fentanyl started crossing the border Jan. 20th 2021...
Learn something new every day
The *OFFICIAL* Russia Is About To Invade Ukraine Thread
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
fentanyl started crossing the border Jan. 20th 2021...
Learn something new every day
Red
Well-Known Member
Former top Trump Russia adviser details the sharp contrast between the former President and Biden | CNN Politics
Fiona Hill doesn't know whether President Joe Biden can lead Western allies to ward off Russia's threat to Ukraine. But unlike his predecessor, he's trying.
www.cnn.com
Witnessing Britain’s industrial decline helped her understand the populist appeals Trump rode to the White House. But the celebrity real-estate developer’s handling of foreign policy in the Oval Office – driven not by expertise or the national interest but by his personal experiences, impulses and interests – was like nothing Hill or her national security colleagues had ever seen.
“There’s no Team America for Trump,” Hill recalled. “Not once did I see him do anything to put America first. Not once. Not for a single second.”
It showed in Trump’s praise for the authoritarian leader of Russia, an American adversary that had boosted his finances as a business executive. It showed in his reluctance to embrace America’s mutual defense commitments to European allies, which for decades have constrained Russian behavior; instead, Trump treated NATO as what Hill called a “protection racket.”
Most notoriously, it showed in Trump’s attempt to squeeze Ukraine’s President for manufactured dirt on Biden to help his 2020 election campaign. He held up American military aid as a political lever as Ukraine faced the long-running Russian military threat that now has the entire world on edge.
“All this did was say to Russia that Ukraine was a playground,” Hill said.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
...And up is down, night is day, etc. The reality is that under Obama, Russia took a chunk of Ukraine called Crimea. Under Biden, Russia is threatening on taking another chunk of Ukraine called Donbas. In the period between Obama and Biden, Russia was very quiet. This wasn't coincidence and Trump's disdain for NATO was a big piece of it.Former top Trump Russia adviser details the sharp contrast between the former President and Biden | CNN Politics
Fiona Hill doesn't know whether President Joe Biden can lead Western allies to ward off Russia's threat to Ukraine. But unlike his predecessor, he's trying.
Witnessing Britain’s industrial decline helped her understand the populist appeals Trump rode to the White House. But the celebrity real-estate developer’s handling of foreign policy in the Oval Office – driven not by expertise or the national interest but by his personal experiences, impulses and interests – was like nothing Hill or her national security colleagues had ever seen.
“There’s no Team America for Trump,” Hill recalled. “Not once did I see him do anything to put America first. Not once. Not for a single second.”
It showed in Trump’s praise for the authoritarian leader of Russia, an American adversary that had boosted his finances as a business executive. It showed in his reluctance to embrace America’s mutual defense commitments to European allies, which for decades have constrained Russian behavior; instead, Trump treated NATO as what Hill called a “protection racket.”
Most notoriously, it showed in Trump’s attempt to squeeze Ukraine’s President for manufactured dirt on Biden to help his 2020 election campaign. He held up American military aid as a political lever as Ukraine faced the long-running Russian military threat that now has the entire world on edge.
“All this did was say to Russia that Ukraine was a playground,” Hill said.
Ukraine applied to join NATO while Dubya was in office. The European members of NATO spearheaded by Germany and France blocked it. Russia threatened to take Crimea in 2014 and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko pleaded to the US in 2014 for weapons. Obama famously refused to send any weapons Ukraine could use to fend off the invasion and Russia quickly took Crimea, but do you know why Obama refused to send weapons? It was again because of European NATO countries spearheaded by Germany pressuring the United States.
Germany runs on Russian fossil fuels and that gives Russia a heavy hand in deciding what Germany does which in turn gives Russia influence on NATO. Trump's attacks on NATO and specifically calling out Germany for freeloading on NATO is why Russia was quiet. Under Trump, Russia's ace-up-the-sleeve was worthless. Now we have articles claiming that Trump caused all this dangerous peace and hooray for Biden being here to save the world by restoring Putin-Russian aggression to pre-Trump levels.
Red
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your opinion. I have far more confidence in Fiona Hill’s knowledge, and understanding in these matters, than I do your own.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
You shouldn't. What you should do is verify that what I've said is actual verifiable history. See for yourself if Russia rolled in to take Crimea in 2014. See for yourself if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko asked the US for weapons and if Obama refused the request. See for yourself if traditionally left-leaning publications like the NY Times and Washington Post have reported on German pressure being the cause for the refused request.
"The push by lawmakers to arm Ukraine’s beleaguered armed forces threatens to open a rift between the United States and key allies, especially Germany and France"
Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine (Published 2015)
The Senate has included provisions in its military policy bill to arm Ukraine with antiarmor systems, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition to aid in its fight against Russian-backed separatists.www.nytimes.com
"The Obama administration refused to provide lethal weapons in 2014....Key allies, including Germany, were not keen on sending weapons into the conflict zone"
Gaetz misleads about Obama's record on Ukraine military aid
U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., has become one of President Donald Trump’s key attack dogs as he pushes back against the Dwww.politifact.com
I don't believe that anyone does themselves any favors by refusing to look for secondary sources. I don't think any single source is worth that much confidence.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
That is exactly the argument for dissolving NATO. Without a strong commitment from France, Germany and the UK, why should we bother? We clearly don't have a strong commitment from France and Germany, as evidence by their continually failing to honor their commitments to the organization, so why should we bother?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
The issue shouldn’t involve NATO countries’ troops. The real issue is sanctioning the **** out of Russian oligarchs and getting rid of Russian dark money in Europe. They call it Londongrad for a reason.
If Europe retaliates, as they should, then they’ll cripple the Putin regime. Oligarchs won’t like becoming social pariahs in the Europe they love to live in and party in and won’t exactly enjoy being without the billions in assets they love to play around with.
I found this article helpful
Only Putin Knows What Happens Next
He alone can make the choice to bring Europe back from the brink of a major war.
www.theatlantic.com
Last edited:
You can't really sanction Russian Oligarchs when Putin uses the government to run a mob-style protection racket on them. Putin can pass the pain of sanctions onto the weakest and most vulnerable Russians, which is how sanctions always work.
Sanctions are the coward's weapon.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
You can sanction the hell out of their money. The oligarchs have millions stashed in western banks and assets. Many of Putin’s closest oligarchs have assets a stone’s throw away from Buckingham Palace. Freeze their assets and send their families packing back to that frozen ******** they came from.
Boris has the right idea
Okay. The money gets frozen and then at some point unfrozen and returned. In the meantime Putin can float them so that they don't feel too much personal pain.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I don’t think so. These folks want their money and live in the west. They’ll do anything to live in the west. It’s definitely not a perfect solution but it’s better than military intervention.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
You're wrong but even if you were correct and we hurt the Russian billionaires, so what? Do you think the Russian billionaires who will do anything to live in the west are going to rise up to throw Putin out of power? The Russian billionaires are very much keeping their heads down and hoping Putin doesn't take an interest in whatever they have. Connect the dots for us in how hurting Russian billionaires leads to Russia removing troops. Is there any depth at all to your train of thought or are you just parroting something you read?
Fiona Hill may be totally in line with US State Department priorities or agenda, but like many in here she will push those agenda/priorities at the expense of the facts. Continued US aversion to realities means we lose credibility worldwide and leadership overall.
The principle of avoiding the imposition of unwanted rule across the globe under any name is what makes respected leadership, more than swaggering around with conspicuous power. Especially whendoing stuff that is just jplain stupid.
Fiona Hill and most of our policy big shots are just that stupid.
Besides being liars.
Putin will not undermine Zelensky. Zelensky is independent, but he is not an overt fascist. He was popularly elected based largely on Ukranian people's ideas of what is good for them. Zelensky can hold on to the Russian minority if he will just negotiatge an end to the genocidal campaign against them, which is largely being pushed by Western-allied military honchos who haven't been replaced since the former fascist government was voted out. But it is questionable if Zelensky can divert them to a peace settlement.
It looks like Russian people in the eastern two provinces are more likely to evacuate and just settle in Russia. If this is the way things go, Russia may take some strategic areas near their Black Sea bases and encourage the Russian ethnic evacuees to settle there. If an area can be established for these people which they can adequately defend, it will not become part of Russia. Crimea might be included in a settlement or treaty to create a new state for that minority. I don't think they put Russia as their preference for the future. They just want peace. A place, and peace.
If Zelensky can keep his military from becoming aggressive, this will not become any kind of war.
Our news and establishment liars have always represented the conflict as something Russia has underwritten. I don't think so. I don't think the Russian ethnic minority there wants to be part of Russia, I don't think Putin wants to antagonize those people with taking over the area.
Putin wants an end to the NATO expansion in his borders, and a secure Black Sea port and bases. In a sense he is taking a position to defend Russia proper against Western Aggression. China has his back. We can't afford to aggravate the situation. It is questionable if even NATO countries really want to be with us in this.
Last edited:
Putin is not going to just going to take a permanent vacation in South Pacific resort. You are actually saying you favor a war of aggression. Unprovoked aggression. You imagine we have generals and stuff to just do that whenever we want.
That attitude is what Putin has been looking at for two decades already.
You could say he has brought this on himself by not letting western business flourish in Russia, but he preferred that to myriads of lines of influence undermining Russian sovereignty. He came to that decision looking at how we do business worldwide, including China.
Xi made the other decision because he thought he could manage us well enough. And he has.
Last edited:
Pretty sure Russia's oligarchs have covered their bets pretty good, in many places rather than the City of London. Maybe a few have secret alliances and loyalties with the West, but Putin has been looking at that sort and discouraging them so far as he knows how. We're not going to win this by financial moves. Nobody in the whole damn world really trusts London or the US anymore. We are not their safety net or destination in a time of trouble.
Some say Putin may be vulnerable from within, and that is a real issue I think. Not that anyone is going to just overtly take that stand right now. They will perhaps exploit Putin's weakness if he does something stupid like just invade Ukraine outright. Putinj will win if he just lets refugees come in and takes care of them. He will be a humanitarian. Zelensky will win if he stops his military from pushing them out or negotiates some settlement. Biden will win if nothing happens other than those two resultgs because he will claim to have glob al leadership.
NATO will win if nothing happens, and they agree to take in no more countries unless Russia comes in too. The only point rto all that would be to make Russia more of a Western Ally than a Chinese ally. China would back off from a lot of aggressive plans if we all did that. Talk about a security or containment policy.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Most of the foreign policy experts I’ve read say quite the opposite. First, Putin has amassed thousands of troops at the border. This would be a very costly bluff. Second, Biden has helped rally the west in hopes that this would pressure Putin to back down. If he doesn’t, then he and his oligarchs should expect severe sanctions. The alternative would to basically ignore Russian aggression and then where would this stop? Once putin has invaded Estonia? Latvia? Belorussia? Finland? Poland? Thirdly, it’s to preempt the Russian disinformation campaign where they blame Ukraine for their invasion.
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Yes. Absolutely. Like any crime family, cut off the money and these folks are going to start eating each other. Putin is only as strong as his oligarchs want him to be. Spoil the money making enterprise? They’ll dump his ***. Absolutely these oligarchs will find a way to put some radioactive element in some Putin tea if it means freeing their assets so they can live in Londongrad buying off western politicians again.
Like… we’re aware of the last 100 years of Russian history, right??? If there’s one constant with Russian history it’s that their leaders typically don’t last very long. Putin has been the exception, but the rules of gravity might soon apply once again if he leads an already unsteady Russia into a costly war with Ukraine.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what the **** you’re talking about. It’s like you’re speaking some foreign language. America isn’t the one with hundreds of thousands of troops on the Ukrainian border so I don’t know where you get off that america is the aggressor here.
Where do you get your information?