Ruthless Criticism: The USA wants war!
Von webmaster • Jan. 15th, 2023 • Kategorie: InternationalRuthless Criticism: The USA wants war!
Or how else are we supposed to understand it when members of Congress declare on a daily basis that the war in Ukraine is “our” – that is, America’s – business? If at every opportunity they demand more and heavier weapons be sent from the USA to Ukraine, and this keeps being done on an increasing scale? If the official position of the government is to permanently support Ukraine in its ability to wage war for “as long as it takes” (President Biden)?
Of course, all this is done with the slogan: it’s about helping the Ukrainians. With what though?
Of course, the objective is to end the war. But what state wages war so that it never ends? The self-evident constraint holds for all of them and avowedly holds for America’s aid too: there will be an end only on “terms favorable to us” (Lindsey Graham). It is precisely the intention to get to the end as quickly as possible that make wars fierce and drags them out.
Of course, no one explicitly wants the casualties. But those on the enemy side do, even as many of them as possible; what else would the delivered weapons be good for? And the victims on one’s own side, the Ukrainian side in this case, are called heroes who died heroic deaths – is that anything but a yes to this?
What’s there to prove anyway? The USA has clearly stated its war aim: Russia must not win. It should lose in such a way that it is no longer capable of waging a war of the current type. To this end, the USA wants to contribute what is necessary and do what it can. Even if it takes years.
(…)
The US in its will to wage war is counting on the logic of military deterrence, which simply goes: If war is to be waged, then it must be waged to be won, and in the certainty that it can be done successfully. This requires the willingness and ability to control the “fortunes of war,” i.e., to always be one step ahead of the enemy in staging and escalating warfare. Anyone who wants an effective deterrence must not even get into the predicament of having to resort to the next highest caliber weapon out of a defensive position; in an emergency, he must put his enemy in this predicament; at least until he no longer wants to keep up, i.e. fight back; ultimately and in truth, until he can no longer defend himself effectively. The type of warfare that starts with nuclear battlefield weapons – those, that is, which destroy and render entire regions useless even as battlefields – should not lead to the final strategic exchange of strikes and is still rejected as impractical by the superpower and its main enemy because of its unsuitability for any imperialist purpose; consequently, they only calculate and prepare all the more carefully.
For the time being, the question that remains is how much the USA wants the war against Russia that it is helping wage in Ukraine. The question is probably already the answer: for the time being, as much as can be done in Ukraine.
Recommended reading:
The three reasons for the war in Ukraine https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/article/three-reasons-war-ukraine
Russia is struggling to assert itself as a strategic power — America is struggling to finish Russia off as a strategic power https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/article/ukraine-russia-nato
Editorial
https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/article/editorial
http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/
Siehe auch:
Deutschland will den Krieg (GS 4-22)
Oder wie soll man das sonst verstehen, wenn täglich von Mitgliedern der regierenden Koalition der Krieg in der Ukraine zu unserer, also Deutschlands Sache erklärt wird? Wenn zu jeder Gelegenheit die Entsendung von mehr und schwereren Waffen gefordert wird und das auch in steigendem Umfang stattfindet? Wenn es regierungsamtliche Linie ist, die Ukraine in ihrer Kriegsführung dauerhaft zu unterstützen, solange sie das braucht?
https://de.gegenstandpunkt.com/artikel/deutschland-will-den-krieg
