An Indian minister said this recently: "Iran oil is sanctioned, Russia has problems, Venezuela cannot supply its oil. Then the oil price will not be $200 - it will be $480"
And that's exactly situation US wants to create. Their oil must be the only oil that will be bought by the world.
Apparently, any country whose leadership doesn't yield to US interests is a dictator. Saudi is okay, but Iran isn't. There was a coup in Africa, but I guess US is already having its way there so it was okay. One more child was killed in Palestine last week, but Israel is a US ally so that doesn't matter. A woman was killed in Iran, not a US ally, so that was bad. Afghanistan is now run by Taliban, but I suppose US is okay with that though they were bad earlier. And many others I guess.
Unless US makes the blunder of entering the Ukraine war more openly, Russia is guaranteed to lose.
But Ukraine is going to lose more than Russia.
Though everyone is now driven by hatred right now, realization will follow later.
No country was 'helped' by big powers like US and ended up getting better.
Look at Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
They ended up getting wrecked or becoming client states or both.
Who benefits from ongoing war in europe?
It's not the common citizen.
What did the war bring about?
1. oil prices are up
2. war machine sales are up
3. new oil markets are extraobritant selling price
4. eu more subservient to us financial interests
5. politicians have something to yap about to divert people's attention
6. profiteering businesses contribute to next election campaigns
And who must it be who benefit from this?
Bureaucracy and businessmen of the US doesn't like strong political leaders. Even for their own country. Because strong leaders are bad for business.
War machinery sales are significantly enhanced by wars.
And 'helpful' deliveries of war machineries are unlikely to come with no strings
attached.
Oil prices are through the roof.
Who suffers?
Who profits?
Businessmen, not politicians, rule over most countries.
And businessmen don't like strong government leaders.
So such leaders invariably end up being labeled bad.
No matter if they are really bad or not.
Because they are 'bad for business' since they tend to prioritize the interests of their country more than the other category of leaders.
Some things to look over to understand some of the meaning of the current Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ
Putin's 2007 Munich speech: couldn't find any complete video of this on youtube. It used to exist, but maybe war made them take it down
BBC documentary: Putin, Russia and the West: difficult to find much about this on youtube now I think
Look at it without being prejudiced by the perceived/real political inclinations of the people speaking.
Think for yourselves, and see.
People of Ukraine (not its government) are the only group who are guaranteed to
lose no matter which side wins in the war.
And as long as US doesn't overtly participate with its military, they are
guaranteed to win one way or the other.
This war is about money, not ideologies or people, despite all the PR and virtue
signalling.
Aim of US is to weaken Russia, gain oil markets, provide something that the
politicians can blame on for anything and everything, etc, etc.
Aim of Russia is to have influence in Ukraine.
Ukraine is being used by the US and somehow the Ukrainian goverment finds it fit to allow themselves to be used.
EU has become a patsy of US. Germany needs the oil, but because of US pressure it can't get the Russian oil. American oil is good though.
Taliban used to be bad, but now they are okay.
Palestinian people seem to get hurt by Isreali police, but that's also okay.
All eyes on Russia-Ukraine.
Pure politics.
This is the essence of most US Foreign Policy: _Kissinger, “For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.”_
Banning/sanctioning anything Russian is like the latest trend.
Most of it appears to be virtue signaling.
Free speech includes freedom of speech for people you disagree with as well.
Banning of Russian media outlets is suggestive.
Even if they are spewing out propaganda.
But propaganda machines exist in both sides.
Why ban only those of one side?
Who draws the line between 'misinformation' and 'real information'?
Is it, "If it's favorable to us, it's good information"?
Russia-Ukraine conflict oversimplified:
Stage set by: US
Direct action initiated by: Russia
Pawn: Ukraine gov
Suffering: People of Ukrain (and rest of the world)
Target: Oil market, war machinery sales, money, money, money
Russia could hardly be expected to sit around when a hosile military alliance threatened to come to its doorstep.
Putin repeatedly warned against it. Especially since his 2007 Munich speech.
