The War in Ukraine
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Yes, it is, Russia and they like to meddle.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
maybe it's dumb to put military presence right on their border.
you people are trying to destroy the nation with entangling allieances and forever wars.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
epstein visits Whitehouse under obama 17 times.
What war is not? Were Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam intelligent wars?
Scott
Verified User
Technically, that's not what Simplicius, which I assume is the author you're referring to, actually said. He did seem to say that he -suspects- that this is why Trump has given Russia a "50 day notice". I think it's best to just quote Simplicius directly so that there's no confusion as to what he said for the audience:
**
Trump finally ‘wowed’ the world today with his grand announcement on punitive measures against Russia.
As usual, the announcement struck a dull and lackluster chord for most, with Russian markets jubilantly jumping by nearly 3% in response. But let’s dig in to see whether there is actually more meat on the bone of Trump’s scary threats than people give credit for.
Firstly, the timing: Axios now reports that Putin allegedly told Trump he plans to ‘intensify’ the Russian summer offensive in the next 60 days, with the goal—according to some sources—purportedly being to capture the remainder of nominal Russian territory, i.e. Donetsk, Lugansk, and Zaporozhye oblasts.
If there’s any hint of truth to such reports, then Trump’s “50-day notice” would seem to line up with Putin’s timeline, given that the conversation happened days ago, and thus Putin’s “60-day plan” would fall almost precisely on Trump’s deadline.
**
Source:
Trump's Weapons Magic Show is Smoke & Mirrors Masterclass
Trump finally ‘wowed’ the world today with his grand announcement on punitive measures against Russia.
simplicius76.substack.com
Trump is actually giving aid to Ukraine even as we speak and I suspect he'll continue doing so for the time being. Or are you referring to the fact that Trump has apparently made it so that the U.S. will no longer be paying for most if any of it? I infer this from the following passage from Simplicius' article:
**
Now on the weapons side, as always, is where the biggest cloud of ambiguity lies. No one seems to know precisely what weapons and from what package will be sent, but according to CNN, it all sounds like more of the same, but just ‘repackaged’ with a new price tag.
Reports indicate the same air-to-air missiles, howitzer and GMLRS rounds will be sent as before, but simply that now NATO countries will foot the bill. Prior to that, under Biden’s PDA, the US was sending weapons directly to Ukraine from its own stockpiles, and then replenishing those stockpiles with new orders to the MIC, from taxpayer funds. Now, it will come from European taxpayer funds—a win for the US, we must admit.
**
I know there are other posters here who are tired of the U.S. financing Ukraine's war with Russia, and on this, I agree completely. Trump made it clear even before he was elected that he didn't think highly of the Biden Administration's exorbitant expenditures to fund the Ukraine war and on this he hasn't changed tack.
Scott
Verified User
Nope, they were all dumb too.
Scott
Verified User
Agreed.
Scott
Verified User
Russia's meddling is positively tame compared to U.S. meddling. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs said it quite well to European Parliament recently:
**
So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation.
There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.
(Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have oft en led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.)
That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.
They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government.
**
Source:
Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace
The author explains manipulative U.S. post-war foreign policy to European MPs, explodes myths about Ukraine and urges an independent European foreign policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcMoDFU1xg&ab_channel=MichaelvonderSchulenburg This is an edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’
consortiumnews.com
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Scott
Verified User
Recent Russian advances on the Donetsk front...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6QxYsiAVbM&ab_channel=HistoryLegends
Scott
Verified User
Martin Armstrong from Armstrong Economics just came out with an article today that I thought was quite good.I -hope- that he's mistaken in where the war in Ukraine will lead, but I certainly can't rule it out. The full article can be seen here:
www.armstrongeconomics.com
Quoting his conclusion below:
**
The G7 nations have already seized $300 billion in foreign Russian assets. Perhaps Merz forgets the repercussions of the Treaty of Versailles after the first World War in 1919. France and Britain, still obsessed with revenge for their own wartime losses, forced Germany to accept total responsibility for a war that was triggered by a single assassination in the Balkans. Germany was stripped of territory, disarmed, and then burdened with reparations so astronomical they could never be repaid.
The German people were humiliated, starving, and desperate. Hyperinflation destroyed their savings and created a depression felt through the generations. The Weimar Republic was a puppet regime enforced by foreign powers. That anger fermented into nationalism, and history repeated — as it always does. This is precisely what gave rise to Adolf Hitler, and if the people think Vladimir Putin is malicious, they are ill-prepared for the hardliners standing behind him, eagerly awaiting their opportunity to take on NATO. Putin has been attempting to end this conflict, but has been prevented from doing so by the Western neocons who removed the possibility of peace.
When you back a nation into a corner, destroy its economy, and humiliate its people, you guarantee a future war. The Russia-Ukraine war has been escalating and neocons like Merz are ensuring that the embers ignite until a fire roars through Russia and Ukraine before engulfing the rest of the world.
**
The Treaty Of Versailles Part II? | Armstrong Economics
Vladimir Putin has 580 billion additional reasons not to end the war. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz entered office with a clear intent to usher Germany
www.armstrongeconomics.com
Quoting his conclusion below:
**
The G7 nations have already seized $300 billion in foreign Russian assets. Perhaps Merz forgets the repercussions of the Treaty of Versailles after the first World War in 1919. France and Britain, still obsessed with revenge for their own wartime losses, forced Germany to accept total responsibility for a war that was triggered by a single assassination in the Balkans. Germany was stripped of territory, disarmed, and then burdened with reparations so astronomical they could never be repaid.
The German people were humiliated, starving, and desperate. Hyperinflation destroyed their savings and created a depression felt through the generations. The Weimar Republic was a puppet regime enforced by foreign powers. That anger fermented into nationalism, and history repeated — as it always does. This is precisely what gave rise to Adolf Hitler, and if the people think Vladimir Putin is malicious, they are ill-prepared for the hardliners standing behind him, eagerly awaiting their opportunity to take on NATO. Putin has been attempting to end this conflict, but has been prevented from doing so by the Western neocons who removed the possibility of peace.
When you back a nation into a corner, destroy its economy, and humiliate its people, you guarantee a future war. The Russia-Ukraine war has been escalating and neocons like Merz are ensuring that the embers ignite until a fire roars through Russia and Ukraine before engulfing the rest of the world.
**
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
So has Trump.
So why does Russia bomb civilian targets that have no military value the very same day he gets off the phone with Trump?
Realistically all that does is ingrain Ukrainian hatred for Russia
Which is exactly what Russia has done to Ukraine.
Scott
Verified User
Yes, but on his terms. The problem with that approach is that the side that is losing doesn't set the terms.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. First show me solid evidence that Russia bombs "civilian targets that have no military value".
No, it was the neocons/neoliberals that did that to Russia. I sincerely doubt the war in Ukraine would have started had it not been the United States' support of the far right, particularly neo nazis, way back in 2014, which played an integral role in the Euromaidan coup. It was all downhill from there. A good article on the subject:
Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”
As Russia actually do launch an invasion or “special operation” in Ukraine, we thought now was a good time to recap on how we got here. The historical, political and ethnic divisions in…
off-guardian.org
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Which were not unreasonable.
So if Russia sets the terms its basically for Ukraine to surrender unconditionally. Any peace negotiation requirs give and take.
Really?
I agree the U.S should never have taken sides. The coup was stupid but the protests were legit. Most (all) the former soviet republics are relieved not to be under Russia's thumb. Russia is hated by virtually all of them. Even Belarus, but that's anecdotal.
And you don't think Ukrainians hate Russia? Not necessarily Russians because there are many "good" Russians that are against their aggression.
No offense, but I don't read those articles you post anymore. I've found them to be redundant.It was all downhill from there. A good article on the subject:
Timeline: Euromaidan, the original “Ukraine Crisis”
As Russia actually do launch an invasion or “special operation” in Ukraine, we thought now was a good time to recap on how we got here. The historical, political and ethnic divisions in…
Scott
Verified User
I strongly disagree with you there. After the 8 year civil war in Ukraine, punctuated by 2 temporary ceasefires that Russia played a part in, I think Russia's done with temporary ceasefires. Either there will be a peace agreement meant to last or Russia will just keep on taking Ukrainian territory until Ukraine becomes more amenable to the idea.
Scott
Verified User
I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that there would be some give and take. Russia would give up some territory in regions it has not yet claimed, such as Sumy, and Ukraine would give up what remains in regions it has not yet fully taken, such as Donetsk. But most importantly, Ukraine wouldn't keep having hundreds of thousands of its soldiers dying every year.
Scott
Verified User
Really.
Scott
Verified User
I'm not denying that many Ukrainians, particularly -western- Ukrainians, were upset that Viktor Yanukovych, the elected President of Ukraine at the time, had decided to postpone joining the European Union. The thing is, he had good reason to. I find it interesting that you say that the coup was stupid. I'm wondering if you know about the darkest day of Euromaidan, the day both protesters -and- law enforcement were gunned down. Good article on that here:
The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence - Global Research
The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) have not paved their way to the international mainstream media.
www.globalresearch.ca