Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (6 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

 

[Bayouboy]

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?

I'm not getting into a pissing contest over this.....just pointing out that our massive national debt is a lot of foreign wars/aid/etc. I'm not suddenly changing my view on this because Trump is trying to rake Ukraine over the coals in a time of need (I've already stated that's not right). I've always thought we should get some form of "payback", where applicable (some countries do not have the means to "pay us back").

I brought up the Gulf War. Kuwait currently has right at 3 billion in national debt. We are over 30 trillion. I know it's not an apples to apples comparison and there's an infinite amount of things that go into this conversation. But Iraq invaded that country and we (along with a large number of European allies) kicked him out. It cost us money and men. It was just. I supported it 100%. I'm just of the belief that America should have gotten some oil back to offset the enormous price tag of that war. Why should we pay the entire bill (vast majority)? Can you at least see the point of view I'm coming from? If not, just stop replying because it's pointless to continue.

I do understand that all of what we do is in OUR best interest. I get that. I get paying for that security, etc. It's worth the investment! I'm suggesting we should not always be country paying the lion's share of it all. Especially when a country has the means to pay some back.

 

[efil4]

I'm not getting into a pissing contest over this.....just pointing out that our massive national debt is a lot of foreign wars/aid/etc. I'm not suddenly changing my view on this because Trump is trying to rake Ukraine over the coals in a time of need (I've already stated that's not right). I've always thought we should get some form of "payback", where applicable (some countries do not have the means to "pay us back").

I brought up the Gulf War. Kuwait currently has right at 3 billion in national debt. We are over 30 trillion. I know it's not an apples to apples comparison and there's an infinite amount of things that go into this conversation. But Iraq invaded that country and we (along with a large number of European allies) kicked him out. It cost us money and men. It was just. I supported it 100%. I'm just of the belief that America should have gotten some oil back to offset the enormous price tag of that war. Why should we pay the entire bill (vast majority)? Can you at least see the point of view I'm coming from? If not, just stop replying because it's pointless to continue.

I do understand that all of what we do is in OUR best interest. I get that. I get paying for that security, etc. It's worth the investment! I'm suggesting we should not always be country paying the lion's share of it all. Especially when a country has the means to pay some back.

What does our national debt and previous expenditures on foreign wars have to do with Ukraine "paying us back" in perpetuity 10x what we have sent over 3 years? ( or as it sounds, repaying us for this support AND stuff we did prior for others )

I can understand how you would like for US to recoup some $$$, but then shouldnt that be on the table at the OUTSET of ANY agreement to supply/support/arm an ally?

Not 3 years AFTER. The optics alone arent good for the US.

You supported the Iraq war 100% without getting a single penny back in money spent. How does that change to today? We had massive national debt then too. But you were 100% in support of that invasion/war.

Cant have it both ways bro.

 

[Bayouboy]

What does our national debt and previous expenditures on foreign wars have to do with Ukraine "paying us back" in perpetuity 10x what we have sent over 3 years? ( or as it sounds, repaying us for this support AND stuff we did prior for others )

I can understand how you would like for US to recoup some $$$, but then shouldnt that be on the table at the OUTSET of ANY agreement to supply/support/arm an ally?

Not 3 years AFTER. The optics alone arent good for the US.

You supported the Iraq war 100% without getting a single penny back in money spent. How does that change to today? We had massive national debt then too. But you were 100% in support of that invasion/war.

Cant have it both ways bro.

You have not read everything I've posted. I clearly stated what the Trump administration is doing right now is wrong. It's basically extortion. Ukraine is over a barrel and Trump is trying to take advantage of them. Go back and see. Sorry you misinterpreted my writings.

 

[efil4]

You have not read everything I've posted. I clearly stated what the Trump administration is doing right now is wrong. It's basically extortion. Ukraine is over a barrel and Trump is trying to take advantage of them. Go back and see. Sorry you misinterpreted my writings.

No i read it. It absolutely is extortion

You clearly said its wrong. But you also state " we still should get $$$ back"

How do you enter an agreement to support an ally, then change that agreement 3 years later, under the guise of "brokering peace"? We are basically saying " If you want peace, this is what it will cost you"

Mafia built an empire on "peace agreement costs".

 

[MT15]

I never thought I would see this day. Good grief we are so wrong in this.

 

[DaveXA]

I never thought I would see this day. Good grief we are so wrong in this.

So the mask is clearly off. Trump is a Poots plant. That is all. When you look at it that way, everything Trump is doing makes sense.

 

[efil4]

Original mineral draft agreement outline- not long and certainly devoid of any security guarantees.

 

[efil4]

I never thought I would see this day. Good grief we are so wrong in this.

Russia, North Korea, Belarus and Hungary.

And US. ( and Israel- but i suspect that was in reply to US stance on Hague/UN )

quite a clique.

China and IRAN didnt even vote.

 

[efil4]

Amazing - Macron was having none of it.

The question was about Ukraine and funding and how. Trump starts to claim EU gave loans, whereas US just gave....

Macron interrupts and sets record straight. But completely unnerves/unsettles Trump ( reminded me of his debates when he got rocked off balance ) and kills that narrative

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

 

[efil4]

i think its clear he is a pathological liar that will say what he thinks needs to be said, in the moment, with no regards to prior statements ( That are also false ) and reality, to fit the narrative in that moment.