Ukraine looks pretty defeated to me. The difference is that Russia isn’t indiscriminately destroying every living think in Ukraine, they could have certainly leveled Kyiv in the first week if they were using US tactics.
Their war doctrine is also fundamentally different. Their goal is to grind down the AFU into collapse. At that point there won’t be a critical mass of people left in Ukraine who are willing to fight. And this necessarily takes time to do. US likes to do flashy shock and awe but then they have no plan for how to actually control the country after, hence why all their occupations end in utter disaster.
strategically the US benefits by creating chaos and disaster, particularly in the mid east. it allows easier control of petroresources through divide and conquer. america doesn’t suffer from being next to an open geopolitical wound - other nations do. I don’t think it’s accurate to describe previous US occupations as disasters, at least not strategically.
russia is in a different position - they have invaded a country right next door to them. it is in their strategic interest not to make ukraine a failed state. they still might, but their strategic interests are different.
They aren’t disasters in the short term, but long term every one of those has resulted in a huge wave of service members that come back heavily radicalized or very mentally ill or both, not to mention the anti Americanism that becomes mandatory in whatever political organism takes control after the US has to retreat.
It’s true the incentives for the US are different, and a lot of people line their pockets from the forever wars. They’re disasters for US as a country, but not for the oligarchs responsible for creating these disasters.
Ukraine looks pretty defeated to me. The difference is that Russia isn’t indiscriminately destroying every living think in Ukraine, they could have certainly leveled Kyiv in the first week if they were using US tactics.
Their war doctrine is also fundamentally different. Their goal is to grind down the AFU into collapse. At that point there won’t be a critical mass of people left in Ukraine who are willing to fight. And this necessarily takes time to do. US likes to do flashy shock and awe but then they have no plan for how to actually control the country after, hence why all their occupations end in utter disaster.
strategically the US benefits by creating chaos and disaster, particularly in the mid east. it allows easier control of petroresources through divide and conquer. america doesn’t suffer from being next to an open geopolitical wound - other nations do. I don’t think it’s accurate to describe previous US occupations as disasters, at least not strategically.
russia is in a different position - they have invaded a country right next door to them. it is in their strategic interest not to make ukraine a failed state. they still might, but their strategic interests are different.
They aren’t disasters in the short term, but long term every one of those has resulted in a huge wave of service members that come back heavily radicalized or very mentally ill or both, not to mention the anti Americanism that becomes mandatory in whatever political organism takes control after the US has to retreat.
Luigi notwithstanding, what you’re describing generally isn’t a problem for the bourgeoisie. Or it is a little, but it’s far outweighed by profits.
Yeah but all that chaos is good for the GDP so they love that shit.
It’s true the incentives for the US are different, and a lot of people line their pockets from the forever wars. They’re disasters for US as a country, but not for the oligarchs responsible for creating these disasters.