Opinion of the this quote regarding Russia-Ukraine?

[TheReckoning]

“The only reason why peace talks have not ended the Russia-Ukraine War is because that would be against the interests of Western finance capital.”

[Vosem]

How would that possibly be the case?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Brainworms. There is nothing to negotiate over when one side's starting and finishing demand is "lay down and die".

[Hindsight was 2020]

It’s clearly the West fault that two nations that despise each other and both have openly started that they don’t want to negotiate haven’t negotiated yet 🙄

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How would that possibly be the case?

It's the case if your understanding of geopolitics starts and stops with your hippie great-uncle ranting about 'Nam.

[CumbrianLefty]

Utterly rancid quote, really not much else to say.

[Logical]

[MABA 2020]

Sort of arrogant and ignorant how some people think everything that happens in the world is the fault of the west, as if Russia and Ukraine have no agency of their own.

[DavidB.]

Sounds like the type of quote a certain banned poster would have come up with. You don't need to do his work. Also not even an original dogwhistle. Finance capital, come on.

[Cassius]

I think most ‘Western financial capital’ would be very happy indeed with a prompt peace settlement.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

How would that possibly be the case?

It's the case if your understanding of geopolitics starts and stops with your hippie great-uncle ranting about 'Nam.

Bro, he's just my regular uncle. And "tankie" is a better descriptor.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think most ‘Western financial capital’ would be very happy indeed with a prompt peace settlement.

Depends on how much they want to tear down Russia and how much pain they are willing to take while doing do. If you want to tear down Russian power for good, then a protacted war is probably better. But then, this completely fails to understand that if anyone really has a financial interest in a lengthened war, then it would be weapon-makers, not Wall Street banks - whose financial interests lie elsewhere. And no, those entities are not the same. I would agree with your take here because most of the Western elite categorically isn't cutthroat enough to try to make the war last as long as possible no matter any other considerations.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I think most ‘Western financial capital’ would be very happy indeed with a prompt peace settlement.

Depends on how much they want to tear down Russia and how much pain they are willing to take while doing do. If you want to tear down Russian power for good, then a protacted war is probably better. But then, this completely fails to understand that if anyone really has a financial interest in a lengthened war, then it would be weapon-makers, not Wall Street banks - whose financial interests lie elsewhere. And no, those entities are not the same. I would agree with your take here because most of the Western elite categorically isn't cutthroat enough to try to make the war last as long as possible no matter any other considerations.

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Desutsche Bank, and BNP Paribas, would absolutely be happy for the war to end tomorrow so that they could go back to doing business in Russia and not have to worry about the impact of sanctions on their investments. So would big oil, and indeed part of the reason why "Russia Stronk" and "Kyiv will fall in 3 days" were so prevalent in the lead-up to the War was precisely because think-tanks that receive funding from the likes of Exxon Mobil, and in some cases even from Gazprom and Rosneft or their executives, had a vested interest in amplifying the voices of experts who said Russia was strong and that therefore the US/West should seek accomondation with them, over those who pointed out Russia's flaws.

But in conclusion, a braindead take.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think most ‘Western financial capital’ would be very happy indeed with a prompt peace settlement.

Depends on how much they want to tear down Russia and how much pain they are willing to take while doing do. If you want to tear down Russian power for good, then a protacted war is probably better. But then, this completely fails to understand that if anyone really has a financial interest in a lengthened war, then it would be weapon-makers, not Wall Street banks - whose financial interests lie elsewhere. And no, those entities are not the same. I would agree with your take here because most of the Western elite categorically isn't cutthroat enough to try to make the war last as long as possible no matter any other considerations.

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Desutsche Bank, and BNP Paribas, would absolutely be happy for the war to end tomorrow so that they could go back to doing business in Russia and not have to worry about the impact of sanctions on their investments. So would big oil, and indeed part of the reason why "Russia Stronk" and "Kyiv will fall in 3 days" were so prevalent in the lead-up to the War was precisely because think-tanks that receive funding from the likes of Exxon Mobil, and in some cases even from Gazprom and Rosneft or their executives, had a vested interest in amplifying the voices of experts who said Russia was strong and that therefore the US/West should seek accomondation with them, over those who pointed out Russia's flaws.

But in conclusion, a braindead take.

It's not 2009 anymore. A lot of people in the West want Russia smacked down hard now and the damage done to Russia's image will not be repaired very quickly. Additionally, them making money in the way you are describing kind of depends on sanctions being lifted, no?

[Red Velvet]

It’s a correct quote. The rise of the global south and of multipolarity is seen as a threat to the West because they see themselves entitled to power. Which is why they starterd this reversal of globalization trend sometime in 2010s in order to stop the Chinese growth and framing Russia back as an enemy.

Basically every non-white western country that is a threat to the maintenance of the western-led economical order will be seen as an existential threat to westerners. Even when USA finally surpassed the UK in the 1940s, it took some time for the British to accept they weren’t #1 anymore, so it’s not shocking a stronger backlash reaction is given when an Asian country like China surpassed the USA in the 2010s, with other global south countries having more share of power too.

[Hindsight was 2020]

It’s a correct quote. The rise of the global south and of multipolarity is seen as a threat to the West because they see themselves entitled to power. Which is why they starterd this reversal of globalization trend sometime in 2010s in order to stop the Chinese growth and framing Russia back as an enemy.

Basically every non-white western country that is a threat to the maintenance of the western-led economical order will be seen as an existential threat to westerners. Even when USA finally surpassed the UK in the 1940s, it took some time for the British to accept they weren’t #1 anymore, so it’s not shocking a stronger backlash reaction is given when an Asian country like China surpassed the USA in the 2010s, with other global south countries having more share of power too.

Dafaq does “the global south” have anything to do with this conflict? Unless you’re lumping Russia in with that group which is beyond ridiculous from a historical standpoint let alone literal geographical standpoint. Not to mention how at odds it is with how Russia presents itself these days

[Green Line]

It’s a correct quote. The rise of the global south and of multipolarity is seen as a threat to the West because they see themselves entitled to power. Which is why they starterd this reversal of globalization trend sometime in 2010s in order to stop the Chinese growth and framing Russia back as an enemy.

Basically every non-white western country that is a threat to the maintenance of the western-led economical order will be seen as an existential threat to westerners. Even when USA finally surpassed the UK in the 1940s, it took some time for the British to accept they weren’t #1 anymore, so it’s not shocking a stronger backlash reaction is given when an Asian country like China surpassed the USA in the 2010s, with other global south countries having more share of power too.

There's no such thing as the global south, especially not as a coherent bloc in world affairs.  Sorry to dissapoint your nationalist hard-on.

[Stranger in a strange land]

It’s a correct quote. The rise of the global south and of multipolarity is seen as a threat to the West because they see themselves entitled to power. Which is why they starterd this reversal of globalization trend sometime in 2010s in order to stop the Chinese growth and framing Russia back as an enemy.

Basically every non-white western country that is a threat to the maintenance of the western-led economical order will be seen as an existential threat to westerners. Even when USA finally surpassed the UK in the 1940s, it took some time for the British to accept they weren’t #1 anymore, so it’s not shocking a stronger backlash reaction is given when an Asian country like China surpassed the USA in the 2010s, with other global south countries having more share of power too.

Finance Capital does not have a country. Big banks and corporations have offices all over the world. New York is the hub of global finance capital now, but it wasn't 100 years ago, and it might not be 100 years from now. Conflating the geopolitical interests of the US with the interests of Finance Capital is a major flaw in this analysis. The goal of investment banks and other financial institutions is to make money for their principals and shareholders. Even if broader society goes to sh[inks], the very rich will still be fine, and if things in the country where they're based get too hot for them, there's always Switzerland, Singapore, or Hong Kong.

Finance Capital absolutely does not want to stop the growth of China. They want to profit from it. They aren't the DoD or the Intelligence Community. 10 years ago, all the talk in Wall Street circles was about "emerging markets", and there was real excitement about the emergence of BRICS as new markets for investment and growth. And whatever else you can say about them, investment bankers do not care about someone's race, gender, or sexual orientation, as long as they can make profits for the investors and principals. A lot of the silly "rainbow capitalist" and pinkwashing/rainbow washing stuff you see in corporate advertising originates from Wall Street.

Furthermore, Finance Capital has no interest in maintaining democracy or "the liberal world order" or whatever you want to call it. Indeed, part of the excitement around the rise of China in the Early 2000s was that it showed that Capitalism was fully compatible with tyranny. I-Banking types would be VERY happy to never have to worry about the destabilizing effects of elections ever again, because, after all, these create uncertainty for their investments.

I think most ‘Western financial capital’ would be very happy indeed with a prompt peace settlement.

Depends on how much they want to tear down Russia and how much pain they are willing to take while doing do. If you want to tear down Russian power for good, then a protacted war is probably better. But then, this completely fails to understand that if anyone really has a financial interest in a lengthened war, then it would be weapon-makers, not Wall Street banks - whose financial interests lie elsewhere. And no, those entities are not the same. I would agree with your take here because most of the Western elite categorically isn't cutthroat enough to try to make the war last as long as possible no matter any other considerations.

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Desutsche Bank, and BNP Paribas, would absolutely be happy for the war to end tomorrow so that they could go back to doing business in Russia and not have to worry about the impact of sanctions on their investments. So would big oil, and indeed part of the reason why "Russia Stronk" and "Kyiv will fall in 3 days" were so prevalent in the lead-up to the War was precisely because think-tanks that receive funding from the likes of Exxon Mobil, and in some cases even from Gazprom and Rosneft or their executives, had a vested interest in amplifying the voices of experts who said Russia was strong and that therefore the US/West should seek accomondation with them, over those who pointed out Russia's flaws.

But in conclusion, a braindead take.

It's not 2009 anymore. A lot of people in the West want Russia smacked down hard now and the damage done to Russia's image will not be repaired very quickly. Additionally, them making money in the way you are describing kind of depends on sanctions being lifted, no?

This is true, but:
1) Finance Capital doesn't care about public opinion, and i-banking types seem pretty indifferent to the war. They certainly don't care about Ukraine's struggle to defend its territorial integrity or democracy.
2) The only way for sanctions to be lifted is for the war to end

[Alben Barkley]

Looks like we officially have a new, worse bronz.

[pppolitics]

When Russia leaves Ukraine, there will be peace.

"Western finance capital" has nothing to do with it.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

“The only reason why peace talks have not ended the Russia-Ukraine War is because that would be against the interests of Western finance capital.”

The author is a nazi

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

It’s a correct quote. The rise of the global south and of multipolarity is seen as a threat to the West because they see themselves entitled to power. Which is why they starterd this reversal of globalization trend sometime in 2010s in order to stop the Chinese growth and framing Russia back as an enemy.

Basically every non-white western country that is a threat to the maintenance of the western-led economical order will be seen as an existential threat to westerners. Even when USA finally surpassed the UK in the 1940s, it took some time for the British to accept they weren’t #1 anymore, so it’s not shocking a stronger backlash reaction is given when an Asian country like China surpassed the USA in the 2010s, with other global south countries having more share of power too.

What in the actual hell does any of this have to do with Russia invading Ukraine?

You’ve been beating this drum forever, how does any of this lead you to deciding it sure would be nice if Russia wiped Ukrainians off the map.

[AtorBoltox]

Ukrainians are only desperately defending their country from invasion because Klaus Schwab told them to isn't a great take

[TheReckoning]

“The only reason why peace talks have not ended the Russia-Ukraine War is because that would be against the interests of Western finance capital.”

The author is a nazi

The author was actually a communist, so basically the opposite of a Nazi, lmao.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

“The only reason why peace talks have not ended the Russia-Ukraine War is because that would be against the interests of Western finance capital.”

The author is a nazi

The author was actually a communist, so basically the opposite of a Nazi, lmao.

Horseshoe

‘The only reason the Ukrainians don’t submit to the master race is because of (((Western Bankers)))
Yeah that is Naziest Nazi that ever Nazied