All Things Russia & Ukraine

[cradleandshoot]

The way I see this horrible situation is that the Biden Admin is establishing solidarity and geopolitical positioning that has not been realized in many years.

We've acted consistently and persuasively with our NATO allies, while also making extremely clear that the US has "big dog" powers that we will exercise regardless of whether our allies prefer, and they need to get onboard as they'll not have any other choice. Eg Nord Stream will be dead if Putin moves, Germany has no veto over it.

And because we've been so transparent about warning about what Russia is doing, at a furious real-time pace, we've effectively combatted the Russian disinformation campaign. We've been assisted in this by a wide ranging volunteer cyber effort that began in reaction to the 2014 invasion, so the BS being spewed by the Russians is being debunked in near real time.

The world knows what is happening and who the aggressor is. And the Ukrainians are far more unified than they've ever been in their resistance to Russia's intimidation.

We've simultaneously been clear that Ukraine is not on the cusp of NATO membership, they remain years away, so the Russian excuse is known to be BS. And Ukraine is very clear that they want to continue to evolve westward and will not be told they can't do so.

We're also reminded that Ukraine was persuaded by the US and the West to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for our support and protection.

And yet, we've also made clear that NATO forces will not be directly involved, though we will heavily fund and provide materiel for Ukraine, including in any required insurgency.

And here's where it gets really interesting and important, the sanctions will flow through any bank doing business with Russia and their energy economy. That includes Chines banks, all of which are state owned.

We will enforce those sanctions, meaning those banks will be cut off from the international system should they choose not to comply.

The message that US will not accept the intimidation of a democracy with various alliances to us to be intimidated by force will be heard loudly by Xi.

Fortunately, Xi is surrounded by pragmatists and he himself is a pragmatist. His ambitions are very large, but his horizon is long, so confrontation with us over a clear aggression by Russia will not be worth it.

You think Putin gives a chit about any repercussions? Who are the Russian people going to complain to? It will be Putins decision, if Putin is worried about sanctions and harsh rhetoric from any western countries once he obtains his objectives what will it matter

[old salt]

The way I see this horrible situation is that the Biden Admin is establishing solidarity and geopolitical positioning that has not been realized in many years.

We've acted consistently and persuasively with our NATO allies, while also making extremely clear that the US has "big dog" powers that we will exercise regardless of whether our allies prefer, and they need to get onboard as they'll not have any other choice. Eg Nord Stream will be dead if Putin moves, Germany has no veto over it.

And because we've been so transparent about warning about what Russia is doing, at a furious real-time pace, we've effectively combatted the Russian disinformation campaign. We've been assisted in this by a wide ranging volunteer cyber effort that began in reaction to the 2014 invasion, so the BS being spewed by the Russians is being debunked in near real time.

The world knows what is happening and who the aggressor is. And the Ukrainians are far more unified than they've ever been in their resistance to Russia's intimidation.

We've simultaneously been clear that Ukraine is not on the cusp of NATO membership, they remain years away, so the Russian excuse is known to be BS. And Ukraine is very clear that they want to continue to evolve westward and will not be told they can't do so.

We're also reminded that Ukraine was persuaded by the US and the West to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for our support and protection.

And yet, we've also made clear that NATO forces will not be directly involved, though we will heavily fund and provide materiel for Ukraine, including in any required insurgency.

And here's where it gets really interesting and important, the sanctions will flow through any bank doing business with Russia and their energy economy. That includes Chines banks, all of which are state owned.

We will enforce those sanctions, meaning those banks will be cut off from the international system should they choose not to comply.

The message that US will not accept the intimidation of a democracy with various alliances to us to be intimidated by force will be heard loudly by Xi.

Fortunately, Xi is surrounded by pragmatists and he himself is a pragmatist. His ambitions are very large, but his horizon is long, so confrontation with us over a clear aggression by Russia will not be worth it.

So you are not willing to forego offering NATO membership to Ukraine for the next 20-25 years, if it can prevent a catastrophic military conflict, so long as the US & our NATO allies are not involved in the conflict ? Yes or No, without equivocation.

How many foreign casualties is it worth to you, waiting for sanctions to have an impact, it they ever do ?
No worries. We can fund another lengthy foreign insurrection.

What have our NATO allies done for Biden which they did not do under Trump ?
How many forces have they deployed to the E flank in 2021 vs 2017-2020 ?
Where are the NATO reinforcements alongside our paratroopers in Poland & Romania ? Sanctions ?
No firm commitment yet on Nordstream 2.
Are we pushing NATO into something our allies are not willing to undertake ?

Do you feel the Budapest Memorandum obligates the US to defend Ukraine's border ?
If yes, they don't need NATO membership. So why are not US forces already deployed in Ukraine, protecting their borders.
obtw, when did the US Senate ratify that treaty obligation ?

[MDlaxfan76]

The way I see this horrible situation is that the Biden Admin is establishing solidarity and geopolitical positioning that has not been realized in many years.

We've acted consistently and persuasively with our NATO allies, while also making extremely clear that the US has "big dog" powers that we will exercise regardless of whether our allies prefer, and they need to get onboard as they'll not have any other choice. Eg Nord Stream will be dead if Putin moves, Germany has no veto over it.

And because we've been so transparent about warning about what Russia is doing, at a furious real-time pace, we've effectively combatted the Russian disinformation campaign. We've been assisted in this by a wide ranging volunteer cyber effort that began in reaction to the 2014 invasion, so the BS being spewed by the Russians is being debunked in near real time.

The world knows what is happening and who the aggressor is. And the Ukrainians are far more unified than they've ever been in their resistance to Russia's intimidation.

We've simultaneously been clear that Ukraine is not on the cusp of NATO membership, they remain years away, so the Russian excuse is known to be BS. And Ukraine is very clear that they want to continue to evolve westward and will not be told they can't do so.

We're also reminded that Ukraine was persuaded by the US and the West to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for our support and protection.

And yet, we've also made clear that NATO forces will not be directly involved, though we will heavily fund and provide materiel for Ukraine, including in any required insurgency.

And here's where it gets really interesting and important, the sanctions will flow through any bank doing business with Russia and their energy economy. That includes Chines banks, all of which are state owned.

We will enforce those sanctions, meaning those banks will be cut off from the international system should they choose not to comply.

The message that US will not accept the intimidation of a democracy with various alliances to us to be intimidated by force will be heard loudly by Xi.

Fortunately, Xi is surrounded by pragmatists and he himself is a pragmatist. His ambitions are very large, but his horizon is long, so confrontation with us over a clear aggression by Russia will not be worth it.

So you are not willing to forego offering NATO membership to Ukraine for the next 20-25 years, if it can prevent a catastrophic military conflict, so long as the US & our NATO allies are not involved in the conflict ? Yes or No, without equivocation.

How many foreign casualties is it worth to you, waiting for sanctions to have an impact, it they ever do ?
No worries. We can fund another lengthy foreign insurrection.

What have our NATO allies done for Biden which they did not do under Trump ?
How many forces have they deployed to the E flank in 2021 vs 2017-2020 ?
Where are the NATO reinforcements alongside our paratroopers in Poland & Romania ? Sanctions ? No firm commitment yet on Nordstream 2.
Are we pushing NATO into something our allies are not willing to undertake ?

Do you feel the Budapest Memorandum obligates the US to defend Ukraine's border ?
If yes, they don't need NATO membership. So why are not US forces already deployed in Ukraine, protecting their borders.
obtw, when did the US Senate ratify that treaty obligation ?

It's Ukraine's choice, plan and simple, as to whether they want to earn the opportunity to join NATO. They have a long way to go, but I certainly don't think we should be telling them we won't let them make that effort.

I've answered your other question without any equivocation.

And on this one, it's simply up to Ukraine what they're willing to risk and sacrifice for self-determination.

I do feel that we have a heck of an obligation to assist them if they ask for help. Which is what we're doing. But I don't think that obligation is the same as if they were a member of NATO.

Sorry if my answers don't fit your pro-Russia views. We should never appease a tyrant like Putin using a threat of force to achieve his aims. Period.

[a fan]

So you are not willing to forego offering NATO membership to Ukraine for the next 20-25 years, if it can prevent a catastrophic military conflict, so long as the US & our NATO allies are not involved in the conflict ? Yes or No, without equivocation.

You and this writer keep starting with the idea that Russia "owns" Ukraine. So does every right wing wonk I've read on this subject.

The simple question is: is Ukraine sovereign, or not? You and the wonks keep saying "no, Putin has first dibs".

Yeah, no, he doesn't.

So to answer your second question----Ukraine is well within their rights to say they won't take NATO membership for 20-25 years.

I have no problem with that.

[Brooklyn]

Whatever happens along or across the borders, it is none of our godd@mn business. The USA needs to get its own śḦ1Ť in order by ending the corrupt police holocaust on blacks and others. Thousands of people live in fear for their lives, drugs are infecting the inner cities, dozens are killed or intimidated every day, and the quality of life lessened by these injustices. It's time to put this garbage to an end once and for all. Then after all these things are resolved, only then do we get involved in all this other nonsense. Of course, those who stand to profit from foreign wars will say otherwise. But you know what motivates them.

[old salt]

So you are not willing to forego offering NATO membership to Ukraine for the next 20-25 years, if it can prevent a catastrophic military conflict, so long as the US & our NATO allies are not involved in the conflict ? Yes or No, without equivocation.

You and this writer keep starting with the idea that Russia "owns" Ukraine. So does every right wing wonk I've read on this subject.

The simple question is: is Ukraine sovereign, or not? You and the wonks keep saying "no, Putin has first dibs".

Yeah, no, he doesn't.

So to answer your second question----Ukraine is well within their rights to say they won't take NATO membership for 20-25 years.

I have no problem with that.

Agree. Maybe that will occur to Zelensky when the bombs start falling. It may be too late, by then.

...& the US & every other NATO is within their rights to deny Ukraine NATO membership.

NATO membership is not an entitlement.

It's not a matter of Russia "owning" Ukraine. It's foolish to discount the historical reality that THE Ukraine was a significant component part of Russia until Russia was dismembered following the Cold War.

[old salt]

it's simply up to Ukraine what they're willing to risk and sacrifice for self-determination.
It's not our obligation to arm them so they can commit national suicide by war. Most of our NATO allies had that figured out.

It is not up to Ukraine if they will be granted NATO membership. It is not an entitlement.

I do feel that we have a heck of an obligation to assist them if they ask for help. Which is what we're doing. But I don't think that obligation is the same as if they were a member of NATO. We foolishly held out the hope of future NATO membership, which was not a realistic possibility & likely will not be in the foreseeable future.

Sorry if my answers don't fit your pro-Russia views. We should never appease a tyrant like Putin using a threat of force to achieve his aims. Period.
So, in your view, is any concession, any compromise, appeasement ?
It's not like Ukraine has been offered NATO & EU membership & Putin is acting to block it.
If I were pro-Russian, I'd be cheering Putin on to invade, take control of the entire country & brutally crush any insurrection.

[a fan]

If I were pro-Russian, I'd be cheering Putin on to invade, take control of the entire country & brutally crush any insurrection.

Great idea. How much money will that cost?

Russia doesn’t have it. Neither does Ukraine. Now what?

I asked this before, and you don’t seem to understand the answer: why don’t we invade Mexico? Like Putin, we can do it. Haven’t you wondered why we have never done that?

[SCLaxAttack]

So you are not willing to forego offering NATO membership to Ukraine for the next 20-25 years, if it can prevent a catastrophic military conflict, so long as the US & our NATO allies are not involved in the conflict ? Yes or No, without equivocation.

You and this writer keep starting with the idea that Russia "owns" Ukraine. So does every right wing wonk I've read on this subject.

The simple question is: is Ukraine sovereign, or not? You and the wonks keep saying "no, Putin has first dibs".

Yeah, no, he doesn't.

So to answer your second question----Ukraine is well within their rights to say they won't take NATO membership for 20-25 years.

I have no problem with that.

Agree. Maybe that will occur to Zelensky when the bombs start falling. It may be too late, by then.

...& the US & every other NATO is within their rights to deny Ukraine NATO membership.

NATO membership is not an entitlement.

It's not a matter of Russia "owning" Ukraine. It's foolish to discount the historical reality that THE Ukraine was a significant component part of Russia until Russia was dismembered following the Cold War.

“It’s not ‘The’ Ukraine.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ne/622063/

[a fan]

It's not a matter of Russia "owning" Ukraine. It's foolish to discount the historical reality that THE Ukraine was a significant component part of Russia until Russia was dismembered following the Cold War.

We were a significant part of the UK’s empire. And we were also on Native American land, my friend.

Let me know when you’re ready to hand over your home to either party, and I’ll buy what you’re selling here.

[old salt]

If I were pro-Russian, I'd be cheering Putin on to invade, take control of the entire country & brutally crush any insurrection.

Great idea. How much money will that cost?

Russia doesn’t have it. Neither does Ukraine. Now what?

I asked this before, and you don’t seem to understand the answer: why don’t we invade Mexico? Like Putin, we can do it. Haven’t you wondered why we have never done that?

That was my reply to MD accusing me of being pro-Russian. If I were, that is what I'd want.

[a fan]

If I were pro-Russian, I'd be cheering Putin on to invade, take control of the entire country & brutally crush any insurrection.

Great idea. How much money will that cost?

Russia doesn’t have it. Neither does Ukraine. Now what?

I asked this before, and you don’t seem to understand the answer: why don’t we invade Mexico? Like Putin, we can do it. Haven’t you wondered why we have never done that?

That was my reply to MD accusing me of being pro-Russian. If I were, that is what I'd want.

Out of context—-got it. My apologies for missing that

[old salt]

So you are not willing to forego offering NATO membership to Ukraine for the next 20-25 years, if it can prevent a catastrophic military conflict, so long as the US & our NATO allies are not involved in the conflict ? Yes or No, without equivocation.

You and this writer keep starting with the idea that Russia "owns" Ukraine. So does every right wing wonk I've read on this subject.

The simple question is: is Ukraine sovereign, or not? You and the wonks keep saying "no, Putin has first dibs".

Yeah, no, he doesn't.

So to answer your second question----Ukraine is well within their rights to say they won't take NATO membership for 20-25 years.

I have no problem with that.

Agree. Maybe that will occur to Zelensky when the bombs start falling. It may be too late, by then.

...& the US & every other NATO is within their rights to deny Ukraine NATO membership.

NATO membership is not an entitlement.

It's not a matter of Russia "owning" Ukraine. It's foolish to discount the historical reality that THE Ukraine was a significant component part of Russia until Russia was dismembered following the Cold War.

“It’s not ‘The’ Ukraine.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ne/622063/

It was THE Ukraine for most of history.

That's why I capitalize THE, as a reminder of what THE Ukraine was for centuries.

Remember Vindman correcting a Congressman for using THE.

I laugh whenever I hear Leon Panetta or other hawks still refer to it as THE Ukraine.
What are their pronouns ?

[old salt]

It's not a matter of Russia "owning" Ukraine. It's foolish to discount the historical reality that THE Ukraine was a significant component part of Russia until Russia was dismembered following the Cold War.

We were a significant part of the UK’s empire. And we were also on Native American land, my friend.

Let me know when you’re ready to hand over your home to either party, and I’ll buy what you’re selling here.

By your logic, you should be cheering for the Russian separatists in the Donbass fighting for their independence.

[a fan]

It's not a matter of Russia "owning" Ukraine. It's foolish to discount the historical reality that THE Ukraine was a significant component part of Russia until Russia was dismembered following the Cold War.

We were a significant part of the UK’s empire. And we were also on Native American land, my friend.

Let me know when you’re ready to hand over your home to either party, and I’ll buy what you’re selling here.

So you should be cheering for the Russian separatists in the Donbass fighting for their independence.

No… I should be cheering for everyone to avail themselves of the court system if they have a complaint. “It used to be like this” isn’t a solid legal argument.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It's not a matter of Russia "owning" Ukraine. It's foolish to discount the historical reality that THE Ukraine was a significant component part of Russia until Russia was dismembered following the Cold War.

We were a significant part of the UK’s empire. And we were also on Native American land, my friend.

Let me know when you’re ready to hand over your home to either party, and I’ll buy what you’re selling here.

So you should be cheering for the Russian separatists in the Donbass fighting for their independence.

No… I should be cheering for everyone to avail themselves of the court system if they have a complaint. “It used to be like this” isn’t a solid legal argument.

Old Salt said Mexico should try to take back Texas…he found it funny.

[old salt]

It's not a matter of Russia "owning" Ukraine. It's foolish to discount the historical reality that THE Ukraine was a significant component part of Russia until Russia was dismembered following the Cold War.

We were a significant part of the UK’s empire. And we were also on Native American land, my friend.

Let me know when you’re ready to hand over your home to either party, and I’ll buy what you’re selling here.

So you should be cheering for the Russian separatists in the Donbass fighting for their independence.

No… I should be cheering for everyone to avail themselves of the court system if they have a complaint. “It used to be like this” isn’t a solid legal argument.

Old Salt said Mexico should try to take back Texas…he found it funny.

Texas would have a better chance of survival that the nation of Ukraine will.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It's not a matter of Russia "owning" Ukraine. It's foolish to discount the historical reality that THE Ukraine was a significant component part of Russia until Russia was dismembered following the Cold War.

We were a significant part of the UK’s empire. And we were also on Native American land, my friend.

Let me know when you’re ready to hand over your home to either party, and I’ll buy what you’re selling here.

So you should be cheering for the Russian separatists in the Donbass fighting for their independence.

No… I should be cheering for everyone to avail themselves of the court system if they have a complaint. “It used to be like this” isn’t a solid legal argument.

Old Salt said Mexico should try to take back Texas…he found it funny.

Texas would have a better chance of survival that the nation of Ukraine will.

take it if you can.

[old salt]

Hilarious exchange on Face the Nation between Margaret Brennan & the Russian Ambassador to the US.

Much of it was cut before it aired, but note the exchange starting around 13:00 & their differing view of NATO as a defensive alliance.

This guy is straight out of central casting for a Harry Palmer movie.

[old salt]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-ext ... 1645364792

President Biden agreed in principle to meet his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, provided that Russia pulls back from a potential attack of its smaller neighbor.

President’s Biden’s decision came during a discussion with French President Emmanuel Macron, who made a flurry of calls seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis. In the call with his American counterpart, Mr. Macron proposed a summit between Presidents Biden and Putin and then a meeting with other governments on security and strategic stability in Europe, the French president’s office said in a statement. Mr. Biden and Mr. Putin have accepted the principle of such a summit, Mr. Macron’s office said.

The White House confirmed that President Biden had accepted in principle a meeting with President Putin, provided that Russia doesn’t invade Ukraine.

Another White House official stressed that the summit would only happen if Russia doesn’t invade Ukraine and that a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, would come first. The official said that the timing and the format of any summit are yet to be determined, calling it “completely notional.” It will be discussed more by Mr. Blinken and Mr. Lavrov if the invasion hasn’t started by their scheduled meeting, according to the White House official.

Mr. Macron said that Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany will resume talks in the so-called Normandy format based on proposals presented by Kyiv in recent days. He and Mr. Putin agreed on the “necessity to favor a diplomatic solution to the crisis, and to do everything to achieve it,” according to the French account of the conversation. The French and Russian foreign ministers are slated to meet in coming days, while other consultations will take place in Paris, the French account said. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is separately scheduled to speak to Mr. Putin on Monday, according to a German official.

“We are still in a situation of high volatility, but there is still room for diplomacy,” the Macron aide said, adding that “diplomatic resources have not been exhausted.”

Mr. Macron also spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after Sunday’s talks with Mr. Putin, his second conversation with the Ukrainian leader in two days. The French leader commended Mr. Zelensky on his “composure and his determination to prevent escalation.”

The Kremlin, in a statement Sunday, blamed Mr. Zelensky for refusing to implement the so-called Minsk agreements that ended major combat in Donbas in 2015 and that—in Moscow’s interpretation—could give Russian proxies a significant say in Ukraine’s new setup, potentially halting the country’s alignment with the West.

Still, the Kremlin said Mr. Putin agreed to “intensify the search for solutions through diplomatic means,” including by holding another meeting on the Minsk accords between the four nations’ senior advisers in the Normandy format. While the first such meeting in Paris in January led to some progress, the second in Berlin earlier this month ended in failure.

Retaining Russian forces in Belarus, a short distance from the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, gives Mr. Putin extra leverage to pressure Mr. Zelensky for painful concessions. Just hours before the exercises in Belarus were scheduled to end, Minsk said they would continue indefinitely.

The Kremlin has been seeking a formal guarantee that NATO will never admit Ukraine and other former Soviet states as members and roll back troop deployments to the status quo in 1997, before the alliance admitted eastern and central European states.

Let the serious nut cutting begin. Maybe now we'll see how much the EUroburghers are willing to invest in their own defense, how much they fear Russia (or not) & how much they want US forces to remain in Europe.

We want to pivot to the Indio-Pacific. This could offer a way to reallocate the shared burden of NATO's mutual defense to the members actually being defended. Reset the NATO deck chairs. Before 2017, we did not have any US or NATO forces deployed E of the 1997 status quo. A great deal has been accomplished in the last 5 years to enable NATO's E members to defend themselves. They can continue to do more, with the advice & assistance of the US & the EU's wealthier NATO members.