A Deeper Look Into The Ukraine War, And Conflict In General
Why did Russia invade Ukraine? You can point to many reasons - some concerning politics, history, culture, and territory, in addition to preventing NATO's expansion, and Putin wanting to reinstantiate the Soviet sphere of influence.
However, people hardly mention that Ukraine contains approximately 5% of the Earth's natural and mineral resources, including coal, oil, natural gas (2nd most in Europe, behind Russia), lithium (for batteries), iron ore (for industry), titanium (around 20% of proven world reserves, for aerospace), and gallium (2nd most in the world, used for electronics). In addition, Ukraine is also an incredibly rich country in agricultural terms - 1st in Europe for arable land, as well as containing 25% of the world's volume of black soil. This agricultural prowess has the capability of meeting the food needs of an estimated 600 million people. You can see how this could be a resource war, as well as a geopolitical conflict.
By knowing this, you can see why Russia would want this "ethnic Russia" land to be under their control, and also could provide explanations as to why the US in particular have been so bothered about Ukraine's borders, even more so than their own borders. The Biden family have a very long history with Ukraine, Hunter Biden did plenty of odd business in Ukraine, as well as China. There are many conflicts around the world, including the brutal Nagorno-Karabakh war between Azerbaijan and Armenia which ended recently, the Ethiopian, Libyan, and Mexican Civil Wars currently ongoing, but all the attention has been penned on Ukraine, maybe the resources there point to one of the reasons as to why the US are so bothered about it.
Immense resources translate to immense wealth - and power. Russia wants this, and so do Western nations and TNCs - including energy, mining, agricultural companies etc. Ukraine are not a rich or well-off country, it is not a democracy and has a long corrupt history, which is why Ukraine do not qualify for NATO in the first place, but the Ukrainian territory boasts excess resources that could be tapped into.
US military contractors - Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin corporations, are telling their investors that tensions are good for business, while the General Dynamics corporation boasts that past such disputes, the Orange Revolution in 2014 for example, have expanded their bottom line. This is not a coincidence, US officials have been stockpiling shares in fossil fuel and defence companies since January in anticipation of the Russian invasion - war and conflict makes money, and that is the precedence for these people. When a system benefits from war, you could argue that that system is pro-warfare. Whether you like it or not, large organisations and governments got much wealthier during the pandemic, whilst the middle class struggled. Governments love to give themselves and exercise emergency powers to respond to crises that they themselves created. Does pointing this out make me a conspiracy theorist and "Pro-Putin", or instead someone rational, and logical?
The US has committed more than $3 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, including $350 million worth of weapons recently authorised by President Biden. This is always seen as an aid package, but have you ever stopped to think about where those weapons come from, who pays for them etc? Is this more of a case of profiteering from arms supplication? Lobbying and political campaign contributions by the weapons industries will surely be a factor in continuing the flow of arms, to the degree that energy, mining, and agricultural corporations believe that they can eventually grab a piece of Ukrainian resources, they too will use their never-intended First Amendment corporate constitutional rights to press Congress for more funding. After the Iraqi war, loads of energy companies were offered reward contracts - companies made loads of money from a war that we later learned was dubious and duplicitous. Different situations of course, but something to think about - the current US Government are the same radicals that bought you the Iraq War, and those who led the horrendous evacuation of Afghanistan.
Surely it shouldn't be allowed to have people in Congress who are invested in the weapons industry - this would remove any outside motivation to drive a conflict, such as we are seeing today - the West and NATO have been dangling NATO membership over Ukraine's heads for decades, even though they do not even qualify for the alliance. Russia did/do not want US and Western missiles on their border, a border which used to be under the occupation of the Soviet Union. This conflict and its modern history goes all the way back to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Financial corporations (part of the largest single sector of campaign contributions to federal campaigns and parties) profit from war. They facilitate the selling of US Treasury debt bonds to foreign nations (since most military spending increases the nation's debt). They also provide loans internationally to rebuild war-torn nations ("nation-building"), and domestically to communities (via purchasing municipal bonds with high yields), to fill the gap of declining public funding. Past and current military spending equals 48% of all spent federal tax dollars - almost half of your tax money has gone to military expenditure. This is not an inherently bad thing of course, but this money isn't going into the pockets of soldiers and care, the money ends up with Lockheed Martin, in addition to funding 36 biowarfare laboratories in Ukraine. To repeat, the same country, the US, who funded the Wuhan Virology Lab, are funding 36 biolabs in Ukraine, an inherently poor European country with no biomedical engineering prowess, and for what reason? Why of all places, did the United States fund these labs in Ukraine, a country coincidentally right on Russia's border?
Constitutionalising the "rights" of military contractors and other corporate entities (as separate entities apart from any individuals) and political money as free speech represent a different, but no less lethal, war against the right of We The People - all the people - to self-governance. (This is one of the reasons why to me, cryptocurrency gets more attractive by the day.)
Our sole focus should be on the people of Ukraine, those who have lost family members etcetera, but every human life is equal. A conflict in Ukraine, is no more tragic than a conflict in Azerbaijan-Armenia, or Ethiopia, or Mexico, or Libya, or Nigeria, or ughyur China, or Venezuela - each deserves attention, analysis, scrutiny, and consideration. People should challenge themselves to alternate perspectives and think logically as to why a conflict is happening, what the ramifications are, in contrast to narratives that you are spoon-fed through mainstream media.
To anyone who has served, did you consider what the real objectives behind the conflict could be? My family members certainly did.
You think you die for your country, but you die for the industrialists.
However, as long as Amazon & ASOS keep delivering the parcels, most people do not and will never care about these things. As long as they put BLM fists, MasksUp hashtags, rainbow and Ukrainian flags in their social bios, they think they've done their bit.
