraine if we want to avoid missing the wood for the trees. As I said before, taking a narrow, politically-motivated outlook is not a particularly philosophical approach, and a more comprehensive analysis is needed.

The way I see it, far more important than Putin’s actions is America’s response, as this is what makes the difference between (a) a limited, local conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and (b) regional or world war.

If the two world wars are any guide, America’s options tend to be (1) not to get involved, (2) to get involved via proxies, and (3) direct involvement, in that order.

Regarding option (1), one of the facts that tend to get ignored or forgotten is that, for all the propaganda and drum beating coming from the direction of the White House, America is not prepared to fight Russia.
Biden has told Putin that if he invades Ukraine, the US would “impose swift and severe costs on Russia”.

In other words, Biden is saying that he is not prepared to stop Russia, but that he will make Russia pay “a heavy price”. The logical implication of this is that it remains for Russia to decide whether or not it wants to pay that price. And Russia may well think that the price, though “heavy”, is nevertheless worth paying. In any case, the whole situation boils down to a question of economic price.

Regarding options (2) and (3), America could, if it wanted to, engineer a civil war in Ukraine and then expand it to a wider conflict that would engulf Russia and, possibly, other parts of the world.

For now, America is certainly considering option (2) as it has relocated 3,000 troops from Germany to Romania, etc. So it looks like America wants others to fight its wars before it gets involved directly. And this demonstrates that the EU and NATO are instruments of American militarism and imperialism.

Within this US- or Anglo-Saxon-dominated European structure, Britain is squarely behind America in a conflict with Russia, Germany would prefer to stay out, and France is somewhere in between.

France has always been allowed much more freedom than Germany. France withdrew from NATO's military command structure in 1966 and only rejoined in 2009, while still maintaining an independent nuclear defense system. Germany not only has no nuclear weapons, but the nukes on its soil are under US control!

Nevertheless, if France doesn’t toe the line, America uses Britain and Germany as a lever. If Britain doesn’t toe the line, America uses Germany and France. And if Germany doesn’t toe the line, America uses Britain and France to enforce its agenda.

Additionally, America has a high degree of control over the German media, most of which was set up under US occupation either directly by the US (often with the involvement of the secret services) or indirectly through the US-controlled licensing system.

America also has a wide network of influential institutions like Atlantik-Brücke, American Council on Germany, German Council on Foreign Relations, German Marshall Fund, European Council on Foreign Relations, Global Public Policy Institute, etc., as well as pro-US operatives within the German Foreign Office (like Baerbock) and the German embassy in Washington, through which it exerts influence on German and European foreign policy by promoting America’s Atlanticist agenda.

The case of Olaf Scholz is a perfect illustration. Scholz became Chancellor of Germany in December last year. As Germany has strong economic links with Russia, especially in the energy sector, Scholz was not particularly perturbed by Russia’s plans on Ukraine. As a result, the US media and its European and German associates immediately attacked him, accusing him of being “out of step” with Washington, as if the first and foremost job of Germany’s leader was to be “in lockstep” with the US!

As for the chancellor, he has made himself conspicuously scarce in recent weeks — so scarce that the newsmagazine Der Spiegel described him as “nearly invisible, inaudible” … Mr. Scholz’s team announced that after returning from Washington, the chancellor will pivot to a full schedule that he hopes will shift German diplomacy into high gear … But patience is running thin, and Mr. Scholz will have to bring something to the table …

Germany’s ‘Invisible’ Chancellor Heads to Washington Amid Fierce Criticism - New York Times

The situation soon reached not only hysterical but also irrational heights, with Foreign Minister Baerbock siding with Washington against her own chancellor. On February 7th, Biden summoned Scholz to the White House like a dog, paraded him in front of a baying press mob, and when Scholz was asked about Germany’s plans about sanctions on Russia, Biden – NOT Scholz – announced that “we will bring an end to” the Nord Stream 2 gas pipe line from Russia to Germany,

Biden was then asked, given that the project is under German control, how exactly does he intend to “bring an end to it”? To which he replied, “I promise you we’ll be able to do it.”, later reiterating that “it just isn’t going to happen”.

President Biden, German Chancellor Scholz take questions during joint news conference – WPRI

Meantime, the EU has proposed the founding of an European Security Council headed by Britain.

EU hands Britain post-Brexit olive branch – an offer to lead new security council – The Telegraph

In other words, Britain has left the European Union, but still insists on playing a leading role in Europe’s defense and foreign policy, as an extension of America. This clearly shows how Europe is being dominated by America and Britain with France coming third and Germany playing fourth fiddle, and being dragged along or frogmarched more than “marching in lockstep".

And it isn't just Germany. Other countries, like Spain, don't have much of a say either. Like Germany and many other European countries, Spain's national interest lies in friendly relations with Russia, not in blindly following American militarism and imperialism. Remember NATO's 1999 war on Yugoslavia that was engineered by Clinton (US) and Blair (UK), and executed by Solana (who was secretary general of NATO) ....

So it turns out American and Western hysteria about entirely made-up threats have done more damage to Ukraine than the dreamed about Russians to the tune of a double-digit billions:

Wonder who will be waiting in the wings to provide some helpful 'aid money' in return for a bit of 'structural adjustment'?

Wonder who will be waiting in the wings to provide some helpful 'aid money' in return for a bit of 'structural adjustment'? — StreetlightX

Oh wow, I wrote this without looking, but of course:

The United States has offered a sovereign loan guarantee to Ukraine of up to $1 billion to support the country’s economy as the Eastern European country prepares for a possible Russian invasion any day, the Department of State announced on Monday. ... In addition, The State Department said the Export-Import Bank of the United States plans to free up $3 billion “to facilitate procurement of U.S. goods and services for projects in Ukraine.”

https://nypost.com/2022/02/14/us-offers-ukraine-1-billion-loan-to-support-economy-amid-tensions-with-russia/

These fucking warmongers are so predictable.

It pays to remember just how many WMDs were found in Iraq and what the intelligence community thought it knew and how that was spun by politicians and Powell in particular.

Edit: let me translate that "anybody who believes the US and UK narrative is an idiot".

What! Governments exaggerating a threat so that powerful industries can benefit. Sounds like some kind of crazy conspiracy theory to me.

Best just trust what the official experts have to say on the matter...

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/russia-ukraine-news-latest-today-nato-us-reject-putin-claims-withdrawl/

...so that's settled then. The experts say Russia is preparing for war and I'm sure the billions that the pharmaceuticalarms industry will make is just a coincidence.

Of course, you might find some experts disagreeing, but with none of you being military strategists, you wouldn't want to be 'doing your own research', would you?

Besides, have you not read the news? Those nasty truckers are funded by the Russians, best be on the safe side, lest they fund any more peaceful protestsdomestic terrorists.