What is the US interest in Ukraine?

[Left Coast]

CFR is a New York based think take influencing US foreign policy consisting of CIA directors, US heads of state,

Ie people with actual, professional foreign policy expertise.

wonderful peace of war propaganda. It's no wonder you follow the mainstream media narrative.

Oh geez what nonsense. You are literally defending a country that just invaded another with zero ethical justification. Save your accusations of warmongering for when you look in the mirror in the morning.

You didn't even know there were NATO countries on Russia's border. I was just trying to give you some basic groundwork. Would you prefer the Wiki article?

NATO - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[lukethethird]

Ie people with actual, professional foreign policy expertise.



Oh geez what nonsense. You are literally defending a country that just invaded another with zero ethical justification. Save your accusations of warmongering for when you look in the mirror in the morning.

You didn't even know there were NATO countries on Russia's border. I was just trying to give you some basic groundwork. Would you prefer the Wiki article?

NATO - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"people with actual, professional foreign policy expertise."

Right, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"You are literally defending a country that just invaded another with zero ethical justification. Save your accusations of warmongering for when you look in the mirror in the morning."

All false accusations.

"You didn't even know there were NATO countries on Russia's border".

False accusation.

 

[Left Coast]

"You are literally defending a country that just invaded another with zero ethical justification. Save your accusations of warmongering for when you look in the mirror in the morning."

All false accusations.

"You didn't even know there were NATO countries on Russia's border".

False accusation.

Anyone can read back through the thread and see that those things are not false. But hey, if I'm wrong I look forward to your full-throated condemnation of Russia's invasion and war on Ukraine.

I'll wait.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ukraine joining Nato or merely threatening to, as was the case, can cause a nuclear holocaust.

Says Russia.

Thing is, when a country says "you better do x or I will nuke you" you should tend to ignore them, because belligerent, authoritarian countries don't get to threaten other countries with whatever they want and thus dictate global politics. If Russia asked America to hand over it's GDP or it would cause a nuclear holocaust, do you think it would be reasonable to cow-tow to their demands?

Other countries also have nukes. Russia knows it's playing a delicate game where it stands to lose every bit as much as every other country in a global nuclear war; that's why they don't tend to threaten them. We shouldn't allow Russia to rape Ukraine just because we're scared of the very small possibility of Russia doing something even more stupid and self-destructive.

Ukraine is a red line and and has been for decades, that's the way it is whether we agree with it or not.

What matters is what Ukraine wants. Russia doesn't get to determine that. And no agreement between Russia and NATO included any provisions regarding Ukraine's membership. And why should that "red line" be respected by NATO if it's not going to be respected by Russia? And why does Russia get to dictate where that line is?

What happens when you poke a bear?

Russia wasn't poked. A sovereign country on its border was considering applying for membership of a DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE against them - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when Russia is literally ANNEXING THEIR TERRITORY. If anything, NATO was provoked by Russia. Russia did not have to continually meddle in Ukraine and thus making it extremely preferable for Ukraine to join NATO, but that didn't stop it from doing so.

What happens when you threaten to cross the red line?

That depends who gets to determine the red line. Russia doesn't. Ukraine is a sovereign state.

There is no justification for what Putin has done by sending in the troops, but we can't say we didn't know this would happen.

Irrelevant. Ukraine wants to join NATO, and that is its right as a sovereign state.

I never get tired of saying it: Russia can swivel.

 

[wellwisher]

I'd have to see actual quotes to understand what you're talking about. I've heard some of his speeches, and I read it more as a country that feels threatened, encroached upon, and encircled - something that's been a familiar pattern throughout their history.

Historically, the Russians never really had any great need or desire to conquer the rest of Europe. Most of their national security aspirations focused on their isolation and the desire to have permanent ice-free outlets to the sea. This is also figured in to their long-term goal of reclaiming Constantinople for Orthodoxy.

More often than not, it's been the countries of Europe invading and attacking Russia, not the other way around. People often forget these little tidbits of historical trivia when looking at situations like this The terrain is largely flat, with few natural defenses, so because of this, the Russians have felt the need to build up a buffer zone to protect themselves from the more powerful and (in their eyes) dangerous countries of Europe.

I'm not saying this as a justification for what the USSR did, or for what Putin is doing now, which is quite atrocious and horrific. There's no denying this, and he's effectively destroyed whatever legitimate interests Russia might have had in regards to NATO, Eastern Europe, and their border dispute with Ukraine. But despite that, I don't believe that this would constitute any conscious or active desire to conquer all of Europe. They grabbed territory when they could, when the opportunity presented itself, such as when they were on the winning side of the Napoleonic Wars and got huge spoils in return.

He may want back the same buffer zone that Russia had before, but the fact that many of those nations have now joined NATO has complicated this to a large degree. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO was apparently completely unacceptable in their eyes, which has led us to this current state of affairs.

Putin is no Peter the Great. He's not even Stalin. If we're going to compare him to a leader from Russia's past, then he's Nicholas II.

And the only reason we're stuck in this morass is for just one reason - Russia still has nukes. There may be a solution, there may be a way out of this, but before that can even be discussed, the fighting has to stop. But with the immense damage and loss of life that's happened in Ukraine, there's going to be a lot of bad blood for generations. They might ultimately make peace, but it won't really be over.

All I'm saying here is that we should try to approach this carefully. Putin may want to do a lot of things, although I don't think anyone can read his mind at this point. He may even think he's Peter the Great, but ultimately, we're dealing with Russia as a whole, not just Putin.

Putin is ill, with some form of terminal condition. He may want to go out staying busy, instead of sit and wait. I do not see him as so pissed off by the world to do anything too drastic; nukes. He had a good life in its own socialist way.

Before the Soviet Union broke up, Ukraine had been a part of the Soviet buffer zone. It was given nuclear weapons; buffer for nuclear war and fallout. The Obama Administration, made a deal with Ukraine to remove the nukes, in exchange for protection status; against Russia. The Obama administration got the nukes, but reneged on the protection deal, which had cleaned the house and then opened the door for Putin.

Obama allowed Russia and Putin to take Crimea, with little in the way of objection. No new invasions by Russia would happen under Trump. It was not until Biden, that Russia felt safe to make another move. Biden allowed Russia to enter Ukraine; unopposed. My guess is their deal was already struck, with Ukraine now unable to defend itself; no nukes and isolated. Hillary would have been the one, but Trump surprised everyone so the plan was delayed.

Those who allowed this exchange of territory, may have thought the Putin invasion would be fast and done. They underestimated the willingness of the Ukraine people to keep fighting. But to avoid the Russian Collusion charges, that they had accused Trump of, during the Russian Collusion Coup, Biden had to pretend to turn on his ally Putin, giving Ukrainian support and some under the table cash.

Biden hated Ukraine, because they exposed his family business dealings, which Trump used to expose Biden before the 2020 election. This would lead to two fake Trump impeachments; accuse the accuser, to add smoke and mirrors and hide the Biden Family collusion evidence in plain sight. Now there is more transparency about the Biden family influence peddling in Russia, China and Ukraine. In 20/20 hindsight there was major conspiracy at the top levels of US government.

I saw a new program about Henry Kissinger, who was the Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford. He had been pivotal in opening relations with China. Kissinger had met with newly elected President Trump, before the Russian Collusion Coup and conspiracy was in full affect. He told Trump, that China was the most pressing adversary for the future, and suggested that Trump form an alliance with Russia to contain China.

Obviously, the Swamp did not like that idea, and made common sense defensive strategy seem more like treason. Now Russia and China are allies. How do the Democrats and the Swamp benefit by this alliance? Again, the Biden Family Business had dealings with both countries and they hate Ukraine, for exposing their business dealings; fire the prosecutor and blame it all on Trump. They colluded with Russia for Crimea and Ukraine and blamed it on Trump. It is good that there are now investigations.

We may need to ask Biden why he waited so long to address the imminent invasion of Ukraine, since life and property could have been spared. Who had what on Biden; source of the black mail? If we go back further in time, why did Obama wire tap Trump Towers. The wire tapping happened. It was justified by what would become the fake Russian Collision charge.

Obama said he had daily meetings with the Intel People. He had to be there as they planned this crime, that not even Nixon did. Nixon never used government resources; FBI and CIA, to spy on any opposition candidate during a presidential election. Obama and Biden out sleazed even Nixon in that sense and have replaced Nixon as the poster children of corruption. These early days; spying on Trump and the rise of the collusion coup, fake impeachments, all interfere and win an election, define the messes we now find ourselves. Did they realty try to ally Russia and China or was that unexpected?

 

[Revoltingest]

I did not know that nukes were deployed there.

It wasn't known at the time.
So you & I are in the same boat,
having discovered it later.

 

[Stevicus]

Putin is ill, with some form of terminal condition. He may want to go out staying busy, instead of sit and wait. I do not see him as so pissed off by the world to do anything too drastic; nukes. He had a good life in its own socialist way.

Before the Soviet Union broke up, Ukraine had been a part of the Soviet buffer zone. It was given nuclear weapons; buffer for nuclear war and fallout. The Obama Administration, made a deal with Ukraine to remove the nukes, in exchange for protection status; against Russia. The Obama administration got the nukes, but reneged on the protection deal, which had cleaned the house and then opened the door for Putin.

Obama allowed Russia and Putin to take Crimea, with little in the way of objection. No new invasions by Russia would happen under Trump. It was not until Biden, that Russia felt safe to make another move. Biden allowed Russia to enter Ukraine; unopposed. My guess is their deal was already struck, with Ukraine now unable to defend itself; no nukes and isolated. Hillary would have been the one, but Trump surprised everyone so the plan was delayed.

[/QUOTE]

The problem here is not unlike similar problems which have arisen when borders don't coincide with the natural linguistic boundaries.

There's a recurring historical pattern which develops whenever territories are divided in such a way. It was similar when India and Pakistan were partitioned, as well as the dividing up of the Arab and Israeli territories in British Palestine.

Much of the fighting and discord in Africa is largely for the same reason, due to the willy-nilly drawing of boundaries by the colonialists.

When Yugoslavia broke up, ethnic fighting broke out for similar reasons. All of these conflicts followed the same familiar pattern.

(Map source: This Map Explains Why Ukraine Is So Divided Over Russia)

Those who allowed this exchange of territory, may have thought the Putin invasion would be fast and done. They underestimated the willingness of the Ukraine people to keep fighting. But to avoid the Russian Collusion charges, that they had accused Trump of, during the Russian Collusion Coup, Biden had to pretend to turn on his ally Putin, giving Ukrainian support and some under the table cash.

Biden hated Ukraine, because they exposed his family business dealings, which Trump used to expose Biden before the 2020 election. This would lead to two fake Trump impeachments; accuse the accuser, to add smoke and mirrors and hide the Biden Family collusion evidence in plain sight. Now there is more transparency about the Biden family influence peddling in Russia, China and Ukraine. In 20/20 hindsight there was major conspiracy at the top levels of US government.

I wouldn't know about that. However, I'll admit that there is something that seems fishy about all of this, particularly when one analyzes the rhetoric of the propagandists and the general tone, stridency, and zeal of the warmongers here in the West. Looking at the patterns of speech and the word choice, one can draw parallels with previous events.

I saw a new program about Henry Kissinger, who was the Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford. He had been pivotal in opening relations with China. Kissinger had met with newly elected President Trump, before the Russian Collusion Coup and conspiracy was in full affect. He told Trump, that China was the most pressing adversary for the future, and suggested that Trump form an alliance with Russia to contain China.

An alliance with Russia might have been possible back in the 1990s or early 2000s, especially after the US found itself at odds with multiple nations in the Middle East: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, to name a few. A US-Russian alliance could have gone a long way towards neutralizing these regimes and creating greater stability in that region.

Obviously, the Swamp did not like that idea, and made common sense defensive strategy seem more like treason. Now Russia and China are allies. How do the Democrats and the Swamp benefit by this alliance? Again, the Biden Family Business had dealings with both countries and they hate Ukraine, for exposing their business dealings; fire the prosecutor and blame it all on Trump. They colluded with Russia for Crimea and Ukraine and blamed it on Trump. It is good that there are now investigations.

We may need to ask Biden why he waited so long to address the imminent invasion of Ukraine, since life and property could have been spared. Who had what on Biden; source of the black mail? If we go back further in time, why did Obama wire tap Trump Towers. The wire tapping happened. It was justified by what would become the fake Russian Collision charge.

Obama said he had daily meetings with the Intel People. He had to be there as they planned this crime, that not even Nixon did. Nixon never used government resources; FBI and CIA, to spy on any opposition candidate during a presidential election. Obama and Biden out sleazed even Nixon in that sense and have replaced Nixon as the poster children of corruption. These early days; spying on Trump and the rise of the collusion coup, fake impeachments, all interfere and win an election, define the messes we now find ourselves. Did they realty try to ally Russia and China or was that unexpected?

I'm not sure how much this connects with any possible political intrigue within the United States. As far as I can tell, the Powers That Be in the U.S. have, since even before WW2, focused on its alignments and connections with the interests of the governments of Western Europe. Trump is more of an America Firster, a position where the tendency is to advocate for a more detached and neutral relationship with the outside world. Those who already have an enormous stake in the status quo would obviously oppose any proposed deviations from it.

 

[Kathryn]

Says Russia.

Thing is, when a country says "you better do x or I will nuke you" you should tend to ignore them, because belligerent, authoritarian countries don't get to threaten other countries with whatever they want and thus dictate global politics. If Russia asked America to hand over it's GDP or it would cause a nuclear holocaust, do you think it would be reasonable to cow-tow to their demands?

Other countries also have nukes. Russia knows it's playing a delicate game where it stands to lose every bit as much as every other country in a global nuclear war; that's why they don't tend to threaten them. We shouldn't allow Russia to rape Ukraine just because we're scared of the very small possibility of Russia doing something even more stupid and self-destructive.


What matters is what Ukraine wants. Russia doesn't get to determine that. And no agreement between Russia and NATO included any provisions regarding Ukraine's membership. And why should that "red line" be respected by NATO if it's not going to be respected by Russia? And why does Russia get to dictate where that line is?


Russia wasn't poked. A sovereign country on its border was considering applying for membership of a DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE against them - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when Russia is literally ANNEXING THEIR TERRITORY. If anything, NATO was provoked by Russia. Russia did not have to continually meddle in Ukraine and thus making it extremely preferable for Ukraine to join NATO, but that didn't stop it from doing so.


That depends who gets to determine the red line. Russia doesn't. Ukraine is a sovereign state.


Irrelevant. Ukraine wants to join NATO, and that is its right as a sovereign state.

I never get tired of saying it: Russia can swivel.

I agree that Russia can swivel, but I want to point out that the application to join NATO by Ukraine is recent and can be denied or postponed by the other members. who are sovereign states as well.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree that Russia can swivel, but I want to point out that the application to join NATO by Ukraine is recent and can be denied or postponed by the other members.

It was. NATO is fairly pragmatic with its entrants and denies them entry on various grounds. But if it finds no good reason to reject Ukraine in the future, it has the right to accept them and Ukraine has the right to join.

 

[lukethethird]

Says Russia.

Thing is, when a country says "you better do x or I will nuke you" you should tend to ignore them, because belligerent, authoritarian countries don't get to threaten other countries with whatever they want and thus dictate global politics. If Russia asked America to hand over it's GDP or it would cause a nuclear holocaust, do you think it would be reasonable to cow-tow to their demands?

Other countries also have nukes. Russia knows it's playing a delicate game where it stands to lose every bit as much as every other country in a global nuclear war; that's why they don't tend to threaten them. We shouldn't allow Russia to rape Ukraine just because we're scared of the very small possibility of Russia doing something even more stupid and self-destructive.


What matters is what Ukraine wants. Russia doesn't get to determine that. And no agreement between Russia and NATO included any provisions regarding Ukraine's membership. And why should that "red line" be respected by NATO if it's not going to be respected by Russia? And why does Russia get to dictate where that line is?


Russia wasn't poked. A sovereign country on its border was considering applying for membership of a DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE against them - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do when Russia is literally ANNEXING THEIR TERRITORY. If anything, NATO was provoked by Russia. Russia did not have to continually meddle in Ukraine and thus making it extremely preferable for Ukraine to join NATO, but that didn't stop it from doing so.


That depends who gets to determine the red line. Russia doesn't. Ukraine is a sovereign state.


Irrelevant. Ukraine wants to join NATO, and that is its right as a sovereign state.

I never get tired of saying it: Russia can swivel.

Sure, Russia can swivel, but Russia has nukes, and if Russia brought missiles to Cuba to aim at the US, then the shoe would be on the other foot and you would be singing a different tune.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not the point of the thread (a war in Ethiopia) but my point is comparing our response to that war vs our response to a war in Ukraine. Guess the folks in Ethiopia are too brown and too poor for us to stress much about what's going on there (speaking of rape and murder - by machete and knives in fact - Lord have mercy).

The left loves to make it about race...& how we must
send our military to every hotspot around the globe.
We lack the money & wisdom to do that.
Ukraine is different from Ethopia.
The former has been invaded by a foe with grander designs.
Stopping Putin here should prevent greater war later.
Ethiopa lacks such a compelling reason for us to get involved.

 

[lukethethird]

The problem here is not unlike similar problems which have arisen when borders don't coincide with the natural linguistic boundaries.

View attachment 73852

There's a recurring historical pattern which develops whenever territories are divided in such a way. It was similar when India and Pakistan were partitioned, as well as the dividing up of the Arab and Israeli territories in British Palestine.

Much of the fighting and discord in Africa is largely for the same reason, due to the willy-nilly drawing of boundaries by the colonialists.

When Yugoslavia broke up, ethnic fighting broke out for similar reasons. All of these conflicts followed the same familiar pattern.

(Map source: This Map Explains Why Ukraine Is So Divided Over Russia)




I wouldn't know about that. However, I'll admit that there is something that seems fishy about all of this, particularly when one analyzes the rhetoric of the propagandists and the general tone, stridency, and zeal of the warmongers here in the West. Looking at the patterns of speech and the word choice, one can draw parallels with previous events.



An alliance with Russia might have been possible back in the 1990s or early 2000s, especially after the US found itself at odds with multiple nations in the Middle East: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, to name a few. A US-Russian alliance could have gone a long way towards neutralizing these regimes and creating greater stability in that region.



I'm not sure how much this connects with any possible political intrigue within the United States. As far as I can tell, the Powers That Be in the U.S. have, since even before WW2, focused on its alignments and connections with the interests of the governments of Western Europe. Trump is more of an America Firster, a position where the tendency is to advocate for a more detached and neutral relationship with the outside world. Those who already have an enormous stake in the status quo would obviously oppose any proposed deviations from it.

Ukraine is not a federation, there is no representation from these various areas of varying ethnicities and languages, it's all ruled from Kiev. That is a problem right there.

 

[lukethethird]

Says Russia.

Thing is, when a country says "you better do x or I will nuke you" you should tend to ignore them,

No, that would be suicidal, not my thing. Demand a sit down at the table and work out a peace deal, that way we can avoid the bloodbath.
I call for a peace proposal because there is no reason why one cannot be worked out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that would be suicidal, not my thing. Demand a sit down at the table and work out a peace deal, that way we can avoid the bloodbath.
I call for a peace proposal because there is no reason why one cannot be worked out.

That present your peace deal.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure, Russia can swivel, but Russia has nukes, and if Russia brought missiles to Cuba to aim at the US, then the shoe would be on the other foot and you would be singing a different tune.

This isn't about America "putting nukes" in Ukraine, and to pretend that's what this is about is nothing short of flagrant dishonesty.

Russia has invaded a sovereign nation because that nation was showing an interest in joining a defensive military alliance to protect themselves against Russian invasion - following a huge annexation of land in the country by Russia, and the appointment of a Russian stooge to the position president that took a huge-scale revolt to remove.

Stop pretending this is about Russia having legitimate concerns of being invaded. They have nukes. Nobody is threatening their sovereignty. Nobody is threatening to invade or attack them. That argument is a lie.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, that would be suicidal, not my thing. Demand a sit down at the table and work out a peace deal, that way we can avoid the bloodbath.

Russia invaded Ukraine. They initiated a bloodbath and are now refusing to meet any reasonable demands for peace talks.

I call for a peace proposal because there is no reason why one cannot be worked out.

Except Russia. Russia is why they are not working out. Or, specifically, Putin. Because they don't want peace - they want Ukraine.

 

[Kathryn]

The left loves to make it about race...& how we must
send our military to every hotspot around the globe.
We lack the money & wisdom to do that.
Ukraine is different from Ethopia.
The former has been invaded by a foe with grander designs.
Stopping Putin here should prevent greater war later.
Ethiopa lacks such a compelling reason for us to get involved.

Well, I'm not the left (or the right, for that matter) just to clarify. However, I do want to point out that I just wish our media and government would be more honest with us. We aren't fighting for repressed people - we're fighting for our own interests.

 

[Kathryn]

It was. NATO is fairly pragmatic with its entrants and denies them entry on various grounds. But if it finds no good reason to reject Ukraine in the future, it has the right to accept them and Ukraine has the right to join.

I guess they also have the ongoing right to reject Ukraine as well.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I guess they also have the ongoing right to reject Ukraine as well.

Naturally.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, I'm not the left (or the right, for that matter) just to clarify. However, I do want to point out that I just wish our media and government would be more honest with us. We aren't fighting for repressed people - we're fighting for our own interests.

Of course. The USA never really gets involved in anything unless it seeks to benefit from it geopolitically.

In this case, they have become involved in the war in Ukraine because Russia expanding westwards is potentially very harmful to NATO relations and potential trade deals with Ukraine. It's in America's geopolitical and economic interests to aid Ukraine.

It also happens to be the morally right thing to do as well, which is a nice bonus.