(Posted: 3/21/22 GMT)

The west is supplying weapons to help them keep their freedom.

I'm sorry but it is ridiculous notion to suggest altruistic reasons for mostly US supplied/funded weapons to a European country with an unequaled depth of corruption, a well-documented connection to western political money laundering, and its strategic location with land and sea access to a large global power that owns and controls a massive wealth of still largely untapped natural resources... (especially considering that it remains one of the last holdouts on the planet to not roll over and give up its own national sovereignty or traditional culture to a group of globally-minded mafia dons intent on taking over the entire fucking planet). <--Period.

That's the reality I see at play here. It's been many many years since I was gullible to believe that the US was just protecting some other country's freedom or protecting democracy. Call me jaded or betrayed too many times, but those platitudes are better employed by TikTok influencers these days, IMO. What a silly notion, especially to be 30 or 40 or 50 years of age and still buy what is being sold in order to manufacture your consent. But if you want to be on team Soros/Schwab/Clinton and the rest of the usual comic-book-level villains, go right ahead. I know time will vindicate my stance and I have never been one to alter my sincere views just to fit in. I'd rather sit alone on the other side of the room and wait. Just how I am. Nothing personal.

Truth be told, I don't even see this conflict as Ukraine vs. Russia, but if that's how others insist on framing it, then they look like fools to me, sorry. This is a proxy war to further weaken a sovereign nation and take over its massive untapped wealth and huge land mass. How? By reneging on its treaties to not expand NATO to Russia's western borders. By supporting yet another political coup to oust an elected leader and replace him. To immediately dump weapons on them. To retool old Soviet bioweapons labs for activities that were illegal to do in the US (gee, sound familiar?).

The US defense market is irrelevant to whether to whether it is right or wrong for Ukraine to defend itself.

The US "defense" market was dumping "offensive" weapons onto Ukraine for years. They used these weapons to target their own citizens in the Donbass. They used them to stupidly shoot down a commercial airliner because their drunken (cheers) undisciplined soldiers didn't have the training to identify civilian vs. military aircraft. They were about to try and seize Russia's naval port in Sevastopol, vital to Russia's own security (and a big prize for the US to be rid of). So the US military industrial complex does play a role in these things. They just gifted.. 30 billion dollars?.. worth of modern equipment to the Taliban. Does anyone really think that won't change the likelihood of future conflict in that region? How many places do we need to keep dumping arms for it to finally matter what the people there do?

Still irrelevant to whether Ukraine has a right to defend itself.

That statement itself is irrelevant. You are putting words in my mouth. All the NATO countries that now want protection from bad memories left over from WWII should have been paying their agreed share of the collective defense bills all these years, no? You are correct. They were booing Trump for daring to bring up the topic. Now where are they? Demanding more help from the US. You are correct, it had nothing to do with Ukraine deciding its own self-defense path.

Are you sure he wants the west to go to war with Russia? Supplying weapons is not the same thing as declaring war.

Trump? Uhh, no. In fact, I think he was thwarted from having a detente meeting with Putin to deescalate tensions, exactly because other powerful figures in the West didn't WANT that deescalation. It's why they created pee-pee-gate and all the other Russian collusion lies with their 3-letter agencies getting in on the fun. Wouldn't it have been nice if they could have made a deal beneficial to all. Wish I could have seen how that played out.

No, I was saying it's ironic all these little countries (as well as wealthy Germany for that matter) were not paying what they agreed to pay all those years for NATO defense, in some cases still not doing so after agreeing to start doing so (Germany), and now suddenly declare they need the US to come in and save them.

Supplying weapons is the same thing as starting a proxy war. Just look at what the US did in the Iran-Iraq conflict that slogged on for years. We were defending Iraq of course! We supplied Iraq with all those weapons because we were pissed Iran overthrew our Shah, and we sat back and watched them bludgeon one another for years while the arms and munitions stock prices made people back at home a pretty penny. I'm not particularly fond of either country myself. My point is that supplying arms doesn't necessarily mean helping the cause of freedom and democracy. Sometimes it just means a money pit where shady politicians and corporations can do lots of deals and money laundering while others keep fighting way longer than they otherwise would have. That's what we are facing here, in my honest personal opinion that I can so far still express.

You sound like the teacher who says if you punch the bully when he takes the lunch money then it's your fault not the bully's.

No, I'm the teacher who breaks it to you that your presumed friend took your lunch money out of your locker during gym class, and you are now punching the wrong person while your "friend" eggs you on and snickers at how badly you are going to get your clock cleaned by that very big kid.

Ukraine has a right to choose for themselves. If their people want to join NATO or Europe or whatever it is their right. That does not mean Russia gets the right to just start killing them and taking their country because they got offended at some action that an independent democracy did.

I don't know where you live, but for the sake of my point, let's just go with the US. I hope you'd see things the same way if a foreign nation started dumping arms on your border with Mexico (seems it already happened once with Cuba). At the same time, they have helped orchestrate a coup to overthrow their democratically elected Mexican president with one who is more sympathetic to their views and wishes. Would you still assert the same thing with only the names of the countries changed? You might, but you'd also be able to see why this became a problem for your country, or why your country would eventually invade when diplomatic demands were summarily ignored. You would see why it could happen, even if you disagreed with doing so.

That's what I see taking place. I cannot simplify it down to the way you expressed what you see and still call such a view rational or informed. Just like your example of someone punching a bully in the nose, I can't ignore all the events leading up to it. "Teacher! He just punched that kid in the nose for NO REASON!" Are you really going to take that explanation at face value, Mr. Johnson, the math teacher?

CNN/FOX/BBC/CBC/DW/et al... all hope that you do.