Are corporate interests actually pushing for war with Russia?

Are corporate interests actually pushing for war with Russia?

If so, why?

if the US doesnt knock them down then noone will be trading on USD anymore in a few years. bad for business etc.
are there seriously people on this board who dont understand this?

The defense industry is the largest employer in the US and we spend over half our federal budget on it each year. That's why.

Qatar pipeline

That doesn't make any sense. Russia's economy is not nearly in a position to overtake the U.S. I think American opposition to Russia has more to do with a threat to their geopolitical hegemony than their economic dominance.

Whether or not they want a hot war is another story. I don't doubt that America wants one, because NATO would definitely win against Russia alone. Nukes complicate things though, and I'm not sure if the Hawks in American politics are willing to risk nuclear war to contain Russia.

Another important thing to remember is that the American government isn't monolithic, it's a big clusterfuck or competing and colluding interests and views, so saying that "America" wants a fight with Russia would be innacurate. There are significant elements in the American elite that want a war with Russia, but I think that there are also significant elements that don't.

fixed it for you dog

it's not in a position to overtake anything since it's a fucking catastrophe, not 'economy' anymore. I wonder how many months it's going to take for it to explode, I'm not even talking about a full year or two.

No, Russia is far too big for the US to chew down.
It won't go beyond a proxy war and "soft warfare" like sanctions and hacking.

Would Russia even be able to get nukes to the US? Europe might get fucked in the event of war but AFAIK its not that easy to get a nuke from East Europe to DC. I guess Kamchatka nukes could hit Alaska fairly easily but that would hardly be a blow to the US in the long run.

What the fuck? Why?

what do you think the "intercontinental" part of the abbreviation means?

I don't think so. It's more about US politicians desiring primacy and wanting to send a message to any state that challenges our hegemony.

American imperialism is inherently bourgeois, but I don't think most members of that class want war. While a large portion of the bourgeoisie will benefit, the example of Trump shows that most capitalists are more than willing to work with America's enemy if it makes them wealthier.

Only true if you consider the military to be part of the industry. That's an argument you can make, but it's a tough one. You wouldn't consider American police part of the auto industry because they purchase so many cruisers.


What corporate interests exist in Russia? It seems like Putin has reigned in Russia's bourgeoisie, but in the name of autocracy rather than proletarian empowerment.

Are you fucking kidding me?
Russian economy is almost entirely based on a couple of extra-large corporations. Putin is Gazprom spokesman, not a president.
What the hell is that? Stop bullshitting, for god's sake.There are the extremely poor and the extremely rich, with no influential middle class whatsoever. They tried to create middle class, but then realised that it would demand the law and just courts, which will be disastrous for the corporate mafia.
If there's a place where corporate fascism is not a lame leftist joke but the reality itself, it's today's Russia.

German corporates (as in corporate state, also) are shilling for appeasement and a return to schroder, germany's yanukovich.

German corporates (as in corporate state, also) are shilling for appeasement and a return to schroder, germany's yanukovich.

Gazprom is subservient to the Russian state, not the other way around.

What 'the Russian state' is subservient to then?

No.


lel
Why do people overestimate Russia as some kind of world power? It's a third-world resource oligarchy with nukes and a lot of land it can't use.


lel
Stop watching RT

Yes.

Becase Putin is an anti-imperialist who is collaborating and supporting other anti-imperialists around the world (like China and Assad). This is what proletarian internationalism looks like.

No. Nuclear War isn't profitable.

to bait or not to bait?

...

I'm skeptical of that. Ww3 would not be good for most business in the short term. If it didn't escalate to nukes, it might revitalize capitalism in the longer term though
I think it's just Clinton and the media covering up for the leaks

it should be illegal to be this retarded

...

No.
That would be too disastrous.

War with Russia would never happen willingly on the part of the powers that be. It's suicide. Every action these fucks at the top take take revolve around self-preservation in the face of an increasingly critical electorate: why the fuck would they piss everything away into nuclear hellfire?

If WW3 happens it happens because certain important people screwed the pooch hard. It doesn't take that big of a fuckup to lead the world into potential nuclear war: it's happened several times in the past already.

Incorrect. Discretionary spending is not the federal budget, user.

What is the actual difference then?

Not war so much as a military build up to fill the pockets of the military industrial complex. War would not be the intended result, but possibly a side effect.