Comments by "женя жолобов" (@Notrusbot) on "USHANKA SHOW"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
@Alte.Kameraden The difference between direct war and support for the separatists has different meanings for you, but the meaning is the same and leads to the same results. that is why you consider it necessary to separate the war for resources and the “exclusive trade relations” that, as a rule, appear after supporting the separatists. such examples as the Panama Canal, banana wars, Kuwait, Taiwan are nothing more than the aggressive policy of the United States.
It’s especially funny how you wrote about the fact that South America has benefited from cooperation with the United States. the concept of the “big stick” introduced by Roosevelt speaks for itself of how this relationship developed.
Moreover, waging direct wars is expensive and leads to reputational losses, for example, you can say that the United States did not wage wars for resources and access to resources, but the fact that the United States did everything to get these resources is a different story
3
-
@Alte.Kameraden It’s ironic, but for you, “protecting interests” and the “free market” that the United States is pushing around the world are opposite concepts. In free markets, the United States has been losing for a long time, losing by its own rules, so the contradictions that are emerging increasingly reveal that the United States acts only in its own interests. no more no less.
at the same time, protecting the interests of Russia is a terrible crime against humanity for you, although Russia was just playing by the rules that were outlined. The same applies to China - they beat you at your own game.
where you can act with bribery, they negotiate. where bribery does not result there is always a revolution, always a war, an economic blockade. this is not a "free market" this is war
1
-
1
-
1