What is the US interest in Ukraine?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Regime change and economic destruction of Russia, same as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and our currently failed regime change/coup efforts in Iran and Syria. We're stupid. Just a dying empire thinking we can still strongarm the world, when the world has changed drastically and we're now a big joke with senile geriatrics as "leaders". Even the Saudis, who we are propping up, view us as a joke.

Yeah, black and white. The world is actually shades of different greys and different attachments to different greys.

 

[Stevicus]

Taking that into consideration, the difference in sizes, who put Ukraine up to fighting a large Russian army? Was it the promise of all the weapons and ammo supplied by Nato? Was it something else?

I think it's safe to say that they knew they were going to be materially backed by NATO.

So does Ukraine have a chance to win?

Hard to say. Could they win without Western military aid? Would they be winning now if Russia's military had not been led by utter incompetents?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hard to say. Could they win without Western military aid? Would they be winning now if Russia's military had not been led by utter incompetents?

Well, the first one is only about the USA and just about the USA.
As for the problem of the Russian military there are properly more to it than that.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, the first one is only about the USA and just about the USA.

How so? The USA is not being invaded by Russia. If we wanted to, we could view this as simply a war between Ukraine and Russia and stay out of it completely, giving no aid or support to either side. Let them fight their own battles by themselves. If the US government took that view, then it would be "just about the USA." But clearly, the US government has not taken that view.

As for the problem of the Russian military there are properly more to it than that.

It seems that the corruption of a kleptocratic, mobbed-up regime like Putin's has led to the wholesale looting and pillaging of their governmental resources, including their military forces. In the end, Putin is a businessman more than anything else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How so? The USA is not being invaded by Russia. If we wanted to, we could view this as simply a war between Ukraine and Russia and stay out of it completely, giving no aid or support to either side. Let them fight their own battles by themselves. If the US government took that view, then it would be "just about the USA." But clearly, the US government has not taken that view.



It seems that the corruption of a kleptocratic, mobbed-up regime like Putin's has led to the wholesale looting and pillaging of their governmental resources, including their military forces. In the end, Putin is a businessman more than anything else.

Well, you have to ask this.
If the USA doesn't help but a lot of Western minded countries do, what is the cost for the USA not to do so?

 

[Stevicus]

Well, you have to ask this.
If the USA doesn't help but a lot of Western minded countries do, what is the cost for the USA not to do so?

Did it cost anything for the USA not to help in the Napoleonic Wars or the Crimean War or the Franco-Prussian War? Did it cost Europe not to help in the Mexican-American War of 1845? In retrospect, if Europe had wanted to, they could have prevented US expansionism and hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. That would have weakened America and reduced our ability to become the global superpower we later became.

To examine your question in the present context, if other Western countries help but the US chooses not to, I can't see that there would be any direct, immediate cost to the USA. Although I would question the willingness of other Western countries to help in the absence of US encouragement and participation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Did it cost anything for the USA not to help in the Napoleonic Wars or the Crimean War or the Franco-Prussian War? Did it cost Europe not to help in the Mexican-American War of 1845? In retrospect, if Europe had wanted to, they could have prevented US expansionism and hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. That would have weakened America and reduced our ability to become the global superpower we later became.

To examine your question in the present context, if other Western countries help but the US chooses not to, I can't see that there would be any direct, immediate cost to the USA. Although I would question the willingness of other Western countries to help in the absence of US encouragement and participation.

Yeah, leaving in Europe means I have a different bias than you. That is as objective as I can state it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Did it cost anything for the USA not to help in the Napoleonic Wars or the Crimean War or the Franco-Prussian War? Did it cost Europe not to help in the Mexican-American War of 1845? In retrospect, if Europe had wanted to, they could have prevented US expansionism and hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. That would have weakened America and reduced our ability to become the global superpower we later became.

To examine your question in the present context, if other Western countries help but the US chooses not to, I can't see that there would be any direct, immediate cost to the USA. Although I would question the willingness of other Western countries to help in the absence of US encouragement and participation.

The American establishment and the American governments have always wanted to subdue Europeans, they have never wanted an equal partnership with them.
In my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Stevicus]

Yeah, leaving in Europe means I have a different bias than you. That is as objective as I can state it.

Well, even I can tell that Europeans are not a monolithic, single-minded group of people.

 

[Stevicus]

Why are you putting Europeans and Americans at the same level?

I'm not sure what you mean.

The American establishment and the American governments have always wanted to subdue Europeans, they have never wanted an equal partnership with them.
In my humble opinion, of course.

I disagree, at least when you apply the word "always" here. Americans are mainly (not all) comprised of descendants of Europeans who wanted to leave Europe, sometimes desperately so. Our political beginnings are largely based on that idea. In the beginning, Americans wanted to stay out of European affairs and be left alone. Whatever wars we fought against any European power was strictly confined to territories outside of Europe. Such as the Spanish-American War, when we took several Spanish territories (including the Philippines), but we never attacked or invaded the Spanish homeland.

I think it was largely due to our annexation of the Philippines which put us on the playing field in East Asia, which led to our shared interest and cooperation with other Western powers in regards to China. We saw ourselves as "equal partners" with Europe at that point, yet still geographically separated. Even at that point, I can't see any evidence to indicate any desire on Americans' part to subdue Europe.

Even at the outbreak of WW1, the US and its populace mainly wanted to stay out, although public opinion wasn't uniform on the matter. Still, there didn't appear to be any desire to subdue Europe; the main concern was that, if Germany won the war, they would have control of the resources and industries of the entire continent, which could conceivably threaten the US. Since we had grown accustomed to and flourished with Anglo-French hegemony over the world, we had no real reason to upset the apple cart or interfere with the status quo. The main problem in WW1 was, they couldn't achieve anything better than a protracted stalemate with Germany. The two most powerful empires in the world going up against a resource-poor third power, and they still couldn't cut the mustard.

That was the moment that the world realized that the Emperor wasn't wearing clothes. The illusions and myths which had governed the world up until that point had been shattered.

That can't be said to be America's fault. The Europeans were in control of their shared destiny, and they made their own bed. The US may have taken advantage of the situation, but the government propaganda and most public perceptions within America is not that of a colonial master, but more that of a protector. The standard refrain throughout the Cold War and ever since is that Europe is a major prize which must be protected at all costs. Even now, the whole focus is in the US wanting to protect Europe from the Evil Empire, with the hapless (yet friendly and good-natured) Europeans being led by the paternalistic, courageous, confident, and capable Americans.

Americans look at Europe much in the same way staunch militarists look at peace-loving liberals. A perfect example is in Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Col. Jessep in A Few Good Men.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not sure what you mean.



I disagree, at least when you apply the word "always" here. Americans are mainly (not all) comprised of descendants of Europeans who wanted to leave Europe, sometimes desperately so. Our political beginnings are largely based on that idea. In the beginning, Americans wanted to stay out of European affairs and be left alone. Whatever wars we fought against any European power was strictly confined to territories outside of Europe. Such as the Spanish-American War, when we took several Spanish territories (including the Philippines), but we never attacked or invaded the Spanish homeland.

I think it was largely due to our annexation of the Philippines which put us on the playing field in East Asia, which led to our shared interest and cooperation with other Western powers in regards to China. We saw ourselves as "equal partners" with Europe at that point, yet still geographically separated. Even at that point, I can't see any evidence to indicate any desire on Americans' part to subdue Europe.

Even at the outbreak of WW1, the US and its populace mainly wanted to stay out, although public opinion wasn't uniform on the matter. Still, there didn't appear to be any desire to subdue Europe; the main concern was that, if Germany won the war, they would have control of the resources and industries of the entire continent, which could conceivably threaten the US. Since we had grown accustomed to and flourished with Anglo-French hegemony over the world, we had no real reason to upset the apple cart or interfere with the status quo. The main problem in WW1 was, they couldn't achieve anything better than a protracted stalemate with Germany. The two most powerful empires in the world going up against a resource-poor third power, and they still couldn't cut the mustard.

That was the moment that the world realized that the Emperor wasn't wearing clothes. The illusions and myths which had governed the world up until that point had been shattered.

That can't be said to be America's fault. The Europeans were in control of their shared destiny, and they made their own bed. The US may have taken advantage of the situation, but the government propaganda and most public perceptions within America is not that of a colonial master, but more that of a protector. The standard refrain throughout the Cold War and ever since is that Europe is a major prize which must be protected at all costs. Even now, the whole focus is in the US wanting to protect Europe from the Evil Empire, with the hapless (yet friendly and good-natured) Europeans being led by the paternalistic, courageous, confident, and capable Americans.

Americans look at Europe much in the same way staunch militarists look at peace-loving liberals. A perfect example is in Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Col. Jessep in A Few Good Men.

I won't talk about the past. All is forgiven.
I want to talk about the present

In this video we can see a POTUS that imposes his own will on an ally, saying that, even if Nordstream is indispensable for German economy, he wil bring an end to it.
And he kept his promise, as we saw last November.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Stevicus
You haven't answered my question yet: why the US want no equal partnership with the EU.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I won't talk about the past. All is forgiven.
I want to talk about the present

In this video we can see a POTUS that imposes his own will on an ally, saying that, even if Nordstream is indispensable for German economy, he wil bring an end to it.
And he kept his promise, as we saw last November.
This is not a simple "subduing an ally". This is treating them as nothing

Well, there are several ways to understand the context at the time it happened versus what happens afterwards.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Stevicus
You haven't answered my question yet: why the US want no equal partnership with the EU.

In what context is that?

 

[Stevicus]

@Stevicus
You haven't answered my question yet: why the US want no equal partnership with the EU.

I thought I had. It's because the US doesn't think of itself as equal to any other nation. Americans believe they are exceptional and far above the petty intrigues of mere mortals. (That's also the reason why they think the US government can do no wrong and that anyone who thinks otherwise is some kind of whacko conspiracy theorist.)

It is as Col. Jessep stated in the video clip I posted. The world outside our own little Western bubble is regarded as a horrible place, full of dragons, evil empires, mad villains plotting to take over the world, etc. So, it takes tough, courageous men - like the US military - who stand on walls with guns to keep out all those who threaten our little gated community.

Granted, there's no particular reason they can't have an equal partnership with the EU on that basis, although there's an underlying view among US militarists that Europe is not unlike a "weak sister." So, perhaps because the US sees itself as stronger and more powerful, it sees itself as taking on a "leadership" role above that of other countries in the Alliance.

 

[Estro Felino]

I thought I had. It's because the US doesn't think of itself as equal to any other nation. Americans believe they are exceptional and far above the petty intrigues of mere mortals. (That's also the reason why they think the US government can do no wrong and that anyone who thinks otherwise is some kind of whacko conspiracy theorist.)

It is as Col. Jessep stated in the video clip I posted. The world outside our own little Western bubble is regarded as a horrible place, full of dragons, evil empires, mad villains plotting to take over the world, etc. So, it takes tough, courageous men - like the US military - who stand on walls with guns to keep out all those who threaten our little gated community.

Granted, there's no particular reason they can't have an equal partnership with the EU on that basis, although there's an underlying view among US militarists that Europe is not unlike a "weak sister." So, perhaps because the US sees itself as stronger and more powerful, it sees itself as taking on a "leadership" role above that of other countries in the Alliance.

This is understandable in a unipolar world. What the world was like after WW2. The world dominated by the US. Now Westerners are becoming a minority. Because China, India and other African and Asian countries are the overwheleming majority of the world population.
So the only way for the West to survive as "actor" of this multipolar world is to treat the EU as equal partner. Because we are all in the same boat.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, there are several ways to understand the context at the time it happened versus what happens afterwards.

What was the context?
Who blew up the pipelines, then?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What was the context?
Who blew up the pipelines, then?

I don't know the latter and the context is that Biden's answer was the God given Truth and not a politician's answer. Right?

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't know the latter and the context is that Biden's answer was the God given Truth and not a politician's answer. Right?

Denmark's secret services know who did it. 100%. They won't reveal it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Denmark's secret services know who did it. 100%. They won't reveal it.

Yeah, but since you know and I trust that you actually know, but don't have the clearance you must be silenced. So as an operative of the deep state, I have reported you and we will take care of you. That is the real Truth.

I should know better than to engage with you. That is utterly pointless as even an exchanges of opinions, because you do that differently than me,