Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Sam Alvarez4 said:A 30-year-old daughter of Dugin was killed in a car explosion...
It’s still unclear if it was Ukrainians, or if Putin just missed his mark...

You're running a little late to the party, sister.😬>

Jessica Peterson2, have you actually sat down and read Dugin's Last War of the World Island yet?

gentlerider7 said:Jessica Peterson2, have you actually sat down and read Dugin's Last War of the World Island yet?

I haven't.
I tend to stick to a certain standard of mental hygiene: I wash my hands after using the restroom, I don't watch Russian television, and I certainly don't spend my time reading propaganda from the Russian Federation or any other similar "world."
Because of that, I was never really a good fit for that old "Russian Federation" thread (which has since been shut down).
I suppose I'm just primitive... as much as one can be. 🤷

Adam Lee13 said:Oh, please, try using your brain—are we talking about "revenue" or "earnings"??? And why on earth would you quote a third of my sentence just to dump a pile of unrelated nonsense on me? Actually, don't answer that; it was a rhetorical question.

What I said was perfectly clear: it isn't about the Americans caring about oil profits; it's about making sure production happens within their sphere of influence, which is always the goal. The money those oil producers make—which effectively offsets the trade deficit with the US—gets cycled right back through massive arms purchases and/or hundreds of billions of dollars from state sovereign wealth funds being poured into Western stocks, bonds, or banks.

So, spare me that "triggering wars" nonsense you're trying so hard to sound smart about, you little blowhard...

On May 20, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia's Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud signed a series of letters of intent for The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to purchase arms from the United States totaling US$110 billion immediately, and $350 billion over 10 years.

They are looking to buy $350 billion in weaponry over a decade, which is exactly how the US recaptures the trade deficit from the KSA and captures those oil profits.

EDIT: Since this little genius decided to google things, maybe he should have bothered to google that Lockheed Martin pulls $20 billion a year just from the F-35 alone. Totally irrelevant to the point, but I figured I'd say it before some other idiot jumps in to nitpick.

Jesus, what on earth happened to you to make you lash out like that?

Go ahead then, just keep being insulting and ignore the actual points the guy made.

I am sure you are just incredibly successful and a massive expert on the military-industrial complex in real life.

As far as I'm concerned, this "debate" is over.

It is truly unbelievable that anyone would react this aggressively to a single post on some insignificant forum.

Life must be tough for you, man.

Please, continue being our resident "expert."

P.S. And no, I absolutely do not confuse revenue with profit. You are totally right.

👎

P.P.S. For everyone else besides this "expert": a few years ago, I attended a lecture and panel discussion regarding the future and transformation of NATO. It was hosted by Stoltenberg's deputy along with a few other guys, including the commander of NATO's southern wing and some various washingtonski thing thank types. During that panel, they presented this specific data:

Today, Google could buy up the five largest defense contractors—companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing—and still have hundreds of millions of dollars left over to sit in the bank.

That really piqued my interest and made me start looking at things through a completely different lens.

George Robinson43 said:While gathering those facts, you seem to have misplaced about 60 billion dollars.
Actually, Lockheed Martin didn't bring in 6.3 billion; their revenue was closer to 67 billion.
The 6.3 billion figure refers to their profit.

That’s true. 🕺

Essentially, $6.7B represents the "annual net income."

Revenue:

https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quot...come-statement

It doesn't really change the core of my argument.

Well, I am not quite sure. Lockheed Martin brings in annual revenues that actually exceed the entire yearly military budget of the Russian Federation.

George Robinson43 said:Well, I am not quite sure. Lockheed Martin brings in annual revenues that actually exceed the entire yearly military budget of the Russian Federation.

And the total US national debt, too...😁

dustytiger8 said:The British Monarchy was a dictatorship!?

Okay... I think we’re talking past each other here. A monarchy is a monarchy, and a dictatorship is a dictatorship. A Monarch and a dictator aren't the same thing. Look at the Swedes, the Norwegians... people like that.

I asked about dictatorships. A dictator seizes power through violence and maintains it through violence. Primarily against their own people. A dictator secures support through fear, not through the actual consent or acceptance of the majority. That is how you distinguish a monarchy from a dictatorship.

So, in the last 200 years, which one of these "enlightened" dictators actually existed?

Jose Clark2 said:Why would a dictator necessarily take power by force? Is Kim Jong Un a dictator, or just a communist monarch who inherited his position without a violent takeover?

Listen to dustytiger8, he's making a good point. A monarch isn't the same as a dictator. Literally, the definition of a dictator is "a ruler with absolute power who took their position through the use of force."

dictator
/dɪkˈteɪtə/

a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.

That's why it's always been a thing for them to pose in military uniforms—because their power comes straight from military repression. (Think Pinochet, Franco, Castro, or Peron)

Jose Clark2 said:So, was terrorism the necessary response?

Forgive me, but where, precisely, did I ever state such a thing?

Anthony Hill5 said:Forgive me, but where, precisely, did I ever state such a thing?

Don't sweat it. Just more talk about Russian collateral damage—some kid who rushed straight off to U.S. Steel to play hero. The only real tragedy here is that her father wasn't driving the car, along with the President.

Jessica Peterson2 said:I haven't.
I tend to stick to a certain standard of mental hygiene: I wash my hands after using the restroom, I don't watch Russian television, and I certainly don't spend my time reading propaganda from the Russian Federation or any other similar "world."
Because of that, I was never really a good fit for that old "Russian Federation" thread (which has since been shut down).
I suppose I'm just primitive... as much as one can be. 🤷

Well, that was blunt.
👍

Dennis Price said:Don't sweat it. Just more talk about Russian collateral damage—some kid who rushed straight off to U.S. Steel to play hero. The only real tragedy here is that her father wasn't driving the car, along with the President.

Forgive me, but there is a distinction. There is one thing: being a journalist on the front lines and dying in combat. Then there is quite another: dying in an explosion involving a private vehicle far from the fighting. Most likely a mistake, and yet she still pushes the same agenda as her father.

Dennis Price said:Don't sweat it. Just more talk about Russian collateral damage—some kid who rushed straight off to U.S. Steel to play hero. The only real tragedy here is that her father wasn't driving the car, along with the President.

Her death was a tough pill to swallow for Mexicans and those obsessed with the Russian Federation.
Still, she is the daughter of their own guru—the very man dreaming of a Russian empire stretching all the way to the Atlantic.

When Ukrainians strike down warships or blow up ammunition depots inside the Russian Federation, or even hit targets in Crimea, suddenly it’s all just a "tragic accident." It’s a coincidence, or something just happened to catch fire—nobody ever points the finger at the Ukrainians. But the second Darya Dugina was killed? Oh, immediately everyone starts blaming Ukraine. That’s the clearest sign possible that they had absolutely nothing to do with it. They have much smarter operations to run and far more critical targets to hit. As for who actually pulled the trigger on her, I don't think we'll ever know, much like how the true perpetrators behind other high-profile hits in Russia always remain a mystery.

She didn't deserve to die, but there are others who deserve our mourning—thousands of young men (including her own countrymen) who were slaughtered in this war that she and her uncle so enthusiastically championed. She was nothing more than a war agitator. According to her, Ukrainian soldiers are "war criminals" who don't deserve to live, yet there she was, posing for photos in Mariupol right in front of U.S. Steel...

In a recent interview with the Russian channel 1RNK Dugina claimed that the atrocities committed during the Russian occupation of the Ukrainian city of Bucha were nothing more than American propaganda.

Jose Clark2 said:Forgive me, but there is a distinction. There is one thing: being a journalist on the front lines and dying in combat. Then there is quite another: dying in an explosion involving a private vehicle far from the fighting. Most likely a mistake, and yet she still pushes the same agenda as her father.

Seems like you haven't really done your homework on her life and work.

The international left-liberal trash on Twitter and Reddit is out here celebrating some terrorist act, killing some random girl who doesn't even matter.

I mean, let's be real, I bet 99% of them probably hadn't even heard of her or Dugina until today, right?!

There was a time when hardly anyone in America would shed a tear for someone like Mio Štula.

Jose Clark2 said:Most of human history didn't involve any semblance of democracy. The greatest milestones—organized empires, stable states, scientific breakthroughs—all happened under heavy-handed dictatorships. You can't run a functional democracy when surrounded by barbarians, much less with a population that's backwards and uneducated.

I love how some people are totally fine with a dictatorship if they actually like the guy in charge, but they'll start throwing fits the second the dictator doesn't share their specific ideology...
unhinged stuff...

Richard Wilson4 said:I love how some people are totally fine with a dictatorship if they actually like the guy in charge, but they'll start throwing fits the second the dictator doesn't share their specific ideology...
unhinged stuff...

Who says I’m advocating for a dictatorship? I am simply observing how things work—or rather, how they have functioned for most of our history. It is a matter of fact, regardless of my personal preferences.

Richard Wilson4 said:I love how some people are totally fine with a dictatorship if they actually like the guy in charge, but they'll start throwing fits the second the dictator doesn't share their specific ideology...
unhinged stuff...

So, let me get this straight... Pol Pot was actually a decent guy? He just got a little carried away—but then again, that was just the era we were living in, wasn't it? And as for Pinochet being some kind of monster—well, if you look at the actual numbers, he didn't take more lives during his entire reign than what those old regimes used to wipe out in a single afternoon. Is anyone actually paying attention to the scale of it all?