[adevx]

I see this mostly coming from US and UK based news outlets, and of course the White House. I have this nagging feeling the US really wants a proxy war in Ukraine for whatever reason. It only needs a trigger, like the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Whatever gets the ball rolling. I hope cooler heads will prevail.

[dragonwriter]

> I have this nagging feeling the US really wants a proxy war in Ukraine for whatever reason

For what reason? There's no upside for the US. Russia overtly wants a protected hegemonic sphere of influence in Eastern Europe — heck, it expressly uses the idea of such a fear as it's argument, and it's propaganda proxies invoke the idea of a parallel US sphere in North America as a defense — and overtly wants NATO not merely not to expand to include Ukraine but to withdraw troops (and demonstrate a lack of security commitment) to other Eastern European states to facilitate that hegemonic sphere.

Russia is the only side with anything to gain by war (establishing a Ukrainian puppet state) or it's threat (getting NATO to back off and enable Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe beyond Ukraine.)

It’s also the only side doing anything threatening. The US has moved forces too small to be anything but tripwire forces against conflict spilling out of Ukraine to other Eastern European allies, while pulling trainers and civilians out of Ukraine with the overt explanation that it is doing so because military intervention to extract them in the event of an invasion would lead to a world war. It is doing everything possible (including not mobilizing forces that would give it credible capacity to intervene) to indicate that it will not fight Russia, not only not aggressively, but also that it won't allow itself to be drawn into conflict if Russia invades Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, has stripped the entire country to deploy essentially the entire combat power of it's military exactly where you’d want it for an invasion of Ukraine, and unleashed propaganda about whose fault it will be if it chooses to use it.

It is pretty clear who wants war.

[adevx]

The US doesn't want a strong Russia. Looking at the US track record of invading Iraq, destabilize Lebanon and Yemen, I can see why Russia is protective of its borders.

"It’s also the only side doing anything threatening." NATO and US forces have been creeping up since 30 years and the buffer zone that once existed is pretty much gone short of Belarus. I'm not rooting for Russia but I can see why they are on edge given the history and tactics of the US.

There is often a complete lack of seeing things from the Russian perspective.

[salt-thrower]

To play the devil's advocate, if the US were to allow Ukraine to enter NATO, that would be just as "aggressive" from Russia's point of view as Russia projecting its influence further into Eastern Europe would be from a US perspective.

Also, the US always has a lot to gain through war, or even the threats thereof. Even though no war has been declared, loads of expensive military equipment has been sold and shipped to the front lines just because of this saber-rattling exercise. The revolving door between the boards of Raytheon and Lockheed, lobbyist groups, and the cabinets of elected politicians means someone in a position of power always stands to gain from keeping the arms trade rolling.

The corporate media has always played lackey to those interests, and this time is no different. That can be true AND the fact that Russia is behaving aggressively can also be true at the same time.

[nkurz]

>> I have this nagging feeling the US really wants a proxy war in Ukraine for whatever reason

> For what reason? There's no upside for the US.

No net upside probably, but there might be some small positives for the US. Here's an argument for one:

"The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It's About Germany"

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-crisis-in-ukraine-is-not-ab...

You might justifiably disagree with almost all the suppositions in this article, but I think it is correct to say that the US does not want the Nord Stream II pipeline to become operational. If Russia invades, the US would have a good excuse to block the pipeline a part of the imposed sanctions. I doubt the US policy is as focused on achieving this as the article implies, but it would be an upside.

[hulitu]

I heard that guns bring good profits.

[landemva]

The upside to USA is to distract from problems at home such as: soaring food prices, energy prices 5 year highs, soaring rent house prices, collapsing COVID lockdown narrative, ridiculous levels of govt debt, Pres polls in toilet with midterm elections approaching.

It's a great distraction.

[hackerbeat]

Lots of upsides for the US here: democracy vs. autocracy, oil fields, strategically important military base in Sevastopol, take a bite out of Russian/Soviet history, weaken Putin, expand sphere of influence (plus later NATO), and, most importantly, to get the money-making war machinery moving again - the country’s biggest industry.

[everybodyknows]

> It was is pretty clear who wants war.

No one, among the prime actors, wants war. What they all want is for the other side to back down.

The danger is that this doesn't happen before Putin runs out of non-military options. Doesn't happen before the ground turns to mud, troops get tired of sleeping in tents, fresh blood stocks go stale.

Either Zelenskyy or Biden needs to find his inner adult, and announce that Ukraine won't be joining NATO any time that's on his own watch. Soon.

[runnerup]

> It only needs a trigger, like the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

It’s really not the same at all. Even supposing the rest of what you said was true…all Russia needs to do is just: not invade a sovereign country.

They don’t have to prove a negative. They just have to not use their military to invade.

This isn’t an unfalsifiable causus belli like Iraqs WMDs.

[sschueller]

There are news hast currently talking about implementing sanctions already. Russia has not yet invaded but they are talking about imposing sanctions as of they did.

At this point it probably doesn't even mater if Russia invades, according to these news channels Russia will be sanctioned.

How do you find diplomatic solutions like that?

[sschueller]

I see this as well and I can't watch them at the moment.

The local Swiss news are more cautious as to what they say and there is also a feeling of that there is still hope of preventing this war.

Like all conflicts this is an extremely complex situation and the US painting it black and white is neither right nor a way to find a peaceful solution.

[dahdum]

I don't see the same thing as you. Everyone knows that NATO will deny Ukraine's application if they make one because it requires all 30 countries to accept it. Biden has slow rolled the process, publicly supporting their potential "application" but helping prevent them from doing so. France, Germany, and others are very hard no's as far as I remember. They're afraid to poke Russia and dislike Ukraine in general.

Whatever Putin's ultimate goals, I think NATO has already accepted they are fait accompli, but will still pump out some empty rhetoric to quell their conscience.

Any sanctions down the road will be a joke, Europe is too reliant on Russian gas to do more than sabre rattling.

[everybodyknows]

> France, Germany, and others are very hard no's ...

Is this on the record? Haven't heard them affirm it publicly.

[nix23]

>like the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

The not existing one you mean?

[lkxijlewlf]

What use is a war machine that is mostly idle? /sarcasm.