US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia now has about 100,000 troops sitting on Ukraine’s border, and is sending strong signals it will invade as soon as the weather reaches the right moment. Russia is filling Ukraine media with all sorts of misinformation and fake news in advance of an attack. Biden is working with many other countries to discourage Russian aggression and warn of economic sanctions these countries will impose. Biden does not have many choices here.

The Trumpublicans - led by FoxNews - are of course supporting their Russian masters in all this, and saying the US should just let Russia invade other countries without consequence. More traditional Republicans are saying the US should send military support to Ukraine. No matter what Biden does, they’re all sure to try to blame him if Russia invades.

Are there any good options?

I think another question to ask is this: could this situation have been avoided had we made different foreign policy decisions over the last 20 years? It is hard to believe today, but we cooperated with Russia during peace-keeping operations after the war in Bosnia. Relations between the U.S. and Russia were not perfect at that time, but they were far better than they are now. How did the relationship deteriorate so much? Perhaps we should never have considered the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and perhaps we shouldn't have expanded NATO into the Baltics. Instead, we should have considered these countries to be neutral zones in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military assets.

Do you always twist yourself into a pretzel to explain the aggressor’s behavior? What if Russians had chosen democracy over the past 30 years and instead of 2 presidents (and 1 proxy) had real elections during this time, real political fractions, real free media, and some semblance of fairer wealth distribution of their immense natural resources? May be then they would have been busier with improving their own lives rather than metastasizing the cancer of a rotten and defunct empire. It’s not on us to blame ourselves for what the Russians failed to achieve in their own country that nations aspiring for good governance and democracy try to get away from. It’s not nato. It’s good governance and democracy that the current Russian leadership finds so intolerable in close in neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia now has about 100,000 troops sitting on Ukraine’s border, and is sending strong signals it will invade as soon as the weather reaches the right moment. Russia is filling Ukraine media with all sorts of misinformation and fake news in advance of an attack. Biden is working with many other countries to discourage Russian aggression and warn of economic sanctions these countries will impose. Biden does not have many choices here.

The Trumpublicans - led by FoxNews - are of course supporting their Russian masters in all this, and saying the US should just let Russia invade other countries without consequence. More traditional Republicans are saying the US should send military support to Ukraine. No matter what Biden does, they’re all sure to try to blame him if Russia invades.

Are there any good options?

I think another question to ask is this: could this situation have been avoided had we made different foreign policy decisions over the last 20 years? It is hard to believe today, but we cooperated with Russia during peace-keeping operations after the war in Bosnia. Relations between the U.S. and Russia were not perfect at that time, but they were far better than they are now. How did the relationship deteriorate so much? Perhaps we should never have considered the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and perhaps we shouldn't have expanded NATO into the Baltics. Instead, we should have considered these countries to be neutral zones in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military assets.

So to answer your question, may be this situation would have been avoided but by making more effort to promote democracy in Russia. If Georgia had been the red line, and Russian leadership felt the consequences of that inversion, this may have been avoided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia now has about 100,000 troops sitting on Ukraine’s border, and is sending strong signals it will invade as soon as the weather reaches the right moment. Russia is filling Ukraine media with all sorts of misinformation and fake news in advance of an attack. Biden is working with many other countries to discourage Russian aggression and warn of economic sanctions these countries will impose. Biden does not have many choices here.

The Trumpublicans - led by FoxNews - are of course supporting their Russian masters in all this, and saying the US should just let Russia invade other countries without consequence. More traditional Republicans are saying the US should send military support to Ukraine. No matter what Biden does, they’re all sure to try to blame him if Russia invades.

Are there any good options?

I think another question to ask is this: could this situation have been avoided had we made different foreign policy decisions over the last 20 years? It is hard to believe today, but we cooperated with Russia during peace-keeping operations after the war in Bosnia. Relations between the U.S. and Russia were not perfect at that time, but they were far better than they are now. How did the relationship deteriorate so much? Perhaps we should never have considered the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and perhaps we shouldn't have expanded NATO into the Baltics. Instead, we should have considered these countries to be neutral zones in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military assets.

So to answer your question, may be this situation would have been avoided but by making more effort to promote democracy in Russia. If Georgia had been the red line, and Russian leadership felt the consequences of that inversion, this may have been avoided.

Were Ukraine and Georgia genuine democracies in 2008 when we first began discussing NATO membership with them?

Or perhaps some of our motivation was simply to weaken Russia, irrespective of the governing arrangements in Ukraine and Georgia?

It is news to me that we select allies based on their level of democracy. Is Saudi Arabia superior to Russia with respect to its democratic institutions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Or perhaps some of our motivation was simply to weaken Russia, irrespective of the governing arrangements in Ukraine and Georgia?

Russia was already weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all pretend we care about Ukraine, and send all our money into Ukraine in the form of advanced weapons. Then when the Ukrainians run away from the battle, Russia can have the weapons

We should stand by and do nothing as Russia invades a European nation for peace in our times.

That sounds like a wonderful and caring slogan but reality is not so black and white. The civilians who actually live in LPR and DPR repeatedly stated that they were pretty much abandoned by Kyiv: for example, retirees could no longer get their retirement money, no social support, etc. You will not see many people who actually live there protesting the current outcome. It is really a more complex situation and not a clearly black and white picture you get from the headlines.

Watching Ru news? The retirees to this day are still getting pensions from Kyiv.

Well, if by Ru news you mean UN then yes
https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/stories/2017/6/59396b6d5/thousands-eastern-ukraine-lose-access-pensions.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all pretend we care about Ukraine, and send all our money into Ukraine in the form of advanced weapons. Then when the Ukrainians run away from the battle, Russia can have the weapons

Hopefully the Ukranians understand how to hide the shoulder fired missiles we are giving them until they are ready to use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all pretend we care about Ukraine, and send all our money into Ukraine in the form of advanced weapons. Then when the Ukrainians run away from the battle, Russia can have the weapons

Hopefully the Ukranians understand how to hide the shoulder fired missiles we are giving them until they are ready to use them.

No silly if you “use” then you screw up resale value.

They must be stored in proper conditions are sale in mint condition.

No ukie is ever firing one against a Russian tank.

[Anonymous]

All the weapons dumb westerners are sending will be sold for Miami condo money by corrupt Ukrainian politicians and generals.

Wake up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the weapons dumb westerners are sending will be sold for Miami condo money by corrupt Ukrainian politicians and generals.

Wake up.

Totally. It is a strange win-win for both sides at the moment: Ukraine gets the entire world’s sympathy (for regular Ukrainians) and tons of aid/money (for politicians/oligarchs); Putin scored major points at home by being “tough on the cheating and lying NATO members”; defense contractors everywhere rejoice;

A classic case of Cui bono?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all pretend we care about Ukraine, and send all our money into Ukraine in the form of advanced weapons. Then when the Ukrainians run away from the battle, Russia can have the weapons

We should stand by and do nothing as Russia invades a European nation for peace in our times.

That sounds like a wonderful and caring slogan but reality is not so black and white. The civilians who actually live in LPR and DPR repeatedly stated that they were pretty much abandoned by Kyiv: for example, retirees could no longer get their retirement money, no social support, etc. You will not see many people who actually live there protesting the current outcome. It is really a more complex situation and not a clearly black and white picture you get from the headlines.

Watching Ru news? The retirees to this day are still getting pensions from Kyiv.

Well, if by Ru news you mean UN then yes
https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/stories/2017/6/59396b6d5/thousands-eastern-ukraine-lose-access-pensions.html

Yes. Unless you have been an avid reader of UNHCR news for the past decade, where else other than Ru propaganda would the the specific topic of pensions in the occupied territories pop up in your media stream?

https://www.stopfake.org/en/fake-kyiv-lacks-money-to-pay-pensions-in-occupied-territories/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Or perhaps some of our motivation was simply to weaken Russia, irrespective of the governing arrangements in Ukraine and Georgia?

Russia was already weak.

No country with 10,000 nukes is weak.

If they were weak, we wouldn't permit their military to enter Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Nobody said it was because Kyiv lacked the money - “technically” all the pensions were being paid but in reality you had to travel outside LPR/DPR to get them and the UN story is great illustration what it meant.

But, yes, if you want to believe the narrative of a Wonderful Ukraine where everything is perfect and anything to the contrary must be fake, I am not stopping you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia now has about 100,000 troops sitting on Ukraine’s border, and is sending strong signals it will invade as soon as the weather reaches the right moment. Russia is filling Ukraine media with all sorts of misinformation and fake news in advance of an attack. Biden is working with many other countries to discourage Russian aggression and warn of economic sanctions these countries will impose. Biden does not have many choices here.

The Trumpublicans - led by FoxNews - are of course supporting their Russian masters in all this, and saying the US should just let Russia invade other countries without consequence. More traditional Republicans are saying the US should send military support to Ukraine. No matter what Biden does, they’re all sure to try to blame him if Russia invades.

Are there any good options?

I think another question to ask is this: could this situation have been avoided had we made different foreign policy decisions over the last 20 years? It is hard to believe today, but we cooperated with Russia during peace-keeping operations after the war in Bosnia. Relations between the U.S. and Russia were not perfect at that time, but they were far better than they are now. How did the relationship deteriorate so much? Perhaps we should never have considered the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and perhaps we shouldn't have expanded NATO into the Baltics. Instead, we should have considered these countries to be neutral zones in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military assets.

If the Baltics hadn’t joined NATO, they would almost be under threat of Russian invasion. Russias aggression against Ukraine shows how wise their decision was.

[Anonymous]

Seems like another civil war we should not be involved in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia now has about 100,000 troops sitting on Ukraine’s border, and is sending strong signals it will invade as soon as the weather reaches the right moment. Russia is filling Ukraine media with all sorts of misinformation and fake news in advance of an attack. Biden is working with many other countries to discourage Russian aggression and warn of economic sanctions these countries will impose. Biden does not have many choices here.

The Trumpublicans - led by FoxNews - are of course supporting their Russian masters in all this, and saying the US should just let Russia invade other countries without consequence. More traditional Republicans are saying the US should send military support to Ukraine. No matter what Biden does, they’re all sure to try to blame him if Russia invades.

Are there any good options?

I think another question to ask is this: could this situation have been avoided had we made different foreign policy decisions over the last 20 years? It is hard to believe today, but we cooperated with Russia during peace-keeping operations after the war in Bosnia. Relations between the U.S. and Russia were not perfect at that time, but they were far better than they are now. How did the relationship deteriorate so much? Perhaps we should never have considered the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and perhaps we shouldn't have expanded NATO into the Baltics. Instead, we should have considered these countries to be neutral zones in which neither NATO nor Russia would place military assets.

If the Baltics hadn’t joined NATO, they would almost be under threat of Russian invasion. Russias aggression against Ukraine shows how wise their decision was.

Putin is the answer to why. It is always a megalomaniac person that drives this kind of thing. Always. Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, KJU, Houssein, Milosevic, BinLaden, etc. This is also why Trump should never be allowed near the White House again.