8,452
edits
Talk:Restless Souls/Summary: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
Paradox-01 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Paradox-01 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 251: | Line 251: | ||
::: USA had many shady military and secret intelligence missions (CIA) in foreign nations. This includes installation of new government in rogue nations. Consequently these are made pro-USA. And as side effect USA often profits economically in an intesified way. | ::: USA had many shady military and secret intelligence missions (CIA) in foreign nations. This includes installation of new government in rogue nations. Consequently these are made pro-USA. And as side effect USA often profits economically in an intesified way. | ||
:::: '''Among critics you can often hear the "blood for oil" thesis or "No blood for oil" sloagan, saying in quintessence that USA is using its military to protect its advantage in buying, producing or mining the resources. However, nations with less potential power or by simply being smaller are always in disadvantage and are in danger of getting exploited by economic dynamics.''' (Pretty everyone tries or tried to exploit African nations.) On the other hand there is the military-industrial-complex and ideological factors that add their bits and pieces to foreign policy - may it be the readiness to use military and the "sense of mission" (own belief in being forced) to bring democracy to nations with a different cultural environment. | :::: '''Among critics you can often hear the "blood for oil" thesis or "No blood for oil" sloagan, saying in quintessence that USA is using its military to protect its advantage in buying, producing or mining the resources. However, nations with less potential power or by simply being smaller are always in disadvantage and are in danger of getting exploited by economic dynamics.''' (Pretty everyone tries or tried to exploit African nations.) On the other hand there is the military-industrial-complex and ideological factors that add their bits and pieces to foreign policy - may it be the readiness to use military and the "sense of mission" (own belief in being forced) to bring democracy to nations with a different cultural environment. | ||
::: Sometimes these missions (for new goverments / nation building) end up in unwillingly facilitating new radical forces - like the Taliban or the Islamic State. This makes its sometimes hard to believe that USA speaks the truth. '''The "collateral damage" - including the eavesdrop of global communication - is so massive that whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) can reveal that many tons of mistakes and wrongdoing that they were declared public enemies. USA created an empire not simply by - but yet partially by - questionalable methods.''' Putin sees Russia as superpower that cannot catch up. The problem with this fact is that there are | ::: Sometimes these missions (for new goverments / nation building) end up in unwillingly facilitating new radical forces - like the Taliban or the Islamic State. This makes its sometimes hard to believe that USA speaks the truth. '''The "collateral damage" - including the eavesdrop of global communication - is so massive that whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) can reveal that many tons of mistakes and wrongdoing that they were declared public enemies. USA created an empire not simply by - but yet partially by - questionalable methods.''' Putin sees Russia as superpower that cannot catch up. The problem with this fact is that there are four reasons: 1) Climate and geography give Russia a disadvantage. 2) Putin's own growing corruption. 3) The economic heritage. 4) The political heritage: For many US-Americans the Russians are evil communists which must be indeed blocked in their development, this includes the sabotage Russia's connection to Europe. -- Putin reasons that if USA doesn't "play fair" that he also doesn't need to play fair. But since Russia is in disadvantage Putin sees himself forced to use even intensifed level of ruthlessness. '''To overcome this position of weakness Putin decided to rule Russia in an autocratic style and take by force what he cannot get with legal methods.''' - Putin must be utterly frustrated that he could not lift Russia's status out of being an underdog. His entire second part of his lifespan was not enough to "restore" Russia. It seems that he snapped about that fact. - '''Besides the natural economic competition, military and political hardliners intensified a feedback loop in which USA and Russia still fight each each up to this day. - Anyway, the attack on Ukraine was the last red line Putin shouldn't have crossed. There is absolutely no credible justification for this attack.''' | ||
* A simple end of maneuver sounds almost too good to be real - although it would be still a victory for Putin in having seriously pranked NATO and let them feel how it is to have enemy troops at the boarder (as an official version for mirroring their own security concerns). Though they might delay the final date to push NATO into making concessions. | * A simple end of maneuver sounds almost too good to be real - although it would be still a victory for Putin in having seriously pranked NATO and let them feel how it is to have enemy troops at the boarder (as an official version for mirroring their own security concerns). Though they might delay the final date to push NATO into making concessions. | ||
:: There are rumors that say that USA and Russia welcome the conflict to distract from their own internal problems - intensified by the pandemic - sometimes connected to US LNG fracking gas and Russian pipeline gas. (In the conspiracy-near thoughts USA is the only profiteer.) While a distraction for own citizen is more plausible for Russia it rises the question how long they are willing to blow money with that gigantic maneuver. Aren't there natural limits to this? Two years? One year? Six month? | :: There are rumors that say that USA and Russia welcome the conflict to distract from their own internal problems - intensified by the pandemic - sometimes connected to US LNG fracking gas and Russian pipeline gas. (In the conspiracy-near thoughts USA is the only profiteer.) While a distraction for own citizen is more plausible for Russia it rises the question how long they are willing to blow money with that gigantic maneuver. Aren't there natural limits to this? Two years? One year? Six month? | ||
| Line 258: | Line 258: | ||
** A spiced up version of scenario 3 is that Russia more or less waits for the conflict between separatists and Ukrainian military to heat up. Western partners tell Ukraine not get provoked. Russia spoke bluntly of military technical responses if no concessions are made. Heavy counter attacks would give Russia the '''pretext to "secure" the conflict zone'''. This Scenario is the most probable as it goes hand in hand with the Russian domestic propaganda. -- Some people speculate that Putin overplayed his hand (geopolitical demands) so that he needs something else as a "victory" and exit. In reality it would be a pyrrhic victory but that is something more domestic propaganda would cover. | ** A spiced up version of scenario 3 is that Russia more or less waits for the conflict between separatists and Ukrainian military to heat up. Western partners tell Ukraine not get provoked. Russia spoke bluntly of military technical responses if no concessions are made. Heavy counter attacks would give Russia the '''pretext to "secure" the conflict zone'''. This Scenario is the most probable as it goes hand in hand with the Russian domestic propaganda. -- Some people speculate that Putin overplayed his hand (geopolitical demands) so that he needs something else as a "victory" and exit. In reality it would be a pyrrhic victory but that is something more domestic propaganda would cover. | ||
*** The rat tail of consequences: Ukrainian government was not impressed by Russia's threats. They said they would never accept the occupation of Luhansk and Donetsk. In order to prevent big style Western weapon deliveries and the take back of ground Putin attacked the entire Ukraine underlaid by weird historic justifications and the assertion to prevent a genocide (meant for domestic propaganda). For a long lasting effect he needs to destroy the entire military. And to prevent its rebuild he needs to replace the Ukrainian government as well. -- '''Putin might have miscalculated how bloody the war would get and therefore needs further justification.''' The take over of Chernobyl gives him a better possibility to fake Ukrainian plans for [[wp:Dirty_bomb|dirty bombs]]. | *** The rat tail of consequences: Ukrainian government was not impressed by Russia's threats. They said they would never accept the occupation of Luhansk and Donetsk. In order to prevent big style Western weapon deliveries and the take back of ground Putin attacked the entire Ukraine underlaid by weird historic justifications and the assertion to prevent a genocide (meant for domestic propaganda). For a long lasting effect he needs to destroy the entire military. And to prevent its rebuild he needs to replace the Ukrainian government as well. -- '''Putin might have miscalculated how bloody the war would get and therefore needs further justification.''' The take over of Chernobyl gives him a better possibility to fake Ukrainian plans for [[wp:Dirty_bomb|dirty bombs]]. | ||
*** The simpler interpretation of all this is that Putin wants geopolitical influence but cannot bluntly say so. At some he actually did: that the West wants to hinder Russia's development. While that is not completely untrue - in context of USA - the usual told version is that Russia feels threatened by NATO which is nonsense as NATO is an alliance for defense. - When NATO decided to not give in and reject future membership of Ukraine Russia went on to create facts. The invasion covers both: the pretextual argumentation to prevent NATO expansion and the actual geopolitical goal. | *** The simpler interpretation of all this is that Putin wants geopolitical influence but cannot bluntly say so. At some point he actually did: that ''the West wants to hinder Russia's development''. While that is not completely untrue - in context of USA - the usual told version is that Russia feels threatened by NATO which is nonsense as NATO is an alliance for defense. - When NATO decided to not give in and reject future membership of Ukraine Russia went on to create facts. The invasion covers both: the pretextual argumentation to prevent NATO expansion and the actual geopolitical goal. | ||
=====Post-invasion scenarios===== | =====Post-invasion scenarios===== | ||