Very well summed up. Our news media, for once, (and rather unfortunately in this instance) have united in their condemnation of Russia as the instigator of this war, but as with any conflict, the "why" is important, and our media is blatantly ignoring the provocation that led to the Russian aggression. The US wouldn't have kept quiet and swallowed it if Russia had parked a couple of missiles on the Canadian or Mexican borders, so why would we expect Russia to behave any differently?
There was also something suspect in the manner in which our media came out with what I would normally imagine to be top-secret information about our intelligentsia gathering information about a possible Russian invasion. Both the US and UK media strangely bombarded its public with news of an impending invasion about a couple of weeks prior to the event, almost as if egging Putin to suit action to word. Maybe it's my inner conspiracy theorist working overtime, but I am still not sure of the real reason why the Western Bloc countries anticipated the event with such gusto, publicized it massively, yet apparently took no steps to forestall or prepare for the event, AND the timing seems suspect as well. Is this no more than an instance of deflecting public attention away from our internal crises (inflation, supply chain, The Laptop, etc) before a crucial midterm election, which then snowballed in unanticipated ways? After all, we are no stranger to such callous tactics. Think Clinton's impending impeachment and then inexplicably Operation Desert Storm that same month, Bush's horrendous approval rating and right away troops are sent to Iraq to recover WMDs that existed solely in Bush's imagination, with of course the added bonus of shareholders such as Cheney benefiting from the surge in defence stock prices.
Something smells rotten in the state of Denmark...
The U.S. called out the impending investigation in an attempt to urge preparations for it (both inside and outside Ukraine) and to line up opposition against it. I'm not sure what else you expected/wanted the U.S. to do early this year.
Meanwhile, Operation Desert Storm happened under George (H.W.) Bush (not Clinton) and at the time W. ordered the invasion of Iraq his approval ratings were sky high; it was after 9-11 and the invasion of Afghanistan.
Sure, one reason for that veritable storm of publicity could have been to garner support among other nations, but one can gain support in other ways without letting the world and his dog know about it; Putin ended up getting advance notice and preparing for war, and his preparation seems to have been way better, which our intelligentsia should have anticipated, but didn't. Sanctions have failed, bank freezes have failed, trade embargos have failed, so clearly the support of other nations didn't have the desired effect, and actually even rebounded in some cases.
As for Bush, there have been large sections of the population who have always viewed him as an intellectual zero whose election win was somewhat suspect, and one who lived under the shadow of his father. So his decision could have stemmed from a desire to appear leader-like and prove his naysayers wrong. Another reason put forth by many is that he was obsessed with a personal vendetta against Saddam. That reason makes it even worse. For him to (ab)use the Office of the President for personal revenge, at the cost of so many lives and resources, isn't the act of a leader.
Well, all of this is hearsay and I guess there is no way to definitely know what the reasons were, but it does seem as if our presidents and our political elite are not above using the the army and the excuse of war for personal gain.
So with that said, I must admit I have plenty of doubts about the origins of this latest conflict.
To add to it, it does seem as if our attention is constantly being deflected by major news, only for it to fizzle out like a damp squib in less than a month, until the next big event. This Russia-Ukraine conflict, the monkey pox, the MAL raid, all these news items seem to have gone off the boil though they were huge at the time, and it seems weird. With each major "crisis", since air-time is finite, I have noticed that there is less and less talk about supply chains and inflation and the dreaded laptop.
Very well summed up. Our news media, for once, (and rather unfortunately in this instance) have united in their condemnation of Russia as the instigator of this war, but as with any conflict, the "why" is important, and our media is blatantly ignoring the provocation that led to the Russian aggression. The US wouldn't have kept quiet and swallowed it if Russia had parked a couple of missiles on the Canadian or Mexican borders, so why would we expect Russia to behave any differently?
There was also something suspect in the manner in which our media came out with what I would normally imagine to be top-secret information about our intelligentsia gathering information about a possible Russian invasion. Both the US and UK media strangely bombarded its public with news of an impending invasion about a couple of weeks prior to the event, almost as if egging Putin to suit action to word. Maybe it's my inner conspiracy theorist working overtime, but I am still not sure of the real reason why the Western Bloc countries anticipated the event with such gusto, publicized it massively, yet apparently took no steps to forestall or prepare for the event, AND the timing seems suspect as well. Is this no more than an instance of deflecting public attention away from our internal crises (inflation, supply chain, The Laptop, etc) before a crucial midterm election, which then snowballed in unanticipated ways? After all, we are no stranger to such callous tactics. Think Clinton's impending impeachment and then inexplicably Operation Desert Storm that same month, Bush's horrendous approval rating and right away troops are sent to Iraq to recover WMDs that existed solely in Bush's imagination, with of course the added bonus of shareholders such as Cheney benefiting from the surge in defence stock prices.
Something smells rotten in the state of Denmark...
The U.S. called out the impending investigation in an attempt to urge preparations for it (both inside and outside Ukraine) and to line up opposition against it. I'm not sure what else you expected/wanted the U.S. to do early this year.
Meanwhile, Operation Desert Storm happened under George (H.W.) Bush (not Clinton) and at the time W. ordered the invasion of Iraq his approval ratings were sky high; it was after 9-11 and the invasion of Afghanistan.
My mistake! It was called Desert Fox, I believe?
Sure, one reason for that veritable storm of publicity could have been to garner support among other nations, but one can gain support in other ways without letting the world and his dog know about it; Putin ended up getting advance notice and preparing for war, and his preparation seems to have been way better, which our intelligentsia should have anticipated, but didn't. Sanctions have failed, bank freezes have failed, trade embargos have failed, so clearly the support of other nations didn't have the desired effect, and actually even rebounded in some cases.
As for Bush, there have been large sections of the population who have always viewed him as an intellectual zero whose election win was somewhat suspect, and one who lived under the shadow of his father. So his decision could have stemmed from a desire to appear leader-like and prove his naysayers wrong. Another reason put forth by many is that he was obsessed with a personal vendetta against Saddam. That reason makes it even worse. For him to (ab)use the Office of the President for personal revenge, at the cost of so many lives and resources, isn't the act of a leader.
Well, all of this is hearsay and I guess there is no way to definitely know what the reasons were, but it does seem as if our presidents and our political elite are not above using the the army and the excuse of war for personal gain.
So with that said, I must admit I have plenty of doubts about the origins of this latest conflict.
To add to it, it does seem as if our attention is constantly being deflected by major news, only for it to fizzle out like a damp squib in less than a month, until the next big event. This Russia-Ukraine conflict, the monkey pox, the MAL raid, all these news items seem to have gone off the boil though they were huge at the time, and it seems weird. With each major "crisis", since air-time is finite, I have noticed that there is less and less talk about supply chains and inflation and the dreaded laptop.
So who knows ?