The sentiment in Washington before the Moscow attack was that Russians needed to experience firsthand the impact of the war in Ukraine. This attitude intensified as US sanctions proved ineffective, Russian advancements in Ukraine quickened, and President Putin received a high level of support from the Russian population during recent elections.
Previous attempts to make Russians understand the war’s effects included drone strikes on major city centers, attacks on infrastructure, and efforts to destabilize Russia’s economy.
Emily Harding, who is a former CIA operative within the US government-funded think tank CSIS, is featured in this transcript.
What do they think this is going to do, make Russian people against the war, it will only make them more willing to go through with the war, methinks.
Aside from pure malice for the sake of malice, I don’t really see what possible goal there could be either.
“Malice for the sake of malice” is US military doctrine. Whenever a war went sour(almost all of theirs did) the US moved its energy to killing as many civilians as possible and destroying the country as much as possible. The US is then defeated, but leaves the victor to rule a country of ash and corpses.
This serves as a statement for potential enemies on one side and as a gateway for economical warfare and takeover on the other.
Emily Harding: The self-centered piece is this completely self-defeating debate, where you have people saying, well, why are we sending all of these resources off to Ukraine? Why are we spending all this money on Ukraine, when we really should be keeping it here for a fight in the Pacific? Or, we really should be keeping it here for domestic priorities? It’s just the wrong way to look at it. First of all, from a basic numbers perspective, I think Angus King of Maine has a really good speech on this, the money that we spend on Ukraine doesn’t leave the U.S. It goes to the U.S. defense industry. It goes to U.S. companies that send aid to Ukraine. The vast majority of it stays here.
It truly baffles my mind that anyone can believe this BS. The defence industry is a private, profit-driven entity. It is funded by taxpayers, with wealthy white men pocketing all the profits.
What Putin has done with his invasion of Ukraine is say: I don’t care about any of that. I want the world system to be remade in a way that I like. I want to prove that the U.N. is pointless, that the U.S. is weak, that U.S. democracy is not all it’s cracked up to be. And I want the U.S. fighting inside by itself against itself, rather than using its vast global power to ensure a safer, more prosperous globe. Chinese have looked at that and said, we like that idea. What we want is a world that’s made safe for Chinese business. We want to be able to run the world the way that we think it should be run. We don’t care about personal freedoms. We don’t care about democracy. What we care about is making money for us and for our businesses. So we’re on board with that as a plan too. Let’s see how we can disrupt this global system in our favor.
What she accused China of doing is what the U.S. does—100% projection.
The entire transcript is a bunch of nonsense and cope.
Fuck, the natsec ghouls really are getting totally fucking blitzed and shitfaced on their own supply, aren’t they?
Unfathomable to me that someone could come to this conclusion after witnessing how 9/11 brought Bush’s abysmal approval rating to over 90% while transforming the US population into a horde of bloodthirsty demons.
Imagine if this same terrible logic was applied to the USA. The country would be gone by tomorrow.
I think Angus King of Maine has a really good speech on this, the money that we spend on Ukraine doesn’t leave the U.S. It goes to the U.S. defense industry. It goes to U.S. companies that send aid to Ukraine. The vast majority of it stays here.
This is your brain on liberal economics. Send away material resources while keeping pieces of paper.
