War is business, and business is booming for the MIC.
The thousands of young men sent into the meat grinder, who will never lay eyes on an “enemy” before being blown up by high-explosives, are less than ants under the feet of our billionaire MIC war profiteers.
And all in a war that we deliberately provoked. Russia even tried to join NATO, to really end the cold war once and for all, but was rebuffed.
The MIC needed an enemy to keep those war factories humming, so NATO marched east to the Russian border. Each new NATO country supplied by the American taxpayer with new Western MIC products.
At the same time, our billionaire class was busy off-shoring our consumer industries to Communist China, to increase their profits from that side of the world as well, building China into the behemoth that it is.
God help us.
“Russia even tried to join NATO, to really end the cold war once and for all, but was rebuffed.”
Again, you exaggerate and jump to conclusions. There was some casual chit-chat about what-ifs; but there was no serious discussion, and Russia never applied to join NATO. And the whole process of becoming a member of NATO begins with that application (and it is a rather complicated procedure from there, as certain criteria must be met, and a unanimous vote of all existing members must be achieved).
NATO and Russia did enter into some cooperative agreements, but as co-equal partners, and for the terms set forth in those agreements only. And both Russia and NATO wanted to keep it that way.
(Also, recall that in 1994 Russia created the CSTO
— comprised of former Soviet states — as an “eastern” and Russian-dominated alliance, but similar in function to NATO; but not in any way part of or aligned with NATO, except for a few very specific and limited agreements of mutual benefit.)
So, you see, Russia never TRIED to join NATO. And thus, Russia could not have been rebuffed (denied), unless you think not giving active encouragement is a rebuttal.
It’s kind of like a senior in high school wanting to go to the USMA (West Point), and even informally chatting about it with someone in the Commandant’s office, who describes the rigorous road one could expect to encounter; but never doing anything more than that (i.e., no filing of an application; no submission of scholastic records; no Congressional nomination; no formal interview, etc.).
You’d be more credible, perhaps, if you ditched hyperbole and sensationalism and alarmism and tried instead to stick to known facts and supportable conclusions. It would advance the discussion rather than derail it.
I’m hearing the US *must* have this victory, whatever “victory” means to NATO, because with a successful Russian liberation of Donbass and Lugansk(sp) to Russia would *end* NATO. (Trump would be pleased with that consequence.)