I don't think so. Not yet. It drags into further collapse because it causes redistribution. Importantly it forces change.
But specifically with the boosts in the form of unlimited blank checks to the Ukraine for contuned armament, and training, etc. There is no need for direct involvement. It's Russia becoming pressured. That action is on Russia to beat the current Ukrainian offensive threatening any claimed territories.
Why would America or the West need to get directly involved in War? Perhaps if another flank opens, another proxy or nation becomes involved in conflict. There are grounds for war. Perhaps. Iran gaining nukes. China attacking Taiwan. Or in today's global recession other conflict emerges. Or if supposedly Ukraine is targeted worse, nuke, or an overwhelming force.
As of yet it collapses simply to force agenda. It is still a cold war despite its hotspots.
Any recessions are quite orchestrated. As they were in lockdown, to the peaking inflation causing change.
Yes historically, war is the leveller establishing control, winners, dominance, gains, but it here is something that runs a greater danger of being blundered into. Instead of it being a prop to cause change. That change uses it to cause collapse to force something else.
I mean there are a host of scenarios it can increasingly occur. They remain quite concerning. But it's speculative they are indeed the above driving point forcing change, behind all the bullshit today. For example how do many of these unpopular governments succeed when it seems they just continue to fail regardless, and as they do it causes an establishment to become threatened? War certainly exerts control over any gaining unrest, unrest increasing in the collapse occurring.
But it still remains controlled. Because a larger question asks can war even be won today, conventionally? It hasn't yet. Instead it simply seeks to force change.
I am a student of history. Why war occurred then. You're missing what winning means. It isn't suicide. Nukes are still preventing direct war. It would be easier. Except there's no profit. Instead they bring collapse off the prop and provocation of it. Study your own material.
I am not saying it won't happen. There are much greater risks now. But currently it is simply being used to play into a different agenda. Or we'd be stealing Russian gas. Removing Putin. Nuking Iran.
But there still is that danger. It needs to convince why collapse occurred and control you paying more.
Or yea let's war? It would be easier than listening to today's assholes.
Yep. Every time.
Without fail.
I don't think so. Not yet. It drags into further collapse because it causes redistribution. Importantly it forces change.
But specifically with the boosts in the form of unlimited blank checks to the Ukraine for contuned armament, and training, etc. There is no need for direct involvement. It's Russia becoming pressured. That action is on Russia to beat the current Ukrainian offensive threatening any claimed territories.
Why would America or the West need to get directly involved in War? Perhaps if another flank opens, another proxy or nation becomes involved in conflict. There are grounds for war. Perhaps. Iran gaining nukes. China attacking Taiwan. Or in today's global recession other conflict emerges. Or if supposedly Ukraine is targeted worse, nuke, or an overwhelming force.
As of yet it collapses simply to force agenda. It is still a cold war despite its hotspots.
Any recessions are quite orchestrated. As they were in lockdown, to the peaking inflation causing change.
Yes historically, war is the leveller establishing control, winners, dominance, gains, but it here is something that runs a greater danger of being blundered into. Instead of it being a prop to cause change. That change uses it to cause collapse to force something else.
I mean there are a host of scenarios it can increasingly occur. They remain quite concerning. But it's speculative they are indeed the above driving point forcing change, behind all the bullshit today. For example how do many of these unpopular governments succeed when it seems they just continue to fail regardless, and as they do it causes an establishment to become threatened? War certainly exerts control over any gaining unrest, unrest increasing in the collapse occurring.
But it still remains controlled. Because a larger question asks can war even be won today, conventionally? It hasn't yet. Instead it simply seeks to force change.
Obviously not a student of history and banking.
Another book you should read.
Creature From Jekyl Island.
Though you will readily dismiss it as well.
I am a student of history. Why war occurred then. You're missing what winning means. It isn't suicide. Nukes are still preventing direct war. It would be easier. Except there's no profit. Instead they bring collapse off the prop and provocation of it. Study your own material.
I am not saying it won't happen. There are much greater risks now. But currently it is simply being used to play into a different agenda. Or we'd be stealing Russian gas. Removing Putin. Nuking Iran.
But there still is that danger. It needs to convince why collapse occurred and control you paying more.
Or yea let's war? It would be easier than listening to today's assholes.
Hide or solve?