The drama is decrypted!Why are there always twists and turns?Don t be fooled by appearances anymore

Mondo Culture Updated on 2024-01-29

Title: The farce of the United States "aiding" Ukraine is declassified!Why are there always twists and turns?Don't be fooled by appearances anymore and reveal the inside truth!

Recently, I saw a news that the United States has repeatedly hit a wall on the issue of aiding Ukraine, and it feels like watching an aid farce. This is really puzzling, hasn't the United States always been an expert in making a lot of war money?Why are you stumbling and hindering in the matter of military aid to Ukraine?

Let's start with specific events and see what exactly happened. On December 6, the U.S. Senate vetoed a bill involving $110.5 billion in aid to Ukraine and Israel, which really caught Biden off guard. Prior to this, in October, Biden submitted a special budget of $106 billion, which also failed to be passed by Congress. The question is, why is the United States so hesitant to assist Ukraine at this time?

Has the United States forgotten its own history and if it does not give Ukraine money, Ukraine will be defeated, and if it is defeated, the United States will not be able to make money from it?Isn't this what the U.S. economy has always been?By the time of World War I, the total value of U.S. industry was $62 billion, and every possible tool was used to make ships and guns. During World War II, the United States became the world's number one power, with 75% of the world's reserves. Now that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the United States has also won, but why is it so stingy with aid to Ukraine?

Sima Nan listed in the article "Ten Thousand Taels - A Core Secret of the United States" that the United States has made a lot of money in at least seven aspects: the arms in the name of NATO have been destocked, which has brought huge orders to the United States **fire group;Freeze Russian assets and take the opportunity to share the spoils;The blowing up of the Nord Stream gas pipelines led to a sharp rise in European energy, companies moved to the United States, and the United States made energy fortunesNATO has achieved unity, increased the number of troops, purchased a large number of American equipment, and brought more orders to American industrial enterprisesUkraine lost water and fertilizers, and BlackRock took over large areas of black soil and a large amount of state-owned assets in Ukraine;The United States controlled the four major grain merchants of ABCD in the world, destroyed and controlled the granary of Europe, and the next wave of food crisis was initiated by the United States, which once again made a fortune;Ukrainian refugees crowd out European social welfare, the euro takes a hit, capital outflows, and the United States makes another profit.

These are obviously things that the United States is good at, but why has it become hesitant and stumbling on aiding Ukraine?Biden tried to convince Congress to pass a military aid bill for Ukraine under the gimmick of "if you don't give money to Ukraine, Russia and the United States may break out into conflict", but failed to do so. This is really puzzling, it stands to reason that the more aid you make, the more you earn, and the more you fight, the greater the benefit. But the United States today is not so generous when it comes to aiding Ukraine.

Why?First of all, the fiscal situation of the United States is worth mentioning. The main source of U.S. fiscal revenue comes from taxes, including personal income tax, corporate income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. The majority is personal income tax, accounting for 50%, and corporate income tax accounting for 21%. However, large companies in the U.S. often circumvent taxes by shifting profits overseas, or through complex tax laws, resulting in an effective tax rate well below 21%. And the ultimate biggest beneficiary of U.S. military aid to Ukraine is the arms dealers and the military-industrial complex. Blinken made it clear that 90% of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine is spent on U.S. domestic production aid** equipment. However, the current US budget deficit in fiscal year 2023 is as high as nearly 17 trillion US dollars, and the total expenditure is as high as 613 trillion, it can really be described as a loss of money. Under such circumstances, the United States' foreign military aid funds are naturally limited.

Second, U.S. political divisions have also made it more difficult to aid Ukraine. In recent years, the political environment in the United States has become more and more popular, and the confrontation between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party has become more intense. This political divide makes any large-scale fiscal expenditure extremely difficult. Biden supports military aid to Ukraine, more for the votes of the military-industrial complex, while Republicans tend to oppose it, just to get Biden "off the shelf", such a political game makes aid to Ukraine extremely complicated.

On the issue of foreign military aid, the United States is also "watching the people do the trick." The United States has a very different attitude towards military aid to different countries. During the outbreak of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the United States' military aid to Ukraine was given the green light, and the two parties were highly unanimous. However, once the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ends, the U.S. approach to aid to Ukraine and Israel will be very different. Israel, as the back-the-scenes financier behind the White House "teleprompter", dominates the United States ** and the business community, while Ukraine's position in the eyes of the United States is insignificant. This is also one of the reasons why the United States is picking and searching on the issue of aid to Ukraine.

The last reason is that the United States is deeply disappointed in Ukraine and Zelensky. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been fought for more than a year, and the United States and NATO have invested a lot of money, but the Ukrainian army has not made significant progress, and even lost 4 states in eastern Ukraine. In this case, the United States may not think it is worth investing more resources in supporting Ukraine. To sum up, the intertwining of many factors, such as financial problems, vote problems, the problem of "watching people and eating dishes", and the uncertainty of the battlefield prospects, have determined that the United States has stumbled and hindered in its assistance to Ukraine.

This can't help but make people think, what happened to the United States?Can't you calmly deal with the familiar "war to make money" model?This hesitation and hesitation of the United States cannot help but cause concern. As one netizen said: "Why is the United States so hesitant at this critical moment?"Is there any inside story?This is indeed a question worth pondering.

However, some netizens expressed their understanding of this, believing that the performance of the United States in this process may be a good thing for Ukraine. A netizen commented: "It may be a good thing that the United States has been blocked in aiding Ukraine. In this way, Ukraine may seek a peaceful solution sooner, stop the war and bring real well-being to the Ukrainian people. This view is not unreasonable, and perhaps in the hesitation of the United States, Ukraine can really see a glimmer of hope and seek a more stable way to resolve peacefully.

Overall, the performance of the United States in aiding Ukraine is indeed puzzling, but the complex reasons behind it cannot be ignored. Fiscal problems, political factors, geopolitical considerations, and disappointment with the actual situation in Ukraine are intertwined, creating a contradictory situation in which the United States is assisting Ukraine. Perhaps, it is precisely in this contradiction that we can see some more profound problems, and it also makes us more vigilant to examine the game of interests and political wrestling in international affairs. It is hoped that the United States and the international community will adopt a more rational and pragmatic attitude on this issue and contribute more to maintaining regional and world peace and stability.

However, in the face of all the stumbling blocks of the United States on the issue of aid to Ukraine, we may see a glimmer of hope. Yes, U.S. aid has encountered obstacles, but perhaps it is this obstacle that has given Ukraine more ideas and opportunities. In international affairs, especially in geopolitical struggles, no country should rely too much on the assistance of other countries. Ukraine may be able to find a more autonomous and sustainable development path in this predicament.

As one netizen put it: "The hesitation of the United States may be a good thing, and Ukraine can take this opportunity to change its thinking and seek a peaceful solution." This argument is not without reason. Perhaps, in the hesitation of the United States, Ukraine has the opportunity to stop and think about a more long-term future. Only through its own efforts can it occupy a more solid position in the international community.

The resistance of the United States to Ukraine assistance may also be a question that the international community needs to ponder when it comes to the way to resolve the conflict. Between countries, it is not advisable to rely too much on the support of one party, but to rely on multilateral cooperation and work together to solve problems. The issue of U.S. aid is a reminder that even large international power has its limits. It is only through dialogue on an equal footing and joint efforts that a truly viable solution can be found.

In general, although it is confusing, the obstruction of US aid to Ukraine also has its deep-seated reasons. This may be a challenge for the United States in exploring international relations, or it may be a reflection on the international community's joint response to the crisis. For Ukraine, it may be that it is in this obstacle that they can find a more solid and sustainable way forward. It is hoped that in the future, the international community will be able to deal with similar issues in a more rational and pragmatic manner and contribute more to global peace and stability.

Related Pages