Яшка писал(а): ↑Чт мар 28, 2024 7:57 pm
Никому тут не нужен путинизм. Просто были проблемы поважнее - вот и прошляпили. Сейчас нужно ослаблять Россию всеми возможными способами. Один из них - втягивание в долгосрочную войну.
К сожалению, судьба Украины тут мало кого волнует. Доверия к Украине особого нет. Даш им оружие - завтра оно либо попадает в руки рашистам, либо будет продано на черном рынке. Поэтому и дают минимум, ровно столько сколько надо для ослабления России.
Согласна. Американцев волнуют заработки и отсутствие ядерной войны.
Фридман, который предсказывал войну с Украиной, её поглощение Россией и последующий развал, уже кропает статейки о будущих инвестициях в 1/6.
Извиняюсь за длинную цитату:
The Americans understood after the treatment of Germany following World War I that trying to crush a nation could cost the United States and the world a great deal, whereas rehabilitating the defeated helped to avoid wars of revenge while enhancing the global economic system. It also opened the door to military and political alliances. West Germany joined NATO, and Japan became a long-term American ally.
I have tried to show that the war has ended – in the sense that no one is in a position to achieve their goal – but that a peace settlement that sustains itself is extremely difficult. If the United States follows the World War II model in which, rather than demanding surrender, which is not possible for Moscow, it focuses on a relationship based on rebuilding rather than destroying Russia, it might withdraw from a war that is over, while the Russians might pursue their economic interest: developing an economy that places them in the top rank of nations.
Russia is filled with valuable natural resources, a workforce that requires training and an industrial plant that needs rebuilding. This would not be a government project beyond some encouragement, but an investment opportunity. The U.S. government did not create Toyota or Daimler-Benz. The strategy humanized barbaric enemies.
I am not by any means a pacifist, nor am I given to heartwarming fantasies. What I am doing is facing the fact that the United States is involved in a war that will not yield to common sense because of the reasonable fears of all sides. And I am reaching back to the lessons of World War II and how the U.S. treated its defeated enemies. Russia is not defeated and has the power to continue the war, even if it does not win. This is not in America’s interest, but turning Russia from an insecure enemy to an investment opportunity would be. And, of course, U.S. troops would remain in Europe for now, if needed.
There is nothing idealistic in this. It is simply the way American wars tend to end. Therefore, it is intended as a solution in the national interest. Whether it will be followed or anyone will agree is uncertain, but the question is: How many years is a war in gridlock worth?
