• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is the US interest in Ukraine?

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Yeah, I get that. But overdone it becomes a false dichotomy.

It is never an overdose. It is the obvious reality that the rich suppress and the unthinking poor ignore.

The laissez faire only helps those who are already the rulers.

When common people believe in ‘hidden hand’ they are plain ignorant sheep.

A sorry state. Pathetic in fact, which so-called prosperity cannot hide.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sure, I can understand that, and I understand that people from other countries and cultures might see things differently. In fact, this also has motivated me to try to learn more about the world. I studied Russian history and culture for that reason, too, since I was raised to fear them. I wanted to find out what made them want to destroy America. When I was around 15 or 16, it was the time of the Iranian hostage crisis, where they showed on the news all these massive crowds of people shouting "Death to America," and I wondered, "Whatever did we do to make them so angry at us?"

That may have been a turning point for me personally, since I decided to learn more and more about how the world actually works and what America's role in it has been. Strictly speaking, I don't see our government as "do gooders" or some kind of "Captain America" out to promote freedom, democracy, and to right all the world's wrongs. That's just so much bunkum for the masses, without any real basis in practical reality. I do not believe in American Exceptionalism.

What I believe is that we are an ordinary country with an ordinary government comprised of ordinary men and women who, for the most part, carry out a policy based on what they (presumably) believe to be in the best national interests of the country. It's not a conspiracy theory; it's what normal governments have done throughout most of recorded history (unless they're puppets or vassals of other states). Of course, the question of what is in the best national interests of the country is hotly debated and not always agreed upon, and this is where a lot of the argument goes sour.

Yeah. Now as Danish I am both a vassal of the USA and benefit from being a vassal, if I may phrase it in historical terms.
So I am both angry at you and like you. Now since I try to be realistic about that as a European in the Western part, I benefit more from the good parts of USA's politics, yet I am aware of the bad parts.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It is never an overdose. It is the obvious reality that the rich suppress and the unthinking poor ignore.

The laissez faire only helps those who are already the rulers.

When common people believe in ‘hidden hand’ they are plain ignorant sheep.

A sorry state. Pathetic in fact, which so-called prosperity cannot hide.

Yeah, all understandings of capitalism and cases of it, is laissez faire. Is that your point?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yeah. Now as Danish I am both a vassal of the USA and benefit from being a vassal, if I may phrase it in historical terms.
So I am both angry at you and like you. Now since I try to be realistic about that as a European in the Western part, I benefit more from the good parts of USA's politics, yet I am aware of the bad parts.

I believe that the US government's official position is that we have no vassals. I don't think anyone in our government would ever publicly acknowledge or admit that Denmark or any other officially independent nation is a vassal. Americans view Denmark as a free and democratic society, where its government operates as a sovereign entity under a mandate from its people. If they wanted to, they could withdraw from NATO tomorrow, or any other alliance, treaty, or agreement, and there's absolutely nothing the U.S. or any other country could legally do about it. (By "legally," I mean within the precepts of the UN Charter and what is commonly recognized as "international law.")

I understand what you're saying, at least in terms of the practical reality which nations have to face, but one thing I keep in mind is that our own government tends to look at things from a strictly legalistic point of view. They can't help themselves; most of those running things are lawyers.

Also, US foreign policies and our geopolitical perceptions have been largely Euro-centric throughout our history. When we got started, the main focus was in how to stay independent and keep from falling under the thumb of another power. While we were separate from Europe, we still came from Europe and understood how their nations and national governments operated, so we opted to remain diplomatically neutral when it came to Europe. We didn't have any vassals, as we were far more worried about becoming vassals ourselves. That idea remained at the core of US foreign policy.

That started to change in the decades following the Civil War and leading up to World War I, although that was a period when national unity and patriotism for America was a very strong sentiment, and this formed the basis for how many Americans still see themselves and America today. At the same time, on a more practical level, the European dominated, colonialist world order also seemed to mesh well with US interests. This was particularly true in regards to the British, with whom Americans often cite our special relationship. That really became our main connection and conduit into European politics. We were no longer their vassal, but they never became our vassal either. Our history was far too intertwined and interconnected that we could ever really have that kind of relationship. But we did have a number of common interests, and as sea powers, freedom of the seas is a concept that both of us knew intimately well. Our homelands were situated in such a way that, if anyone wanted to attack or invade us, they would have to cross the water, and therein was our advantage. With a friendly neighbor to the north and US hegemony to the south - and two oceans on the east and west - we were pretty safe from such far-off powers as Germany or Russia.

But a lot of that also depended on the stability of the British Empire and their ability to maintain it. The French also had an empire, and so did the Dutch, Belgians, Germans, and even the Danish at one point. I recall that the US acquired the Virgin Islands by purchasing them from Denmark back in 1917.

My point in all of this is to say that, at least originally, the US was neither predisposed nor capable of imposing any hegemony beyond that of a regional power, and as such, we had no real stake in rocking the boat at that point. My view is that European problems emanated from within Europe. We, as Americans, did not cause them, nor does it appear we had any intention or compelling reason to cause any problems within Europe of the kind that led to the World Wars.

And the only reason they were in that situation was because they couldn't handle the Germans. Think of it, the two largest empires in the world, Britain and France, were getting bogged down and fought to a stalemate by Germany. Of course, Germany was a powerful industrial state as well with a certain militaristic philosophy, so they're tough and resilient.

So, if you're a vassal of the USA now, it's only because the British and French just couldn't cut the mustard when it came to dealing with Germany. If not for that, then you'd likely be a vassal of Germany or Russia.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I consider myself to be, on the whole, objective on matters of history and geopolitics (far more than you've ever demonstrated). I only saw enough of the video you've posted to see that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I thought better to entertain you than to
challenge your objectivity. That delusion
is set in concrete, & not worth addressing.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Well, "officially," the US has no real tangible interests in any of its foreign policy escapades. It's all about a purely noble and selfless desire to make the world safe for democracy. We get nothing out of it; it's all about our love and devotion to the rest of the world. We just want everyone on the planet to enjoy the freedom and democracy that we have had. It's all for love - even if it breaks us and leaves our own people impoverished.
Sarcasm aside, I have talked to people that honestly believe that shipping tens of billions of dollars worth of munitions to the Ukraine is about freeing Ukraine and maintaining a democracy there, as if. I can only thank the mainstream media for this and shake my head because questioning the narrative makes me a Putin sympathizer. It's like everything is upside down and backwards. China is next over Taiwan, it's maddening to watch the mainstream media get behind it as the viewers gobble it up. I think politicians and media appeal to our sense of racism and bigotry in order to accomplish this view. It's called demonizing the so called enemy.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I thought better to entertain you than to
challenge your objectivity. That delusion
is set in concrete, & not worth addressing.

Well, then, here's some entertainment for you.

1679253994018.png
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
F52537D4-2E77-44AB-8920-9141F7CB56D6.jpeg


Putin’s actions, if seen in isolation, is extremely condemnable.

But we know of US interventions abroad.

We know from Victoria Nuland’s phone record that 2014 coup in Ukraine was staged by the US. Furthermore, we have records of Putin’s repeated requests to keep Russia’s neighbours NATO free. Finland and Sweden have been neutral and were not attacked.

We know that Putin’s requests and warnings were ignored, probably wilfully. War is always a good opportunity for new business worth billions.

 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
View attachment 73556

Putin’s actions, if seen in isolation, is extremely condemnable.

But we know of US interventions abroad.

We know from Victoria Nuland’s phone record that 2014 coup in Ukraine was staged by the US. Furthermore, we have records of Putin’s repeated requests to keep Russia’s neighbours NATO free. Finland and Sweden have been neutral and were not attacked.

We know that Putin’s requests and warnings were ignored, probably wilfully. War is always a good opportunity for new business worth billions.


Yeah, you condemn imperialism, yet you accept when it comes to Russia.

So here is. India is irrelevant just as the countries in Eastern Europe. Restore the glory of the Empires, not just the Russian one.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Sarcasm aside, I have talked to people that honestly believe that shipping tens of billions of dollars worth of munitions to the Ukraine is about freeing Ukraine and maintaining a democracy there, as if. I can only thank the mainstream media for this and shake my head because questioning the narrative makes me a Putin sympathizer.

Yes, exactly. I've seen this tactic played out on a regular basis. I saw it among supporters of US warmongering in Vietnam, who lambasted those who were against war as communists and traitors. Likewise, anyone who didn't support the Contras against Nicaragua were considered traitors. Anyone who didn't support the first Gulf War was a traitor. Anyone who didn't support the second Gulf War was a traitor. Rinse and repeat.

It's like everything is upside down and backwards. China is next over Taiwan, it's maddening to watch the mainstream media get behind it as the viewers gobble it up. I think politicians and media appeal to our sense of racism and bigotry in order to accomplish this view. It's called demonizing the so called enemy.

George Orwell's thoughts on this subject were interesting and illustrate perfectly the mindset at work here:

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed.

...

The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

...

War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.

...

In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions. Moreover, to be efficient it was necessary to be able to learn from the past, which meant having a fairly accurate idea of what had happened in the past. Newspapers and history books were, of course, always coloured and biased, but falsification of the kind that is practised today would have been impossible. War was a sure safeguard of sanity, and so far as the ruling classes were concerned it was probably the most important of all safeguards. While wars could be won or lost, no ruling class could be completely irresponsible.

...

But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed.

...

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
View attachment 73556

Putin’s actions, if seen in isolation, is extremely condemnable.

But we know of US interventions abroad.

We know from Victoria Nuland’s phone record that 2014 coup in Ukraine was staged by the US. Furthermore, we have records of Putin’s repeated requests to keep Russia’s neighbours NATO free. Finland and Sweden have been neutral and were not attacked.

We know that Putin’s requests and warnings were ignored, probably wilfully. War is always a good opportunity for new business worth billions.

A big difference....
- USA invasion of Iraq wasn't conquest to acquire territory.
- Putin invades countries to expand his empire, eg, Georgia,
Crimea, Ukraine.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
They are using Ukrainians as human shields to fight a proxy war against Putin.
They want to:
1)dethrone Putin
2) destabilize Russia
3) dismember the Russian Federation
4) steal Gazprom from the Russian State

Do you need more?
My first impression of Putin is he did what the US would do if a state went rouge and declared its own independence.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I called Putin a war criminal, now I'm a Putin apologist because I criticized the US, go figure.

Yes, that's SOP in US warmongering rhetoric. Just as I quoted from Orwell above "it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph."

In other words, actual facts are not important. It's all about how people feel about it.
 
Top