Posted on 07/07/2022 4:29:12 PM PDT by JonPreston
Damned puppet!
You pretty much nailed it.
He’s willing to fight to the last Ukrainian.
And the last dollar in our wallets.
🔝🔝🔝
And that’s all he is
SPJNK.
uuuhhhmmmm...nope.
Volunteer to join the Ukraine fight. You will be given an AK-47 and three cartridges.
YOU ORC SUPPORTING PUTIN LOVER!
Not me. I don’t have a dog in this fight.
Neither do I but someone had to take up the slack as their silence on this thread is deafening.
You've got a big dog in this fight. It's your country and your president's son. They have interests in energy companies, biolabs, controlling a food producing country and fighting the Ruskies.
he reads what they give him. he is an actor. his job is to sell this war to the western public.
Hope the idiot professor volunteers to go fight for Ukies. He would make great cannon fodder:
Not saying they are the good guys.
It's just their oligarchs (the ruling class of mega rich folks) are not part of our oligarch team.
This was an entirely avoidable war and this genius fails to realize that. It was the West and in particular the US that crossed a well known (since 1994) bold, solid, illuminated, underlined, flashing fat red line: NO NATO MEMEBRSHIP FOR UKRAINE.
Ukraine was well positioned and had a good thing going. But it was us that was greedy. Why stop there when we can have more?!?!
Western economic interests wanted Ukraine in NATO and the EU, as these organizations provide the physical and legal/political securities which the Western interests seek.
However, and this is also entirely ignored, Ukrainian NATO membership would be a disaster for Russia (its security position). This is a case where it is the West (as in us) which are expansionist and driven by economics. Russia has a legitimate security concern and can make a defensive argument (Just war). It is us that violated no less than three various agreements which set the stage for this war (Minsk Memorandum, Budapest Accord, Ballistic Missile Treaty) - each playing a role. Ever since 1994 it was very clear, Russia does not want NATO on its borders. In 2004 we pulled a fast one with Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. However, the Russians learned that they could not trust us, we lie and break agreements all the time (the next administration cares little about the promises made by the previous and even our bureaucracy has a high turn over and is not very consistent). We tried again bringing a former Soviet Republic into NATO in the Republic of Georgia (2008) and Russia blocked us, as well as in Ukraine (2014 and now).
Ultimately Russia invaded, but it is highly disingenuous to argue that this happened in a vacuum. Russia does not want a major world power playing along their borders and frankly neither do we! Examples: Cuban missile crisis, invasion of Grenada, over throwing the government in Nicaragua which became friendly with the Soviets in the Cold War. We are expecting the Russians to accept something which we neither would accept in the Cold War or today: example the Solomon Islands today where China wants to build a training facility (~6,412 miles from our S. W. border and we inject ourselves into the matters of a “sovereign state” - a sound good argument selectively applied and which we really do not give a crap about).
It needs to be made very clear. This was us basically starting the countdown timer for an armed conflict: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
Ukraine cannot force their way into NATO. NATO is our club, just like the EU is the Euro's club. We call the shots in reality and we decided "unilaterally" (we didn't ask Russia or their allies) that Ukraine would be permitted in. It was a huge gamble and we lost. Now we are left making up stories about our actual movtiation, trying to somehow carve out a victory in what is starting to become an obvious mess and failure even for the layperson back in the US.
The sad reality which the writer of that article in this thread also fails to realize, is that we failed/lost almost as soon as the war began. Russia never wanted to seize all of Ukraine. They don't want that sort of long term trouble. It was obvious that Russia was going to take the ethnic Russian areas in the East, the industrial area in the Donbas, and those goals they nearly already achieved.
The real loser here is Ukraine. We essentially gambled with their nation and were willing to take unimaginable high risks. Risks where if you ask yourself "is the return" and the "probability" (ROI of NATO membership), worth the risk "costs/magnitude" and "probability" (Risk of a war)? What we did was not prudent.
Ukraine will end up losing 20% of its population and land mass, a major port city and industrial area. They have millions of people displaced and their economy was disrupted (-4% GDP and that is with the West pumping money into them in the tune of 1/3 of Ukraine's entire economy!). The death toll on the Ukrainian side is immense, their infrastructure is in shambles, NATO for sure is out of question, and even EU membership is likely lost/much delayed (Those were our political goals). Sadly, EU membership was in reach even before the war but that is actually less likely now (The Russians didn't want NATO or other military forces there but would have accepted more economic ties). What is that called when you do not achieve your goals but the opponent achieves his?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.