Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (10 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Russia continues to mass assets within range of Ukraine - though the official explanations are that they are for various exercises. United States intelligence has noted that Russian operatives in Ukraine could launch 'false flag' operations as a predicate to invasion. The West has pressed for negotiations and on Friday in Geneva, the US Sec. State Blinken will meet with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

Certainly the Russian movements evidence some plan - but what is it? Some analysts believe that Putin's grand scheme involves securing Western commitments that NATO would never expand beyond its current composition. Whether that means action in Ukraine or merely the movement of pieces on the chess board remains to be seen.

VIENNA — No one expected much progress from this past week’s diplomatic marathon to defuse the security crisis Russia has ignited in Eastern Europe by surrounding Ukraine on three sides with 100,000 troops and then, by the White House’s accounting, sending in saboteurs to create a pretext for invasion.

But as the Biden administration and NATO conduct tabletop simulations about how the next few months could unfold, they are increasingly wary of another set of options for President Vladimir V. Putin, steps that are more far-reaching than simply rolling his troops and armor over Ukraine’s border.

Mr. Putin wants to extend Russia’s sphere of influence to Eastern Europe and secure written commitments that NATO will never again enlarge. If he is frustrated in reaching that goal, some of his aides suggested on the sidelines of the negotiations last week, then he would pursue Russia’s security interests with results that would be felt acutely in Europe and the United States.

There were hints, never quite spelled out, that nuclear weapons could be shifted to places — perhaps not far from the United States coastline — that would reduce warning times after a launch to as little as five minutes, potentially igniting a confrontation with echoes of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Russia Issues Subtle Threats More Far-Reaching Than a Ukraine Invasion

If the West fails to meet its security demands, Moscow could take measures like placing nuclear missiles close to the U.S. coastline, Russian officials have hinted.

www.nytimes.com

Blinken Will Meet With Russia as U.S. Pushes for More Diplomacy

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will meet with Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia in Geneva on Friday as the United States warns that Russia could soon attack Ukraine.

www.nytimes.com

How to think about war in Ukraine

Start with the Ukrainians

snyder.substack.com

 

[Huntn]

The only thing that is stopping us from siding with the Axis of Evil is Congress.

Absolutely, threaten these people with being thrown out of office in two years. It might have an effect unless they think we’re going to be a dictatorship and they get to be the regional war awards.

 

[Huntn]

I think Trump may rescind approval for American weapons in Ukraine if Europe goes ahead with it's funding package. He would be extremely pissed at being made irrelevant, and impotent.

Could he unilaterally do that? I think Congress would be involved, and if Congress catches enough heat, they might stand up to him. But honestly, who knows at this point?

 

[superchuck500]

 

[DaveXA]

In a matter of weeks Trump has singlehandedly destroyed 80+ years of US diplomacy and goodwill built in Europe and elsewhere, all because he has his head so far up Poot's arse.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[efil4]

US "sources" continue this narrative.

Attempts to coerce Ukraine into a deal are not working. Entire EU leadership in Kyiv today and Zelensky simply will not sign any mineral deal that doesnt benefit Ukraine.

We keep hearing "drips" of what Ukraine must do, yet no info on what Russia must do to end the conflict.

So until a deal is signed and the terms are public, what US "sources" say is mere propaganda to me.

Merz isnt letting up and taking the lead in EU -


Czechia President Pavel:



Finnish President Stubb:




I personally believe the US is pushing for a deal because they see the writing on the wall- Ukraine is moving away from being "beholden" to the US. Trump keeps parroting Russian talking points, false debts owed and the EU leaders have been jolted awake.

So US NEEDS a deal asap, because every day that passes without, the EU increases its strength in unity, support and the leverage diminishes.

 

[superchuck500]

US "sources" continue this narrative.

Attempts to coerce Ukraine into a deal are not working. Entire EU leadership in Kyiv today and Zelensky simply will not sign any mineral deal that doesnt benefit Ukraine.

We keep hearing "drips" of what Ukraine must do, yet no info on what Russia must do to end the conflict.

So until a deal is signed and the terms are public, what US "sources" say is mere propaganda to me.

Merz isnt letting up and taking the lead in EU -


Czechia President Pavel:



Finnish President Stubb:




I personally believe the US is pushing for a deal because they see the writing on the wall- Ukraine is moving away from being "beholden" to the US. Trump keeps parroting Russian talking points, false debts owed and the EU leaders have been jolted awake.

So US NEEDS a deal asap, because every day that passes without, the EU increases its strength in unity, support and the leverage diminishes.

Yes, agree - but the terms of the negotiation that I posted include US guarantee of Ukraine as "free, sovereign, and secure", which in normal geopolitical parlance means that the US would guarantee Ukraine's border (whatever the treaty fixes it as) and internal government against any further Russian aggression. That's a significant development . . .

BUT I think that the biggest problem with that approach is Trump's credibility. Everyone in the world knows that Trump has no credibility, doesn't care about meeting obligations, and cannot be relied upon in any way other than to exert leverage when he believes it is in his interest.

It's a damn shame that a massive elephant in the room on any of this is that the American president cannot be trusted, whatsoever.

 

[efil4]

 

[efil4]

Yes, agree - but the terms of the negotiation that I posted include US guarantee of Ukraine as "free, sovereign, and secure", which in normal geopolitical parlance means that the US would guarantee Ukraine's border (whatever the treaty fixes it as) and internal government against any further Russian aggression. That's a significant development . . .

BUT I think that the biggest problem with that approach is Trump's credibility. Everyone in the world knows that Trump has no credibility, doesn't care about meeting obligations, and cannot be relied upon in any way other than to exert leverage when he believes it is in his interest.

It's a damn shame that a massive elephant in the room on any of this is that the American president cannot be trusted, whatsoever.

i think Trump over-played his hand, revealed his cards way too soon ( Re cozying up to Putin ) and now Ukraine and the rest of the world can see just how two-faced Trump can be when it comes to negotiations.

Its his way only. Always has been. Never been pragmatic in any deal, ever. And this time, he has full "yes men" surrounding him ( unlike 1st term with men and women who understood diplomacy/US stature in geopolitics )

But this is where we are now.

I suspect as things continue to drag on, Trump will lose interest and move his sights to something more attainable ( Panama, Greenland, Cartels/Mexico or deportations )

 

[Bayouboy]

I'm sort of torn on this mineral rights "shake down". While I totally think it's representable to extort a country that's fighting for its survival, I'm not totally against getting something back for the immense financial investment our country is making. I always thought we should get paid back, where applicable, when our country intervenes in military conflicts keeping the peace around the world. Every dollar we spent in Iraq should have been paid back in oil, for instance.

 

[efil4]

I'm sort of torn on this mineral rights "shake down". While I totally think it's representable to extort a country that's fighting for its survival, I'm not totally against getting something back for the immense financial investment our country is making. I always thought we should get paid back, where applicable, when our country intervenes in military conflicts keeping the peace around the world. Every dollar we spent in Iraq should have been paid back in oil, for instance.

ok so what have we actually done for Ukraine? Gave them equipment and armament that was slated for mothballs/sitting in storage.
M113 transports
M1A2 Abrams
Bradleys
ATACMS M39- ( never used and being replaced by PrSM )


Much of the actual $$ spent, were spent here, in the US, to replenish stock that was given to Ukraine.

I guess my first question is what is this "immense financial investment" number? The one you think it is.

 

[efil4]

no commentary- speaks for itself

 

[efil4]

 

[superchuck500]

I'm sort of torn on this mineral rights "shake down". While I totally think it's representable to extort a country that's fighting for its survival, I'm not totally against getting something back for the immense financial investment our country is making. I always thought we should get paid back, where applicable, when our country intervenes in military conflicts keeping the peace around the world. Every dollar we spent in Iraq should have been paid back in oil, for instance.

I get the appeal of this thinking but I think it basically presumes that the US had no self-interest in undertaking those actions. In Iraq, for example, the US went in and toppled a regime, instigated dramatic internal fighting, and more than 200,000 civilian deaths. The US action was not based on any sort of alliance-triggered obligation or humanitarian interest - it was based on the USA's need to remove a substantial source of instability or anti-US sentiment in the region, largely to protect the USA's energy interests. So who exactly should be "paying the US back" and on what basis? Sure, Iraq is more stable and democratic now, but the idea that we did it for them and they owe renumeration is pretty silly IMO.

In Ukraine, the issue is more nuanced and largely based on the post-war security apparatus for Europe - that the US has guaranteed by treaty and that benefits the US substantially in keeping Europe and the global market stable. Humanitarian and democracy issues aside, the geopolitical issue for the US in Ukraine isn't really Ukraine but Russian effort to reestablish hegemony in eastern Europe. Obviously this is a problem for Poland and into central Europe who are in NATO.

The only way you get to a "pay us back" mentality is to remove the US interest in these conflicts. I think Trump doesn't see a US interest in Ukraine or even eastern Europe - nor does Trump see a US interest in countering Russian expansion. This runs contrary to 75 years of US policy that I think most experts agree benefits the US in the long-term.

 

[Bayouboy]

ok so what have we actually done for Ukraine? Gave them equipment and armament that was slated for mothballs/sitting in storage.
M113 transports
M1A2 Abrams
Bradleys
ATACMS M39- ( never used and being replaced by PrSM )


Much of the actual $$ spent, were spent here, in the US, to replenish stock that was given to Ukraine.

I guess my first question is what is this "immense financial investment" number? The one you think it is.

100 billion is a significant investment

 

[Bayouboy]

I get the appeal of this thinking but I think it basically presumes that the US had no self-interest in undertaking those actions. In Iraq, for example, the US went in and toppled a regime, instigated dramatic internal fighting, and more than 200,000 civilian deaths. The US action was not based on any sort of alliance-triggered obligation or humanitarian interest - it was based on the USA's need to remove a substantial source of instability or anti-US sentiment in the region, largely to protect the USA's energy interests. So who exactly should be "paying the US back" and on what basis? Sure, Iraq is more stable and democratic now, but the idea that we did it for them and they owe renumeration is pretty silly IMO.

In Ukraine, the issue is more nuanced and largely based on the post-war security apparatus for Europe - that the US has guaranteed by treaty and that benefits the US substantially in keeping Europe and the global market stable. Humanitarian and democracy issues aside, the geopolitical issue for the US in Ukraine isn't really Ukraine but Russian effort to reestablish hegemony in eastern Europe. Obviously this is a problem for Poland and into central Europe who are in NATO.

The only way you get to a "pay us back" mentality is to remove the US interest in these conflicts. I think Trump doesn't see a US interest in Ukraine or even eastern Europe - nor does Trump see a US interest in countering Russian expansion. This runs contrary to 75 years of US policy that I think most experts agree benefits the US in the long-term.

I understand. We certainly have interests in all of these countries we've given support to. I don't disagree, necessarily, with everything you've pointed out.....I just think we always seem to pay the lions share of everything, no matter the event. In the first Iraq war when Iraq invaded Kuwait......the US should have been paid back (oil is fine) for the money we spent to "right the world". I'm just saying I understand wanting something in return for our help. Europe has been riding our coat tails since 1945. It's in our "best interests" to spend all of that money, but not every country is paying their fair share. It's a valid point from the Trump perspective in my opinion.

 

[DaveXA]

100 billion is a significant investment

Where did you get that number?

 

[efil4]

100 billion is a significant investment

ok so lets say, in 3 years, its been $100B - thats roughly $33B/year. Do you know how much of that investment was in the form of hardware? any idea?

Do you think the US gave them cash? Are you aware of how we arrived at this number regarding equipment valuation? Do you understand that some of the $100B was spent here, in the US, to replenish stocks given to Ukraine?

but aside from the "material" investment, you are discounting the "intrinsic value" - more precise is @superchuck500 post above. The investment we make, with an ally, to arrive at stability and security for our friends in that region. That they can go on about their lives without the veil of fear hanging over them with respect to what Russia wants to do.

To be clear, im all for "partnering" with Ukraine upon resolution to this war to make deals that benefit BOTH sides.

What is proposed now is extortion. Its not a deal.