War in Ukraine

[volbound1700]

Understand.

I don't think everything is evil the U.S. has done, most of it has came about on purpose though.... and for some reason Americans think everything is their business and they don't see the evil in that. Generally speaking RFK Jr. and Tulsi are correction, the U.S. is basically ran by neocons that profit from all this.

Generally speaking, about 90% (throwing a number out there) of what the U.S. has been involved militarily not only wasn't needed and failed, but was more or less orchestrated in part to happen. Its hard to separate the government from the evil actors, and at some point become one and the same.

The Ukraine was setup to fail, the setup starting in the 90s. The end result probably won't change much here, I hope Georgia continues to look after itself because they have been targeted for eliminated next.

Great post and I can align with everything you listed here.

I do think USA jumps into a lot of conflicts with well intentions but ends up making things worse. USA government, at times, functions like all the world thinks like US Citizens.

Honestly, I am that way right now. I sometimes think that if all human beings had half a brain, they would adopt the US System and Christianity as they have been proven successes for 300 years now. Islam, Buddhism, etc. have resulted in failed nations. Look at the Middle East pre-Islam in times like the Roman or Hellenic eras versus what it is now for example. Why would anyone worship Islam after seeing all the issues with it?

 

[BeardedVol]

The us was absolutely a leader to remove gaddafi. He threatened the petrodollar. Iraq as a country is in no way better off than pre-invasion. It's a trash heap

First Gulf War was a result of Kuwait and the us doing shady oil things to sabotage Iraq. As with almost all us military ops it was unnecessary

Who petitioned the UNSC for a no-fly zone over Libya?

Hint: it was not the US or NATO.

Arab states seek Libya no-fly zone

Regional bloc calls on UN Security Council to take steps to protect civilians from air attack by Gaddafi forces.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[utvolpj]

they need to rebuild in 2024+, in 2022 that was the start of the Russian invasion, not much to rebuild.

are you seriously arguing that cutting off their money flow is going to override the threat of death and destruction? That is completely illogical. Russia was promising way way worse than we were, but we somehow twisted their arm with the weaker threat? GTFO.

It's how we stop them from ending the war without our approval. Without us money this ends. It goes until we say

 

[LSU-SIU]

The us was absolutely a leader to remove gaddafi. He threatened the petrodollar. Iraq as a country is in no way better off than pre-invasion. It's a trash heap

First Gulf War was a result of Kuwait and the us doing shady oil things to sabotage Iraq. As with almost all us military ops it was unnecessary

Its funny but people don't remember that Iraq claimed they had just as much right to go into Kuwait as the U.S. did going into Panama. Matter of fact, if I remember right Saddam said that is where the idea came from. Also, the CIA was still funding Iraq with arms for use against Iran.

What people don't realize is in many cases the U.S. is funding or supply both sides to some of these conflicts, in the case of Syria.... three separate parties to the conflict have U.S. supplies, and Hillary got a big check from it.

 

[LouderVol]

It's how we stop them from ending the war without our approval. Without us money this ends. It goes until we say

again, if they took the peace deal with Russia, they wouldn't need the money to fight the war they just signed a peace deal on. you aren't making any sense. signing the peace deal in '22 would make any money threat we could make completely irrelevant.

you act like the Ukrainian thought process was:
LACK OF US MONEY is more harmful than complete disarmament, Russian occupation, and Russian approved leaders.
when in reality the logical issue was
COMPLETE DISARMAMENT, RUSSIAN OCCUPATION, AND RUSSIAN APPROVED LEADERS is more harmful than lack of us money.

at this point I don't think it stops when we stop. way too much invested by both Ukraine and Russia to stop without terms at least one of them will accept.

 

[KB5252]

Libya was not US-led. We consented to it but we were not the major player there. It was French led.

Iraq is better off in that Kurds aren't being slaughtered and they are not invading neighboring nations but the rebuild was totally a failure, I agree. A lot of the problem is Islamic culture which has been an aggressive, brutal system since 600 A.D. Had the Byzantines and Sassanids kicked their butt, we may not be having this conversation today (granted, USA may not have ever come about in that scenario).

First Gulf War was not debatable by anyone at that time. Nearly ever nation on Earth supported the intervention including most the Middle East.

I'm not so sure about that, we've had an awful lot of spooks in that area for a while.

 

[utvolpj]

Who petitioned the UNSC for a no-fly zone over Libya?

Hint: it was not the US or NATO.

Arab states seek Libya no-fly zone

Regional bloc calls on UN Security Council to take steps to protect civilians from air attack by Gaddafi forces.

www.aljazeera.com

A day earlier, Barack Obama, the US president, said the United States and its allies were “tightening the noose” around Gaddafi and European Union leaders meeting in Brussels said they would consider all options to force the Libyan leader to step down.

 

[volbound1700]

again, if they took the peace deal with Russia, they wouldn't need the money to fight the war they just signed a peace deal on. you aren't making any sense. signing the peace deal in '22 would make any money threat we could make completely irrelevant.

you act like the Ukrainian thought process was:
LACK OF US MONEY is more harmful than complete disarmament, Russian occupation, and Russian approved leaders.
when in reality the logical issue was
COMPLETE DISARMAMENT, RUSSIAN OCCUPATION, AND RUSSIAN APPROVED LEADERS is more harmful than lack of us money.

at this point I don't think it stops when we stop. way too much invested by both Ukraine and Russia to stop without terms at least one of them will accept.

As odd as the take may be, I have a little faith that Trump can turn things around and find peace. I don't like the snub the enemy mentality of the Democrats and I don't think Trump goes for that either. I think Putin will talk to Trump and they will come up with something.

Trump is going to hit Russia with the threat of supplying all the gas to Europe and frankly could try to undercut Russian gas trade with China and other nations. Basically hit Russia in the pocket book.

At the same time, I think Trump knows that he has to give something to Putin to save Putin's face in front of his people. I am not sure what that will be. One theory is that Ukraine will give up land but I think that is going to be a hard sell to Ukraine.

 

[utvolpj]

again, if they took the peace deal with Russia, they wouldn't need the money to fight the war they just signed a peace deal on. you aren't making any sense. signing the peace deal in '22 would make any money threat we could make completely irrelevant.

you act like the Ukrainian thought process was:
LACK OF US MONEY is more harmful than complete disarmament, Russian occupation, and Russian approved leaders.
when in reality the logical issue was
COMPLETE DISARMAMENT, RUSSIAN OCCUPATION, AND RUSSIAN APPROVED LEADERS is more harmful than lack of us money.

at this point I don't think it stops when we stop. way too much invested by both Ukraine and Russia to stop without terms at least one of them will accept.

Would have to check the dates but there were likely hundreds of billions in aid bills approved or in the works at the time. That's money then

Now, Ukraine absolutely requires western money to rebuild as their country is devastated and there are virtually no men left to do it. They can't sign any deal without approval that might jeopardize that money.

 

[LouderVol]

As odd as the take may be, I have a little faith that Trump can turn things around and find peace. I don't like the snub the enemy mentality of the Democrats and I don't think Trump goes for that either. I think Putin will talk to Trump and they will come up with something.

Trump is going to hit Russia with the threat of supplying all the gas to Europe and frankly could try to undercut Russian gas trade with China and other nations. Basically hit Russia in the pocket book.

At the same time, I think Trump knows that he has to give something to Putin to save Putin's face in front of his people. I am not sure what that will be. One theory is that Ukraine will give up land but I think that is going to be a hard sell to Ukraine.

I agree, I don't think Trump will be nearly as successful as he thinks. I think there are some easy things Trump could start the bargaining process with, but I doubt it gets them over the finish line.

starting chip would be agreeing to only give Ukraine shorter ranged missiles, and to limit some of the weapons and aid we are giving them, as long as the peace talks are continuing.

I think Ukraine out of NATO is key. and easy for Putin to sell as a win. Ukraine won't like that, but they can't force themselves into NATO.

I think there is going to have to be some trading of land.

 

[LouderVol]

Would have to check the dates but there were likely hundreds of billions in aid bills approved or in the works at the time. That's money then

Now, Ukraine absolutely requires western money to rebuild as their country is devastated and there are virtually no men left to do it. They can't sign any deal without approval that might jeopardize that money.

money they needed then to fight the war....
the war that was going to end...

again, there is no way a rational person is more afraid of being cut off from money than they are from being invaded.

someone threatens to shoot you, and someone threatens to fire you. which one are you more concerned about?

 

[LSU-SIU]

As odd as the take may be, I have a little faith that Trump can turn things around and find peace. I don't like the snub the enemy mentality of the Democrats and I don't think Trump goes for that either. I think Putin will talk to Trump and they will come up with something.

Trump is going to hit Russia with the threat of supplying all the gas to Europe and frankly could try to undercut Russian gas trade with China and other nations. Basically hit Russia in the pocket book.

At the same time, I think Trump knows that he has to give something to Putin to save Putin's face in front of his people. I am not sure what that will be. One theory is that Ukraine will give up land but I think that is going to be a hard sell to Ukraine.

My take since about 2022 (mostly in posts here), is you get to the point where there isn't anything to bargain. I posted an article of Putin explaining that Russia/Ukraine drawing new borders doesn't solve the problem. Which is exactly what I have been saying for quite some time here.

To solve the problem what is there to negotiate? I frankly have no idea which is why I said in 2022 the meat grinder is going to be very long here.

I agree I don't know what Trump can do to actually bring the war to a rapid conclusion. The neocons set this one up very well.

There is only two conclusions to this at this point:

1. pull funding and my time table of the destruction of Ukraine will probably increase
2. keep funding in place and it will take considerable time for Ukraine to be destroyed, but it will be destroyed

Nobody presents any other reasonable outcome.

 

[BeardedVol]

@utvolpj

And yet there was no move for a UNSC resolution until the Arab League requested it.

Arab League asks UN to impose no-fly zone over Libya

The Arab League asks the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians from air attack by Moammar Gadhafi's forces, giving crucial backing to a key request of the rebels.

www.nbcnews.com

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Volsdeep4]

There is no justification for Putin to invade Ukraine. This is where LSU and Ras went off the deep end.

That being said, Biden has no business giving long range missiles to Ukraine to strike Russia. Would the USA have been happy if Russia had given weapons to the Taliban?

This is an unnecessary escalation and I don't want to play the Nuclear War/WW3 game.

They did as did Iran.

 

[volbound1700]

My take since about 2022 (mostly in posts here), is you get to the point where there isn't anything to bargain. I posted an article of Putin explaining that Russia/Ukraine drawing new borders doesn't solve the problem. Which is exactly what I have been saying for quite some time here.

To solve the problem what is there to negotiate? I frankly have no idea which is why I said in 2022 the meat grinder is going to be very long here.

I agree I don't know what Trump can do to actually bring the war to a rapid conclusion. The neocons set this one up very well.

There is only two conclusions to this at this point:

1. pull funding and my time table of the destruction of Ukraine will probably increase
2. keep funding in place and it will take considerable time for Ukraine to be destroyed, but it will be destroyed

Nobody presents any other reasonable outcome.

Here is my theory on what Trump could do:

1. Threaten to strangle Russia's economy by providing low cost oil/gas
2. Agree to not admit Ukraine into NATO (Trump doesn't even like NATO so easy move for him)
3. Get acknowledgement of Crimea being in the fold of Russia
4. Get Ukraine to recognize Russian access to other Black Sea ports (kind of like USA has access to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba).
5. Get some guarantee from Ukrainian Government on the protection of Russian Citizens
6. Get some guarantee of NATO disarmament on nations that border Russian Territory

Something like this could come out as a "win" for both sides. It may not be enough but in theory I think that maybe where we are heading. In the extreme case, they may have to give Luhansk to Russia.

#6 might actually be the most controversial as the Neocons will whine that Trump has left Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland defenseless against Russia. However, it would help to scale down the hostility.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Here is my theory on what Trump could do:

1. Threaten to strangle Russia's economy by providing low cost oil/gas
2. Agree to not admit Ukraine into NATO (Trump doesn't even like NATO so easy move for him)
3. Get acknowledgement of Crimea being in the fold of Russia
4. Get Ukraine to recognize Russian access to other Black Sea ports (kind of like USA has access to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba).
5. Get some guarantee from Ukrainian Government on the protection of Russian Citizens
6. Get some guarantee of NATO disarmament on nations that border Russian Territory

Something like this could come out as a "win" for both sides. It may not be enough but in theory I think that maybe where we are heading. In the extreme case, they may have to give Luhansk to Russia.

#6 might actually be the most controversial as the Neocons will whine that Trump has left Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland defenseless against Russia. However, it would help to scale down the hostility.

That doesn't solve the problem, see Putin comments and mine from 2022.

I think the Russians are hoping something can happen, but realistic there is only a few ways to solve the problem... it generally means the Ukraine has to go away.

 

[volbound1700]

That doesn't solve the problem, see Putin comments and mine from 2022.

I think the Russians are hoping something can happen, but realistic there is only a few ways to solve the problem... it generally means the Ukraine has to go away.

Are you referencing Putin's comments about how Ukraine and Russia are the same people? In a manner of speaking, he is kind of right. However, it would be like arguing Austrians, Swiss, and Germans are the same people and Germany using that as a pretext to invade those nations.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Are you referencing Putin's comments about how Ukraine and Russia are the same people? In a manner of speaking, he is kind of right. However, it would be like arguing Austrians, Swiss, and Germans are the same people and Germany using that as a pretext to invade those nations.

No, see article from yesterday I posted. Russia is now saying what I said in 2022. The Ukraine isn't going to be left alone, and even if left alone they'll probably be back in the same war.

The only via option is annexation of the western half by Poland or other, but there isn't any takers for that.

This is why I said it could take a decade or two back in 2022 because it takes a long time to destroy all that.

There simply is no off ramp, neocons set this one up good. Georgia should be making plans.... 4 years is not that long.

 

[volbound1700]

No, see article from yesterday I posted. Russia is now saying what I said in 2022. The Ukraine isn't going to be left alone, and even if left alone they'll probably be back in the same war.

The only via option is annexation of the western half by Poland or other, but there isn't any takers for that.

They can say what they want and frankly they are probably saying that for greater leverage.

Do you negotiate? I do for a living. You never ask for what you want, you ask for something greater and then give stuff up to get what you want.

 

[LSU-SIU]

They can say what they want and frankly they are probably saying that for greater leverage.

Do you negotiate? I do for a living. You never ask for what you want, you ask for something greater and then give stuff up to get what you want.

What Russia is seeking isn't achieveable which is why I've said all along that most of the Ukraine will have to most likely be destroyed. That is more or less what Russia is saying.

Russia is looking for an option but there just isn't any easy one here. The neocons did quite the number.

 

[KB5252]

No, see article from yesterday I posted. Russia is now saying what I said in 2022. The Ukraine isn't going to be left alone, and even if left alone they'll probably be back in the same war.

The only via option is annexation of the western half by Poland or other, but there isn't any takers for that.

This is why I said it could take a decade or two back in 2022 because it takes a long time to destroy all that.

There simply is no off ramp, neocons set this one up good. Georgia should be making plans.... 4 years is not that long.

It's only a problem for Russia because they are inventing the problem. Once there is no funding for Ukraine to fight their problem goes away.

 

[LSU-SIU]

It's only a problem for Russia because they are inventing the problem. Once there is no funding for Ukraine to fight their problem goes away.

My take is the problem goes away with or without funding, see my 2022 comments. Our opinions on how things got here are not really going to change anything.

You can go suit up since you are the tough guy, that won't matter either.

 

[KB5252]

What Russia is seeking isn't achieveable which is why I've said all along that most of the Ukraine will have to most likely be destroyed. That is more or less what Russia is saying.

Russia is looking for an option but there just isn't any easy one here. The neocons did quite the number.

Russia isn't looking for an option man. They are looking to grind Ukraine into dust because they stood up for themselves and fought. Call it what it is man. This is exactly why you can't be taken seriously. You are parroting the Russian position using Russian propaganda points...... Over and over and over.

 

[KB5252]

My take is the problem goes away with or without funding, see my 2022 comments. Our opinions on how things got here are not really going to change anything.

You can go suit up since you are the tough guy, that won't matter either.

I'm not going back to 2022 to read comments. Sum it up or shut up about 2022. Nobody has time for that ish

 

[LSU-SIU]

Russia isn't looking for an option man. They are looking to grind Ukraine into dust because they stood up for themselves and fought. Call it what it is man. This is exactly why you can't be taken seriously. You are parroting the Russian position using Russian propaganda points...... Over and over and over.

Yet, I said it in 2022 when the Russians weren't even talking about it. Why you are here is what the U.S. military said would happen in the 90s. They predicted it would happen, yet they continued.

I'm sorry but you're not really adding anything of value and you don't want to take responsibility for what your government has been doing. Not much I can do about that.