U.S. and UKRAINE Developments

[vinci]

Putin is hurting, he does not have a second plan how to deal with Ukraine, oligarch are also hurting by the sanction and starting to jump ship, skipping town, when Putin speech mention these Russian his own citizen are traitor and other garbage he does not mean regulars citizen, regular citizen does not have the mean to leave only the wealthy, negotiation was on the table Ukraine would not join NATO, Putin withdraw his war, to save face Putin should accept the deal to get out of this mess, at least Putin can claim he won the battle, but at this moment he can claim anything he want, Ukraine can be a loser, at least we can stop the war and innocent live lost because of one Lunatic. 

[placeholder]

On 2/28/2022 at 12:52 AM, richard_smith237 said:

So thats $350 million in weapons, including Javelin anti-tank weapons going straight to the Russians then... 

Any second thoughts on your prediction?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Republicans are backing Ukraine in the war. So why is there support for Russia on America's far right?

 

"Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there has been near unanimous denunciation of President Vladimir Putin, from President Joe Biden calling Putin a "war criminal," to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell describing him as a "ruthless thug." 

 

But the Ukraine invasion has found a significant pocket of support from prominent figures on the far right including white supremacist Nick Fuentes, who regularly gushes about Putin on his Telegram channel. The war is also a hot topic in QAnon chatrooms where Putin is often portrayed as a hero. 

...

In Putin, the far right sees a strongman capable of remaking the world order and rejecting liberal values such as gay rights, said Cynthia Miller-Idriss, director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University.

 

(more)

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/republicans-are-backing-ukraine-in-the-war-so-why-is-there-support-for-russia-on-america-s-far-right/ar-AAVweuL

 

 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Biden says Putin 'cannot remain in power'

 

President Joe Biden declared forcefully Saturday that Russian President Vladimir Putin should no longer remain in power, an unabashed challenge that came at the very end of a swing through Europe meant to reinforce Western unity.

...

The White House afterward said Biden wasn't calling for regime change...

...

Biden, standing along NATO's eastern edge, in Poland, issued a stern warning during his speech, telling Putin: "Don't even think about moving on one single inch of NATO territory."

 

(more)

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-calls-for-regime-change-in-russia-putin-cannot-remain-in-power/ar-AAVw4et

 

There's more elaboration in the full version of the report linked above... But the messaging re Putin here seems not very clear....

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Jingthing]

Yeah that's a big deal and no doubt intentional. It's basically calling for regime change in Russia. I find that surprising. Only the Russians can possibly do that.

[Jingthing]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah that's a big deal and no doubt intentional. It's basically calling for regime change in Russia. I find that surprising. Only the Russians can possibly do that.

The white house has walked it back. 

[Credo]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The white house has walked it back. 

I suspect some statements can't really be walked back.   This is one of them.   I think Biden meant exactly what he said.   The logistics of regime change would require a much, much more active involvement by the US.   But if anyone comes along who can cause regime change, I have a feeling they will get all the support they need from the US.

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Credo said:

I suspect some statements can't really be walked back.   This is one of them.   I think Biden meant exactly what he said.   The logistics of regime change would require a much, much more active involvement by the US.   But if anyone comes along who can cause regime change, I have a feeling they will get all the support they need from the US.

Of course it can be walked back. That's done.

Turns out the bombshell comment was not scripted but was more of an emotional response to what Biden experienced with refugees. 

The mainstream reaction is the comment walked back or not is a dangerous to escalation but on the other hand, it's what most people in the world WANT anyway, spoken or not. 

Overall, this was is already a big mess, and I doubt the comment will make a difference either way.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Jingthing

[impulse]

16 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The white house has walked it back. 

Just like they walked back his statement to the 82nd that they'd soon see the inside of Ukraine, and they walked back his threat that the US would respond "in kind" to any chemical attack.   All after he stated that a "minor incursion" by Russia would be acceptable.

 

The world is going to get dragged into WW3 accidentally if they keep putting him in front of a microphone.

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by impulse

[Berkshire]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

Just like they walked back his statement to the 82nd that they'd soon see the inside of Ukraine, and they walked back his threat that the US would respond "in kind" to any chemical attack.   All after he stated that a "minor incursion" by Russia would be acceptable.

 

The world is going to get dragged into WW3 accidentally if they keep putting him in front of a microphone.

 

Biden is saying what everyone's thinking, but yes, it means more when the POTUS says it.  The world is fortunate that Trump isn't still POTUS, as there would be even crazier [deleted] coming out of that guy's mouth.   

[impulse]

11 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Biden is saying what everyone's thinking, but yes, it means more when the POTUS says it.  The world is fortunate that Trump isn't still POTUS, as there would be even crazier [deleted] coming out of that guy's mouth.   

Remind me, how many countries did Russia invade on his watch?  On Obama/Biden's?  On Biden's?  

I've never been a fan of The Donald, but mean tweets seem pretty insignificant compared to this mess.

Edited March 28, 2022 by impulse

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

Remind me, how many countries did Russia invade on his watch?  On Obama/Biden's?  On Biden's?  

I've never been a fan of The Donald, but mean tweets seem pretty insignificant compared to this mess.

Russia could see the US destroying itself and the alliances that kept Russia in check while Trump was President.  Why would Russia do anything to distract Trump from this?

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Russia could see the US destroying itself and the alliances that kept Russia in check while Trump was President.  Why would Russia do anything to distract Trump from this?

Exactly. We now have credible information that Mr. Trump wanted to leave NATO in his first term but was persuaded not to, but intended to in his second term. Plus the internal U.S. divisions that Mr. Trump with his pro autocratic fake populism and toxic hate speech massively inflamed,  played right into Putin's dreams. Putin couldn't believe how lucky he was. 

 

Ironically was criminal Putin's war of choice against Ukraine has been the most unifying event in U.S. politics in many years, not to mention a dramatically invigorated NATO.

 

Putin is no genius as Mr. Trump has called him. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Jingthing

[Credo]

Putin only to wait until Trump's 2nd term and Ukraine would be his for the asking.   Trump intended to withdraw from both NATO and the South Korean Alliance, giving both Putin and Kim unfettered access to their targets.   I suspect his meeting alone with Putin covered this, but have nothing to substantiate it.   

 

Without the US in NATO, it would be a rather toothless tiger in the eyes of Putin and Trump, who had been impeached for withholding military aide to Ukraine, was clearly not interested in protecting Ukraine in any way.   

 

Trump was planning to withdraw US from Nato and ditch South Korea alliance

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-south-korea-book-b1883457.html

 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, impulse said:

Remind me, how many countries did Russia invade on his watch?  On Obama/Biden's?  On Biden's?  

I've never been a fan of The Donald, but mean tweets seem pretty insignificant compared to this mess.

I’ll remind you Trump tried to extort Ukraine by threatening to withhold  Congressionally approved military aid.

 

Military aid Ukraine needed for its defense against Russia.

 

 

 

[Berkshire]

12 hours ago, impulse said:

Remind me, how many countries did Russia invade on his watch?  On Obama/Biden's?  On Biden's?  

I've never been a fan of The Donald, but mean tweets seem pretty insignificant compared to this mess.

If you think that Trump would be better for Ukraine in any circumstance, you and I will never agree.  A number of experts in the field, including the former ambassador to the Ukraine, believe that Trump's four years in office directly contributed to Putin being so brazen.   

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, impulse said:

Remind me, how many countries did Russia invade on his watch?  On Obama/Biden's?  On Biden's?  

I've never been a fan of The Donald, but mean tweets seem pretty insignificant compared to this mess.

When someone says "I've never been a fan of Donald but..." you know that they've always been a fan. Particularly if they indulge in a misleading claiming about mean tweets. Mean tweets were never the issue as far as Putin and Russia go. Russia. Trying to reduce it to an issue of character is obviously partisan misdirection.

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Berkshire said:

If you think that Trump would be better for Ukraine in any circumstance, you and I will never agree.  A number of experts in the field, including the former ambassador to the Ukraine, believe that Trump's four years in office directly contributed to Putin being so brazen.   

Agree but sadly Obama set the table. Breaking his red line promise over Putin's war crimes in Syria. Weak tea response to Putin stealing Crimea.

 

Putin greatly miscalculated the western response this time. Kudos to NATO, Biden and most of all Zelinsky and the brave Ukrainian patriots for surprising him.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Jingthing

[ozimoron]

On 3/28/2022 at 10:14 AM, impulse said:

Just like they walked back his statement to the 82nd that they'd soon see the inside of Ukraine, and they walked back his threat that the US would respond "in kind" to any chemical attack.   All after he stated that a "minor incursion" by Russia would be acceptable.

 

The world is going to get dragged into WW3 accidentally if they keep putting him in front of a microphone.

 

If Russia caries out a chemical attack anywhere, especially a NATO country would you expect the US not to retaliate in kind? The US won't be the first user but such an attack will likely start WW3.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Who wouldn't want to see regime change for a war criminal?

Most people do but of course it's impolitic to be open about trying to directly change a foreign regime if that is what is happening (very doubtful).

I think the U.S. and the west simply want to WIN this war more or less so that Ukraine gets an acceptable peace deal. 

How war criminal Putin can manage to stay in power after that, with so many needlessly dead Russian boys, and having to claim that he met his "special" goals when he didn't, that's his problem. Hopefully it will be enough of a problem to end his power. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

If Russia caries out a chemical attack anywhere, especially a NATO country would you expect the US not to retaliate in kind? The US won't be the first user but such an attack will likely start WW3.

Yes if Putin does that, things will inevitably escalate. Not to mean that the west would use chemicals. Once that vicious cycle starts, the endgame becomes even more unpredictable and perilous.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Jingthing

[placeholder]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

Not everything that happens in the world, happens because of  the United States. You should look up the informal fallacy "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" That said, I don't recall Biden every publicly declaring he believed what Putin said rather than his own intelligence services.

But thanks for giving, once again, the lie to your statement "I don't like...etc.."

Edited March 29, 2022 by Scott

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

...

But thanks for giving, once again, the lie to your statement "I don't like...etc.."

As obvious as pork at a South Carolina BBQ. 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

[onthedarkside]

A series of partisan political posts and bickering comments have been removed.

 

The topic here is about U.S. issues pertaining to the Russian invasion of Ukraine -- not individual U.S. politicians.

 

This subforum also has the following local rule: No Political discussions.

[mtls2005]

On 3/6/2022 at 6:49 PM, mtls2005 said:

Brittney Griner detained in Russia: American basketball star found with hashish oil at airport, per reports

 

Seven-time WNBA All-Star center Brittney Griner, 31, has been detained by the Russian Federal Customs Service after it claims to have found hashish oil in her luggage, according to the New York Times and Russian news agency TASS. She currently plays for UMMC Ekaterinburg, a women's basketball team that competes in the Russian Premier League.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/wnba/news/brittney-griner-detained-in-russia-american-basketball-star-found-with-hashish-oil-at-airport-per-reports/

 

 

 

 

Ms. Griners "detention" has just been extended by one month.

 

Internal Russian sources report that Russia wants to swap Ms. Griner for the Merchant of Death, Viktor Bout, who was famously apprehended in thailand, and extradited to the U.S. where is was tried, found guilty and remains incarcerated.

 

 

Reports: Russia wants 'Merchant of Death' in exchange for Brittney Griner

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/russias-asking-price-for-brittney-griner-may-be-notorious-arms-trafficker-004449470.html

 

 

RUSSIAN NEWS AGENCY

13 MAY, 14:16
Businessman Viktor Bout may be swapped for basketball player Brittney Griner, source says
Viktor Bout was apprehended in Thailand’s capital of Bangkok in 2008 following a sting by US federal agents

 

https://tass.com/society/1450359?utm_source=sports.yahoo.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=sports.yahoo.com&utm_referrer=sports.yahoo.com

 

 

Russian Arms Dealer Viktor Bout Back In Thai Court

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/403201-russian-arms-dealer-viktor-bout-back-in-thai-court/

 

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, zackz said:

• Feb. 26: “Biden approves $350 million in military aid for Ukraine": Reuters

• Mar. 16: “Biden announces $800 million in military aid for Ukraine”: The New York Times

• Mar. 30: “Ukraine to receive additional $500 million in aid from U.S., Biden announces”: NBC News

• Apr. 12: “U.S. to announce $750 million more in weapons for Ukraine, officials say":  Reuters

• May 6: “Biden announces new $150 million weapons package for Ukraine”: Reuters

Congress voted overwhelmingly to add additional funding of $40B ($13.6 billion infusion of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine) bring total proxy war costs up to $54B. source-additional Ukraine appropriations.

To put this $54 billion amount in perspective, it is (a) larger than the average annual amount that the U.S. spent on its own war in Afghanistan ($46 billion), (b) close to the overall amount Russia spends on its entire military for the year ($69 billion), (c) close to 7% of the overall U.S. military budget, by far the largest in the world ($778 billion), and (d) certain to be far, far higher — easily into the hundreds of billions of dollars and likely the trillion dollar level — given that U.S. officials insist that this war will last not months but years, and that it will stand with Ukraine until the bitter end.

 

And the beauty of this is the cost will be paid by good ole American tax paying public who care NOT about this war 5,000 miles away.

 

 

 

 

Support your assertion that they don't care with evidence.

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, zackz said:

• Feb. 26: “Biden approves $350 million in military aid for Ukraine": Reuters

• Mar. 16: “Biden announces $800 million in military aid for Ukraine”: The New York Times

• Mar. 30: “Ukraine to receive additional $500 million in aid from U.S., Biden announces”: NBC News

• Apr. 12: “U.S. to announce $750 million more in weapons for Ukraine, officials say":  Reuters

• May 6: “Biden announces new $150 million weapons package for Ukraine”: Reuters

Congress voted overwhelmingly to add additional funding of $40B ($13.6 billion infusion of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine) bring total proxy war costs up to $54B. source-additional Ukraine appropriations.

To put this $54 billion amount in perspective, it is (a) larger than the average annual amount that the U.S. spent on its own war in Afghanistan ($46 billion), (b) close to the overall amount Russia spends on its entire military for the year ($69 billion), (c) close to 7% of the overall U.S. military budget, by far the largest in the world ($778 billion), and (d) certain to be far, far higher — easily into the hundreds of billions of dollars and likely the trillion dollar level — given that U.S. officials insist that this war will last not months but years, and that it will stand with Ukraine until the bitter end.

 

And the beauty of this is the cost will be paid by good ole American tax paying public who care NOT about this war 5,000 miles away.

On December 7, 1941 Americans learned that wars that are happening on the other side of the world can definitely affect the US.  That is truer now than then. 

 

As to the rest, I'll simply cut and paste my reply to the question "Why should US government give more than other countries." on another thread.

 

Because that's what a world leader does.  Because the US has the largest military budget, stockpile of weapons, and capacity to produce more weapons.  Because NATO allies and other countries are ramping up military budgets but won't be in a position to provide significant military aid for some time.  Because European countries are contributing by taking in millions of Ukrainian refugees.  Because Europe is diversifying its energy sources at great cost which will do the most to hamstring Russia in the long term.

 

Finally, because some leaders know history well enough to know that it was lack of push back when Nazi Germany annexed Austria, occupied the Sudetenland and invaded Czechoslavakia that led Hitler to believe Europe was weak and would let him get away with anything.  These leaders don't want to let that ugly bit of history to repeat itself.

 

Arming Ukraine makes sense if you give a damn.

[mtls2005]

11 hours ago, zackz said:

And the beauty of this is the cost will be paid by good ole American tax paying public who care NOT about this war 5,000 miles away.

You do realize that these appropriations are approved by the Congress, with almost universal support. Sure a few knut-jobs like rand paul and mtg are against these. Well them and you apparently.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, zackz said:

Mar. 30: “Ukraine to receive additional $500 million in aid from U.S., Biden announces”: NBC News

Biden this month signed into law a massive spending package that included $13.6 billion in much-needed military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine.

 

 

11 hours ago, zackz said:

Feb. 26: “Biden approves $350 million in military aid for Ukraine": Reuters

The Netherlands will supply 200 Stinger 

Belgium has pledged 2,000 machine guns and 3,800 tons of fuel. 

Germany, which had a long-standing policy of not exporting weapons to war zones, approved the delivery of 400 rocket propelled grenades

 

France has decided to send defensive military equipment 

 

 

ZakeZ do you even realize how our government works? No? Yeah, thought so. Move on back to that russian bot farm with your measly 2 posts. Amazed the mods let this stuff stand.

 

 

[Berkshire]

13 hours ago, zackz said:

• Feb. 26: “Biden approves $350 million in military aid for Ukraine": Reuters

• Mar. 16: “Biden announces $800 million in military aid for Ukraine”: The New York Times

• Mar. 30: “Ukraine to receive additional $500 million in aid from U.S., Biden announces”: NBC News

• Apr. 12: “U.S. to announce $750 million more in weapons for Ukraine, officials say":  Reuters

• May 6: “Biden announces new $150 million weapons package for Ukraine”: Reuters

Congress voted overwhelmingly to add additional funding of $40B ($13.6 billion infusion of military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine) bring total proxy war costs up to $54B. source-additional Ukraine appropriations.

 

And the beauty of this is the cost will be paid by good ole American tax paying public who care NOT about this war 5,000 miles away.

 

 

Funny.  Mitch McConnell, along with some of his Republican buddies, just visited the Ukraine and Zelensky.  One thing Mitch can do very well is read the political winds.  He wouldn't be in Ukraine if he thought the American public didn't care about this "war 5,000 miles away."