Winds of war

5 mins read
Russia moves blood supplies near Ukraine amid invasion fears: US officials

The crisis between BD-NATO circles and Russia over Ukraine is escalating. Whether these developments will lead to a devastating war is a matter of unease. Different assessments.

Some circles say that the parties cannot afford to fight because of their weapons capabilities; He claims that at some point they’ll find a way to compromise. Those who defend this based on inferences made through political inferences make statements that cool the hearts of the public. They suggest that the Cuban missile crisis of the 1960s resulted in softening and peaceful coexistence (Coexistance Pacific). More pessimistic ones like me claim to be closer to war than ever before. The emphasis here is economic. In the 1960s, the world’s growth rates were very stable. These rates did not fall below 6% for nations in both camps. Financially, the Bretton Wood principles were valid. Yes, the proportional discipline between gold and the new reserve currency, the US Dollar, was relaxed; But it was still being redected somehow. And yet mediocre was not a patron of war. It’s hard to say the same for today. The heavy production losses that have produced famine connotations and the break-up of their supply chains, the unimaginable deficit between financial assets and real production, growing unemployment, rising inflation, etc. require a very different context to the Ukrainian tensions.

Diplomacy is a very valuable civil gain. Diplomats, of course, will work to the end. But the phenomenon that increases the chances of success of diplomacy is the existence of a realpolitik plane. Here, the parties sit at the table, risking mutually diminishing. However, on the Ukraine issue, the picture is quite different. U.S.-NATO circles are morally political and Russia is realpolitik. The West emphasizes the right of nations to commit their own destiny through the Wilson Principles and insists that participation decisions expanding NATO cannot be prevented. Russia, on the other hand, wants a commitment to limit this expansion in the former Soviet geography on a realpolitik basis. Apples and pears come together that don’t function as a collection. In this context, diplomacy is becoming harder to function. There’s an increasingly difficult stubbornness to solve.

I don’t think it’s pruding for this to come to this predicament. I think it was done deliberately, and the fâil is the Anglo-American world. As far as I can tell, this bloc has limited its reckoning with its main goal, China, to blockades. China’s closure seems to have created an environment conducive to this. The Angloammerican bloc is leaning towards Russia, which, in response to the EU’s singular whining, seems easier for them with its singular forces. I think their goal is to isolate China by bringing down Russia. China, on the other hand, has retreated to its corner, calculating that this showdown will have consequences that will wear both sides down. We can also assume that China’s decision to close with enough stockpiles for a long time is actually a response based on U.S. pressure on itself in the China Sea, leaving the American domestic market dependent on Chinese products unsourd and condemning it to inflation.

Both the Anglo-American bloc and China want Russia to put its hand on the trigger, albeit on different and expectations. The first is direct; the other is indirectly. To bring Russia into war, to allow it to consume its resources here; Then they want to subject the most comprehensive embargo of the târi and throw it out of the system and make it collapse into it. Could his reserves of about $700 billion be enough to keep Russia afloat? Russia appears to be tactically superior to the West, but strategically the situation is developing on the opposite axis. It’s a total jam. Either he surrenders, turns his back on China, integrates with the West, or he’s willing to unravel. It’s so dramatic. The third possibility is that he will risk an all-out and very bloody showdown. Which means the West is as much destroyed as it is.

technoscience.fikrikadim editorial analysis compilation

Fatal error: Uncaught TypeError: fclose(): Argument #1 ($stream) must be of type resource, bool given in /home/fikrikadim/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php:2386 Stack trace: #0 /home/fikrikadim/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php(2386): fclose(false) #1 /home/fikrikadim/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php(2146): wp_cache_get_ob('<!DOCTYPE html>...') #2 [internal function]: wp_cache_ob_callback('<!DOCTYPE html>...', 9) #3 /home/fikrikadim/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php(5420): ob_end_flush() #4 /home/fikrikadim/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php(324): wp_ob_end_flush_all('') #5 /home/fikrikadim/public_html/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php(348): WP_Hook->apply_filters('', Array) #6 /home/fikrikadim/public_html/wp-includes/plugin.php(517): WP_Hook->do_action(Array) #7 /home/fikrikadim/public_html/wp-includes/load.php(1270): do_action('shutdown') #8 [internal function]: shutdown_action_hook() #9 {main} thrown in /home/fikrikadim/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 2386