Comment by bojan
7 months ago
"War with Russia" sounds like someone willingly started that war, and Russia was the target.
Of course, nothing is further from the truth. "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is what should be written there.
7 months ago
"War with Russia" sounds like someone willingly started that war, and Russia was the target.
Of course, nothing is further from the truth. "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is what should be written there.
Fully agreed, but I suspect that was written that way because the Fed was rather more worried about the fact Russia was at war and under western sanctions, than that Ukraine was busy defending itself.
Perhaps "Russia's war" would have been a better phrasing that captures both spirits (but it's not a phrase you hear said much).
You think "Russia's war" captures more of the global relevance than "Russia's invasion of Ukraine"?
For example, Ukraine was a very important food supplier -- one of the top grain suppliers in the World -- and the invasion caused shortages of some foods. Another example is that Ukraine provided a good source of iron ore for EU-based manufacture. If nothing else that would be important to USAmericans as indicating a market opportunity.
Without that invasion and Putin's inspiration, would Trump have threatened invasion of USA's neighbours? That's got to be vital to USA finances too.
I don't see how that follows at all. "War with x" is a factual statement with no implications of moral culpability in either direction
Yeah, no idea what's going on in this thread. As far as I can tell, this connotation was just invented for the purposes of- well, I shouldn't guess motivations, but I can't think of any good ones.
Here's the BBC using it[1], CNN[2], The AP [3], The Conversation [4]
[1]https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0l0k4389g2o
[2]https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/21/europe/europe-conscription-wa...
[3]https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-star...
[4]https://theconversation.com/why-russias-armed-forces-have-pr...
"It was the war with Russia that drove the fed to raise interest rates in 2022" sounds like the fed or the US was at war with Russia. Your links 1, 3, 4 mention Ukraine in the same sentence as "war with Russia", which makes it clear that the US and the fed are not at war with Russia. Link 2 talks about a threat of war, not an actual war.
1 reply →
its not factual if war is a verb.
In the upthread usage: “it was the war with Russia”, war is a noun.
Your demands of an absolute committment to maintaining the domestic establishment's war narrative while making a technical point have been noted. Slava Ukraini.
Who, precisely, do you consider to be the domestic establishment? Neither the President of the United States nor his Secretary of Defense subscribe to this narrative.
The deep state, most European leaders + states plus a huge chunk of Congress.
Also even some of Trump's team.
The establishment doesnt suddenly get swapped out because a new President gets in (even if the tides are shifting).
Truth is the best narrative, and it's better than – perhaps unconsciously – downplaying the culpability of the Russian Federation for the war.
Heroyam Slava.
It's curious how the "true narrative" people fight with such a passion for so frequently coincides with the dominant war narrative currently pushed by the imperial power center they live under.
That is, until 10 years later when they have a new narrative about a different military rival. They quietly stop pushing the old narrative and everyone quietly admits the old one was kinda bullshit all along.
E.g. my views didnt change one iota since 2003 but these views at some point magically stopped conferring a "Saddam sympathizer" moniker from people who demanded unthinking ideological commitment.
It works the same way with people who live under and unthinkingly consume Russian imperialist propaganda too. The more passionate ones make routine demands for ideological purity similar to the one above.
9 replies →