The Thriller
Well-Known Member
@TheGoldStandard could you provide a link to this? I’d like to read this story.
The *OFFICIAL* Russia Is About To Invade Ukraine Thread
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Why don’t we want Ukraine to have an advantage in negotiations? You’d think we’d want them to have every advantage possible to not only get back all of the territory Russia has stolen from them but to also rebuild and act as a deterrent against further Russian aggression.
It Was an Ambush
Friday marked one of the grimmest days in the history of American diplomacy.www.theatlantic.com
Leave aside, if only for a moment, the utter boorishness with which President Donald Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance treated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House today. Also leave aside the spectacle of American leaders publicly pummeling a friend as if he were an enemy. All of the ghastliness inflicted on Zelensky today should not obscure the geopolitical reality of what just happened: The president of the United States ambushed a loyal ally, presumably so that he can soon make a deal with the dictator of Russia to sell out a European nation fighting for its very existence.
Zelensky objected, as he should have, when the vice president castigated the Ukrainian president for not showing enough personal gratitude to Trump. And then in a moment of immense hypocrisy, Vance told Zelensky that it was “disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media.” But baiting Zelensky into fighting in front of the media was likely the plan all along, and Trump and Vance were soon both yelling at Zelensky. (“This is going to be great television,” Trump said during the meeting.) The president at times sounded like a Mafia boss—“You don’t have the cards”; “you’re buried there”—but in the end, he sounded like no one so much as Putin himself as he hollered about “gambling with World War III,” as if starting the biggest war in Europe in nearly a century was Zelensky’s idea.
After the meeting, Trump dismissed the Ukrainian leader and then issued a statement that could only have pleased Moscow:
Trump might as well have dictated this post on Truth Social before the meeting, because Zelensky didn’t stand a chance of having an actual discussion at the White House. When he showed Trump pictures of brutalized Ukrainian soldiers, Trump shrugged. “That’s tough stuff,” he muttered. Perhaps someone told Zelensky that Trump doesn’t read much, and reacts to images, but Trump, uncharacteristically, seems to have been determined to stay on message and pick a fight.
Peace at any cost shouldn’t be our goal. Ending Russian aggression and helping Ukraine regain all of their land should be. Giving Ukraine every advantage would accomplish this goal of rebuilding Ukraine and making a deterrent against further Russian aggression. Putin should be the one pressured here, not Zelenskyy. Putin should be the one worried about losing power, not Zelenskyy.
Why is it so hard for republicans to admit that Russia is bad? If my tribe and tribal leader kept bashing democratic allies and pandered to the world’s worst dictators, I’d seek a different tribe. Russia is bad guys. Putin is bad. This shouldn’t be that hard to say.
Correct. I noted that we broke our deal and made more countries and Russia did nothing in response. I believe Finland, Estonia and Latvia (last two are very small) border Russia. Finland just recently joined. Ukraine has a large border with Russia and Russia has fewer military support in that area prior to the build up beginning in 2014.
Right, we contribute to conditions that cause mass death, destruction and our notion of peace is to let Russia keep a bunch of Ukrainian territory. Sounds about right.
Mongoose
Well-Known Member
It’s a big ask to make up for all the democrat and uniparty **** ups over the last couple of decades but ya you gotta try and start somewhere.
We’ve got our own problems.
Its not so much a loan as seized the seized proceeds of Russian oligarchs, there is talk of more of it going to Ukraine in the future.
NATO expansion under Clinton didn't happen in a vacuum, for one Russia was already some way down the road to dictatorship, they were also engaged in some very brutal fighting in Chechnya, where the Red Army was both fairly ineffective and criminal in its prosecution of the war, lets not forget that "Chechen Terrorists", have been blamed for a number of likely false flag operations that Putin used to secure his dictatorship. Then there was Russia's conduct in the war in the Balkans, lets not forget hoe close NATO peacekeepers and Russian 'Peacekeepers' came to conflict there, the Russians being quite happy to sit on their hands while their Serbian allies completed their ethnic cleansing duties.
If America wants to go isolationist it will be at their expense and loss, America benefits greatly from its global alliances, walking away from that will have significant consequences down the road for the US.
The problem is we need our allies to step up. We spend close to double what all of our NATO allies spend combined. And all we've asked is they get to the 2% minimum when we are close to 4% and a good chunk of them refuse to do that. The cap really should be raised to 3% and spending be a requirement to maintain membership.
I'm not saying we stop global support, but there is a big difference between helping our allies and interfering in country politics.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is Russian money the UK is liberating from banks to then "give" it to Ukraine for Ukraine to use on purchasing weapons from the UK, so the money stays in the UK, but after the war Ukraine will need to pay back the loaned money that never actually left the UK. Those English really care about the Ukrainians!
Step-Back Lauri
Well-Known Member
Taking the seized oligarch money and using it to Ukraine might pose long term effects in future investments from autocracies like Saudi-Arabia, or from other holes like Chinese "democracy". That's why they won't take those seized money to use in Ukraine defense and rebuilding. It'd be signaling to the other dirty players that you can't trust Europe as much they used to. Just my prediction. (Yeah, I know it's sickening but it is what it is.)
The US actually spends 3.4 percent but that equates to 40 percent of global defence spending, for most of the last 40 years that was closer to 60 percent, China and Russia's increased spending has reduced that. And while Trump isn't entirely wrong about European defence spending it has to be viewed through a historical framework, Germany for example was widely discouraged to re-arm for obvious reasons, the incoming German Chancellor Fredrich Merz has not only pledge to re-arm Germany and defend Europe but to do it independently of the US. This is a massive diplomatic mistake by the US, not only will they lose Germany as an arms customer, they will become a competitor in the arms market. The UK has pledge to increase to 3 percent and is currently at 2.5, the UK military is at a terrible state of readiness, recruitment is low, and Torrie mismanagement of procurement and spending cut backs after the GWT has left them in dire straights. The French for their part are doing quite a bit of actual war fighting in Africa on behalf of the West to curtail terrorism in north and west Africa.
Poland are spending close to 4 percent, Spain and Italy are spending next to nothing but their economies have been incredibly weak for a good decade. I believe Australia plans to increase spending over the next ten years to something like 3.5 percent. (we will face similar problems with recruiting to the UK)
What Trumps actions have done will in the long term hurt US arms exports, I know that here significant amounts of money have been spent increasing our local defence industrial capacity in the last ten years, it has been done very quietly but it is happening. Historically we have bought a lot of US hardware off the shelf from the US, I believe the plan is to manufacture a significant amount of ordinance locally under licence.
To be honest the UK has been complicit in laundering huge amounts of dodgy Russian flight capital through the city of London.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
It doesn't make me angry, but it does make me believe Ukraine is betting on the wrong people to support Zelensky's desire for more war. Europe can have him.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
All US military aid to Ukraine has been halted. It appears the lefties in this forum are going to need Europe to come through to feed their desired forever war.
Red
Well-Known Member
I’m still slack jawed at the inability to see the obvious. It’s an amazing thing to live through, this moment.
Of the many bizarre and uncomfortable moments during today’s Oval Office meeting between Donald Trump, J. D. Vance, and Volodymyr Zelensky—during which Trump finally shattered the American alliance with Ukraine—one was particularly revealing: What, a reporter asked, would happen if the cease-fire Trump is trying to negotiate were to be violated by Russia? “What if anything? What if a bomb drops on your head right now?” Trump spat back, as if Russia violating a neighbor’s sovereignty were the wildest and most unlikely possibility, rather than a frequently recurring event.
Then Trump explained just why he deemed such an event so unlikely. “They respect me,” he thundered. “Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt, where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, you ever hear of that deal? … It was a phony Democrat scam. He had to go through it. And he did go through it.”
Trump seems to genuinely feel that he and Vladimir Putin forged a personal bond through the shared trauma of being persecuted by the Democratic Party. Trump is known for his cold-eyed, transactional approach, and yet here he was, displaying affection and loyalty. (At another point, Trump complained that Zelensky has “tremendous hatred” toward Putin and insisted, “It’s very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate.”) He was not explaining why a deal with Russia would advance America’s interests, or why honoring it would advance Russia’s. He was defending Russia’s integrity by vouching for Putin’s character.
Might Zelensky have gotten a different outcome by taking Trump’s abuse and stream of lies with more self-abasement? Sure, it’s possible; if you reason backwards from a bad outcome, any different strategy is almost axiomatically smarter. Zelensky had no good options at the White House. He walked into an ambush with a president who empathizes with the dictator who wants to seize Ukraine’s territory. Everyone who spent years warning about Trump’s unseemly affinity for Putin had exactly this kind of disastrous outcome in mind.
Last edited:
Mongoose
Well-Known Member
Of course Europe has it pretty nice with the 40-60 paid holidays every year and free health care because America foots the bill for defense.
Funny how we are protecting democracy by subverting so much democracy. The people in Europe don’t want to fund this stupid war any more than Americans do.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I love how that line is buried way at the end. Zelensky needed something from Trump while Trump doesn't need anything from Zelensky. Trump was only involved because he is a good human being who wanted to use the power he had to stop people from dying. The Ukrainians are not our allies or even our friends. They are the enemy of our enemy. Trump is not choosing Putin over Zelensky because it isn't a binary choice. None of the above is a perfect acceptable option. They are both dictators who want to keep making war. That sucks for their people, but Trump isn't President of the world.
Sardines
Well-Known Member
It's like Trump fart sniffers don't understand that the U.S. has WANTED to be the big spender on military. The U.S. strove to be the world's only super power and we have done that. Now we're saying, nah, we need dozens of competitors, where if enough of them get together they could actually take us on. We used to exist in a world where we made up 70% of NATO military spending, meaning NATO gave us a boost of a massive 30% but in absolutely no way could they stand up against us. The U.S. with NATO (soldiers, equipment, money, geography, logistics, technology, etc.) could have taken on Russia and China at the same time with little fuss. Even if India and Brazil wanted to get frisky at the same time we could have handled it.
We just asked the world to challenge us, and it looks like they are going to give it a shot.
So the rest of NATO spends more. Does that mean now the U.S. gets to spend less? I think it means we also have to spend more. We're not going to let any nation or any small group of nations have any advantage over us, even if those nations are the UK, Germany, and France. When we were clearly out front and at the same time assuring the world we would stand up for democracy anywhere and everywhere (we never really did that, but that was the pitch anyway) the world was kind of happy to let us do it. Like imagine if EU military spending, Chinese military spending, Russian military spending, Indian military spending, Brazil and other South American nations increase military spending, Japan now feels like they have to spend more, Australia will spend more, and the U.S. will not want to give an edge in any category so we'll spend lots lots more because we will have lots lots more competition.
With the reality of warfighting changing as we are seeing in Ukraine, specialization or particularly useful innovation in drone technology might be the biggest deciding factor in a potential WWIII. Which nation is going to make that key innovation and exploit it before anyone else can? It might not be the U.S..