Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (11 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

 

[efil4]

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.

We didnt invade Iraq to "right the world"

We invaded for our own self interests.

you were sold on it was to "right the world" and you bought it. You clearly stated above- oil.

We have the worlds largest GDP by a mile. We are the global superpower in that regard. Everything we do is in our own-self interest. Just so happens that our own self-interests align with many other countries interests. So now they must pay us because they are aligned with US?

Iraq-were we the only ones with troops on ground? only ones who lost soldiers in that war? So this " others countries dont pay their fair share" is a fallacy. Many of our allies paid their share, with blood.

 

[MT15]

I was always taught “noblesse oblige”. It seems to have been discarded as a value system.

 

[Bayouboy]

So this " others countries dont pay their fair share" is a fallacy. Many of our allies paid their share, with blood.

The paying fair share comment came from decades of European countries not spending the mythical "2% of their GDP" thing. US has paid the lion's share of "keeping Europe/Asia" at peace since 1945. It is most definitely in our self interest, but if European allies are not equally paying their fair share, that's a problem. Why should only Americans pay the lion's share? Like I said before, Trump is not wrong with his sediment there. Now to handle it like extorsion (current situation with Ukraine) - is totally wrong IMO. You have those people over a barrel.

A lot of our national debt is tied up on foreign wars and aid. It is money well spent and all of that, but it's not wrong to want some payback for the money and men America has given up on the world stage in the name of peace and doing what's right. I wonder what the national debt of Kuwait is.......just for instance.

 

[Bayouboy]

Where did you get that number?

You can google it. There's a lot of literature/graphs/etc. suggesting we are just over 100 billion in "aid" to Ukraine. I think the number is probably pretty close.

 

[Dragon]

The paying fair share comment came from decades of European countries not spending the mythical "2% of their GDP" thing. US has paid the lion's share of "keeping Europe/Asia" at peace since 1945. It is most definitely in our self interest, but if European allies are not equally paying their fair share, that's a problem. Why should only Americans pay the lion's share? Like I said before, Trump is not wrong with his sediment there. Now to handle it like extorsion (current situation with Ukraine) - is totally wrong IMO. You have those people over a barrel.

A lot of our national debt is tied up on foreign wars and aid. It is money well spent and all of that, but it's not wrong to want some payback for the money and men America has given up on the world stage in the name of peace and doing what's right. I wonder what the national debt of Kuwait is.......just for instance.

Europeans has paid in blod and money in the US wars. Iraq, Afghanistan. Danish units served and lost people both places in support of the US: Denmark is paying more per Capita to our defense budget than the US.

 

[Bayouboy]

Europeans has paid in blod and money in the US wars. Iraq, Afghanistan. Danish units served and lost people both places in support of the US: Denmark is paying more per Capita to our defense budget than the US.

Maybe Denmark, but most European nations have not paid their fair share since 1945. It's a valid point.

 

[efil4]

The paying fair share comment came from decades of European countries not spending the mythical "2% of their GDP" thing. US has paid the lion's share of "keeping Europe/Asia" at peace since 1945. It is most definitely in our self interest, but if European allies are not equally paying their fair share, that's a problem. Why should only Americans pay the lion's share? Like I said before, Trump is not wrong with his sediment there. Now to handle it like extorsion (current situation with Ukraine) - is totally wrong IMO. You have those people over a barrel.

A lot of our national debt is tied up on foreign wars and aid. It is money well spent and all of that, but it's not wrong to want some payback for the money and men America has given up on the world stage in the name of peace and doing what's right. I wonder what the national debt of Kuwait is.......just for instance.

So we spent more than them on achieving peace. Why? Because as you stated just below, it costs even more to fund a WAR. And due to NATO agreement, we would be required to come to their aid.

That was our decision and policy for the past 75 years. Now its a problem? Why?

Poland and Estonia pay MORE % of their GDP than US does for funding NATO. Now you are mad because US has worlds largest GDP so that % to $ is higher?

So instead of having worlds largest GDP, maybe we just shrink our GDP to be more in-line with say, Germanys GDP. Then our 3.4% NATO expenditures in USD drops.

Waiiiit - you want "payback" for all the money and men America has given ip on the world stage in the name of peace and doing whats right? What does that mean?

 

[efil4]

Maybe Denmark, but most European nations have not paid their fair share since 1945. It's a valid point.

im starting to think you are simply rehashing talking points without much research at this point.

 

[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.

Didnt take long.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Maybe Denmark, but most European nations have not paid their fair share since 1945. It's a valid point.

To say that is to ignore the differences between Europe and North America during that same time frame. While we were busy building up our military, European nations were busy spending their treasure on rebuilding their war-torn nations. Our defense spending was a choice our government made and that choice was guided by our own self interest. Most of our NATO Allies has more urgent matters to address.

Of the top 10 list of defense spending, I would wager to guess that US defense spending was equal to the 9 other nations on that list in 1990! This 2% of GDP spending for defense by NATO nations, was a recent, non binding, agreement set forth by the Obama administration.

 

[DaveXA]

You can google it. There's a lot of literature/graphs/etc. suggesting we are just over 100 billion in "aid" to Ukraine. I think the number is probably pretty close.

I didn't ask whether the number was accurate or what it included. I asked what your source was since you made the claim. If that's a guesstimate based on what you've heard or read, then fine.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[efil4]

Didnt take long.

so then this comes out



i mean, its no longer a secret- US is actively aligning with Russia and i would bet dollars to donuts that these "economic development deals" are located in Eastern Ukraine as well as Russia.

 

[efil4]

The same one that US said Ukraine should withdraw. Specific to wording that labeled Russia as the "aggressor"

oops.

 

[Dragon]

To say that is to ignore the differences between Europe and North America during that same time frame. While we were busy building up our military, European nations were busy spending their treasure on rebuilding their war-torn nations. Our defense spending was a choice our government made and that choice was guided by our own self interest. Most of our NATO Allies has more urgent matters to address.

Of the top 10 list of defense spending, I would wager to guess that US defense spending was equal to the 9 other nations on that list in 1990! This 2% of GDP spending for defense by NATO nations, was a recent, non binding, agreement set forth by the Obama administration.

Also do not forget that the post second world war US economy were boosted a lot due to the repayment of the Marshal plan loans. So not only did the US not have to rebuild their country but they also received a lot of money from loans from countries that were rebuilding.

United Kingdom: Received $3.2 billion, much of it as loans. The UK completed repayment in 2006
France: Received $2.7 billion, mostly grants, portion as loans that were repaid.
Italy: Received $1.5 billion, portion as loans that were repaid..
Netherlands: Received $1 billion, a mix of grants and loans that was repaid.

 

[efil4]

100 billion is a significant investment

100B or "Tens of Billions"?

POTUS just said "tens of billions" so im guessing $100B is now incorrect?

 

[DaveXA]

To say that is to ignore the differences between Europe and North America during that same time frame. While we were busy building up our military, European nations were busy spending their treasure on rebuilding their war-torn nations. Our defense spending was a choice our government made and that choice was guided by our own self interest. Most of our NATO Allies has more urgent matters to address.

Of the top 10 list of defense spending, I would wager to guess that US defense spending was equal to the 9 other nations on that list in 1990! This 2% of GDP spending for defense by NATO nations, was a recent, non binding, agreement set forth by the Obama administration.

He's just being oblivious to how we got here. Trump has zero sense of history, and partly explains why we're at this crossroads and tearing up 75 years of what's been pretty effective diplomacy that has helped us achieve our position as a dominant power for so long.

Really some short-shighted takes out there.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Also do not forget that the post second world war US economy were boosted a lot due to the repayment of the Marshal plan loans. So not only did the US not have to rebuild their country but they also received a lot of money from loans from countries that were rebuilding.

United Kingdom: Received $3.2 billion, much of it as loans. The UK completed repayment in 2006
France: Received $2.7 billion, mostly grants, portion as loans that were repaid.
Italy: Received $1.5 billion, portion as loans that were repaid..
Netherlands: Received $1 billion, a mix of grants and loans that was repaid.

Umm...Thanks???????