The UK, France, and Germany have already told Zelensky it's time to negotiate because he's not getting Crimea back. If the big 3 in Europe are already there it will be interesting to see how long the US wants to maintain this.
Russia/Ukraine from Another Perspective (Relaunch Part Deux)
524,782 Views |
9433 Replies |
Last: 14 hrs ago by PlaneCrashGuy
I didn't realize that was the case. Thx.
Our foreign policy team/leadership really is among the worst in US history, to say the least.
Our foreign policy team/leadership really is among the worst in US history, to say the least.
Even the mainstream media knows Zelenskyy’s promise to retake Crimea is both unrealistic and suicidal.
— @amuse (@amuse) March 5, 2023
pic.twitter.com/JYufugbbOd
Actual inconvenient truths.Quote:
An understanding of the importance of Crimea to Russians can be drawn largely from the goals of Western hardliners, mentioned above. The Russian establishment, and most ordinary Russians, are determined to maintain Russia's position as a great power. Three other factors are however also present. The first is Crimea's emotional significance, stemming from memories of the heroic defense of Sevastopol against the French, British, and Turks in 185455, and the Germans and Romanians in 194142. The Red Army lost more men in Crimea than the US army lost on all fronts of World War II put together.
The second is that between Crimea's 1783 conquest by Catherine the Great from the Ottoman Empire and its Crimean Tatar allies, and its 1954 transfer to Ukraine by Soviet decree, Crimea was part of Russia. Until the latter date, at no point in Crimea's history had it been part of Ukraine. Russians say not without reason that if the situation were reversed, and Crimea had been transferred from Ukraine to Russia, then much of Western public opinion would have sympathized with Ukrainian demands for its return.
The third is that Crimea has an ethnic Russian majority. In January 1991, an overwhelming majority (94 percent) of Crimeans voted to become a separate "Union Republic" of the USSR, which would have led to Crimea becoming an independent state alongside Ukraine and Russia when the Soviet Union dissolved. In December of that year, a slim majority (54 percent) of Crimeans voted for an independent Ukraine, but on condition of Crimea's autonomy, which the Ukrainian government unilaterally abolished four years later. Throughout the period of Ukrainian rule, a majority of Crimeans repeatedly expressed the desire for autonomy within Ukraine.
After the Russian seizure in 2014, an (internationally unrecognized) referendum and a series of opinion polls indicated that annexation to Russia had solid majority support. How things stand today is difficult to say given the level of repression now prevailing in Russia. But as former Zelensky adviser Oleksiy Arestovych has pointed out, the intense anti-Russian cultural measures introduced by the Ukrainian government including the banning of the Russian language and the burning of Russian books are unlikely to have increased support for Ukraine in Crimea.
It is impossible to say for sure if Russia would in the last resort use nuclear weapons to hold Crimea. It seems likely that they would begin by a less dangerous unconventional attack for example the disabling of US satellites that could begin escalation toward nuclear war. There are no grounds at all, however, for reasonable doubt that the Russian state would be willing to run colossal risks, for itself and for humanity. This being so, we should remember the words of President John F. Kennedy in his "Peace Speech" to American University in June 1963, reflecting the lessons that he had learned during the Cuban Missile Crisis:Quote:
Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy or of a collective death-wish for the world.
Urban Ag said:
Russia sucks. But Ukraine is one of the most absolutely corrupt nations on this globe. Mexico level corruption. After the fall of the USSR they sold untold amounts of weapons and munitions to some of the worst regimes and groups out there out their vast stockpiles sitting around. Ukrainians have been in bed with the absolute worst and most corrupt US politicians (hello Bidens) and businesses we have to offer. No one gave a sh** about this country prior to the Russian invasion. And let's be honest, the only reason the American left gives a rat's ass is a continuation of the Russia Russia Russia bullsh** lib narrative against Trump. And Zelynsky was just another eastern Euro trash grifter until it became cool for him to zoom meeting in to film festivals packed with libs.
I see the same brand brush that paints Ukraine as uniformly corrupt from 1994 to present employ in almost every argument against suport for financial or military aid to the Ukrainian government in the war. There seems to be no interest or awareness that there have been three distinct chapters in the history of Ukraine since its independence in1994 and three distinct government factions. Lumping those together and dismissing them collectively as all equally corrupt is intellectually lazy.
This is an oversimplification but to put things in perspective, the period from 1994 to 2005 was inept and corrupt Ukrainian government which carried on the practices that were assimilated over 70 years of Soviet rule. In 2005, Russia staged the Orange Revolution to make Ukraine a puppet government that did Putin's bidding. In 2014 the Maidan Revolution overthrew the Russofile government but was still rife with corruption and run by oligarchs. It was at this time that Russia annexed Crimea and seized large parts of eastern Ukraine under the LHR and DNR separatist militias.
In 2017, Zelenskyy was elected specifically because he was an outsider with a mandate to clean up corruption and prepare to defend against Russian aggression. I wouldn't argue that he entirely accomplished the mission of cleaning up the government of Ukraine but he made spectacular progress compared to what he inherited.
I see the war a defensive war of national survival against an expansionist Russian regame that attacked first and has deliberately attacked the civilian population of Ukraine. That makes it a lot easier for me to give the Ukrainian government some leeway for past corruption of the regimes that preceded them and to judge the Zelenskyy administration on their deeds since 2017 and more specifically since Feb 24, 2022.
Ukraine is corrupt but, make some acknowledgment that Zelenskyy is a significant change from the first Maidan Revolution administration (i.e. to one that the Biden family was so tight with) and that was a completely different government from the Orange Revolution or the pre-2005 government.
Zelenskyy hasn't done anything since the war began that causes me to question his leadership. Recall that Ronald Reagan was also endlessly ridiculed by the left for being a hack actor that had no business in the White House. I recall the Bedtime for Bonzo jokes and a Rich Little record ridiculing Reagan. The endless stream of videos of Zelenskyy's career as a performer strike me as the same type of empty sniping for lack of criticisms of substance.
El Salvador is a corrupt country riddled with drug gangs but it's no longer hopelessly corrupt because they elected Nayib Bukele who is rooting out corruption. Zelenskyy has to simultaneously fight Russia and a culture of corruption that preceded him. Would that Zelenskyy had volcanic energy with which to mime bit Bitcoin to finance the war against Russian invaders and could be more financiallyindependentlike Bukele but, he doesn't.
U90 - I have read your posts for probably two decades now and came to the conclusion a long time ago that pretty much any topic you take the time to chime in on is something you can speak intelligently to. Some years ago you got banned for something and knowing your posting history it pissed me off enough that I deleted my credit card info from my profile in protest and didn't buy stars again for at least a couple of years. My point is I respect your perspective and am happy to defer to you has being much more knowledgeable of current realities of Ukraine than I.
That said, Ukrainian corruption really was not the point of my gripe. I probably should have been more clear of spoke to it less. Note that I never stated my position on the conflict either nor claim I was against US support. I have been for US support, within reason, with a lot of transparency, and healthy debate.
If we want to talk intellectual laziness, branding those who question or want more discussion debate of, or even oppose US support, as pro-Putin or pro-Russia, is in fact highly intellectually lazy and likely just dishonest. That was my point. We've had constant conservative on conservative violence on F16 over this for a year. That is what draws my ire.
That said, Ukrainian corruption really was not the point of my gripe. I probably should have been more clear of spoke to it less. Note that I never stated my position on the conflict either nor claim I was against US support. I have been for US support, within reason, with a lot of transparency, and healthy debate.
If we want to talk intellectual laziness, branding those who question or want more discussion debate of, or even oppose US support, as pro-Putin or pro-Russia, is in fact highly intellectually lazy and likely just dishonest. That was my point. We've had constant conservative on conservative violence on F16 over this for a year. That is what draws my ire.
Question- and this is a litmus test of sorts for me.
IF zelensky was as serious about rooting out corruption as you say....then why did he resist investigating burisma and hunterBiden?
The Biden/burisma arrangement was made after the Maiden revolution while Biden was VP. And before zelensky.
If his goal was to root out corruption then that should have been a no Brainer for zelensky to devote some resources to that and a method for him to start to tag and get rid of those corrupt officials.
IF zelensky was as serious about rooting out corruption as you say....then why did he resist investigating burisma and hunterBiden?
The Biden/burisma arrangement was made after the Maiden revolution while Biden was VP. And before zelensky.
If his goal was to root out corruption then that should have been a no Brainer for zelensky to devote some resources to that and a method for him to start to tag and get rid of those corrupt officials.
InfantryAg said:
Communist, not communist, no difference they are still an adversary.
You think the cold war ended, the russians think it was just paused. I don't want to give them the opportunity to start it again. I am thinking of how things are going to be in 20 or 50 years from now and be proactive.
What does putin (and the ilk who will likely replace him if we don't undermine his cabal,) want for russia?
How long is he (they) willing to take to get there?
Again, this isn't a binary choice between escalating into WWIII or letting the Ukrainians fend for themselves. There's a lot of room in between those extremes.
Why would we sell them arms when we are getting a bargain? They could be saving us hundreds of billions a year if our politicians weren't so in bed with the military industrial complex.
They biggest problem with this whole thing is biden's ability to escalate it, when that is completely unnecessary.
If you can, please name me 2 times in the past 50 years where the strategy of "arm our enemy's enemy" in a proxy war or attempt at nation building was successful or at the very least did not bite us in the ass
Contras- failure armed the cartels
ISIS against Assad- Failure armed and trained ISIS
Iraq- failure trillions of dollars lost
Taliban armed against russians- failure
Afghanistan failure- China now controls some of the largest lithium deposits in the world
Vietnem- started out as proxy then became boots on the ground debacle.
I will wait.
Zelensky banned opposition parties and the Russian Orthodox Church for a start. His government has used misinformation and flat out lies such as the missiles Ukraine fired into Poland he blamed on Russia and the "Ghost of Kiev" among others. Is Russia worse? Absolutely, just quit acting like Zelensky is this beacon of light fighting corruption simply because you want him to be.Ulysses90 said:Urban Ag said:
Russia sucks. But Ukraine is one of the most absolutely corrupt nations on this globe. Mexico level corruption. After the fall of the USSR they sold untold amounts of weapons and munitions to some of the worst regimes and groups out there out their vast stockpiles sitting around. Ukrainians have been in bed with the absolute worst and most corrupt US politicians (hello Bidens) and businesses we have to offer. No one gave a sh** about this country prior to the Russian invasion. And let's be honest, the only reason the American left gives a rat's ass is a continuation of the Russia Russia Russia bullsh** lib narrative against Trump. And Zelynsky was just another eastern Euro trash grifter until it became cool for him to zoom meeting in to film festivals packed with libs.
I see the same brand brush that paints Ukraine as uniformly corrupt from 1994 to present employ in almost every argument against suport for financial or military aid to the Ukrainian government in the war. There seems to be no interest or awareness that there have been three distinct chapters in the history of Ukraine since its independence in1994 and three distinct government factions. Lumping those together and dismissing them collectively as all equally corrupt is intellectually lazy.
This is an oversimplification but to put things in perspective, the period from 1994 to 2005 was inept and corrupt Ukrainian government which carried on the practices that were assimilated over 70 years of Soviet rule. In 2005, Russia staged the Orange Revolution to make Ukraine a puppet government that did Putin's bidding. In 2014 the Maidan Revolution overthrew the Russofile government but was still rife with corruption and run by oligarchs. It was at this time that Russia annexed Crimea and seized large parts of eastern Ukraine under the LHR and DNR separatist militias.
In 2017, Zelenskyy was elected specifically because he was an outsider with a mandate to clean up corruption and prepare to defend against Russian aggression. I wouldn't argue that he entirely accomplished the mission of cleaning up the government of Ukraine but he made spectacular progress compared to what he inherited.
I see the war a defensive war of national survival against an expansionist Russian regame that attacked first and has deliberately attacked the civilian population of Ukraine. That makes it a lot easier for me to give the Ukrainian government some leeway for past corruption of the regimes that preceded them and to judge the Zelenskyy administration on their deeds since 2017 and more specifically since Feb 24, 2022.
Ukraine is corrupt but, make some acknowledgment that Zelenskyy is a significant change from the first Maidan Revolution administration (i.e. to one that the Biden family was so tight with) and that was a completely different government from the Orange Revolution or the pre-2005 government.
Zelenskyy hasn't done anything since the war began that causes me to question his leadership. Recall that Ronald Reagan was also endlessly ridiculed by the left for being a hack actor that had no business in the White House. I recall the Bedtime for Bonzo jokes and a Rich Little record ridiculing Reagan. The endless stream of videos of Zelenskyy's career as a performer strike me as the same type of empty sniping for lack of criticisms of substance.
El Salvador is a corrupt country riddled with drug gangs but it's no longer hopelessly corrupt because they elected Nayib Bukele who is rooting out corruption. Zelenskyy has to simultaneously fight Russia and a culture of corruption that preceded him. Would that Zelenskyy had volcanic energy with which to mime bit Bitcoin to finance the war against Russian invaders and could be more financiallyindependentlike Bukele but, he doesn't.
I don't trust either side in this conflict and the deeper we get ourselves entrenched the more likely we are to end up eating a crap sandwich or even provoking a nuclear response. I just don't see how the juice is remotely worth the squeeze for us at this point considering we have so little to gain and so much to lose. People keep saying that we can diminish Russia's military capacity but it's already been shown to be a paper tiger that isn't a realistic threat to NATO from a conventional perspective. They also use the humanitarian/freedom argument but that also is filled with holes when you consider the areas in question (Crimea and Donbass) are as much Russian as Ukrainian as much as people don't want to hear that. The best humanitarian answer is to find a peaceful solution that doesn't end up destroying the rest of Ukraine and cutting off their ability to ever export grain and fertilizer to the Middle East and Asia (doesn't really affect us but exploding food costs absolutely will cause more conflicts and people starving).
Russia and Putin are terrible and dishonest but that hasn't changed really for 500 years. It won't change if they lose this war either.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Urban Ag said:
U90 - I have read your posts for probably two decades now and came to the conclusion a long time ago that pretty much any topic you take the time to chime in on is something you can speak intelligently to. Some years ago you got banned for something and knowing your posting history it pissed me off enough that I deleted my credit card info from my profile in protest and didn't buy stars again for at least a couple of years. My point is I respect your perspective and am happy to defer to you has being much more knowledgeable of current realities of Ukraine than I.
That said, Ukrainian corruption really was not the point of my gripe. I probably should have been more clear of spoke to it less. Note that I never stated my position on the conflict either nor claim I was against US support. I have been for US support, within reason, with a lot of transparency, and healthy debate.
If we want to talk intellectual laziness, branding those who question or want more discussion debate of, or even oppose US support, as pro-Putin or pro-Russia, is in fact highly intellectually lazy and likely just dishonest. That was my point. We've had constant conservative on conservative violence on F16 over this for a year. That is what draws my ire.
I know conservative on conservative violence is tiresome, I think it is also necessary. We all need to have our thoughts challenged and be forced to put together a coherent defense. If a sides best response is slander than that should be a sign to them that their argument is poor.
I have learned the most by being confronted and asked to defend my "conservative" takes. It is what makes conservatives better than modern liberals. We have these "fights" rather than racing for uniformity.
Ags4DaWin said:
Question- and this is a litmus test of sorts for me.
IF zelensky was as serious about rooting out corruption as you say....then why did he resist investigating burisma and hunterBiden?
That arrangement was made after the Maiden revolution while Biden was VP.
If his goal was to root out corruption then that should have been a no Brainer and a method to start to tag and get rid of those corrupt officials.
Indeed, that arrangement was made after the Maidan Revolution in 2014-15 when the Obama administration through VP Biden, Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, and lobbyists such as Tony Podesta were trying to simply replace the Russian Orange regime puppet state with a US puppet regime or more accurately a DNC puppet regime.
(Recall that Paul Manafort was lobbying for a different faction aligned to GOP donors at the same time the Podesta brothers were lobbying on behalf of the DNC aligned faction. None of them registered as required under FARA but that's why Manafort is in prison and the Podestas are still lobbying.)
Zelenskyy came to power in 2017. I am not aware of him resisting calls to investigate, especially when asked to do so by President Trump during the "perfect phone call". I'm basing that on his reply to President Trump when he was asked to investigate.
Note how Zelenskyy refers to the way he was treated by Marie Yovanovitch, appointed by Obama as ambassador to Ukraine. He appears to be no friend of her or the Obama mob.
Quote:
Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...It sounds horrible to me.
Zelensky: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
I am not aware of Zelenskyy resisting investigation of Burisma or Hunter Biden. However, it is likely that case since the Russian invasion. If he is resisting or dragging his feet then I would suppose it is because Joe Biden is now controlling the flow of resources to fight Russia. In Zelenskyy's situation I believe that I too would put the prosecution of the war to expel Russian invaders at a higher priority than delivering an investigation to indict the son of the man holding the purse strings.
There may be incriminating evidence in Zelenskyy's hands at present that would put Hunter in Prison and lead to Joe's impeachment. Who does he turn it over to and if he does, what happens to US government support for the fight against Russia?
I am not branding people who question the wisdom of supporting Ukraine in the war against Russia as pro-Putin or pro-Russia. I don't believe that was implied by what I said. I was strictly focusing on the post hoc ergo propter hoc argument that because there has been a history of corruption in Ukrainian government, including the post-Maidan Poroshenko administration, that Zelenskyy must also be treated as if he is corrupt.
I acknowledge that there are valid reasons to oppose funding and supporting the government of Ukraine in the war against Russia. I don't believe that Ukraine's post Soviet history of corruption or Zelenskyy's inexperience as a politician or his previous occupation as an entertainer are among the valid reasons.
I acknowledge that there are valid reasons to oppose funding and supporting the government of Ukraine in the war against Russia. I don't believe that Ukraine's post Soviet history of corruption or Zelenskyy's inexperience as a politician or his previous occupation as an entertainer are among the valid reasons.
Watched this, had some interesting things from a diff perspective but a lot of propaganda. However found below from video "Winter on Fire" much more convincing. While I have no doubt they glossed over several things, it was much more thorough with footage & interviews with many people there. Also they didn't all seem like Neo Nazis Russia goes on and on about, though there were some present and active.
There has to be a lot of will of the people, not just a US govt sponsoring activists and providing influence. Why did Ukraine overwhelmingly vote for independence in '91? If it was all due to US influence and it was so simple, why can't we successfully replicate it everywhere?
This happened because a large contingent of Ukraine has been trying to get out from under Russia's thumb for 100 years, and it isn't because of the US govt and the CIA.
Here's a more recent inconvenient truth you conveniently omitted.nortex97 said:
Actual inconvenient truths.
Quote:
The Agreement between Ukraine and Russia on the Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, widely referred to as the Kharkiv Pact or Kharkov Accords was a treaty between Ukraine and Russia whereby the Russian lease on naval facilities in Crimea was extended beyond 2017 until 2042, with an additional five-year renewal option in exchange for a multiyear discounted contract to provide Ukraine with Russian natural gas.
The agreement, signed on 21 April 2010 in Kharkiv, Ukraine, by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and ratified by the parliaments of both countries on 27 April 2010, aroused much controversy in Ukraine. The treaty was effectively a continuation of the lease provisions that were part of the 1997 Black Sea Fleet Partition Treaty between the two states. Shortly after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in March 2014, Russia unilaterally terminated the treaty on 31 March 2014.
Yes I didn't mean to imply you were using slander as an argument just acknowledging that has happened quite a bit on all ukraine war threads. I think this discourse and twk as well is healthy and beneficial.
I didn't want to quote the whole article, per TOS.benchmark said:Here's a more recent inconvenient truth you conveniently omitted.nortex97 said:
Actual inconvenient truths.Quote:
The Agreement between Ukraine and Russia on the Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, widely referred to as the Kharkiv Pact or Kharkov Accords was a treaty between Ukraine and Russia whereby the Russian lease on naval facilities in Crimea was extended beyond 2017 until 2042, with an additional five-year renewal option in exchange for a multiyear discounted contract to provide Ukraine with Russian natural gas.
The agreement, signed on 21 April 2010 in Kharkiv, Ukraine, by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and ratified by the parliaments of both countries on 27 April 2010, aroused much controversy in Ukraine. The treaty was effectively a continuation of the lease provisions that were part of the 1997 Black Sea Fleet Partition Treaty between the two states. Shortly after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in March 2014, Russia unilaterally terminated the treaty on 31 March 2014.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Perhaps you could clarify.
You really think it's a good idea to burn a leading member of one political party (and essentially taking sides with the other) ? So you want him to burn bridges with half the political system of the most powerful country on earth?Ags4DaWin said:
Question- and this is a litmus test of sorts for me.
IF zelensky was as serious about rooting out corruption as you say....then why did he resist investigating burisma and hunterBiden?
The Biden/burisma arrangement was made after the Maiden revolution while Biden was VP. And before zelensky.
If his goal was to root out corruption then that should have been a no Brainer for zelensky to devote some resources to that and a method for him to start to tag and get rid of those corrupt officials.
This is your litmus test?
Yes, I'd expect corruption to be rooted out/pursued by anti-corruption officials, even if it were (is) embraced by Democrats as well. Something about subsidized softness comes to mind.mike0305 said:You really think it's a good idea to burn a leading member of one political party (and essentially taking sides with the other) ? So you want him to burn bridges with half the political system of the most powerful country on earth?Ags4DaWin said:
Question- and this is a litmus test of sorts for me.
IF zelensky was as serious about rooting out corruption as you say....then why did he resist investigating burisma and hunterBiden?
The Biden/burisma arrangement was made after the Maiden revolution while Biden was VP. And before zelensky.
If his goal was to root out corruption then that should have been a no Brainer for zelensky to devote some resources to that and a method for him to start to tag and get rid of those corrupt officials.
This is your litmus test?
Yes, it was reported by the WSJ this last week and apparently they told Zelensky this a few to several weeks ago so this isn't a brand new development. It's just now getting out to the media this last week, apparently.nortex97 said:
I didn't realize that was the case. Thx.
Our foreign policy team/leadership really is among the worst in US history, to say the least.
As an American that may serve your interest, but my point was it wasn't going to serve Zelenskyy's.
Why would a recently elected official of a much smaller weaker country dependent on US aid go full tilt on a witch hunt exposing a leader of the US and alienate half the dem party? Sure they "should" be on board with that, but that's not reality which you certainly know but probably won't admit. This isn't a slight to dems, Reps work equally hard to protect their own.
Why would a recently elected official of a much smaller weaker country dependent on US aid go full tilt on a witch hunt exposing a leader of the US and alienate half the dem party? Sure they "should" be on board with that, but that's not reality which you certainly know but probably won't admit. This isn't a slight to dems, Reps work equally hard to protect their own.
I appreciate the first part of your response.mike0305 said:
As an American that may serve your interest, but my point was it wasn't going to serve Zelenskyy's.
Why would a recently elected official of a much smaller weaker country dependent on US aid go full tilt on a witch hunt exposing a leader of the US and alienate half the dem party? Sure they "should" be on board with that, but that's not reality which you certainly know but probably won't admit. This isn't a slight to dems, Reps work equally hard to protect their own.
To the second, well, ok. Part of the reason the world is for today saddled with Biden(*) is due to Zelensky and Ukrainian corruption, as the Trump impeachment trial in the House showed. I don't expect much from him, certainly, but were he an honest leader (politically, or of his people/countrymen otherwise), yes, I'd have expected him to have exposed the US "leader" who as VP and special envoy to Ukraine was utterly corrupt, though I disagree with the 'witch hunt' terminology.
With that said, I've never thought much of him, and believe he is fundamentally a pawn in a bigger game, as is the senile walking corpse of a president we have at present.
Ultimately, corruption in/about Ukrainian businesses/aid from the US have been utterly corrupt for decades now, and yes the Bidens and Zelensky are complicit in it all. His acrimonious attitude toward American's skepticism of our 'open checkbook' policies since Biden was inaugurated only reinforce my convictions.
None of that militates toward some great military victory/strategy leading to a positive outcome for Ukraine, retaking all of Crimea, for the US, Europe, or the world.
You know that China is watching this very close and taking notice of how lackluster our response is and the numbers of people in the US who just want to let Russia get that way.
They gotta be loving this.
They gotta be loving this.
Yes, I imagine they love having their Manchurian stooges running the executive branch, and people in America buying the propaganda that somehow the Donbas/Crimea is worth 200K+ lives and untold trillions in inflation/direct munitions support while further economically destabilizing Europe and Russia alike.eric76 said:
You know that China is watching this very close and taking notice of how lackluster our response is and the numbers of people in the US who just want to let Russia get that way.
They gotta be loving this.
There also I am sure really dismayed at any dissent as to the narrative.
mike0305 said:
As an American that may serve your interest, but my point was it wasn't going to serve Zelenskyy's.
Why would a recently elected official of a much smaller weaker country dependent on US aid go full tilt on a witch hunt exposing a leader of the US and alienate half the dem party? Sure they "should" be on board with that, but that's not reality which you certainly know but probably won't admit. This isn't a slight to dems, Reps work equally hard to protect their own.
And to your point-
IF Zelenski was honest, he would root out corruption especially when tied to the Maiden revolution wherever he found it.
Furthermore and to a point I made I the OP- Zelenski wanted to negotiate from the outset, give donbas to putin, in echnage for Russian concessions, etc...and backed off when England and the US told him not to.
Now how did they tell him not to?
Did they tell him not to or say- don't negotiate and all of this can be yours? And then proceed to waive pallets of cash in front of him that he can skim off of humanitarian and military aid.
And now he has done a 180 and demanded that if Russia thinks about nukes that the US preemptively nuke Russia first...
Do you REALLY think he backtracked off of negotiations because the US presented some very sound rational arguments for why he should sacrifice Ukrainian lives in order to hold onto an ethnically Russian region that wanted to secede?
Come on...
eric76 said:
You know that China is watching this very close and taking notice of how lackluster our response is and the numbers of people in the US who just want to let Russia get that way.
They gotta be loving this.
Either way they win.
If the US depletes its reserves helping Ukraine then we have nothing left to give Taiwan.
If the US is lackluster providing support then they figure they have a greenlight.
How about we end up somewhere in the middle-
Like say we have given them a **** ton of support and now they have to ante up and find a way to win.
nortex97 said:Yes, I'd expect corruption to be rooted out/pursued by anti-corruption officials, even if it were (is) embraced by Democrats as well. Something about subsidized softness comes to mind.mike0305 said:You really think it's a good idea to burn a leading member of one political party (and essentially taking sides with the other) ? So you want him to burn bridges with half the political system of the most powerful country on earth?Ags4DaWin said:
Question- and this is a litmus test of sorts for me.
IF zelensky was as serious about rooting out corruption as you say....then why did he resist investigating burisma and hunterBiden?
The Biden/burisma arrangement was made after the Maiden revolution while Biden was VP. And before zelensky.
If his goal was to root out corruption then that should have been a no Brainer for zelensky to devote some resources to that and a method for him to start to tag and get rid of those corrupt officials.
This is your litmus test?
This.
If you're against corruption, especially foreign countries using ur country for their own ends then you would root out and eliminate that corruption period.
It was in fact Ukraines supposed dissatisfaction with corruption that favored the US that led to him to be elected in the first place.
One would think if his intention was to fix that kind of corruption in the previous regime he would in fact fix that corruption that carried over.
The fact that you think it is unrealistic to expect an administration that is supposedly uncorrupt to eliminate corruption means that you have very little grasp of the things at play here and are stuck on that "evil russia" narrative.
One can understand the multitude of bad foreign policy decisions that led to Russia attacking the Ukraine and still believe Russia is in the wrong all while believing it is a poor tactical policy and not good for America to give a blank check to the Ukraine.
Continuing to make poor foreign policy decisions will only serve to continue the conflict and escalate it. But to correct those poor policy decisions you must first acknowledge them and seek to remedy them.
Being stubborn and throwing a blank check at bad policy decisions instead of admitting they were bad led to mistakes like creating ISIS and the Contras, and arming cartels and muslim zealots.
Ukraine have been meddled with by Russia and the US for decades and were bound to have issues with corruption and everything else coming along with being next door to Russia. Anyone in Zelenskyy's chair btwn 2 global superpowers is going to be a pawn, but he's done the best possible job of negotiating a favorable outcome for them and not allowing them to become a Russian vassal state imo.
The biggest failure imo is complete failure to negotiate a middle ground prior to war breaking out, and with US being a world leader I think most of the blame lies with us.
It's obvious why eastern European countries want to join NATO for protection, but there was no way to negotiate a middle ground with some protection guarantee that doesn't tick Russia off or make them feel low? Could we have done more to try & integrate Russia into NATO or the EU?
Realize this was a huge long shot at best and an perhaps an idealistic dream, they likely would have had to make German style reforms post ww2. Also not sure it would have changed the outcome, but it tones down the hardline rhetoric and allowed us more opportunity to define the narrative besides NATO v Russia.
The biggest failure imo is complete failure to negotiate a middle ground prior to war breaking out, and with US being a world leader I think most of the blame lies with us.
It's obvious why eastern European countries want to join NATO for protection, but there was no way to negotiate a middle ground with some protection guarantee that doesn't tick Russia off or make them feel low? Could we have done more to try & integrate Russia into NATO or the EU?
Realize this was a huge long shot at best and an perhaps an idealistic dream, they likely would have had to make German style reforms post ww2. Also not sure it would have changed the outcome, but it tones down the hardline rhetoric and allowed us more opportunity to define the narrative besides NATO v Russia.
You are still waiving these incorrect talking points around.
The US have not impeded negotiations.
This US wanted to bleed Putin from the outset is a farce.
https://www.thebulwark.com/no-the-united-states-and-its-allies-did-not-blow-up-a-ukraine-russia-peace-deal/
Slightly earlier in the interview, at about 2 hours and 45 minutes, Bennett makes another significant statement: while the talks achieved some breakthroughs, with Putin agreeing to drop his demands for Ukraine's demilitarization and "denazification"which Bennett understood to mean the removal of Volodymyr Zelensky as president of Ukraineand Zelensky agreeing to drop the goal of NATO membership, all of that juddered to a halt in early April once the reports came in of Russian atrocities in Bucha, the town near Kyiv that had been under Russian occupation in March. As Bennett succinctly puts it: "The Bucha massacreonce that happened I said, it's over."
One can certainly wish Bennett had been clearer in his interview about who ended the negotiations and how. (It seems unlikely that "they" refers only to the United States, since elsewhere in the interview Bennett depicts the Biden administration as occupying the middle ground between the "hawks" and the "doves" and suggests that Boris Johnson was the only "hawk.") Bennett did, however, provide some clarification on Twitter in response to another thread amplifying Mat's revelations
…published in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs and posted online last August noted, citing "multiple former senior U.S. officials," that "in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement," under which "Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries." Interestingly, Bennett's account differs from theirs in one key detail: He claims that Western security guarantees for Ukraine were unacceptable to the Kremlin, which saw such a clause as the equivalent of Ukrainian NATO membership. Bennett also says he persuaded Zelensky to drop this condition and instead focus on growing Ukraine's own military strength (using Israel itself as a model). Thus, for what it's worth, Bennett portrays Ukraine as willing to make even greater concessions than reported by Foreign Affairs.
The US have not impeded negotiations.
This US wanted to bleed Putin from the outset is a farce.
https://www.thebulwark.com/no-the-united-states-and-its-allies-did-not-blow-up-a-ukraine-russia-peace-deal/
Slightly earlier in the interview, at about 2 hours and 45 minutes, Bennett makes another significant statement: while the talks achieved some breakthroughs, with Putin agreeing to drop his demands for Ukraine's demilitarization and "denazification"which Bennett understood to mean the removal of Volodymyr Zelensky as president of Ukraineand Zelensky agreeing to drop the goal of NATO membership, all of that juddered to a halt in early April once the reports came in of Russian atrocities in Bucha, the town near Kyiv that had been under Russian occupation in March. As Bennett succinctly puts it: "The Bucha massacreonce that happened I said, it's over."
One can certainly wish Bennett had been clearer in his interview about who ended the negotiations and how. (It seems unlikely that "they" refers only to the United States, since elsewhere in the interview Bennett depicts the Biden administration as occupying the middle ground between the "hawks" and the "doves" and suggests that Boris Johnson was the only "hawk.") Bennett did, however, provide some clarification on Twitter in response to another thread amplifying Mat's revelations
…published in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs and posted online last August noted, citing "multiple former senior U.S. officials," that "in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement," under which "Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries." Interestingly, Bennett's account differs from theirs in one key detail: He claims that Western security guarantees for Ukraine were unacceptable to the Kremlin, which saw such a clause as the equivalent of Ukrainian NATO membership. Bennett also says he persuaded Zelensky to drop this condition and instead focus on growing Ukraine's own military strength (using Israel itself as a model). Thus, for what it's worth, Bennett portrays Ukraine as willing to make even greater concessions than reported by Foreign Affairs.
Americans picking sides in a tragic human conflict where there is clearly an aggressor, on the basis of run-of-the mill party politics (and associated corruption that has always been present in the US 2-party system) is about the most ridiculous thing I've seen in my 36 years of living.
The problem is that our senile, duplicitous, treasonous leader is picking a side, with ridiculous demands, in said conflict, at huge expense to all sides.Brewskis said:
Americans picking sides in a tragic human conflict where there is clearly an aggressor, on the basis of run-of-the mill party politics (and associated corruption that has always been present in the US 2-party system) is about the most ridiculous thing I've seen in my 36 years of living.
You might see more things, if you look.
Brewskis said:
Americans picking sides in a tragic human conflict where there is clearly an aggressor, on the basis of run-of-the mill party politics (and associated corruption that has always been present in the US 2-party system) is about the most ridiculous thing I've seen in my 36 years of living.
Maybe try learning more about history. This isn't a 2 party issue it is an issue of adjusting the ends to the means. And also a recognition of what means are actually available. You don't get any points for wanting the ideal outcome. In fact you are likely to do more harm if you chase that outcome without the means of getting it done.
I am picking NO SIDE. And I have 11 years on you.Brewskis said:
Americans picking sides in a tragic human conflict where there is clearly an aggressor, on the basis of run-of-the mill party politics (and associated corruption that has always been present in the US 2-party system) is about the most ridiculous thing I've seen in my 36 years of living.
I'm ok with a slow proxy using Ukraine as the shield of the west. It depletes our enemy and allows us to reduce their risk to the west without actually fighting.
Yeah until the bear has been poked enough and lays a thermonuclear warhead in the middle of your mega church during the laser light show.
Signel said:
I'm ok with a slow proxy using Ukraine as the shield of the west. It depletes our enemy and allows us to reduce their risk to the west without actually fighting.
So you are cool with Ukrainians dying and the rest being subject to poverty and economic ruin? The longer this war draws on the more damaging it is to Ukraine's long term culture and ability to be a stable nation.
Wait until China gets kicked off. You ain't seen nothing yet. Remember, Xi and Putin already pledged to take us out. If you think sitting back while they claim resources and invade strategic countries is going to work out in our favor.....texagbeliever said:Signel said:
I'm ok with a slow proxy using Ukraine as the shield of the west. It depletes our enemy and allows us to reduce their risk to the west without actually fighting.
So you are cool with Ukrainians dying and the rest being subject to poverty and economic ruin? The longer this war draws on the more damaging it is to Ukraine's long term culture and ability to be a stable nation.
Has anyone read China's plan? It is public at this point. You can read what they've done in Africa, the Caribbean, and it is evident they are working with the cartels to the south of us.
Featured Stories
See All
No. 15 A&M's hot start more than enough to run away from NMSU, 38-3
by Olin Buchanan
19:00
4h ago
2.5k
Post Game Review: No. 15 Texas A&M 38, New Mexico State 3
by Kay Naegeli
19:50
1d ago
5.9k
Donors can now earn priority points by giving to Texas Aggies United
by Texas Aggies United
TJM90
What hotel is the the tu football team staying at for our game?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
33
Ag with kids
What hotel is the the tu football team staying at for our game?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
25