The *OFFICIAL* Russia Is About To Invade Ukraine Thread
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
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?
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
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 by a moderator:
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.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
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.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
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: