Something something, paper tiger, Mao was right.
You must log in or register to comment.
Let’s not celebrate premptively. Empires rarely go down in one swoop.
They’re probably going to attempt to take all of us with them.
True, but the fact that Hudson is just putting something out like this plainly without a 20 page analysis is telling.
“…Their aim is not merely to create alternatives to the use of dollars, but an entire new set of institutional alternatives to the IMF and World Bank, the SWIFT bank clearing system, the International Criminal Court and the entire array of institutions that U.S. diplomats have hijacked from the United Nations…”
this should be the consequene of this war, this should be what we remember of this war. very hopeful.
Very nice to see Michael Hudson linked. His content on multipolarista and the new Geopolitical Economy Report. Very critical data and needs to be disseminated
Ya, I love his work. Found out about him from Multipolarista and I’ve been following ever since.
The story of Croesus have also interesting ending - he apparently came to accept his defeat (which i dearly hope USA will too instead of nuking us all) and spend rest of his long life at the court of Cyrus, being something between closely watched trophy and valued advisor.
Having organized a coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014, the United States sent its NATO proxy army eastward, giving weapons to Ukraine to fight an ethnic war against its Russian-speaking population and turn Russia’s Crimean naval base into a NATO fortress. This Croesus-level ambition aimed at drawing Russia into combat and depleting its ability to defend itself, wrecking its economy in the process and destroying its ability to provide military support to China and other countries targeted for seeking self-dependency as an alternative to U.S. hegemony.
After eight years of provocation, a new military attack on Russian-speaking Ukrainians was conspicuously prepared, ready to drive toward the Russian border in February 2022. Russia protected its fellow Russian-speakers from further ethnic violence by mounting its own Special Military Operation.
Do y’all genuinely believe this?
Well, how would you say it happened?
Just turn on CNN, Reddit, or FOX, it’ll be easier to get it straight from the source then any watered down explanation this lib will give.
Bout what I figured, I just wanted to see if he’d really grab that rope.
Russia annexed territory from Ukraine, and was amassing troops for a further invasion. US intelligence said as much, Russia denied any such plans, then invaded, and ever since, hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian human beings on Ukrainian soil have been having their flesh shredded by high-powered weapons.
I’d say the fact that Russia:
- Annexed quite a bit of Ukrainian territory before the war
- Lied about its plans to invade, and
- Has troops on the ground all over Ukraine
… shouldn’t really be facts in dispute, and to me those that adds up to “Russia is in the wrong” even without adding in any additional facts which might be more disputable. But you don’t see it that way?
No, I do not in the slightest; considering your analysis rather tellingly leaves out Amerika’s armament of fascists, said armed fascist pogroms against “ethnic Russians” in their territory, the endless violations of the Minsk agreements on the part of the West, and, oh yeah; Amerika literally blew up Nordstream to cut off Germany’s access to Russian gas.
So forgive me when I see you clutching pearls about “how many people injured in this ethnic violence” and think you’re literally so full of shit that when they give you your pre-burial enema, you’ll lose five and a half feet of height.
I’m really not trying to be combative with you brother. I’m not going to be friendly to the viewpoint you’re supporting, but I’m just a person like you – trying to make sense of the world and telling you how I see it. You’ve got no call to be getting insulting or cursing at me just because I’m disagreeing with you.
I think the fascist pogroms against ethnic Russians in Ukraine didn’t exist. The Russian government’s lies leading up to the invasion are well-documented, so it seems weird to argue that their claims of violence against ethnic Russians in Ukraine is unimpeachable evidence that it was happening. Do you have documentation or support for it happening? Do you have a ballpark for how many people were killed or injured in this violence?
I don’t know why you’re talking so mockingly about that question. The objective facts of what was happening are important.
You are right to ask for evidence. The propaganda machine makes it hard to find the truth. The historical context of this war is rarely reported in western media. They used to report on it but now they pretend the history is different and are silent on any facts that would support an alternative narrative. A brief internet search reveals (and I have deliberately found a mixture of sources, most of which are anti-Russia):
spoiler
- By 2016, the BBC was reporting that at least 9,200 people had been killed since 2014: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36148882
- After the Maidan coup, ‘Volodymyr Bondarchuk… believes Ukraine’s politicians are not fighting for democracy and ideals “but to control access to money”. Cynicism and frustration towards post-Maidan politics, and the lack of change, in Ukraine is growing.’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36021231
- Fears of a hot war since 2016: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-35844164
- ‘Donbas war death toll rises up to nearly 13,000’: https://www.unian.info/war/10416549-donbas-war-death-toll-rises-up-to-nearly-13-000-un.html
- UN Reported, ‘the total civilian death toll of the conflict has reached at least 3,390. The number of injured civilians is estimated to exceed 7,000.’ https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/aPR32_final_ENG.pdf. The same document reports: ‘Thirteen civilian casualties resulted from active hostilities: four killed (all men) and nine injured (seven men and two women). Seventy-seven per cent of these (four killed and six injured) were recorded in territory controlled by self-proclaimed ‘republics’, and 23 per cent (three injured) in the Government-controlled part of Donetsk region. For example, on 14 April 2021, a man was killed by mortar shelling in armed group-controlled Donetsk; and on 19 June 2021, a man was injured by heavy machine gun fire in Government-controlled Avdiivka (Donetsk region).’
- UN Security Council meeting on 29 May 2018 reported’: “The conflict [in eastern Ukraine] continues to test the credibility of international and regional organizations and erodes the trust Member States need to work together in the interest of Europe’s stability,” said Rosemary DiCarlo, Under‑Secretary‑General for Political Affairs. Repeated pledges to respect the ceasefire as laid out in the 2015 Minsk agreements had failed to end the fighting, now in its fifth year. Destruction and immense suffering continued, she said, noting that the civilian death toll stood at more than 2,700, with up to 9,000 injured.’ https://press.un.org/en/2018/sc13357.doc.htm
- https://www.donbass-insider.com/2021/03/09/ukraine-intensifies-shelling-and-preparations-for-offensive-in-the-donbass/
- You’ll notice the anti-Russia sentiment in some stories, e.g. https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-shootings-donetsk-moscow-russia-3d2e732cc1a88c0d1b36fe856b45a8a9 but they don’t deny the fact of a conflict. Instead they claim that France and Germany tried hard to arrange a peace agreement, known as Minsk, which apparently granted Russia too much.
- Looking further into the Minsk, Merkel later revealed: ‘“It’s a great sadness that it didn’t work out, but I don’t blame myself for not trying,” said Merkel, speaking of the 2014 Minsk agreement with Russia.’ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/merkel-says-she-doesnt-blame-herself-not-trying-hard-enough-ukraine-2022-06-07/. In other words, ‘The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to buy time for Ukraine’: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/12/13/merkels-confession-could-be-a-pretext-for-an-international-tribunal/. To the real international community (not just the white parts of it): ‘Real intention behind Minsk agreements further destroys credibility of the West’ https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202212/1281708.shtml.
- https://popularresistance.org/ukraine-intensifies-shelling-of-donbass-as-western-media-are-silent/
- https://www.fpri.org/article/2019/10/five-years-of-war-in-the-donbas/
- https://blog.politics.ox.ac.uk/most-people-in-separatist-held-areas-of-donbas-prefer-reintegration-with-ukraine-new-survey/
Nah, see, I’m not cordial with sealions at all. And that’s exactly what you’re doing. JAQ’ing off, I think they call it now. So we’re just gonna ignore all the shelling in the leadup to the 2020s? We’re just gonna ignore the GLOBAL HEADLINES that made? We’re just gonna ignore the 14,000 dropped bodies since 2014? We’re just gonna ignore all the Wolfsengels, Totenkopfs, and other assorted nazi paraphernalia while you hoist all those water buckets?
I can’t wait to see what you’ll ignore when those chickens finally come home to roost. Fuck out my inbox; you’re no longer welcome to a dialogue with me. It was funny, now you’re just sickening me.
Nothing says “My viewpoint’s on solid footing” like responding to clear factual questions with vigorous anger, insults, and angry refusal to continue the conversation.
But sure, it’s 100% up to you who you want to communicate with and how. I’ll not respond to you again if that’s your preference.
9 years of headlines vs. “just trust my liberal-ass analysis bro, i swear this isn’t made the fuck up out of state department cloth, bro; don’t you believe in debate” No. No I do not. Not with the likes of your kind.
How about response on the wall of info Redtea sent you? You didn’t commented any of that, signifying BCR is absolutely correct.
I think the fascist pogroms against ethnic Russians in Ukraine didn’t exist.
That’s the problem, you are denying a genocide that has lots of evidence.
Edit: sorry replied to the wrong person
Can you send me some of this evidence? How many people were killed in this genocide?
Look two comments above that was posted 15 minutes before you asked this. It seems you’re bent on trying to deny what doesn’t fit your ‘feelings’.
Warning, extremely graphic and disturbing: https://youtu.be/-M33UUZCSSs
A lecture by John Mearsheimer discussing the start of the ukraine conflict: https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
I also recommend watching Ukraine on fire documentary by Oliver Stone.
Here’s russian propaganda from US Congress in 2018.
This is accurate, yes; the neo-Nazi organization and their involvement in the 2014 revolution are real.
How does that justify Russia’s invasion? Are they defending Ukrainians against neo-Nazis, by bombing Ukrainian cities, and a Jewish leader is leading the Ukrainians in a war of aggression on Ukrainian soil against their well-intentioned de-Nazification effort? I’m not trying to be flip about something so serious, but it sounds like that’s what some other people in this thread are telling me. Would you agree with all of that, or how would you characterize it?
Russia sees this war as a war for their existence. They tried to join NATO several times after the fall of the USSR and were prevented from doing so. The current Russian state is capitalist, yes, but they are on the other side of the imperialist bloc they would have rather been a part of. What does that make NATO but an explicitly anti-Russian alliance? And even if we were to pretend it isn’t, why should Russia trust NATO? Especially after the US and EU sank the Minsk agreement and revealed that they only supported it in bad faith anyway? Especially since the US has been openly talking about shutting down the Nord Stream pipeline since even began construction? Especially since US state representatives were present during the Maidan revolution, shaking hands with Nazis in photos, and discussing in leaked audio how they will engineer regime change in Ukraine (said engineer has continued to be involved in the Biden White House).
Given that last time Nazis were on Russia’s border, over 10 million Russians (over 20 mil Soviet citizens) perished in a war of record-breaking proportions, and now Nazis are here again and the US is attempting to make them part of the Western imperial club with nukes and everything… What, in your opinion, is the rational, compassionate action that Russia supposed to take?
I think the real reason Russia invaded was because they could not tolerate Ukraine joining NATO. The US wouldn’t do anything different if this had happened in Canada during the cold war. Hell, they invaded Cuba for this. I’m sympathetic to Russia on this one because I do NOT want a unipolar world.
A Jewish leader does not mean that Ukraine is not dangerously far right wing. It’s like saying racism is defeated in the US because it had a black president. As for bombing Ukraine? Look up Ukraine’s cluster bomb usage in 2014-2022. When your soldiers are using weapons that are banned in most of the world on your own citizens, and your soldiers are wearing skulls on their uniforms, you surely have to ask if you’re the baddies?
Basically, I think NATO didn’t leave Russia much choice. And I don’t support fascist nations anyway. Sorry, no links this time. At the airport.
You conveniently skip over the reasons WHY Russia invaded.
Of course they did; conveniently skipping over the why is literally the only reason Empire gets to sit back and pearl-clutch and breathlessly justify their literally terrorist movements against the EU’s access to resources. Exactly what I thought.
You are welcome to read the OSCE recorded ceasefire violations in which you find the majority of violations coming from Ukrainian govt troops and militias before the war and they brought out armaments forbidden under Minsk 2.
I mean it’s literally what happened. It implies a bit of a rosy anthromorphization of the many varied and impersonal security interests that lead a nation-state to war, sure, but factually speaking, that’s how it went down.
So, help me understand what literally happened.
Having organized a coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014
This one has some actual credibility to it; although I don’t agree with the summary it at least seems plausible. Can you send me some arguments I can read for why it was more a coup d’état than a legitimate revolution? What percentage of Ukrainians, as a ballpark, would you estimate supported Yanukovych’s removal?
the United States sent its NATO proxy army eastward
How many Ukrainian troops are literally on the eastern side of the border vs. Russian troops on the western side of the border?
giving weapons to Ukraine to fight an ethnic war against its Russian-speaking population
Around how many literal casualties were there in this war? How many Russian-speaking Ukrainians killed or wounded by NATO weapons (pre-Russian-invasion, if you’re going to argue that the Russian’s special operation was in defense of Ukrainians)?
turn Russia’s Crimean naval base into a NATO fortress
Can you tell me more about the planned fortress? Where is the base or bases planned to be built, and where can I read more about the timelines or other plans?
This Croesus-level ambition aimed at drawing Russia into combat
What statements or actions by US or NATO members can you point to that attempted to “draw” Russia into attacking Ukraine?
depleting its ability to defend itself, wrecking its economy in the process and destroying its ability to provide military support to China and other countries targeted for seeking self-dependency as an alternative to U.S. hegemony.
I’d agree with this part, yes. I’m still lost as to why it’s the US’s fault that it happened.
After eight years of provocation, a new military attack on Russian-speaking Ukrainians was conspicuously prepared, ready to drive toward the Russian border in February 2022.
Can you elaborate on the provocation? Did Ukraine, for example, annex any territory from the Russian Federation, or bomb apartment buildings or hospitals on the Russian side of the border? If they had done either of those things, what would you say a reasonable response from Russia would have been?
Russia protected its fellow Russian-speakers from further ethnic violence by mounting its own Special Military Operation.
How many people injured in this ethnic violence? What was the aim of the special military operation – removing Zelensky from power? Disarming the Ukrainian military? Annexing Ukrainian territory? I’m still trying to get a sense of what is your assertion of what the goals and motives were on the Russian side.
This one has some actual credibility to it; although I don’t agree with the summary it at least seems plausible. Can you send me some arguments I can read for why it was more a coup d’état than a legitimate revolution? What percentage of Ukrainians, as a ballpark, would you estimate supported Yanukovych’s removal?
Completely irrelevant. Mrs Newland made it absolutely clear that it was a coup. What Ukrainians wanted never played any role.
How many Ukrainian troops are literally on the eastern side of the border vs. Russian troops on the western side of the border?
Proxy army, so the UA. Around a million men at the start of the SMO.
Around how many literal casualties were there in this war? How many Russian-speaking Ukrainians killed or wounded by NATO weapons (pre-Russian-invasion, if you’re going to argue that the Russian’s special operation was in defense of Ukrainians)?
14.000 to 15.000 dead. With many, many, more fleeing to Russia. Russian opposition parties were demanding military action under the clause “responsibility to protect” (created to justify the bombing of Serbia and creation of Kosovo) for years.
Can you tell me more about the planned fortress? Where is the base or bases planned to be built, and where can I read more about the timelines or other plans?
The US wanted Sevastopol.
What statements or actions by US or NATO members can you point to that attempted to “draw” Russia into attacking Ukraine?
The last 8 years for example. The two Minsk agreements, which Ukraine never honored, and which the german chancellor, the french president and the the ukrainian president at the time outright stated were only means to stall for time.
I’d agree with this part, yes. I’m still lost as to why it’s the US’s fault that it happened.
Coup 2014, arming of the UA, full support of local fascists. All done by the US, in the open.
Can you elaborate on the provocation? Did Ukraine, for example, annex any territory from the Russian Federation, or bomb apartment buildings or hospitals on the Russian side of the border? If they had done either of those things, what would you say a reasonable response from Russia would have been?
The UA shelled civilian centers in Donbas (still does btw), after the region seceeded. 14 to 15.000 dead. Hospitals, hotels, markets, schools, all was shelled. Whenever they lose against russian forces they still tend to shell Donezk. recently they hit a bus stop and killed a lot of civilians. A few wqeeks before they fired artillery mines into the city, those things look somewhat like children toys.
Honestly, did you sleep the last 8 years? The war is ongoing since then, Russia just joined in last year. It wasn’t a new war or anything.
im not sure if you’re posting in willful ignorance or trolling, but the result is about the same either way
why it was more a coup d’état than a legitimate revolution?
A revolution involves a change in the mode of production. This was a coup with a change of government, regardless of its legitimacy.
What percentage of Ukrainians, as a ballpark, would you estimate supported Yanukovych’s removal?
The issue at hand is whether NATO had a role in it. The statistics are by-the-by.
How many Ukrainian troops are literally on the eastern side of the border vs. Russian troops on the western side of the border?
Nobody is denying that Russia has troops in Ukraine, and I doubt anyone is denying that it gave military support in Eastern Ukraine before the invasion. The question, again, is whether NATO was involved. The two are not mutually exclusive.
planned fortress
I doubt very much that this is literal language. Does it change the meaning if it was imagery, instead?
What statements or actions by US or NATO members can you point to that attempted to “draw” Russia into attacking Ukraine?
It’s in the suggestion that Ukraine could join NATO, which lead to putting NATO nukes within the ‘safe zone’ of Russia’s nuclear program. That is, NATO could nuke Russia before Russia could retaliate.
Can you elaborate on the provocation?
Shelling ethnic Russians. See links above.
Did Ukraine, for example, … bomb apartment buildings or hospitals on the Russian side of the border?
Within Ukraine, the parts inhabited by majority ethnic Russians. See links above.
How many people injured in this ethnic violence?
See links above. Minimum 10,000, likely over 14,000 deaths. Tens of thousands injured. Millions displaced.
What was the aim of the special military operation – removing Zelensky from power? Disarming the Ukrainian military? Annexing Ukrainian territory?
If you believe Russia, demilitarisation of and denazification within Ukraine, to prevent the indefinite targeting of ethnic Russians. If you believe NATO? Who the fuck knows; they change their interpretation every week.
I’m about to head out of town for a while, so I don’t really have time right now to talk about all your questions. But here’s a quick overview. It’s is a fairly old article from just before the war, but I thought it was a pretty good overview of how we got here. There’s a great deal of citations, and I suggest you fact check them for yourself.
This is fascinating. Thank you for sending me this. It doesn’t change most of the attitudes and conclusions I’ve been stating in this thread; I would point to two excerpts from this article as reasons why:
It’s an overstatement to say, as some critics have charged, that Washington orchestrated the Maidan uprising. But there’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited it for their own ends.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s been embroiled in a mini–civil war since Maidan. After Putin moved to secure the Crimean naval base from NATO control, using the Russian military presence and a dubious referendum to illegally annex the majority-Russian region shortly after Yanukovych’s exit, pro-Russian separatists began mobilizing in the country’s east, first into protest, then into armed groups. After the interim government sent armed forces to put down the rebellion, Moscow sent its own troops in, and the entire region has been a deadly powder keg ever since.
Both of these seem like very accurate and evenhanded summaries to me. Things that have been said to me elsewhere in this thread – that Yanukovych’s removal was a Western coup, and that Ukraine’s relationship with ethnic Russians in the east could be described as “pogroms” – seem very inaccurate to me, and I would actually point to this article’s summary of those situations as a pretty good description of what the honest truth is.
If you’re sending me this to poke a hole in the “Ukraine good, Russia bad, protestors good, Yanukovych bad” narrative, then I support you in that endeavor. The real actual facts are important whether or not they support your or my ideology. I’m guessing that I’m getting such a high ratio of downvotes to responding messages because people assume I’m some kind of anti-Communist stooge… I assure you I am not an anti-left or universally-pro-US-government person.
It is super weird to me to see people who oppose the very real violence and imperialism that the US government engages in, who at the same time support violence and imperialism from Russia or China. From me in my point of view, as a person who’s generally leftist and generally anti-US-imperialism, it makes no sense. That’s why I want to have this long conversation about it and see if maybe there’s something I’m missing, but nothing I’ve seen so far has made any inroads as far as convincing me that there is. But, that being said, this article is showing me some sides to the whole equation I wasn’t aware of before. So, thank you.
Also… Mark Ames is still around and still doing journalism in Russia? How is that possible? Is this real life?
who at the same time support violence and imperialism from Russia or China
I’d challenge you to find a single example of Chinese (PRC) imperialism, even with a simplistic definition like “invading other countries”
I will give you one more good article to read from last year, but you have already been given dozens of informative sources : https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/
Please just take a break from commenting, being defensive and having a debate attitude. Read/watch the information already given to you, it has all been explained. If you still think the thousands of Russian speakers killed in the east of Ukraine is not a pogrom then you are not “just asking questions” in good faith.
Glad you read it! I’m sitting at the airport right now, so I’m going to hope someone else talks about it further with you. There’s plenty of reasonable people here. I want to clarify first though that I think most (all?) people here are not big fans of modern Russia or the war. I think the best result for all involved at this point is a swift Russian victory, but the best result would have been NATO minding its own business or working to broker peace instead of instigating.
Did you mean to respond to me lol
What do you believe?
Oh shit! You’re right! Thanks friend, I was so close to being tricked by evil Putler, but you saved me with your comment! You’re important and special and absolutely have original thoughts that aren’t just empty regurgitation of things you’ve been told to believe! You’re absolutely a free thinker for realising that Putin is Voldemort and Zelenskyy is Harry Potter! And you’ve helped me become a free thinker too! Slobber Zucchini! Now I’ll be off to watch a Marvel movie and clap and cheer when Iron Man and Captain America appear on screen, because the US and billionaires are heroes who save the day from evil baddies! Thanks friend, I’m now a better person because of what you just commented, you’re so important, special and free thinker!
Removed by mod
Do you know of Hudson? Of his track record? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely curious.
He predicted the 2008 thing before it happened so I’d say his track record is uh decent.
No small feat!
Bro the US government literally uses Michael Hudson’s work as a guide, you have no idea who you are talking about
If you’re talking about his book super imperialism, it’s not a guide but an exposition. The fact it’s used as a guide just tells us how good the people doing imperialism are at hiding it that the rest of their organization doesn’t even know and how well written it is. I’m not sure what you’re reading from this but I hope it’s similar to my interpretation?
Internet blog? No sources? What’s not to trust here?
