Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Russia continues to mass assets within range of Ukraine - though the official explanations are that they are for various exercises. United States intelligence has noted that Russian operatives in Ukraine could launch 'false flag' operations as a predicate to invasion. The West has pressed for negotiations and on Friday in Geneva, the US Sec. State Blinken will meet with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

Certainly the Russian movements evidence some plan - but what is it? Some analysts believe that Putin's grand scheme involves securing Western commitments that NATO would never expand beyond its current composition. Whether that means action in Ukraine or merely the movement of pieces on the chess board remains to be seen.

VIENNA — No one expected much progress from this past week’s diplomatic marathon to defuse the security crisis Russia has ignited in Eastern Europe by surrounding Ukraine on three sides with 100,000 troops and then, by the White House’s accounting, sending in saboteurs to create a pretext for invasion.

But as the Biden administration and NATO conduct tabletop simulations about how the next few months could unfold, they are increasingly wary of another set of options for President Vladimir V. Putin, steps that are more far-reaching than simply rolling his troops and armor over Ukraine’s border.

Mr. Putin wants to extend Russia’s sphere of influence to Eastern Europe and secure written commitments that NATO will never again enlarge. If he is frustrated in reaching that goal, some of his aides suggested on the sidelines of the negotiations last week, then he would pursue Russia’s security interests with results that would be felt acutely in Europe and the United States.

There were hints, never quite spelled out, that nuclear weapons could be shifted to places — perhaps not far from the United States coastline — that would reduce warning times after a launch to as little as five minutes, potentially igniting a confrontation with echoes of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Russia Issues Subtle Threats More Far-Reaching Than a Ukraine Invasion

If the West fails to meet its security demands, Moscow could take measures like placing nuclear missiles close to the U.S. coastline, Russian officials have hinted.

www.nytimes.com

Blinken Will Meet With Russia as U.S. Pushes for More Diplomacy

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will meet with Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia in Geneva on Friday as the United States warns that Russia could soon attack Ukraine.

www.nytimes.com

How to think about war in Ukraine

Start with the Ukrainians

snyder.substack.com

 

[UriUT]

I don't know where you get this idea that there is a "world order". There isn't one.

That's great that the were trials in The Hague over the atrocities committed in the Balkans. Can you tell me about the trials in The Hague for the atrocities committed in Central America? South America? Asia? Africa? Tell me about them.

How can you say the world has been made relatively peaceful? I guess if you consider "relative peace" that another world war has not broken out, but just considering the armed conflicts in which the U.S. have been involved since WWII...

The M.E. is hardly peaceful, Central America is hardly peaceful, Africa is hardly peaceful, Asia is hardly peaceful.

You think the neocons tried to install a democracy in Iraq, but that wasn't their goal.

Great that you showed me an article, though. Thank you.

Ok if you say so. All these policy makers, diplomats, academics…are all wrong. I didn’t know you can redefine the term unilaterally. What bc it doesn’t include Central America, s. America, Africa?

Yes relative peace.

Yes yes yes to all those hardly peaceful. So what? Local and region wars happen. The system isn’t perfect. It is far from it.

So tell me what the neocons want? You ve already redefine world order.

And yes, I shared an article. It’s in English. I’m quite proud that I was able to read it.

 

[SystemShock]

Ok if you say so. All these policy makers, diplomats, academics…are all wrong. I didn’t know you can redefine the term unilaterally. What bc it doesn’t include Central America, s. America, Africa?

If you use the word "world" and do not include most of the American continent, Africa, and Asia, I have to say, you don't know the meaning of the word "world". I believe that most of the American continent, Africa, and Asia constitute a larger portion of the world that Europe, the US, and Canada. (And yes, I am being facetious).

Yes yes yes to all those hardly peaceful. So what? Local and region wars happen. The system isn’t perfect. It is far from it.

So, if you agree that most of the world is hardly peaceful, where is this relative peace? What exactly is your definition of "peace"? The world not engaged in a world war?

So tell me what the neocons want? You ve already redefine world order.

I don't know why you have this hard-on for neocons, but even before, during the paleocon era, power and money.

And yes, I shared an article. It’s in English. I’m quite proud that I was able to read it.

Good for you that it is in English so you can read it, and good for you you are proud of being able to read.

 

[UriUT]

If you use the word "world" and do not include most of the American continent, Africa, and Asia, I have to say, you don't know the meaning of the word "world". I believe that most of the American continent, Africa, and Asia constitute a larger portion of the world that Europe, the US, and Canada. (And yes, I am being facetious).


So, if you agree that most of the world is hardly peaceful, where is this relative peace? What exactly is your definition of "peace"? The world not engaged in a world war?


I don't know why you have this hard-on for neocons, but even before, during the paleocon era, power and money.


Good for you that it is in English so you can read it, and good for you you are proud of being able to read.

I must've missed the part about "World" war I and "World" war II involving central america, or south america. I probably need to open a history book. Really, if you're going to be this pedantic on a word, why even bother?

Again, relative peace has been a peace between the great powers. <whispers> it's euro centric and mexico, central america isn't one. China, Japan are. And instead of stumping your feet over a word, the wilsonian order strives to create rules where conflict may possibly be avoided. Collective enforcement. At the core of this belief is that liberal democracies don't wage war with each other. Has it been successful? "Relatively". Again, are democracies for everyone? It doesn't look like it.

And I take it that you cannot define what neocons desires? It doesn't matter because you've seem to ignore everything said, including the context that I brought it up. Yet you seem to be bold enough to reply to the one before this as if you know what they want.

Yeah I don't speak good english, and when I can read something like that article, I do pat myself on my back.

Seriously, this conversation has devolved. You don't seem to be engaging in good faith, especially when I agreed that American foreign policy has not been consistent. The system isn't perfect. I rather a system that favors human rights, collective peace, rules based, etc over power politics where if Trump is elected, rules Mexico a degenerate state and attacks indiscriminately. Might doesn't make right.

To that, I'm going to end this and get back to Ukraine as I find that more interesting and important than this word game.

 

[J-DONK]

Yes, but that was not the reason we started aiding Ukraine. "Strategy shift" is literally right there in the headline.

The goal is now to weaken them to prevent them from doing the same thing to someone else in the future. We're now shifting focus to making sure that they can't continue being aggressors.

The aid started when we realized they weren't going to get rolled. We started aid way before Bucha, or other human right abuses became apparent. This is consistent with what was going on there before. Our initial interest in Ukraine was to influence the country, and help them develop gas exports in the Black Sea. That would have weakened Russia.

I think the only convincing argument you could make for why America cares about this display of Russian cruelty vs other wars is tiktok.

 

[SystemShock]

I must've missed the part about "World" war I and "World" war II involving central america, or south america. I probably need to open a history book. Really, if you're going to be this pedantic on a word, why even bother?

Nice redirect, but you spoke of a "new world order", not the so called world wars (I can be pedantic about those, if you would like )

Again, relative peace has been a peace between the great powers.

So all the proxy wars, trade/economic tensions, the whole cold war thing, military interventions, terrorists blowing up train stations and flying airplanes full of people into buildings, etc. that's peace to you.

<whispers> it's euro centric and mexico, central america isn't one. China, Japan are.

So what you are saying, it is not global

And instead of stumping your feet over a word, the wilsonian order strives to create rules where conflict may possibly be avoided. Collective enforcement. At the core of this belief is that liberal democracies don't wage war with each other. Has it been successful? "Relatively". Again, are democracies for everyone? It doesn't look like it.

I hope your degree serves you well.

And I take it that you cannot define what neocons desires?

I just did.

It doesn't matter because you've seem to ignore everything said, including the context that I brought it up. Yet you seem to be bold enough to reply to the one before this as if you know what they want.

That's because I know, and I told you.
I don't get bamboozled by rhetoric , demagoguery, or pretty words. I'm too old and seen too much.

Yeah I don't speak good english, and when I can read something like that article, I do pat myself on my back.

Good for you.

To that, I'm going to end this and get back to Ukraine as I find that more interesting and important than this word game.

Good for you.

 

[J-DONK]

I read the article and Fink's comments aren't particularly surprising or even revealing. Globalization has always been a bit of a house of cards because any one superpower can disrupt that by marching to the beat of their own drum. Every country does that to some degree, and as humans are wont to do, competing interests will inevitably lead to conflict. A Russia led by Putin is more Soviet throwback than new age, cutting edge Russia.

Others in the global community have the same issue and haven't caught up to the global synergy and security that would make the world a better place.

Democratic/liberal ideals are a part of the equation, but not always practical or desired depending on the country and climate. I'm not going to defend all or even most foreign policy since WWII, but our approach is never made in a vacuum and countries change, often of their own volition. Our attempts at shadow diplomacy, influencing governments and building alliances have had decidedly mixed results.

In short, has the US promoted democracy in the world? Yes, absolutely. Have they done so in every engagement? No, of course not. Whether that should be pursued depends on whether a country is possibly receptive to the idea. Places that reject the concept out of hand require other means of diplomacy. Which is why places like Cuba and Venezuela remain what they are, in spite of our efforts to influence them. Other countries are a bit more open to it.

There are others where we've supported dictatorships or authoritarian governments. They're not ideal, but sometimes supporting those will have more potential influence than not having any influence at all.

Not justifying all of them, but they're certainly not all the same. It's all really complicated and a lot depends on who's in the WH, what public sentiment is and global economics/stability.

America promotes an America first above all else strategy world wide, and has since world war 2. If the population wasn't pro-U.S. we were always happy to install dictators. That has happened so many times it was the rule not the exception. You can't say we promote democracy while we install right wing dictators world wide. I'm not an "America bad" kind of person, but I am a realist about our approach to foreign policy.

The major thing that America still ensures is peace, and global trade. Both of those things either directly, or indirectly help America.

I also don't pretend that America doesn't look at Ukraine as a way to weaken Russia, and build an extremely valuable ally. The amount of animosity that Ukraine will hang onto for generations is something to be used for our own interest. We have an opportunity to build up an amazingly well placed strategic ally to counter Russia for the next century. We would be idiots to not capitalize on this.

 

[DaveXA]

America promotes an America first above all else strategy world wide, and has since world war 2. If the population wasn't pro-U.S. we were always happy to install dictators. That has happened so many times it was the rule not the exception. You can't say we promote democracy while we install right wing dictators world wide. I'm not an "America bad" kind of person, but I am a realist about our approach to foreign policy.

The major thing that America still ensures is peace, and global trade. Both of those things either directly, or indirectly help America.

I also don't pretend that America doesn't look at Ukraine as a way to weaken Russia, and build an extremely valuable ally. The amount of animosity that Ukraine will hang onto for generations is something to be used for our own interest. We have an opportunity to build up an amazingly well placed strategic ally to counter Russia for the next century. We would be idiots to not capitalize on this.

An America first policy is obvious. That goes without saying. Just about every country had a similar philosophical approach to their own interests. That said, the secondary goal has always been to promote democracy. That's not always possible, and when that's not possible, the US has no qualms about supporting dictators or authoritarian governments. Ultimately, a given nation's people are going to decide whether they want that government to remain in power. It's simply a matter of time. Russia attempted to do this in Ukraine and the population eventually rejected and ousted the government installed by Russia. The same has happened in countries where we've tried installing governments contrary to the will of the people. Almost without exception, those efforts fail. Without winning the population, you're not going to succeed in influencing much in that country.

And while we've done our share of installing puppet regimes, I wouldn't say it's been all that successful. And it seems we've not done near as much of that in recent years.

 

[J-DONK]

An America first policy is obvious. That goes without saying. Just about every country had a similar philosophical approach to their own interests. That said, the secondary goal has always been to promote democracy. That's not always possible, and when that's not possible, the US has no qualms about supporting dictators or authoritarian governments. Ultimately, a given nation's people are going to decide whether they want that government to remain in power. It's simply a matter of time. Russia attempted to do this in Ukraine and the population eventually rejected and ousted the government installed by Russia. The same has happened in countries where we've tried installing governments contrary to the will of the people. Almost without exception, those efforts fail. Without winning the population, you're not going to succeed in influencing much in that country.

And while we've done our share of installing puppet regimes, I wouldn't say it's been all that successful. And it seems we've not done near as much of that in recent years.

If the secondary goal was the promote democracy, it was the red-headed step child of goals. We really didn't care in the cold war.

We have played our hand at regime change in recent years. Libya, and disposing of Gaddafi. Syria, and trying to get rid of Assad. You could take the pro-democracy argument with both countries. They are/were essentially dictators, with Syria having the thinnest veil of sham elections. A much bigger factor was each countries close ties to Russia.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The aid started when we realized they weren't going to get rolled. We started aid way before Bucha, or other human right abuses became apparent. This is consistent with what was going on there before. Our initial interest in Ukraine was to influence the country, and help them develop gas exports in the Black Sea. That would have weakened Russia.

I think the only convincing argument you could make for why America cares about this display of Russian cruelty vs other wars is tiktok.

Orly:
January, BEFORE THE INVASION

The State Department has approved requests from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to transfer U.S.-made weaponry to Ukraine, reflecting a growing urgency on NATO's eastern periphery to deter Russian aggression.

Why it matters: As much as the Ukrainian military has improved since 2014, it would still be no match for a full-scale Russian invasion. The U.S. and its allies are instead hoping that Western arms and training — in addition to the threat of crippling financial sanctions — will help deter Vladimir Putin from invading.

The big picture: The U.S. has provided over $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine over the past year, more than at any point since 2014, when the Russians steamrolled their way into Crimea. President Biden also authorized an additional $200 million in December.

Who's arming Ukraine: U.S., U.K., Baltic states — but not Germany

The U.K. has undertaken a major airlift operation to supply missile launchers.

www.axios.com

US Air Force ramps up intel flights, weapons shipments to Ukraine

Flight trackers have spotted American Rivet Joint, Global Hawk, Reaper and Joint STARS aircraft, plus allied assets.

www.airforcetimes.com

You may not care, but as an American I Do care and I am relieved that our government has responded to this aggression, regardless of their reasoning. I truly believe that when we react to events such as this Russian invasion, the intensions are truly altruistic. Yes, they may take other factors into consideration but it would be reckless not to.

 

[zztop]

anywhoo about the Ukraine conflict:

(behind a paywall so i'll copy/paste some notable things here)

Russia bombards Kyiv during UN chief's visit

Russia launched missile strikes on Kyiv while Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, was visiting the city.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Ukrainian investigators have identified more than 8,000 cases of suspected war crimes since Russia's invasion, prosecutor general Iryna Venediktova told Germany's public broadcaster on Thursday.

"It's actually 8,600 cases only about war crimes, and more than 4,000 cases that are connected with war crimes," Venediktova told Deutsche Welle.

--
A British man has been killed in Ukraine and a second is missing, the Foreign Office has said.

It is understood that the pair were volunteer fighters supporting Ukrainian military against Russian forces.

Sky News has named the Briton who died as Scott Sibley, a veteran of the British armed forces.

--
Kyiv on Thursday said 45 Ukrainian soldiers and civilians captured by Russia had been released in a new prisoner exchange, without saying how many Russians were released.

"Another prisoner exchange has taken place. Today, 45 of our men were freed from Russian captivity," Iryna Vereshchuk, Ukraine's deputy prime minister, said in a statement on Telegram.

Among those released were 13 military officers and 20 soldiers as well as 12 civilians, she said.

--
Britain is expected to start sending anti-ship missiles to Ukraine after the Defence Secretary warned any blockade of the Black Sea could see increased food prices.

Brimstone missiles, in service with the RAF since 2005 and used extensively in Afghanistan, can be modified to target ships.

--
A puppet government in Russia-occupied Kherson said on Thursday it would switch the region’s payments to the ruble from May, in the strongest indication to date that Moscow is planning a long-term occupation of parts of Ukraine.

Russia took over the southern city of Kherson and parts of the surrounding region in the first week of the invasion.

RIA Novosti, Russia’s state-owned news agency, on Thursday quoted a Russia-appointed “official” saying the Kherson region will begin switching to rubles in its payments starting next month before fully discarding the Ukrainian currency in four months’ time.

 

[UriUT]

This is great news and very informative. Apparently Russian oil is not in demand and is selling at discounted prices.

Russia locks in a steady buyer of its oil, and Trafigura makes a profit by selling the oil at a slightly higher price to refiners and traders in Europe and Asia.

That recipe came undone when Russia invaded Ukraine. Global markets for Russia’s flagship Urals crude tanked, selling at roughly $30 dollar a barrel discount compared with Brent, the international benchmark. It usually sells for around the same amount.

Trafigura and the other middlemen struggled to find companies to sell to, particularly in the West. “Not many,” Mr. Weir said at a conference in late March when asked how many buyers there were for Russian oil.

They found takers farther afield. Cargoes that once headed to Europe instead traveled to markets such as India, which has avoided denouncing the war and scooped up Russian oil on the cheap.

 

[DaveXA]

If the secondary goal was the promote democracy, it was the red-headed step child of goals. We really didn't care in the cold war.

We have played our hand at regime change in recent years. Libya, and disposing of Gaddafi. Syria, and trying to get rid of Assad. You could take the pro-democracy argument with both countries. They are/were essentially dictators, with Syria having the thinnest veil of sham elections. A much bigger factor was each countries close ties to Russia.

Well, Gaddafi was a horrific dictator who brutalized his own people, so good riddance. Lybia is an interesting case study tho.

Syria was/is a muddled mess. We were better off just leaving Assad and Russia to their own devices there imo. I've talked with some Syrians and I've had some say that Assad isn't what he's been protrayed in the American media. But part of it is they have family who still live there, so idk if that has something to do with it. That was a few years ago, so the situation now may be much different.

 

[UriUT]

anywhoo about the Ukraine conflict:

(behind a paywall so i'll copy/paste some notable things here)

Russia bombards Kyiv during UN chief's visit

Russia launched missile strikes on Kyiv while Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, was visiting the city.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Ukrainian investigators have identified more than 8,000 cases of suspected war crimes since Russia's invasion, prosecutor general Iryna Venediktova told Germany's public broadcaster on Thursday.

"It's actually 8,600 cases only about war crimes, and more than 4,000 cases that are connected with war crimes," Venediktova told Deutsche Welle.

--
A British man has been killed in Ukraine and a second is missing, the Foreign Office has said.

It is understood that the pair were volunteer fighters supporting Ukrainian military against Russian forces.

Sky News has named the Briton who died as Scott Sibley, a veteran of the British armed forces.

--
Kyiv on Thursday said 45 Ukrainian soldiers and civilians captured by Russia had been released in a new prisoner exchange, without saying how many Russians were released.

"Another prisoner exchange has taken place. Today, 45 of our men were freed from Russian captivity," Iryna Vereshchuk, Ukraine's deputy prime minister, said in a statement on Telegram.

Among those released were 13 military officers and 20 soldiers as well as 12 civilians, she said.

--
Britain is expected to start sending anti-ship missiles to Ukraine after the Defence Secretary warned any blockade of the Black Sea could see increased food prices.

Brimstone missiles, in service with the RAF since 2005 and used extensively in Afghanistan, can be modified to target ships.

--
A puppet government in Russia-occupied Kherson said on Thursday it would switch the region’s payments to the ruble from May, in the strongest indication to date that Moscow is planning a long-term occupation of parts of Ukraine.

Russia took over the southern city of Kherson and parts of the surrounding region in the first week of the invasion.

RIA Novosti, Russia’s state-owned news agency, on Thursday quoted a Russia-appointed “official” saying the Kherson region will begin switching to rubles in its payments starting next month before fully discarding the Ukrainian currency in four months’ time.

When one views another as inferior, it is easier to have a Bucha.

Until the invasion began on Feb. 24, Kremlin statements challenged Ukraine’s right to govern what Mr. Putin described as historic Russian lands in so-called Novorossiya but grudgingly acknowledged the existence of a Ukrainian state. According to Russian propaganda, the problem was a Western-installed clique that supposedly seized power in 2014, and whose removal would be welcomed by ordinary Ukrainians yearning to resume their brotherly kinship with Russia.
Once the fierce Ukrainian resistance showed that hardly any Ukrainians greeted Russian soldiers as liberators, the tone shifted. Now Russian state media and official discourse argue that Ukraine and its culture must be simply wiped out—an idea that explains the killing spree in towns like Bucha during the Russian occupation.

 

[SaintForLife]

You have no argument if you think Russia influencing Ukraine for decades was fine. Also, it appears that overt actions like Presidential assassination attempts did more to turn the populous against Russia then any influence from America. How many times has America successfully caused a coup via soft power? Again, if America was so good at this, Cuba, and Venezuela would be capitalist countries.

You make this huge logical error that American influence is bad, and destabilizing in Ukraine. If Russia never touched that country. Right now, Ukraine would be whole, and their GDP would be higher via producing GAS exports in the Black Sea. That is NOT DESTABLIZATION. American influence would have helped Ukraine, and hurt Russia via less reliance on their oil/gas exports.

Are you willfully missing this basic point? I feel like everyone else in this thread understands that.

You seem like a pretty reasonable person so can you stop with the strawman? I never said anything about how Ukraine would be if Russia never touched them? Russia meddles in the counties around them, but what interests do the US have in Ukraine besides using them in a proxy war against Russia.

Can we stop meddling in other countries that aren't even close in vicinity to the US? It doesn't seen like we will ever stop.

 

[SaintForLife]

What the hell is your point? We already know all of that. Not one person here is denying that the US is complicit in engaging in shadow diplomacy, coups or proxy wars, often with disastrous consequences.

Again, keep your eye on the ball. The thread topic is the Russia Ukraine conflict. Ukraine is a sovereign country and Russia is responsible for attacking Ukraine...without provocation. The US along with a unified NATO is helping Ukraine defend themselves. Ukraine has asked the world to support them and many are stepping up to the plate. What Russia is doing is indefensible. Let's just start with that and we can address our shortcomings in another thread.

My point is that Ukraine should be viewed as the proxy war that it is for the US. Putin is 100% responsible for invading Ukraine and everything horrible that's happened since then. But if the US continued to poke the bear in Russia via Ukraine are we surprised that eventually Putin made his own move to counter what he claims is a threat at his border?

Russia was promised that NATO wouldn't expand any further west after the reunification of Germany. As bad as Putin is, it's pretty obvious that he sees the continued NATO expansion as a threat to him. How do you think the US would react if Russia put missiles in Canada and Mexico? We would rightly treat it as a provocative act.

I'm an anti-imperialist so I think the US and all countries should stop all the wars and conflicts and focus on protecting our country rather than meddle on other countries. I do think the US has done a lot of good, but over the last couple years of learning how the war & propaganda machines function I don't buy the supporting freedom argument as the main reasons for meddling in other countries.

 

[SaintForLife]

Know your sources:

John Pilger:

Seumas Milne:

I don't care to look any further into the other authors of the opinion pieces you provided as "whataboutisims" because it would be a further waste of my time and effort.

Yes, the US has attempted multiple regime changes and each time it has resulted in making matters worse. I have yet to see an example of the US outright invading a democratic nation and razing their cities to install a puppet regime.

They both said something about Russia that you don't believe and that's your weak way to try to discredit them? You didn't even sat anything about their comments you posted.

The first instance was about a double agent. Despite Putin's history of killing his opponents do you think it's even possible that the UK could have killed their spy that was also working for the Russians?

The second one said For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment ... Its existence helped to drive up welfare standards in the west, boosted the anticolonial movement and provided a powerful counterweight to western global domination."

Are you claiming that's not true? Is it possible for Russia/Putin to have done plenty of bad things while also improving some parts of Russian life?

Also do you claim that Nazism and Communism are very similar?

 

[SaintForLife]

The Orange Revolution and the Maidan Parliament

In this speech, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Green Miller provides a first-hand account of the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine. Amb. Miller was an election observer for all three rounds of Ukraine's presidential election, including the December 26 election ordered by Ukraine's...

www.wilsoncenter.org

Here is a credible account of the Orange Revolution. Yes, very grassroots.

That's from the US Ambassador. If the US was involved in the coup do you think any US official would admit that?

 

[SaintForLife]

Do people really believe America has promoted democracy in the world? I don't know what you would call my world view, but I got a good chuckle at this. America is aiding Ukraine because doing so weakens Russia. Liberal ideals probably "sprung up" in Ukraine because the EU is next door. Also, America has disposed of so many democracies that were not friendly. You could probably make a list of 20-30 lawfully elected governments that we disposed of, and installed dictators. Off the top of my head: Iran, Korea, and half of LATAM all had dictators installed by America.

I find almost all of America's decisions make sense through the lens of containing perceived threats, and ensuring global trade. It has nothing to do with democracy, or liberal ideals.

Also as far as global trade, one of the bigger things that probably didn't even get posted here was this:

BlackRock's Larry Fink, who oversees $10 trillion, says Russia-Ukraine war is ending globalization

Larry Fink, CEO and chairman of the world's biggest asset manager, BlackRock, said Russia's invasion of Ukraine has ended globalization.

www.cnbc.com

I would also add enriching the military industrial complex. I mean the Secretary of Defense was literally on the board of Raytheon.