This mentality that somehow Putin is the resurrection of Hitler, and anyone who says negotiations must occur is compared to Chamberlain and labeled pro-Putin -- is just flat-out insane.
I'm always reminded of a certain someone describing British propaganda during the WWII:
"There is no point to debating Mr. Churchill about English ship losses or the damage caused by German air attacks. He follows the time-honored British policy of admitting only that which is impossible to deny, then cutting it in half, while at the same time doubling or tripling the enemy’s losses. This balances the accounts. The astonishing thing is that Mr. Churchill, a genuine John Bull, holds to his lies, and in fact repeats them until he himself believes them. That is an old English trick. "
...
"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
Although the thing about Hitler is that he wasn't just unappeasable (because he had ambitions of world domination), he was also undeterrable (except in the very short term, like when Mussolini deterred him from taking over Austria in 1934) because he was an extreme Social Darwinist who viewed human life (even German life) as inherently worthless.
I don't believe that Putin is truly like Hitler in that respect, but wouldn't nuclear armageddon be unavoidable (short of being able to stop ICBMs with an SDI-type system) if he was?
I never hear Ms Johnstone address how culpable the Obama administration was in fostering what is going on now. I think even Obama has acknowledged his role in the overthrow of Yanukovych’ and working with neo-nazi's to extablish that goal. Not that America hasn't worked with fascist regimes elsewhere, especially in South America, to accomplish those results. He is the one who was responsible for the transition of power in Ukraine by his support which has now led us to the possibility of nuclear war. His policies have been enforced during the Biden years. During Trump's years in office we had anti-Russia propaganda to prepare us for what is going on now.
What makes you think Obama was anything more than a sock puppet? "They" made him accept Joe Biden as his VP. Obama was a smooth talker who delivered his scripted lines perfectly.
Since leaving the Presidency, I haven't heard Obama say much of anything except to host some huge parties at this mansion.
Anyway, what's the point of accusing Obama of anything? He's no longer important to the future policy formation of our nation.
Surprising response for someone interested in politics. One would think you would be interested in the historical context of how we got to the point where nuclear war with Russia is a very significant possibility. I think it's important to understand why the US was willing to support Fascists groups and neo-Nazi's to bring down Yanukovych and install a pro-western government, and leave Biden in charge. Our actions in Ukraine were important enough that Oliver Stone made a documentary on the subject, and was highly critical of US policy in Ukraine. Obama is no sock puppet, and he may host parties, but it doesn't mean what he started is now finished and he is out of the loop. Very obviously Biden is mentally unfit to make major decisions and it is the neocons in his state department, who are pulling the strings, since Obama took a very neoliberal approach to his support for this coup. I remember he made it very clear that he was going to continue to take a hard-line approach toward Ukraine and Russia and that there weren't going to be any compromises what so ever, and he expects Putin to throw in a towel. It left no ground for negotiations. Too bad Caitlin has made it a habit of defending him, He didn't send weapons to Ukraine, but Trump did, etc, etc. Mr. Zwiebel, if anyone is being naive here, it is you.;
It’s a bit of a stretch to say “what he started,” as if the 2014 coup was conceived in the Oval Office. Presidents are all culpable badge dummies who are putting a face on a militarized state for the benefit of the populace. To me Biden’s insistence that this proxy war is “unprovoked” is much more significant than anything Obama announced as a matter of policy. Biden appears emotionally committed to his false history, which is the foundation for this ominous escalation. Of course, there is also the eager “me too” lock-step agreement from every last traitor in Washington, so Biden has a lot of supporters for this lie-propagation.
The effort to take Ukraine into the western fold began soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Ukraine becoming an independent state. Obama has always been about going with the flow, trying to find some middle ground that accomplished less than nothing. He went along with Nuland/State's efforts to oust Yanukovych, even though they made common cause with fascists, because he lacked a spine. He had enough sense to block the delivery of weapons to Ukraine, as the trajectory of doing so was obvious to anyone with a shred of a brain, which excludes most of Washington.
This whole discussion touches on the distance that exists between the personalities that Americans love to blame or support, the character that they vote for or against, the empire’s official facade, and the state policies that are ultimately supported and promoted by every “elected” official. This is the evidence that we have a one-party state, and it’s why elections change nothing.
I don't think I ever said that everything in Ukraine in 2014 was A okay. There was an uprising underway, but when you go in and assist neo-Nazis you are equally culpable for the outcome which was not a good one. You don't go into Russia's backyard and assist in the overthrow of a pro-Russian Yanukovych, so you can install a government loyal to the west. Hear that telephone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt where they are deciding who should take over the reins of government in that country? Do you really trust neo-Nazi's to behave themselves, or for Russia to give you a thumbs up, or do you know you are creating a situation that could eventually lead to a nuclear war since we are now in Russia's backyard. Gee, and we got all upset when Russia, through a referendum, took over the Crimea, their only warm water port. The nerve of them. Do you really have faith in a country that is the most corrupt in Europe and the 9th most corrupt in the world? I know what we're planning in Ukraine and as many have said no different then what happened in Afghanistan back in the 80's where the US used the Mujahadeen and supplied them with weapons to bring Russia down. Yeah we really care about the people of Ukraine. Give me a break.
I'm not so sure Yanukovych was pro-Russian, more like he was trying to walk a line between East and West. It's understandable that he rejected the EU offer, as it really was a bad deal, and the recent example of Greece showed that all is not great with EU membership. The US's problem was that he wasn't overtly anti-Russian, and would not serve the US agenda to destroy Russia, so the neocons had to oust him and get people in power that they could control.
I don’t disagree, but you apparently didn’t get my point. I am not giving any president a pass for deceit and aggression as practiced by the military of which he is “commander-in-chief.” I’ll put in upper case: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO THE EFFIN PRESIDENT IS!!!
" I think it's important to understand why the US was willing to support Fascists groups and neo-Nazi's to bring down Yanukovych "
It's the American Oligarchy! They control the sock puppet. Some of the Oligarchy opposed weapons to Ukraine and convinced Obama to not let it happen so it didn't.
The pretense that our political leadership is democratically elected and in control of anything is insane. Its the money! Who has the money? The Oligarchy.
Unless Americans unite against the Oligarchy, we'll remain divided over silly issues like abortion and CRT and friggin' gender pronouns. Guess who funds those controversies? The Oligarchy.
Who funds the political campaigns of our leaders? The Oligarchy -- because they have the money.
Perhaps the number one thing we could do as Americans to take back our freedom is to shut down the Fed.
Who cares what Obama did 6 years ago. I sure don't. Except for the fact that his limp-dick spine finally made it clear to me that I've been sold a phony controversy between the "good Democrats" and the "bad Republicans" (Others, of course, flip those adjectives around and they are being sold the same phony controversy.)
I don't disagree. 1% of Americans control some 40 percent of it's wealth. That doesn't happen because they are so damn smart, or really work to attain their wealth. The Supreme Court helped when they passed Citizen's United and made big corporations people so they could give as much as they wanted to further influence both parties to deal with their needs and make them their top priority. The democrats were at one time more responsible to the people and then they went off to the right, and Clinton really tipped the party over, not to mention taking three more countries into NATO, something we said we wouldn't do. The democrats have side lined their liberals and their liberals like Bernie know it, and only pretend they can make a difference, so I don't contribute to him anymore. The democrats had a hey day with Trump and tried their best to remove him. Oh how they hated his idea of getting along with Russia. Russia, bad, bad, bad, and they were so anxious to finally get their hands on Russia they tried to kick his ass out before his time was up. This is not something that just happened, thousands and thousands of Russians killed in the Donbass, the Minsk accords ignored. Trump had no choice, even his trip to Russia met up with denunciation, and the democrats made sure of it. It was not only the mainstream media that lost all objectivity, what little they had, but many of those that define themselves as liberal, and on the left, also lost any sense of objectivity, and there are few you can turn to for an honest assessment of what is going on in this world. When you say who cares about Obama, well, I was always taught that understanding the past informs you of the present and even the future. Interesting to note that Chomsky said the only statesman who could resolve this mess was Trump.
In fact Ms. Johnstone did indeed address Obama's roles from fostering what grew into the current situation starting with brokering the 2014 coup to his war crimes throughout the Middle East, Afghanistan to Syria.
"It’s hard to believe that the last president spent his term pouring weapons into Ukraine, shredding treaties with Russia and ramping up cold war escalations against Moscow which helped lead us directly to the extraordinarily dangerous situation we now find ourselves in, and yet mainstream liberals spent his entire administration screaming that he was a Kremlin puppet.
A lot of anti-empire commentary is rightly going into criticizing how the Obama administration paved the way to this conflict in Ukraine with its role in the 2014 coup and support for Kyiv’s war against Donbass separatists. But what’s getting lost in all this, largely because Trumpites have been using their mainstream numbers to loudly amplify criticisms of the role of the Obama and Biden administrations in this mess, is what happened between those two presidencies which was just as crucial in getting us here.
Though it’s been scrubbed from mainstream liberal history, it was actually the Trump administration that began the US policy of arming Ukraine in the first place. Obama had refused forceful demands from neocons and liberal hawks to do so because he feared it would provoke an attack by Russia.
In a 2015 article titled “Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine“, The New York Times reported that “So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.”
I guess four years of the democrats vilifying Russia and their role in getting Trump elected is an insignificant aside. Did the the democrats give him a choice to be on friendly terms with Russia? I remember how his visit with Putin was vilified by the democrats. After all he's a Russian agent. Her bias is disturbing to say the least. They even impeached him in the house because it was claimed he wouldn't give Zelensky those weapons because in return he wanted dirt on Biden's son.
The basic principles of Obama's actions were not new with him. In my reading, they seem to have emerged as defaults with the Atlantic Charter in 1942, when the US took over the British Empire (and associated regimes) and have been followed most of the time ever since. By 1945 the US was effectively the last man standing and could do as it pleased with the world, and it is the memory of that quasi-omnipotence which the US r.c. keeps looking back to, although the material conditions associated with it have long since passed away. In any case, Obama was not unique (nor, for the most part, have been his predecessors and successors).
I think it's safe to say that she knows. If you go back to one of her pieces listing the ways in which Russia was provoked I'm sure you'll see the coup mentioned, and that happened under Obama, of course.
If I felt that she was giving Democrats a pass (and you have to admit she isn't giving Biden or the people in his administration any) then I wouldn't be subscribed. Just me, though.
No one is saying she's giving the democrats a pass, but during the Trump years her objectivity was compromised as were many who defined themselves as being on the left. Biden is an easy target with a long hypocritical career like he's for integration, but no busing. I've never seen her fail to go after Trump, but Obama is given a pass my many on the left, and the Droner-in-Chief doesn't deserve it. Not to mention his wars during his presidency.
I'd need to go back and look at what all she wrote about Obama, but if he got a pass or even a little bit of a pass, then I agree that he doesn't deserve it.
I remember she did point out that foreign policy under Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden has all been the same not too long ago. No matter who the president is, they keep on ordering other countries attacked, sanctioned, etc. So that, at least, was critical of Obama.
Nothing I captured, but I and others posted surprised comments when he called the accession of the four oblasts to Russia a land grab. Those comments were deleted and agreeable comments from posters I'd never seen replying to his comments remained.
A few years ago, I posted a comment on one of Larison's TAC articles in which I disagreed with Larison. That was very unusual, since I was (and am) an admirer of his. I was astonished that my comment disappeared.
I didn't think Larison was in a position to alienate the few supporters he has, but then again, Larison, say what you want about him, clearly isn't in it for the money or the clicks.
I disagree. I think the US ruling class would be happy in a stable world in which collectively it was the unique global hegemon. Such a world is probably impossible, but a lot of the r.c. and those who follow them seem to believe in it.
Lol. Seriously, the USA is by far the most insane country on the planet. 33 percent of America supports nuclear war to defeat Russia over Ukraine. Over 100 million people support the use of nukes. That is one long line of dumb motherfuckers. America destabilizes, kills, destroys, installs puppets to anyone who opposes them or has something they want.
Don't believe me, your "friend" to the north has been effectively shut down economically by the corporately installed puppet regime of liberals, who are a destructive economic force.
Obama led the way by endorsing these corporate owned sheep. His statements got these corporate whores elected. It is called political interference.
The green agenda is a pack of lies used to subjecate the poor. Can't have Canada or Mexico getting a few crumbs.
America is an enemy to everyone. You compete and then cheat at every game.
The beauty is you will eat your own. I love that. Keep burning your cities. Keep your hate going.
that is because only some of the elites are Davos globalists, but Davos has done tremendous recruiting among all the world's wealthy who have the leisure for politics
The war was not only provoked but made inevitable, as Ben Abelow has laid out succinctly in a new book called "How the West Bought War to Ukraine." The US overthrew the democratically elected govt in 2014, installed a US puppet neo-Nazi regime, refused to force their puppet to implement Minsk 2, refused to intervene in the war of terror against the Russian-speaking inhabitants of eastern Ukraine, armed the puppet to the hilt with NATO weapons and training, and stood by while the puppet army gathered for a massive strike against the already beleaguerd eastern provinces. None of this, or the many speeches of Putin and Lavrov, made it past the Western media filters to the general public, who were led to believe, and still believe, that the war start in Feb. 24.
Before 2020, when Crim Joe encouraged parents to “play the record player to your kids at night.”
In fact, before record players existed, parents and kids used to pay to see daring young men work without a safety net-and sang this song, with slightly different lyrics.
Once there was more wealth in the hands of the people... a middle class ... due to exploitation of countless other countries. Most were unhappy but that does not seem to matter to you. There is one, only one party in the US, the neoconlib party and it is trying to hold onto one world government. Partisanship like in those song lyrics reflects a lack of understanding and only plays into the divide and conquer strategy of the oligarchs.
Hope that made you feel better. Since you don’t know me, and i don’t know you, i will not attempt to gauge your concern, understanding, or geopolitical awareness. i will simply say, i am happy the lyrics aroused sufficient response for you to write, and sorry that response was negative. Perhaps if you’ll c/f my parody of “Yesterday”(Caitlin comment section 09/29/22), it might alter your reaction to my parodies. In any event, i thank you for your time.
“the human species has a vested interest in de-escalation and detente right away” - I doubt that species have any interest, the way we understand it, but humans, indeed should. What bothers me is the claim that Putin ‘threatens’ to use nuclear weapons. Actually, if you read his text, he does not. He only says that IFF (if and only if) those weapons are used against Russia, he will retaliate. Anyway, thank you. As usual, nice reflections on the madness of today’s world.
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: Just today we had the U.N. Security Council vote on that draft resolution to condemn these sham referendums that Russia did in these regions. In fact, we didn't have a very good coalition. China abstained from voting, India, who is supposed to be our friend abstained from voting. Brazil abstained from voting and then Russia vetoed it.
We have been hearing from the Biden administration that we have united the world against Russia. That's clearly not true. Already the Middle East has kind of worked with Russia as well. We might be in a cold war but there is a hot war going on right now. And it seems that a lot of people, whether it's Joe Biden or Liz Cheney keep wanting to escalate and ratchet things up in response to Putin's ratcheting of things up.
I think they need to be told to stop. People need to think about what our national interest is. The American people do not want war in Europe. We have already given $67 billion in aid and weapons. We have a horrible economy. We have grocery prices that are out of control. We have an energy crisis. We have our own problems on our border. And we need some statesmen here to step up and think about how we can end this without -- I mean, people talk as if nuclear conflict is not a big deal. It's a horrible thing and we should be working to stop that. -- Oct. 1, 2022
The whole notion that Putin somehow is a madman does not make sense. If he really is, what prevents him from nuking all of Europe and East coast? He has the technical capability to do so. Yes, there will be a retaliation, but he is a madman after all, what would he care, he will just hide in some bunker somewhere and let Russian peasants die. "They" literally are betting on him being extremely self-restrained with all the relentless demonization and poking the bear just proving who the real madmen are. And, if you are dealing with an armed and dangerous madman, aren't we supposed to de-escalate the situation by talking to him, etc etc?
Most commentators have conceded that Putin was provoked: it's not easy to see Russia's complete encirclement, incasement actually, by NATO any other way, as well seeing its assets, in its hour of need, sold off for pennies to Western interests. But it's a question of how far can or should provocation go before becomes justification, before it triggers justified reaction. And, apparently many people didn't see the events between the dissolution of the USSR up to the coup of 2014, the failure to implement the Minsk I and II Accords and the murder of 14,000 ethnic Russians in the Donbas since then as "sufficiently" provocative. There is apparently some very subtle science involved, some imperceptible conjunction of elements and forces that spells "now". But it seems more the case that human instinct and reason has sway here: patience, yes, but too much patience encourages the worst instincts in some people. If Putin had more patience in this he'd be canonized a saint. But that wouldn't help Russia. For Putin, that argument is well over. It's a question of dealing in good faith with the results forced by the West, to find the best way forward.
Exactly as I see it. The “Russia, Russia, Russia” Peter wolf cry of the neocons and the dnc administration just added to the calamity that reached a tipping point. The Russian people (80 percent) were behind Putin. The failure of the MDM msm of America to get the real story added to escalation. Zelenski, who was falsely propped up as a hero, now has to come down from his horse and save the rest of his people. Will he, is the question? And can they go back to neutrality and the Minsk agreements? What a horrible loss for both of these neighbors. America and nato have a lot to answer for.
Yes, to answer for, but unfortunately these people are like a bunch of off-course kids, writ large : only the peer group, and what it holds sacred, matters. That's where their ethical standards come from, and it's why only a socialist system can save us.
Socialism is not the answer. It’s a spiritual problem. Some are blind, others are rebellious. Returning to the constitution and God corrects a man’s selfish world view. Only when that is ordered, can any foundation is good governance stand.
What you say in effect is a truism: if people decide to be good, they will be good and do good things. A truism. It doesn't work that way. The system encourages people to do the wrong things. Quite often it even gives them no other choice. Example: if your kids are suffering, you tend to put their welfare before strict ethical behaviour.
If Putin had more patience, he wouldn't "be canonized a saint." He'd be derided as a traitor to his people. The Russian Orthodox Church is completely behind this war against the totalitarian, "Satanic" West.
NATO surrounds Russia far more now than before February. NATO has never been in Ukraine. You make no sense at all. There was no coup in Ukraine. Zelensky won with over 70% of the vote. Putin has lost his war and you hate it. Good.
Even *if* Putin is another Hitler, another Stalin - a *madman* bent on maniacally destroying the world.
You would think ... you would think they might come up with a better way to fix the problem than blow up a multi-billion dollar pipeline to Europe, and risk nuclear exchanges that could escalate to who knows what.
You would think saner minds could figure this out, even if *everything* they say is true about Putin. But it isn't. Their agenda is war no matter the cost - and the cost will be rivers of human bodies and untold destruction that has already begun in Europe. Will any one of these people in power, any one of them stand up and try to stop this lunacy? That could very well get us all killed, including themselves?
We actually don't know who's doing what -- or at least, I don't -- so it's also possible the people who tried to stop it, whatever 'it' is -- could also get killed.
Remember Chomsky telling off that British journo saying something to the effect that he was groomed to believe what he did?
Well, same thing can be said about the current crop of politicians. They're there because they complied along the way. There are no characters to appeal to among them. They're all puppets.
Vladimir Putin is neither crazy nor stupid. He is methodical, and intelligent, and is acutely aware of the danger the unhinged, war-hungry, power-crazed Western oligarchy poses to those sovereign nations who refuse to be ruled by them.
Another common argument I've often heard goes like this: Russia WAS provoked for eight years by Russia-hating Ukrainians, but Putin was STILL wrong to invade. So, with the US/UK refusing to allow Ukraine to negotiate, as attacks on the ethnic Russians in the Donbass intensified into genocide, Putin shouldn't have tried to stop it by military means. Does anyone else see the contradiction in that argument? The cognitive dissonance? When faced with an implacable, fanatic, unreasonable foe like US/NATO sometimes war is preferable to a peace that's worse than death.
I think that this is all fore play to the US killing its own citizens by the millions using whatever means, and then telling the survivors that Russia did it. Even the ordinary citizens here are as obnoxious as can be, their minds are diseased and good only for cattle feed.
LOL. Anything that a human would say can never be anything other than for entertainment value, even if it should be deadly. Look at Clinton, the way she laughed at Gaddafi's death, kooky right?
I figured as much from your first three words, from the comments that follow Caitlin's essays I wouldn't be a bit surprised if as many as 90% of her followers aren't in fact the very antithesis of all that she believes in, unless of course she's an undercover intelligence official.
The US/NATO are too afraid to confront Russia head on because they lack the ability to supply the kind of munitions to engage for more than 8 -10 days based on present stocks (At the rate of use in Ukraine, this is equivalent to a years production in the US...'sorry, we're all of stock for Javelins, M777 etc..come back next year').
That is why the west were saying Russia would run out of ammo by March. They think, because their "intelligence' services and Military are led by morons, that Russia is like the US/UK/NATO...in its level of incompetence regarding production (Russia's MIC is centralised and produces based on defense and yes, they have all they need for self-sufficient production based on all out war, not skirmishes with the Jihad, flip-flops and AK47 brigade, that the USA's 'finest', the 173rd Airbourne, have been fighting for 20 years in Afghan and Iraq and..er...losing to). They need some history lessons...start with Napoleon, then a bit of Kaiser Wilhelm II...and end the lesson in a bunker in Berlin with Herr Hitler....all learned painful career/life ending lessons attacking Russia through Ukraine..when will they ever learn? Never..because they are as stupid as they are insane. MORE SANCTIONS!
You'll need to explain how the US lost in Afghanistan, given they took the country over in 3 weeks.... something the USSR couldn't get done in 10 years of war... and held it for 20 years. Quite sure the US military will take that loss every day of the week.
When the Soviets left, Najibullah's army lasted 2 years against the Taliban (he lost all his support and funding from the collapsing USSR. The Talibs were funded and armed by the US of A). The US '20 years of training' Afghan army lasted less than a week.
The US army never held any meaningful territory in Afghanistan...no one ever does ask the British we learned the hard way...twice. You just occupied strongholds in forts like in Helmand. And highly fortified air bases like Bagram. Patrolling outside these bases was extremely hazardous.
The Soviets went into Afghanistan in 1979 and withdrew 10 years later. They did not invade they were invited in to help fight the US/UK backed terrorists by the progressive legitimate government under Najibullah (Women rights guaranteed by law including free education up to University level) The US sought to destroy these women's rights and replace it with a toxic oppressive religious fundamentalism..and succeeded. So win there... I suppose. But the US would return ten years later..spend 2.1 trillion dollars of US tax payers money...over 22,000 casualties and leave the country to the Taliban they had been fighting for twenty years. It was a win for the arms dealers and heroin traders (the US has a lot of opioid addicts, developing this lucrative market over the same twenty years..hey, all that heroin needs to go somewhere!) But that is how America wins...they don't fight to win...win what? Win contracts that's what. So yeah, the never winning army lost but the arms suppliers know they won....all the way to the bank.
This mentality that somehow Putin is the resurrection of Hitler, and anyone who says negotiations must occur is compared to Chamberlain and labeled pro-Putin -- is just flat-out insane.
I'm always reminded of a certain someone describing British propaganda during the WWII:
"There is no point to debating Mr. Churchill about English ship losses or the damage caused by German air attacks. He follows the time-honored British policy of admitting only that which is impossible to deny, then cutting it in half, while at the same time doubling or tripling the enemy’s losses. This balances the accounts. The astonishing thing is that Mr. Churchill, a genuine John Bull, holds to his lies, and in fact repeats them until he himself believes them. That is an old English trick. "
...
"The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."
This also is entirely intentional.
Although the thing about Hitler is that he wasn't just unappeasable (because he had ambitions of world domination), he was also undeterrable (except in the very short term, like when Mussolini deterred him from taking over Austria in 1934) because he was an extreme Social Darwinist who viewed human life (even German life) as inherently worthless.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/119150/17-42-spring-2009/contents/assignments/MIT17_42S09_student1assn2.pdf
I don't believe that Putin is truly like Hitler in that respect, but wouldn't nuclear armageddon be unavoidable (short of being able to stop ICBMs with an SDI-type system) if he was?
This is entirely intentional. The US actively seeks to undermine peace.
I never hear Ms Johnstone address how culpable the Obama administration was in fostering what is going on now. I think even Obama has acknowledged his role in the overthrow of Yanukovych’ and working with neo-nazi's to extablish that goal. Not that America hasn't worked with fascist regimes elsewhere, especially in South America, to accomplish those results. He is the one who was responsible for the transition of power in Ukraine by his support which has now led us to the possibility of nuclear war. His policies have been enforced during the Biden years. During Trump's years in office we had anti-Russia propaganda to prepare us for what is going on now.
What makes you think Obama was anything more than a sock puppet? "They" made him accept Joe Biden as his VP. Obama was a smooth talker who delivered his scripted lines perfectly.
Since leaving the Presidency, I haven't heard Obama say much of anything except to host some huge parties at this mansion.
Anyway, what's the point of accusing Obama of anything? He's no longer important to the future policy formation of our nation.
Should he be tried for war crimes? Of course.
I believe Caitlin has more important targets.
Surprising response for someone interested in politics. One would think you would be interested in the historical context of how we got to the point where nuclear war with Russia is a very significant possibility. I think it's important to understand why the US was willing to support Fascists groups and neo-Nazi's to bring down Yanukovych and install a pro-western government, and leave Biden in charge. Our actions in Ukraine were important enough that Oliver Stone made a documentary on the subject, and was highly critical of US policy in Ukraine. Obama is no sock puppet, and he may host parties, but it doesn't mean what he started is now finished and he is out of the loop. Very obviously Biden is mentally unfit to make major decisions and it is the neocons in his state department, who are pulling the strings, since Obama took a very neoliberal approach to his support for this coup. I remember he made it very clear that he was going to continue to take a hard-line approach toward Ukraine and Russia and that there weren't going to be any compromises what so ever, and he expects Putin to throw in a towel. It left no ground for negotiations. Too bad Caitlin has made it a habit of defending him, He didn't send weapons to Ukraine, but Trump did, etc, etc. Mr. Zwiebel, if anyone is being naive here, it is you.;
It’s a bit of a stretch to say “what he started,” as if the 2014 coup was conceived in the Oval Office. Presidents are all culpable badge dummies who are putting a face on a militarized state for the benefit of the populace. To me Biden’s insistence that this proxy war is “unprovoked” is much more significant than anything Obama announced as a matter of policy. Biden appears emotionally committed to his false history, which is the foundation for this ominous escalation. Of course, there is also the eager “me too” lock-step agreement from every last traitor in Washington, so Biden has a lot of supporters for this lie-propagation.
The effort to take Ukraine into the western fold began soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Ukraine becoming an independent state. Obama has always been about going with the flow, trying to find some middle ground that accomplished less than nothing. He went along with Nuland/State's efforts to oust Yanukovych, even though they made common cause with fascists, because he lacked a spine. He had enough sense to block the delivery of weapons to Ukraine, as the trajectory of doing so was obvious to anyone with a shred of a brain, which excludes most of Washington.
This whole discussion touches on the distance that exists between the personalities that Americans love to blame or support, the character that they vote for or against, the empire’s official facade, and the state policies that are ultimately supported and promoted by every “elected” official. This is the evidence that we have a one-party state, and it’s why elections change nothing.
I don't think I ever said that everything in Ukraine in 2014 was A okay. There was an uprising underway, but when you go in and assist neo-Nazis you are equally culpable for the outcome which was not a good one. You don't go into Russia's backyard and assist in the overthrow of a pro-Russian Yanukovych, so you can install a government loyal to the west. Hear that telephone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt where they are deciding who should take over the reins of government in that country? Do you really trust neo-Nazi's to behave themselves, or for Russia to give you a thumbs up, or do you know you are creating a situation that could eventually lead to a nuclear war since we are now in Russia's backyard. Gee, and we got all upset when Russia, through a referendum, took over the Crimea, their only warm water port. The nerve of them. Do you really have faith in a country that is the most corrupt in Europe and the 9th most corrupt in the world? I know what we're planning in Ukraine and as many have said no different then what happened in Afghanistan back in the 80's where the US used the Mujahadeen and supplied them with weapons to bring Russia down. Yeah we really care about the people of Ukraine. Give me a break.
I'm not so sure Yanukovych was pro-Russian, more like he was trying to walk a line between East and West. It's understandable that he rejected the EU offer, as it really was a bad deal, and the recent example of Greece showed that all is not great with EU membership. The US's problem was that he wasn't overtly anti-Russian, and would not serve the US agenda to destroy Russia, so the neocons had to oust him and get people in power that they could control.
I don’t disagree, but you apparently didn’t get my point. I am not giving any president a pass for deceit and aggression as practiced by the military of which he is “commander-in-chief.” I’ll put in upper case: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO THE EFFIN PRESIDENT IS!!!
" I think it's important to understand why the US was willing to support Fascists groups and neo-Nazi's to bring down Yanukovych "
It's the American Oligarchy! They control the sock puppet. Some of the Oligarchy opposed weapons to Ukraine and convinced Obama to not let it happen so it didn't.
The pretense that our political leadership is democratically elected and in control of anything is insane. Its the money! Who has the money? The Oligarchy.
Unless Americans unite against the Oligarchy, we'll remain divided over silly issues like abortion and CRT and friggin' gender pronouns. Guess who funds those controversies? The Oligarchy.
Who funds the political campaigns of our leaders? The Oligarchy -- because they have the money.
Perhaps the number one thing we could do as Americans to take back our freedom is to shut down the Fed.
Who cares what Obama did 6 years ago. I sure don't. Except for the fact that his limp-dick spine finally made it clear to me that I've been sold a phony controversy between the "good Democrats" and the "bad Republicans" (Others, of course, flip those adjectives around and they are being sold the same phony controversy.)
ITS THE MONEY.
I don't disagree. 1% of Americans control some 40 percent of it's wealth. That doesn't happen because they are so damn smart, or really work to attain their wealth. The Supreme Court helped when they passed Citizen's United and made big corporations people so they could give as much as they wanted to further influence both parties to deal with their needs and make them their top priority. The democrats were at one time more responsible to the people and then they went off to the right, and Clinton really tipped the party over, not to mention taking three more countries into NATO, something we said we wouldn't do. The democrats have side lined their liberals and their liberals like Bernie know it, and only pretend they can make a difference, so I don't contribute to him anymore. The democrats had a hey day with Trump and tried their best to remove him. Oh how they hated his idea of getting along with Russia. Russia, bad, bad, bad, and they were so anxious to finally get their hands on Russia they tried to kick his ass out before his time was up. This is not something that just happened, thousands and thousands of Russians killed in the Donbass, the Minsk accords ignored. Trump had no choice, even his trip to Russia met up with denunciation, and the democrats made sure of it. It was not only the mainstream media that lost all objectivity, what little they had, but many of those that define themselves as liberal, and on the left, also lost any sense of objectivity, and there are few you can turn to for an honest assessment of what is going on in this world. When you say who cares about Obama, well, I was always taught that understanding the past informs you of the present and even the future. Interesting to note that Chomsky said the only statesman who could resolve this mess was Trump.
"I was always taught that understanding the past informs you of the present"
Now that Obama has been exposed for the fraud he is????...
Who cares?
The point is the Oligarchy. The Money. The Fed.
If we attack only the clowns that provide cover for the Oligarchy (whether intended or not) we gain nothing.
Our enemy is the Oligarchy. Period.
In fact Ms. Johnstone did indeed address Obama's roles from fostering what grew into the current situation starting with brokering the 2014 coup to his war crimes throughout the Middle East, Afghanistan to Syria.
Oh, you mean rhetoric like this, and the article is from 2022,
"Re-Visiting Russiagate In Light Of The Ukraine War https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/03/28/re-visiting-russiagate-in-light-of-the-ukraine-war/
"It’s hard to believe that the last president spent his term pouring weapons into Ukraine, shredding treaties with Russia and ramping up cold war escalations against Moscow which helped lead us directly to the extraordinarily dangerous situation we now find ourselves in, and yet mainstream liberals spent his entire administration screaming that he was a Kremlin puppet.
A lot of anti-empire commentary is rightly going into criticizing how the Obama administration paved the way to this conflict in Ukraine with its role in the 2014 coup and support for Kyiv’s war against Donbass separatists. But what’s getting lost in all this, largely because Trumpites have been using their mainstream numbers to loudly amplify criticisms of the role of the Obama and Biden administrations in this mess, is what happened between those two presidencies which was just as crucial in getting us here.
Though it’s been scrubbed from mainstream liberal history, it was actually the Trump administration that began the US policy of arming Ukraine in the first place. Obama had refused forceful demands from neocons and liberal hawks to do so because he feared it would provoke an attack by Russia.
In a 2015 article titled “Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine“, The New York Times reported that “So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.”
I guess four years of the democrats vilifying Russia and their role in getting Trump elected is an insignificant aside. Did the the democrats give him a choice to be on friendly terms with Russia? I remember how his visit with Putin was vilified by the democrats. After all he's a Russian agent. Her bias is disturbing to say the least. They even impeached him in the house because it was claimed he wouldn't give Zelensky those weapons because in return he wanted dirt on Biden's son.
Could you give me links to those articles?
The basic principles of Obama's actions were not new with him. In my reading, they seem to have emerged as defaults with the Atlantic Charter in 1942, when the US took over the British Empire (and associated regimes) and have been followed most of the time ever since. By 1945 the US was effectively the last man standing and could do as it pleased with the world, and it is the memory of that quasi-omnipotence which the US r.c. keeps looking back to, although the material conditions associated with it have long since passed away. In any case, Obama was not unique (nor, for the most part, have been his predecessors and successors).
I think it's safe to say that she knows. If you go back to one of her pieces listing the ways in which Russia was provoked I'm sure you'll see the coup mentioned, and that happened under Obama, of course.
Well, what I have read she goes easy on Obama and is an attack dog on Trump, but hey that's the way the left was during his administration, biased.
If I felt that she was giving Democrats a pass (and you have to admit she isn't giving Biden or the people in his administration any) then I wouldn't be subscribed. Just me, though.
No one is saying she's giving the democrats a pass, but during the Trump years her objectivity was compromised as were many who defined themselves as being on the left. Biden is an easy target with a long hypocritical career like he's for integration, but no busing. I've never seen her fail to go after Trump, but Obama is given a pass my many on the left, and the Droner-in-Chief doesn't deserve it. Not to mention his wars during his presidency.
I'd need to go back and look at what all she wrote about Obama, but if he got a pass or even a little bit of a pass, then I agree that he doesn't deserve it.
I remember she did point out that foreign policy under Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden has all been the same not too long ago. No matter who the president is, they keep on ordering other countries attacked, sanctioned, etc. So that, at least, was critical of Obama.
Hey, Feral. Unrelated question. What happened to Daniel Larison? All of a sudden he didn't seem to be a realist anymore. Started deleting comments.
Interesting... any examples?
Nothing I captured, but I and others posted surprised comments when he called the accession of the four oblasts to Russia a land grab. Those comments were deleted and agreeable comments from posters I'd never seen replying to his comments remained.
A few years ago, I posted a comment on one of Larison's TAC articles in which I disagreed with Larison. That was very unusual, since I was (and am) an admirer of his. I was astonished that my comment disappeared.
I didn't think Larison was in a position to alienate the few supporters he has, but then again, Larison, say what you want about him, clearly isn't in it for the money or the clicks.
Well, he has less money now. :-)
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/luongo-curious-whodunit-nordstreams-1-2
I disagree. I think the US ruling class would be happy in a stable world in which collectively it was the unique global hegemon. Such a world is probably impossible, but a lot of the r.c. and those who follow them seem to believe in it.
I didn't say that the US undermines all peace everywhere as a matter of demented policy, but they certainly are undermining peace in Ukraine.
Lol. Seriously, the USA is by far the most insane country on the planet. 33 percent of America supports nuclear war to defeat Russia over Ukraine. Over 100 million people support the use of nukes. That is one long line of dumb motherfuckers. America destabilizes, kills, destroys, installs puppets to anyone who opposes them or has something they want.
Don't believe me, your "friend" to the north has been effectively shut down economically by the corporately installed puppet regime of liberals, who are a destructive economic force.
Obama led the way by endorsing these corporate owned sheep. His statements got these corporate whores elected. It is called political interference.
The green agenda is a pack of lies used to subjecate the poor. Can't have Canada or Mexico getting a few crumbs.
America is an enemy to everyone. You compete and then cheat at every game.
The beauty is you will eat your own. I love that. Keep burning your cities. Keep your hate going.
that is because only some of the elites are Davos globalists, but Davos has done tremendous recruiting among all the world's wealthy who have the leisure for politics
I haven't reached a sufficient level of ideological perception to agree or disagree.
It's right in their manifesto (the Project for a New American Century). At least they're up front about it.
PNAC, like RAND, is technically not part of the government, but it might be described as a "cut-out".
The war was not only provoked but made inevitable, as Ben Abelow has laid out succinctly in a new book called "How the West Bought War to Ukraine." The US overthrew the democratically elected govt in 2014, installed a US puppet neo-Nazi regime, refused to force their puppet to implement Minsk 2, refused to intervene in the war of terror against the Russian-speaking inhabitants of eastern Ukraine, armed the puppet to the hilt with NATO weapons and training, and stood by while the puppet army gathered for a massive strike against the already beleaguerd eastern provinces. None of this, or the many speeches of Putin and Lavrov, made it past the Western media filters to the general public, who were led to believe, and still believe, that the war start in Feb. 24.
Just A Song Before We Go Join The Circus
Before 2020, when Crim Joe encouraged parents to “play the record player to your kids at night.”
In fact, before record players existed, parents and kids used to pay to see daring young men work without a safety net-and sang this song, with slightly different lyrics.
🎶Once we were happy, but now are forlorn
Like the country that’s tattered and torn
Left in this wide world to fret and to mourn
Betrayed by Big Tech and the Greens
He lies o’er the air with the greatest of sleaze
That glaring old man in the leaking nappies
His movements smell awful, demented disease
Our lives he purloined away!🎶
Once there was more wealth in the hands of the people... a middle class ... due to exploitation of countless other countries. Most were unhappy but that does not seem to matter to you. There is one, only one party in the US, the neoconlib party and it is trying to hold onto one world government. Partisanship like in those song lyrics reflects a lack of understanding and only plays into the divide and conquer strategy of the oligarchs.
Hope that made you feel better. Since you don’t know me, and i don’t know you, i will not attempt to gauge your concern, understanding, or geopolitical awareness. i will simply say, i am happy the lyrics aroused sufficient response for you to write, and sorry that response was negative. Perhaps if you’ll c/f my parody of “Yesterday”(Caitlin comment section 09/29/22), it might alter your reaction to my parodies. In any event, i thank you for your time.
Peace is not an option; it is THE answer.
Peace was never an option
the doctrine of endless war was never repudiated
“the human species has a vested interest in de-escalation and detente right away” - I doubt that species have any interest, the way we understand it, but humans, indeed should. What bothers me is the claim that Putin ‘threatens’ to use nuclear weapons. Actually, if you read his text, he does not. He only says that IFF (if and only if) those weapons are used against Russia, he will retaliate. Anyway, thank you. As usual, nice reflections on the madness of today’s world.
Especially considering we are seeing articles like "We can start a nuclear war and win it". How is it not a threat?
100% true, Caitlin.
Here is Mollie Hemingway on the subject:
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: Just today we had the U.N. Security Council vote on that draft resolution to condemn these sham referendums that Russia did in these regions. In fact, we didn't have a very good coalition. China abstained from voting, India, who is supposed to be our friend abstained from voting. Brazil abstained from voting and then Russia vetoed it.
We have been hearing from the Biden administration that we have united the world against Russia. That's clearly not true. Already the Middle East has kind of worked with Russia as well. We might be in a cold war but there is a hot war going on right now. And it seems that a lot of people, whether it's Joe Biden or Liz Cheney keep wanting to escalate and ratchet things up in response to Putin's ratcheting of things up.
I think they need to be told to stop. People need to think about what our national interest is. The American people do not want war in Europe. We have already given $67 billion in aid and weapons. We have a horrible economy. We have grocery prices that are out of control. We have an energy crisis. We have our own problems on our border. And we need some statesmen here to step up and think about how we can end this without -- I mean, people talk as if nuclear conflict is not a big deal. It's a horrible thing and we should be working to stop that. -- Oct. 1, 2022
The whole notion that Putin somehow is a madman does not make sense. If he really is, what prevents him from nuking all of Europe and East coast? He has the technical capability to do so. Yes, there will be a retaliation, but he is a madman after all, what would he care, he will just hide in some bunker somewhere and let Russian peasants die. "They" literally are betting on him being extremely self-restrained with all the relentless demonization and poking the bear just proving who the real madmen are. And, if you are dealing with an armed and dangerous madman, aren't we supposed to de-escalate the situation by talking to him, etc etc?
Most commentators have conceded that Putin was provoked: it's not easy to see Russia's complete encirclement, incasement actually, by NATO any other way, as well seeing its assets, in its hour of need, sold off for pennies to Western interests. But it's a question of how far can or should provocation go before becomes justification, before it triggers justified reaction. And, apparently many people didn't see the events between the dissolution of the USSR up to the coup of 2014, the failure to implement the Minsk I and II Accords and the murder of 14,000 ethnic Russians in the Donbas since then as "sufficiently" provocative. There is apparently some very subtle science involved, some imperceptible conjunction of elements and forces that spells "now". But it seems more the case that human instinct and reason has sway here: patience, yes, but too much patience encourages the worst instincts in some people. If Putin had more patience in this he'd be canonized a saint. But that wouldn't help Russia. For Putin, that argument is well over. It's a question of dealing in good faith with the results forced by the West, to find the best way forward.
Exactly as I see it. The “Russia, Russia, Russia” Peter wolf cry of the neocons and the dnc administration just added to the calamity that reached a tipping point. The Russian people (80 percent) were behind Putin. The failure of the MDM msm of America to get the real story added to escalation. Zelenski, who was falsely propped up as a hero, now has to come down from his horse and save the rest of his people. Will he, is the question? And can they go back to neutrality and the Minsk agreements? What a horrible loss for both of these neighbors. America and nato have a lot to answer for.
Yes, to answer for, but unfortunately these people are like a bunch of off-course kids, writ large : only the peer group, and what it holds sacred, matters. That's where their ethical standards come from, and it's why only a socialist system can save us.
Socialism is not the answer. It’s a spiritual problem. Some are blind, others are rebellious. Returning to the constitution and God corrects a man’s selfish world view. Only when that is ordered, can any foundation is good governance stand.
Get real: you can't mandate god, for god's sake. But you can have a rational system, which if it deals with human beings, must be human.
I think you are misinterpreting things. Not mandating anything. Just another view.
What you say in effect is a truism: if people decide to be good, they will be good and do good things. A truism. It doesn't work that way. The system encourages people to do the wrong things. Quite often it even gives them no other choice. Example: if your kids are suffering, you tend to put their welfare before strict ethical behaviour.
When you ban everything except the lies you tell your people, no wonder 80% of Russians supported him.
If Putin had more patience, he wouldn't "be canonized a saint." He'd be derided as a traitor to his people. The Russian Orthodox Church is completely behind this war against the totalitarian, "Satanic" West.
NATO surrounds Russia far more now than before February. NATO has never been in Ukraine. You make no sense at all. There was no coup in Ukraine. Zelensky won with over 70% of the vote. Putin has lost his war and you hate it. Good.
Even *if* Putin is another Hitler, another Stalin - a *madman* bent on maniacally destroying the world.
You would think ... you would think they might come up with a better way to fix the problem than blow up a multi-billion dollar pipeline to Europe, and risk nuclear exchanges that could escalate to who knows what.
You would think saner minds could figure this out, even if *everything* they say is true about Putin. But it isn't. Their agenda is war no matter the cost - and the cost will be rivers of human bodies and untold destruction that has already begun in Europe. Will any one of these people in power, any one of them stand up and try to stop this lunacy? That could very well get us all killed, including themselves?
We actually don't know who's doing what -- or at least, I don't -- so it's also possible the people who tried to stop it, whatever 'it' is -- could also get killed.
Remember Chomsky telling off that British journo saying something to the effect that he was groomed to believe what he did?
Well, same thing can be said about the current crop of politicians. They're there because they complied along the way. There are no characters to appeal to among them. They're all puppets.
Vladimir Putin is neither crazy nor stupid. He is methodical, and intelligent, and is acutely aware of the danger the unhinged, war-hungry, power-crazed Western oligarchy poses to those sovereign nations who refuse to be ruled by them.
Another common argument I've often heard goes like this: Russia WAS provoked for eight years by Russia-hating Ukrainians, but Putin was STILL wrong to invade. So, with the US/UK refusing to allow Ukraine to negotiate, as attacks on the ethnic Russians in the Donbass intensified into genocide, Putin shouldn't have tried to stop it by military means. Does anyone else see the contradiction in that argument? The cognitive dissonance? When faced with an implacable, fanatic, unreasonable foe like US/NATO sometimes war is preferable to a peace that's worse than death.
What happens in Ukraine is none of Putin's business.
I think that this is all fore play to the US killing its own citizens by the millions using whatever means, and then telling the survivors that Russia did it. Even the ordinary citizens here are as obnoxious as can be, their minds are diseased and good only for cattle feed.
Serious kook level.
Three words? It took you three hours to write three words? Why would you even bother to read if you can't or won't write?
I assure you it did not take me 3 hours. If you think your entry deserves more of a reply, you are alone.
LOL. Anything that a human would say can never be anything other than for entertainment value, even if it should be deadly. Look at Clinton, the way she laughed at Gaddafi's death, kooky right?
I enjoy watching Gaddafi die and put it on for pleasure viewing,
I figured as much from your first three words, from the comments that follow Caitlin's essays I wouldn't be a bit surprised if as many as 90% of her followers aren't in fact the very antithesis of all that she believes in, unless of course she's an undercover intelligence official.
Can't stomach any more war? Try Militor®:
https://medium.com/slackjaw/militor-a-new-prescription-drug-from-the-makers-of-war-98b914d8ecd5?sk=e90bfe04921e09806ee8850c6c2ea1a9
This is wonderful! Thank you for this link.
Funny! but also reassured me that I have the right place in Substack.
The US/NATO are too afraid to confront Russia head on because they lack the ability to supply the kind of munitions to engage for more than 8 -10 days based on present stocks (At the rate of use in Ukraine, this is equivalent to a years production in the US...'sorry, we're all of stock for Javelins, M777 etc..come back next year').
That is why the west were saying Russia would run out of ammo by March. They think, because their "intelligence' services and Military are led by morons, that Russia is like the US/UK/NATO...in its level of incompetence regarding production (Russia's MIC is centralised and produces based on defense and yes, they have all they need for self-sufficient production based on all out war, not skirmishes with the Jihad, flip-flops and AK47 brigade, that the USA's 'finest', the 173rd Airbourne, have been fighting for 20 years in Afghan and Iraq and..er...losing to). They need some history lessons...start with Napoleon, then a bit of Kaiser Wilhelm II...and end the lesson in a bunker in Berlin with Herr Hitler....all learned painful career/life ending lessons attacking Russia through Ukraine..when will they ever learn? Never..because they are as stupid as they are insane. MORE SANCTIONS!
You'll need to explain how the US lost in Afghanistan, given they took the country over in 3 weeks.... something the USSR couldn't get done in 10 years of war... and held it for 20 years. Quite sure the US military will take that loss every day of the week.
When the Soviets left, Najibullah's army lasted 2 years against the Taliban (he lost all his support and funding from the collapsing USSR. The Talibs were funded and armed by the US of A). The US '20 years of training' Afghan army lasted less than a week.
The US army never held any meaningful territory in Afghanistan...no one ever does ask the British we learned the hard way...twice. You just occupied strongholds in forts like in Helmand. And highly fortified air bases like Bagram. Patrolling outside these bases was extremely hazardous.
The Soviets went into Afghanistan in 1979 and withdrew 10 years later. They did not invade they were invited in to help fight the US/UK backed terrorists by the progressive legitimate government under Najibullah (Women rights guaranteed by law including free education up to University level) The US sought to destroy these women's rights and replace it with a toxic oppressive religious fundamentalism..and succeeded. So win there... I suppose. But the US would return ten years later..spend 2.1 trillion dollars of US tax payers money...over 22,000 casualties and leave the country to the Taliban they had been fighting for twenty years. It was a win for the arms dealers and heroin traders (the US has a lot of opioid addicts, developing this lucrative market over the same twenty years..hey, all that heroin needs to go somewhere!) But that is how America wins...they don't fight to win...win what? Win contracts that's what. So yeah, the never winning army lost but the arms suppliers know they won....all the way to the bank.
The only ones afraid of the Russian military today are men of age in Russia.