Capitalists hate inflation. How do you not know that?

I’m afraid Streetlight is right on this one. There’s one rule about capital and big money. It doesn’t matter what’s happening if it’s up, or down, inflation, interest rates, etc etc. It’s always good news and more profit. It’s those who don’t have capital, or know how to use it who lose out.

It's not that trivially simple. Big capital can get unequivocally fucked over too by changes in monetary and fiscal policy, which is why they're so active in trying to control it. If someone wants to start a thread I'll contribute but let's not go too far off topic here.

I meant high inflation.

Sucks to be bombed.

Inside Zelensky's World (Apr 28, 2022)

(article cached by google, in case you hit a paywall)

, I don't think you quite caught my meaning, but, no matter.

I don't think you quite caught my meaning — jorndoe

You might want to try writing in entire paragraphs, in furtherance of that objective, perhaps some actual grammar, maybe - dare I say it - some actual syntactic relationship between your sententious quips.

It's not that trivially simple. Big capital can get unequivocally fucked over too by changes in monetary and fiscal policy, which is why they're so active in trying to control it. If someone wants to start a thread I'll contribute but let's not go too far off topic here.

Yes that’s probably why capital tries to influence policy. Also economic shock is problematic. I’ll leave it there.

I meant high inflation.

Agreed, like the high inflation in Russia in the late 1990’s to bring it back on topic. When this happened in Russia whoever owned large assets which used to be owned by the state remained wealthy by acquiring those assets and everyone else became extremely poor.

We know now that the US intelligence cartel had clear vision into Russia's plans to launch this invasion, which means they also knew how to prevent it. A few low-cost maneuvers like promising not to add Ukraine to NATO as well as promising Zelensky that the US would protect him and his government from the violent fascist factions who were threatening to kill him if he honored the Minsk agreements and made peace with Russia as Ukrainians elected him to do. That's all it would have taken.

This is the premise of the whole article and it is blatantly false. The US could not have stopped the invasion. Just because you know something is brewing, doesn't mean you can stop it.

Thankfully, propositions are not rendered false by your inability to comprehend them.

Ms. Johnstone puts two and two together for the slow ones at the back.

First Mearsheimer...

If you were going to shut down the conflict in Ukraine, you had to implement Minsk II. And Minsk II meant giving the Russian-speaking and the ethnic Russian population in the easternmost part of Ukraine, the Donbas region, a significant amount of autonomy, and you had to make the Russian language an official language of Ukraine.

I think Zelensky found out very quickly that because of the Ukrainian right, it was impossible to implement Minsk II. Therefore even though the French and the Germans, and of course the Russians were very interested in making Minsk II work, because they wanted to shut down the crisis, they couldn't do it. In other words, the Ukrainian right was able to stymie Zelensky on that front.

Then Maté...

In April 2019, Zelensky was elected with an overwhelming 73% of the vote on a promise to turn the tide. In his inaugural address the next month, Zelensky declared that he was "not afraid to lose my own popularity, my ratings," and was "prepared to give up my own position – as long as peace arrives."

But Ukraine's powerful far-right and neo-Nazi militias made clear to Zelensky that reaching peace in the Donbas would have a much higher cost.

"No, he would lose his life," Right Sector co-founder Dmytro Anatoliyovych Yarosh, then the commander of the Ukrainian Volunteer Army, responded one week after Zelensky's inaugural speech. "He will hang on some tree on Khreshchatyk - if he betrays Ukraine and those people who died in the Revolution and the War."

...finally Stephen Cohen

Zelensky cannot go forward as I’ve explained. I mean, his life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine, he can’t go forward with full peace negotiations with Russia, with Putin, unless America has his back. Maybe that won’t be enough, but unless the White House encourages this diplomacy, Zelensky has no chance of negotiating an end to the war, so the stakes are enormously high.

It's not rocket science.

But of course, if some nobody off of the internet thinks it's nonsense, well...

For the even slower.

A failure to implement peace agreements tends to lead to a lack of agreement about a state of peace.

Of course, all of this culpability goes away if Ukraine doesn't actually have a powerful far-right movement, the US are once more blameless. Now, where have I heard people pushing that narrative before...?

In Putin’s head;

“ I want to bring Ukraine under my control, I know I’ll send in infiltrators to agitate, destabilise the political situation and then I can mount a special operation to liberate the Ukrainians from their descent into political turmoil.”

The trouble is when it happens in more than one place, it becomes repetitive.

The US could not have stopped the invasion. Just because you know something is brewing, doesn't mean you can stop it. — Olivier5

I think the US surely could have prevented the invasion, by submitting to Russia's demands, and pressuring Ukraine, and all NATO countries to submit to Russia's demands. But we do not know the full scope of Russia's demands. On the surface it appeared as the demand that Ukraine stays out of NATO, but I'm sure it wasn't so simple, and there was much more below the surface. So the issue of whether it would have been wise for the US to collaborate with Russia, and prevent the invasion, is another question altogether, regardless of any far-right extremism which Isaac mentions (which is really irrelevant as an internal matter).

I think the US surely could have prevented the invasion, by submitting to Russia's demands, and pressuring Ukraine, and all NATO countries to submit to Russia's demands. But we do not know the full scope of Russia's demands. — Metaphysician Undercover

We do know, at least partly.

Russia wanted NATO to withdraw to 1999 lines, hence starting from Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, would be countries (and all later ones) where Western NATO forces shouldn't practice or do anything. Hence for NATO to basically kick out 14 countries, because Putin's Russia otherwise feels threatened.

And when it comes to Ukraine, in the end Putin wasn't at all interested in the Minsk II agreements. After all, he recognized Donetsk and Donbass and stated clearly he wasn't interested in the process anymore:

(22.2.2022) Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday the Minsk Agreement on the Ukrainian settlement ceased to exist when Russia recognized Ukraine's breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states.

Speaking at a news conference in Moscow, Putin said Russia had struggled for eight years for the implementation of the accord while the Ukrainian authorities had stalled them.

"Now the Minsk agreements do not exist. Why should we implement them if we recognize the independence of these entities?" he questioned.

Of course, from the Ukrainian view Russia had already annexed Crimea and was asking even more, so at least to me it's understandable that they didn't trust much the obvious salami-tactics. Putin had made it quite clear what he thinks of Ukraine and what plans he had for it. And this was from the Russian playbook where they have first their proxies and then act as mediators or "peacekeepers", who apparently are quick to come to the defense of their proxy forces, if they are threatened.

Of course, people who don't think exactly like you MUST be "deranged"! :rofl: — Apollodorus

Of course, if you say so and rofl about it, it MUST be certainly true then! :rofl:

As for you being a “philosopher”, if you are one, you must be of the unthinking type because all you seem to be doing is recycle the infantile CIA agitprop spouted by the NATO Troll and his alter ego. — Apollodorus

Ditto, to a deranged mind, I can seem lots of things.

In any case, you obviously haven’t followed the discussion because your fabricated straw arguments are totally irrelevant and have not an ounce of merit to them. — Apollodorus

Which straw man arguments?!

It ought to be obvious that saying that Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine, does NOT make me pro-Russian. Territorial concessions have been suggested as a solution by Western analysts and even Zelensky has indicated that he is "willing to negotiate". So, I don't think it is that "deranged" at all. — Apollodorus

What on earth did you just write?!
First of all, I didn’t claim you look “deranged” in relation to your claim that “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”. Your preposterous way of addressing my comments and related hysterical reactions are enough evidence for suspecting that there is something seriously off with you.
Second, if “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”, how come that Russia “invaded” and “annexed” something that already belonged to them?! On the other side if “Crimea belongs to Russia” is a legitimacy claim to ideologically justify “invasion” and “annexation” then it ought to be obvious that this is a pro-Russian claim. And as long as you believe in it, then yes it obviously makes you obviously pro-Russian. Obviously.
Third, if that was an argument in support of your claim “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”, then it is clearly a non sequitur. Making territorial concessions to Russia, doesn’t necessarily validate the pre-conception that those territories belong to Russia, it could just grant a legal status to an illegal status quo for the sake of ending a horrible war.
Not to mention that the reference to Zelensky "willing to negotiate” about territorial concessions in the links you reported doesn’t equate at all to acknowledging that “Crimea belongs to Russia and not to Ukraine”:
Ukraine is ready to hold a dialogue with Russia on security guarantees, on the future of the occupied territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Crimea, but is not ready to capitulate. This was stated by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an interview for ABC News. […] As for the demands put forward by the Russian authorities, in particular regarding the recognition of the independence of the occupied territories of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, the Head of State noted that a compromise is possible on this point.
"It is important to me how people who want to be part of Ukraine will live there. I am interested in the opinion of those who see themselves as citizens of the Russian Federation. However, we must discuss this issue. As well as compromises on Crimea. We cannot recognize that Crimea is the territory of Russia. I think it will be difficult for Russia to recognize that this is the territory of Ukraine. I think we are smart enough to ensure that the decision on these two issues does not cause any revolutions within societies, so that people are satisfied with this decision: both those who live in those territories and those who live in Ukraine," said Volodymyr Zelenskyy and added that before the occupation these territories were part of Ukraine .
And not to mention that, during the referendum for independence, after the collapse of Soviet Union Crimea voted for their independence from Russia: “Much of the rest of the republic has ties going back three centuries to Russia. But even in the Crimea, where a strong sense of identity prevails among a sizable number of people of non-Ukrainian heritage, the result was 54 percent for independence”, so no matter if, according to your claim, Crimea belonged to Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/03/world/ex-communist-wins-in-ukraine-yeltsin-recognizes-independence.html

I think even the ignorant and the uneducated can see that I’m simply applying the general principle that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. — Apollodorus

Unfortunately educated people can also see that “ownership”, as a juridical notion, presupposes an undisputed judicial authority ruling over those territories to assess ownership claims, while if the judicial authority ruling over those territories is disputed for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons, then… they are disputed for ideological and/or geopolitical reasons, so Crimea belongs to Ukraine or Russia depending on which competing party one sides with, and each competing party could accuse the other of violating the “rightful ownership” over their territory.
And concerning the judicial dispute relevant in this war, take into account that there are 2 treaties between Russia and Ukraine (not “alleged” and arguably irrelevant promises made under the table) where Russia acknowledged the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine prior to the annexation of Crimea:
Belovezh Accords (1991) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezh_Accords
Budapest Memorandum (1994) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Likewise, being against imperialism means being against imperialism, nothing more and nothing less. — Apollodorus

Well it depends on what you mean by “imperialism”. For example, here is the definition from Wikipedia: Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military or economic or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent's foreign policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
This definition seems to apply to both Russia (for the Russian direct territorial acquisition of the Ukrainian Crimea and political control over Kiev’s government) and the US (for the American political control over the current Ukrainian government) wrt Ukraine. So, according to this definition and your claim, you should be equally against both (including the annexation of Crimea by Russia and any Russian puppet governments in Ukraine).

Plus, I’ve asked the NATO jihadis many times what they would do if they were in Russia’s shoes. I never got even one single answer. — Apollodorus

No wonder, that’s a tough question even for experts, I guess. But there are things that may come to mind for a starter. Considering the decline of NATO (given the role of Trump’s administration, who might run for a second mandate, and Macron’s ambition in accelerating this decline), the strong economic ties between Russia and European countries (especially Germany) and the economic leverage over Ukraine (thanks to the North Stream), Russia could have negotiated:

• postponing the entrance of Ukraine to NATO as far as possible (likely after the end of Putin’s government, say 2050), even make it conditional on the prior entrance of Ukraine to the EU
• stronger economic and diplomatic ties with European countries
• specific political agreements with NATO countries to ensure the autonomy of Crimea and the Donbas regions (on the ground of the ultra-nationalist propaganda and the US role in ousting a pro-Russian government in Ukraine), and the special status of Sevastopol in hosting the Black Sea Fleet, and made it conditional on specific military agreements with the US on their presence in Ukrainian territory and the Black Sea, while acknowledging some negotiation role to China and India as international mediators/guarantors.

This would have strengthen the international role of EU, China and India at the expense of NATO, let Russia gain time to become internationally stronger (by boosting their economy, modernising their arsenal, building their international alliance network), proved that Russia is not an aggressive foreign power as the US would have proved to be by rejecting those conditions, weakened the anti-Russian posture in the US establishment as well as NATO's raison d'etre (maybe with the help of Trump or the Republicans), and facilitated a shift of American rivalery from Russia to China.

As for nuclear weapons, you first claimed that “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West given its nuclear arsenal” (↪neomac) after which you backpedaled by admitting that “Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US” (↪neomac). Maybe Russia is going to indirectly attack the US by nuking Mexico or something? :rofl: — Apollodorus

You are conflating things I’ve said to address different points.
First of all, my Russian “direct existential threat to the West” claim was related to a list of conditions and not exclusively to Russian nuclear arsenal as your conveniently chopped quotation insinuates: “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West”. The truth condition of “if a then z”, is not the same of “if a and b and c and d and e and f and g, then z”. That’s a simple logic test that you failed and keep on failing.
Second, concerning the nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats I never backpedaled, instead I later specified what I was referring to and why it is important: At this point however the problem is on the Russian side given its updated nuclear doctrine under Putin, the Russian significantly larger arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons wrt the one available to the Westerners, the poor performance of the Russians in the battle field, and the risks of Russian mismanagement of “limiting” their tactical nuclear attacks (given the different command&control difficulties affecting the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons), combined with the imperative of Western countries to not look weak and divided in front of such terroristic blackmailing strategies and their capacity to effectively respond with conventional strikes to frustrate Russian “escalate to de-escalate” strategy. So the burden of a first strike with TNW is all and only on Russian shoulders: indeed they cornered themselves into bearing this burden given their nuclear doctrine, their investment in building up their TNW arsenal and their repeated nuclear threats.
Meanwhile you arbitrarily chopped the following quotation of mine to fabricate yet another straw man argument: the US used strategic nuclear weapons after being directly attacked by a non-nuclear power while Russia is a nuclear power that seems unlikely to directly attack the US knowing it could provoke a nuclear Armageddon at this point (and the same holds for the US)
In other words, at this point of the Ukrainian war, the risk of a Russian tactical nuclear strike has increased (as argued by too) and the West could be a likely target (in a mismanaged confrontation at the border with NATO countries) or in case of response from NATO countries to Russian first strike. And once the nukes have been unleashed things might spiral out of control.
Third, the reason for talking about a “direct” or “indirect” attack to the US is related to the claim that NATO is serving American self-interest (“NATO is an instrument of Atlanticism, i.e. primarily US self-interest”), so an attack to a NATO member is an attack to the American sphere of influence (indirect) not to American territory (direct).
Fourth, in the Budapest Memorandum that Russia signed there is this clause among others: The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.


Finally, concerning genesis and role of NATO, I won’t address the accuracy of your frantic historical reconstruction, but I find it clearly biased for 2 main reasons:
1. Even if one could argue that NATO guaranteed the subordination of European countries to American geopolitical interests, at the same time European countries (including the ones who lost during WW2) could enjoy economic prosperity, social-democratic institutions, and a long period of relative peace (BTW NATO expansion toward Ukraine might have as well served EU economic and energetic needs). And indeed for that reason NATO has become also a burden for the US (especially given the challenge to the Us supremacy coming from the emerging Chinese power).
2. Whatever the genesis of some institutions like NATO might be, that doesn’t preclude a possible unintended evolution that leads to its demise or radical revision from within. For example, even if United States of America were originally just a bunch of British colonies at some point they managed not only to become independent but also to supplant the British empire. By analogy, the European countries that could flourish under NATO umbrella for decades, may already nurture the seeds for a potential power competition between the US and Europe (an interesting reading about this is “A plan for a European Currency” (1969) by Robert A. Mundell, considered by many the father of the European Monetary Union) and the Ukrainian war might lead to some significant European defense awakening which the US doesn’t necessarily welcome as they officially claim to do (https://www.lawfareblog.com/german-conventional-deterrence-or-allied-integrated-deterrence-pick-one).

Maybe, LOL. And who are the good ones?

Today is Victory Day.

Agreed, like the high inflation in Russia in the late 1990’s to bring it back on topic. — Punshhh

It already was on topic Punshhh. The oil shock is expected to continue and worsen. This means the West is hurting Russia at the cost of hurting itself, which is something Putin spoke of.

So he knows, even if some of us are clueless.

I think the US surely could have prevented the invasion, by submitting to Russia's demands, and pressuring Ukraine, and all NATO countries to submit to Russia's demands. But we do not know the full scope of Russia's demands. — Metaphysician Undercover

Useful to keep in mind that, prior to Feb 24, the Russians were not threatening to invade Ukraine. They were just doing exercises, if you believed them. And thus they did not lay out precisely their demands for not invading Ukraine. Therefore the whole idea that NATO could have prevented the invasion by answering to such demands is baloney.

The oil shock is expected to continue and worsen.

Yes, but I don’t see a route to hyper inflation in NATO countries.

There were and still are many different Celtic nations. — Olivier5

Exactly, including in Britain. That’s why Churchill’s fairy tale about “the Anglo-Saxon race” of which he was trying to convince the Americans was just nonsense. But it looks like some people can’t sleep at night without their myths …. :smile:

I posted it partly because it seemed to resonate, and partly to troll people who have a negative image of either Belgium, the UK or France... Because representing them as three beautiful ladies is still a way of glorifying / beautifying these three nations of course, though not a traditional one. — Olivier5

“Beautiful England, France, and Belgium”? Problem is, beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder. And I’m not sure Africans, Indians, Native Americans, and other people from former colonies, would see it quite the same way as you.

And what about the competition in your “beauty contest”? “Ugly Germany and Russia”? IMO, it isn’t the people, but governments (or sections of the ruling classes) that are ugly when they turn into predatory entities that promote colonialism, slavery, and genocide.

But I agree that one can’t go wrong with cuisses de grenouille à la provençale. With a glass of good Chablis 1er cru .... :wink:

to a deranged mind, I can seem lots of things. — neomac

Dude, if I’m a “deranged Putinist” to you, you are a “deranged NATO Nazi” to me. So, basically, we have nothing to say to each other.

But this thread seems to be about the Ukraine business, not about you and me.

The fact is that I’ve criticized Russia extensively on other threads, including the crimes it has committed against its own people, the oligarchs, its collaboration with criminal dictatorships like Turkey, etc., etc. So, I think people who label me “pro-Russian” or “pro-Putin” are knowingly telling lies.

Moreover, as I said, this thread is about the Ukraine crisis or conflict. Like all conflicts, there are two sides to it. On one side there is Russia, on the other side is America (+ UK, NATO, EU, G7, etc.). If some criticize one side, others are entitled to criticize the other. Otherwise, the discussion becomes one-sided and, ultimately, no discussion at all.

Maybe that’s what you’re aiming at because despite calling yourself “philosopher”, you clearly see this as a “political discussion” (your own phrase!) and you sound very much like a political activist and not so much like a philosopher.

It’s entirely possible that @Manuel intended this as an anti-Russian thread, but I can see no suggestion in the OP that we aren’t allowed to criticize the other side in the conflict. On the contrary, the OP very clearly says "There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies". So, IMO it seems proper to investigate the maneuvering of the Western side.

I think my proposal that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners is pretty reasonable in a philosophical context. Yet you inexplicably react to it by cursing and getting mad:

no, I don’t have to be prepared to give Tibet back to the Tibetans, etc., (whatever the fuck that means) — neomac

For your information, it’s a well-known fact (a) that China invaded and annexed Tibet in 1951, (b) that Tibet is an occupied country, and (c) that there is an internationally acknowledged Tibetan government-in-exile based in India. In 1991, US President George Bush signed a Congressional Act that explicitly called Tibet "an occupied country", and identified the Dalai Lama and his administration as "Tibet's true representatives".

Brief Introduction to Tibetan Government In-Exile - The Office of Tibet

There is nothing “Putinist” or “deranged” about suggesting that Tibet should be returned to the ethnic Tibetans to whom it rightfully belongs. Nor is there anything unclear about the facts.

The same applies to the suggestion that Ukraine should make some territorial concessions to Russia if Russia’s claims are supported by the historical evidence, which I think they are, at least with regard to Crimea.

In fact, Crimea was "given" to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954. And there are a number of problems with this:

1. This was a matter of administration within the Soviet State, it was never expected to become an issue between an independent Ukraine and Russia.

2. There is no evidence that Khrushchev had the right to "give" Russian territory to Ukraine.

3. The inhabitants of Crimea were never asked.

4. A number of Western analysts have expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the transfer, even in the context of Soviet law.

5. Historically, except for the very brief Khrushchev-instigated episode whose legitimacy is contested (1991-2014, i.e., 23 years to be precise), Crimea NEVER belonged to Ukraine.

That was the point I was making, I never said Russia should invade the Baltic or Scandinavian countries and even less England or America. If that’s what you’re saying, then you’re making it up.

As for Zelensky, he seems to be another nutjob who's either confused or a liar. First he said everyone “should calm down as there wasn’t going to be any invasion”, then he said “WW3 has started” and later that “the end of the world has come”! One minute he says he “is ready to negotiate”, next minute he says he “will fight to the end”. One minute he says Ukrainian troops hiding in Mariupol “will never surrender”, next minute he says “Russia should let them go”. He accuses Germany of “financing Russia’s war” when many other countries have been and still are doing business with Russia. He accuses Russia of trying to “exterminate the Ukrainian people” when so far only a few thousand got killed out of 40 million (compare 150,000+ killed by America’s Iraq War), etc.

Incidentally, the Ukraine issue here seems to be approached exclusively from a Western-NATO, i.e., minority-interest angle. This is unacceptable because the West is a minority in the world. The overwhelming majority of the world population – Russia, China, India, Africa, the Arab World, Latin America – do NOT see the conflict the same way the West does. I see no logical reason why non-Western views should be suppressed on a discussion forum!

In sum, I really don’t know what you’re talking about. You seem to be afraid of Russia, but I honestly have no idea why. Maybe it’s some kind of phobia or paranoia. Or covid-19.

In any case, I don’t see how I can help you. So, I suggest you ask someone else. In the meantime, keep calm, try not to upset yourself (and others), and quietly hide under the bed until help arrives …. :grin:

And what about the competition in your “beauty contest”? “Ugly Germany and Russia”? — Apollodorus

Why yes, ugly Germany (for the allies) at the time, of course. Something like this:

IMO, it isn’t the people, but governments (or sections of the ruling classes) that are ugly when they turn into predatory entities that promote colonialism, slavery, and genocide.

Indeed, although there are always many willing accomplices in the wider population. It's not always clear-cut.

I agree. I think it's quite clear that the majority of Brits, French, and Belgians were quite happy with their countries invading and enslaving other nations:

British merchants were a significant force behind the Atlantic slave trade between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries.

As Britain rose in naval power and settled continental North America and some islands of the West Indies, they became the leading slave traders. At one stage the trade was the monopoly of the Royal Africa Company, operating out of London.

Atlantic Slave-Trade - Wikipedia

And according to some, America was built on slave-labor:

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia

I've no idea what you might be referring to here. Russia didn't 'send in' the far right agitators. The experts I cited are talking about US support for agitators, US plans to destabilise Ukraine....

The United States, for its part, were interested in forming a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia is on the rise, and were eager not to let it consolidate its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of the pro-Western forces in Ukraine would allow the U.S. to contain Russia.

Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d’etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.

US does not seek to “defeat” [these countries], but they need to create chaos there, to prevent them from getting too strong.

This from George Friedman, director of Stratfor, hardly an axe to grind against America.

But, as I said to @Olivier5, if some bloke off the internet thinks otherwise, then...

, you continue to describe Putin's regime like an ("immune"/"untouchable") automaton bombing-machine, and, in that context, Ukrainians as meek humans (in contrast) that should just surrender.
If that's so, then guess who's next?
The Ukrainians aren't that meek; not automatons either, but apparently they're not bending over; seems a bit like their hatred is solidifying (perhaps moving towards extreme). :fire:

Putin's (ambition)appliance already snagged Crimea; t'was a walk in the park; an hors d'oeuvre?
Ukrainian NATO membership was already conceded by both NATO and Ukraine (albeit not committed to official paper and stamped and sealed); bombs are still falling; OK, not going to cut it, not a peace-maker.
The de-Nazification thing was a hyperbole; heck, Putin has his own outnumbering those in Ukraine; doesn't look like a peace-maker.
Putin has shut down voices in Russia that he doesn't like — keep in mind, Putin's Russia is the invader doing the bombing here, that's what's being protected heavy-handedly.
Zelenskyy has tried to get together with Putin; not much luck there (now Zelenskyy's attempts at diplomacy are "farcical"? :grin:); apparently no peace-maker here per se, which would have been :up:.
Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and Putin wants everyone to know so, wants to deter/threaten/scare/bully everyone.
Taking Putin's ☢ posturing seriously made his regime the top immediate existential threat to a lot of people, against which any (supposed) existential threat to Russia pales in comparison.
Removal of every combatant in Ukraine and handing Putin the keys to Ukraine might well be a peace-maker; no guarantees, though, especially if Putin's intimidation strategy successful.
Besides, Putin's Russia pushing up against Moldova looks great on a map; Transnistria is already in the process of being "converted" (vaguely similar to Donbas).

:point: Maybe you have something in mind that would please the peace-gods? :victory:

Meanwhile, keeping the attacker occupied on multiple fronts (say, some sanctions here, some diplomacy there, some talk of Swedish/Finnish NATO membership, etc) is a traditional approach, while hoping peace can be reached.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/opinion/biden-ukraine-leaks.html
"The War Is Getting More Dangerous for America, and Biden Knows It"
(you can get around paywall by opening in incognito mode)

Yes and we see Putin pronouncing the truth in Red square today. Somehow it brought Nazis to mind.

"The War Is Getting More Dangerous for America, and Biden Knows It" — RogueAI

Hard to tell how much Old Joe Knows. His age is reportedly starting to show.

Yes, but I don’t see a route to hyper inflation in NATO countries. — Punshhh

You don't? The US is at full employment. As labor demands higher wages, capital has a choice: raise prices or take a hit. So they raise prices.

That was already happening before the oil shock. Doesn't that situation look unstable to you?