quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:

quote:

Originally posted by RoverSig:

...Our participation in NATO does not obligate us to fight the Russkies in the Ukraine...

Agree. But what about the Budapest Memorandum? We offered "security assurances."

IIRC, Obama (and his VP) did nothing when Russia took over part of Crimea, I'm not sure it was worth going to war over. Giving in to bullies rarely ends well, but neither does going to war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Security_Assurances

I have zero confidence that the Biden Regime can do anything wisely, this is no exception.

That's a good question, but in practical terms I think the Budapest Memorandum began to lose its relevance once the countries in question were de-nuclearized successfully and set about their new paths. The statuses of Kazakhstan, Belarus, and the Ukraine -- three countries that inherited Soviet nuclear systems and were given security assurances as they gave up those systems -- have each gone in a different direction (Belarus is essentially a client state of Russia now). And the Budapest Memorandum was a diplomatic agreement, without provision for enforcement, and without the legal status of a treaty.

I don't think it binds us to defend Ukraine like Art. 5 binds us to defend NATO countries if they are attacked. I haven't heard anyone suggest we are obligated to send troops to defend Ukraine in the current situation. And it is pretty clear the Russians, one of the signatories, don't expect that to happen...

We spent a lot over the past 70 years to show we are serious about defending NATO. I'm okay with being a country that, at least in this case, honors its commitments.

We're not going to defend Ukraine with anything more than supplies and rhetoric. There is zero popular support in the US for a shooting war with Russia over anything. I don't even think the Dem Congress would approve funding for anything not already appropriated. This is a false flag operation, Brandon's handlers are taking the bait and Putin is going to make Brandon look more foolish than he usually looks.

Anything to distract from President Disaster and his street walker VP.

There are numerous reports from non-US media outlets (see above) of "massive" explosions north of Donetsk.

Rick Lee - you are right, we aren't going to defend the Ukraine. People read about small symbolic deployments to NATO countries and somehow conflate that with rushing to defend the Ukraine.

It would not be rational to try to defend the Ukraine -- Russia has every geographic advantage, and we have no skin in the game.

I think the Russians can take the Ukraine pretty quickly -- but it may be messier than they think. They may limit themselves to the Donbas region and/or the Azov coast, and call it a day.

I'm just glad its not us invading someone else, whether we have a UN resolution or not. We all may see this situation a little differently but I'd bet most of us agree on that!

quote:

Originally posted by RoverSig:
It would not be rational to try to defend the Ukraine --

And if we had a "rational' president and administration I might agreed with you. Joey B is still batting 1k in that he continues to be wrong on everything. As such, I am unwilling to commit that Biden and crew will not completely 'F' this up, as Barry O warned us.

bigdeal - I wish I could argue with you on that, but you've got a good point.

Biden's son still getting money from Ukraine?

Notice the MSM is avoiding this particular question.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
Biden's son still getting money from Ukraine?

Notice the MSM is avoiding this particular question.

Nobody has to pay the ransom anymore… They all have the goods they need on the Biddens’ to get them to capitulate any way they want. For goodness sake’s I mean Hunter videotaped it all on three different laptops!

Maybe the Russians will take enough to get the dirt on Biden. Then they can write a dossier on Hunter and Big Joe to blackmail him? How is that for a conspiracy theory?

This guy has a pretty good point:

The Biden administration keeps harping on this merely as a distraction at the fact that they SUCK at everything. It's obvious.

Brandon's handlers, likely Susan Rice on this one, are setting things up so that Brandon can claim victory if Russia doesn't invade. And if they do, he can say, "I told you so."

quote:

Originally posted by p08:
Maybe the Russians will take enough to get the dirt on Biden. Then they can write a dossier on Hunter and Big Joe to blackmail him? How is that for a conspiracy theory?

As long as “the Big Guy” gets his 10% on book and movie rights, it’s ok.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this isn’t the way out of the problem: Russia “buys” the Donbas and Crimea from Ukraine. Lots cheaper than war, and he gets what he wants without blood. And Joe gets to claim victory through “jaw-jaw not war-war”.

https://www.americanthinker.co...a_without_force.html


It Is Possible For Putin To Get Crimea Without Force. By Steven Kopits

Russian President Vladimir Putin is in a pickle. Having mobilized his forces, he has committed his prestige, and Russia’s, at the Ukrainian border. He can scarcely afford to pull back without a loss of face, certainly for himself, and possibly no less for Russia. Indeed, Russia’s self-conception may be on the line.

On the other hand, invading Ukraine could become a disaster of epic proportions for Russia. There is much talk of the Russian army’s capability, but the underlying realities are sobering. Russia has a small economy, smaller than even that of Canada or South Korea. At $1.5 trillion, Russia’s GDP is one-fourteenth the size of the US economy, and its population is only half of America’s. Add in all of NATO and the disparity is even starker. NATO’s population is six times that of Russia, and its GDP is 25 times larger. The late senator John McCain was scarcely exaggerating when he called Russia a gas station masquerading as a country.

Successfully invading Ukraine, therefore, requires either speed to conclusion or passivity from NATO and, most importantly, the United States. Like it or not, Russia cannot move without US acquiescence, not unless Putin is willing to risk unmitigated disaster. Moreover, the US and NATO do not have to win for Russia to lose. NATO can bankrupt Russia out of petty cash merely by keeping the Russians in the field. In such an event, gas and oil sales will prove problematic and, of course, Russia will be unable to borrow from international capital markets.

Indeed, Russia will be entirely thrust upon the kindness of its neighbor, China’s President Xi Jinping. Such support could prove punishingly expensive. Xi can scarcely imagine his own equal, and he is certain that Putin is not that. Moreover, Xi has demonstrated a taste for real estate acquisitions, including the South China Sea and Taiwan.

But Taiwan is small potatoes compared to the vast Russian lands north of China. This includes a Russian coastline extending to the Arctic, one that would enable China’s effective domination of Japan. Russia is playing the Big Fish but is as likely to end up on Xi’s dinner plate. The harsh reality is that no country in Europe covets Russian land but, sooner or later, Xi’s attention will turn to Russia’s vast and empty east.

For Putin, this risks the worst of all worlds: A war in the west where Russia not only fails to secure Ukraine, but that also sees earlier gains in Crimea and Donbas reversed, along with the risk that NATO seizes Belarus, putting that country into the western camp. Russian weakness and dependence on Chinese support would make Moscow susceptible to China’s demands for compensation in the east. It is a nightmare scenario, but a not inconceivable outcome of a prolonged conflict in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the status quo is also unsatisfactory. Russia has struggled to integrate occupied Crimea and the Donbas region into the Russian economy. Fighting continues sporadically in the Donbas area, and more importantly, Ukraine has cut off Crimea’s water supply. Much of Crimean agriculture had been irrigated by a canal from the Dnipro River, which Ukraine cut off after Russia invaded the peninsula in 2014.

Further, sanctions have depressed the Crimean tourist industry, a critical part of the economy there. Both Crimea and Donbas, therefore, appear to be continuing drains on the Russian treasury, although estimates differ. Some argue that the cost is negligible, but an annual burden of 2% of Russian GDP does not appear particularly implausible when subsidies, investments, and military costs are included.

Consequently, Russia and Putin are facing the prospect of a lose-lose situation. If they fight and lose, Russia will suffer a historic setback. On the other hand, if Russia backs down, then its hold on Crimea may become increasingly precarious over time, particularly if Ukraine cozies up to the west. At best, the country would be stuck with a problematic status quo. At worst, Ukraine could leverage NATO support to put the squeeze on Moscow.

As a result, Putin finds himself in a situation in which he can neither advance nor retreat without cost, time may not be on his side, and the risks are hard to judge. For the moment, the Germans are dead at the switch, but what of the Biden administration?

Washington has demonstrated weakness in foreign policy, notably by allowing the US to be ignominiously chased out of Afghanistan by a ragtag Taliban at a time when the US was neither taking casualties nor incurring extravagant costs. If the Biden administration exhibits such passivity in Ukraine and NATO sits on the sidelines, then Putin can take Ukraine and perhaps even Belarus and restore most of imperial Russia. But should Washington decide to intervene, the calculus is entirely different. Putin must weigh the risks.

Biden should have been clear upfront: The US would not abide re-writing Europe’s borders in this fashion and would meet the Russians in the field. That might have prevented Putin from investing so much of his and Russia’s prestige into this perilous venture. However, it would not have addressed Russian concerns and, if the US is to veto Russian action, as the global hegemon, America is obligated to find some reasonable accommodation.

It is important to emphasize that the US interest is not anti-Russian or pro-Ukrainian, or vice versa. America’s and NATO’s interest is in stability, normalcy, and peace. The intent is not only to integrate Ukraine into Europe but also to integrate Russia as well, such that its people should enjoy a status similar to that of, say, Hungarians or Poles. Gradual, steady progress towards prosperity in both Russia and Ukraine is the western interest, just as it is the interest of the Russian and Ukrainian people.

Still, Russia’s status can only be normalized pursuant to a settlement of the status of Ukraine’s currently occupied lands. Russia will not give these back. It is a matter of national pride. The occupied lands may yet be lost in war, but no Russian leader—not Putin nor his successor—would willing cede Donbas and Crimea.

What then should be done?

Fortunately, title to property may be settled by means other than force. It may be purchased. The status of the occupied territories could be resolved with appropriate payment. A reasonable price might be set at 1-2% of Russia’s GDP for a quarter-century; call it $0.5 - $1.0 trillion over twenty-five years. This would still be vastly cheaper than an unsuccessful—or even successful—war in Ukraine and present far less risk.

The move would pay for itself with lower costs associated with holding Crimea and through enhanced trade between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. It would allow Putin to claim a victory for a show of force and see a path back to a normalization of Russia’s status in Europe.

Ukrainians may not be elated, but the reality is this: If Putin does not start a war, there appears no feasible path for Ukraine to reconquer the occupied territories. Neither the US nor NATO will underwrite such a venture. Meanwhile, Russia’s control over these territories will tend to create a fait accompli over decades, if not years. At some point, European leaders will tire of the whole matter and concede Russian hegemony over contested territories.

Therefore, unless one is wildly optimistic about prospects for the re-conquest of occupied territories, Ukraine’s interest is to put a dollar value on the land and take the money. Ukraine’s GDP totals $160 bn/year, a little more than 10% that of Russia. An annual payment of $25 billion from Russia would amount to 16% of Ukraine’s GDP, and resolving the conflict should boost GDP by as much again. Thus, ceding Crimea and other negotiated lands to Russia should boost Ukrainian GDP by perhaps one-third. This would not be a bad deal for Ukraine, all things considered.

Further, for the next quarter-century, ceding occupied lands to Russia through an agreement could be leveraged both to protect Ukrainian sovereignty and Finlandize Ukraine, subject to acceptable behavior from Moscow. That would provide plenty of time for the various parties to become accustomed to the new status quo.

For Russians, such a deal would mean tempering ambitions for reunifying Greater Russia, while Ukrainians would have to accept compensation for territorial losses. It would not be everything, but it is certainly far better than the potential disaster of a European war.

American and NATO interests dictate that the dispute between Ukraine and Russia be settled on reasonable, financial terms rather than through force. Our diplomacy should be geared to support that outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Brandon's handlers, likely Susan Rice on this one, are setting things up so that Brandon can claim victory if Russia doesn't invade. And if they do, he can say, "I told you so."

Like that would work… Everybody seen right through every move he’s made. lol

Since this crisis was driven by personalities (mostly Putin) and was completely optional from the start (e.g., not caused by competition for resources, sectarian conflict, ethnic hatred, crop failures, overcrowding, etc., like a lot of other conflicts are) then the two characters involved in the drama can: 1. Pretty much end it when they agree to do so; and 2. Both claim victory.

I'm okay if it goes on the back burner for a while. NATO and Europe are important. Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines are important. Access to oil is important. Other places and other things need to be dealt with but are not that important. (I don't miss Absurdistan one bit; I just wish we had departed with a little more style).

Biden didn't have any trouble flying to Ukraine and demanding the prosecutor investigating Burisma be fired. He made sure his son Hunter's job would be saved at Burisma and he would still get his 10% for the big guy.

SURELY he would be willing to fly to Ukraine to prevent World War III!


Zelensky Invites Biden To Visit Ukraine In "Coming Days" In Pushback Against 'Imminent' Invasion Fears

https://www.zerohedge.com/geop...sian-invasion-claims

During their Sunday phone call Ukraine's President Zelensky asked Biden to visit Kiev in person amid continuing White House claims that a Russian invasion is set to happen "any day" now.

Saying that major Ukrainian cities are "under safe protection," Zelensky suggested that a visit of the US president in person would stop the spread of panic and prevent escalation. "I am convinced that your visit to Kyiv in the coming days... would be a powerful signal and help stabilize the situation," Zelensky was quoted as saying in the call.

"We will stop any escalation. The Ukrainian capital, Kiev, other cities in our country - Kharkov and Lvov, Dnepr and Odessa - are under safe protection," Zelensky told the US president.

Zelensky himself and other top Kiev officials have in the past days once again been urging Washington to calm down its rhetoric. On Saturday the Ukrainian leader publicly urged the US to provide evidence or any relevant intelligence to back its claims of an "imminent" Russian invasion. That Zelensky has now gone so far as to issue a personal invitation for Biden to travel to Ukraine is clearly a move aimed at directly combatting the White House's persistent fear-mongering and overblown predictions regarding Russia's intent.

As for the White House call readout, it was brief and scant on details, while again underscoring the path for diplomacy remains open:

President Biden reaffirmed the commitment of the United States to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. President Biden made clear that the United States would respond swiftly and decisively, together with its Allies and partners, to any further Russian aggression against Ukraine. The two leaders agreed on the importance of continuing to pursue diplomacy and deterrence in response to Russia’s military build-up on Ukraine’s borders.

Another Sunday, and Biden's national security adviser is at it again making the rounds on the big network news shows, warning the Russian invasion will invade Ukraine "any day now" - at this point a familiar refrain we've heard for multiple weeks running...

"We cannot perfectly predict the day, but we have now been saying for some time that we are in the window, and an invasion could begin, a major military action could begin by Russia in Ukraine any day now -- that includes this coming week, before the end of the Olympics," Jake Sullivan told CNN's Jake Tapper.

This latest round of breathless White House proclamations and predictions of the Russians are coming! began in earnest Friday afternoon when the administration told reporters that Putin has made the decision to launch a large military offensive.

Kiev is not too happy, and is demanding proof from US intelligence backing the new dire allegations that Russia is poised to go in:

"There has been too much information about a full-scale war with Russia – even specific dates have been announced. We understand there are risks. If you have any additional information regarding the 100 percent guaranteed invasion of Ukraine by Russia on 16 February, please give it to us," Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters on Saturday.

Naturally, Ukraine's leaders are trying to calm the panic which Washington pronouncements and the Western media echo chamber have created...

Zelensky said he did not believe in the danger of a full-scale war at the moment. “I have to speak to the public with real information at hand. We receive information from many sources. We also have an intelligence service. I don’t think that it’s any worse than the intelligence services of other countries,” he noted.

As one foreign policy analyst observed Saturday, the situation ironically remains that "Everyone is predicting war between Russia and Ukraine except Russia and Ukraine."

Hmmmmmm...just as many of us have suspected, this thing is a complete bullshit exercise to pump up a sinking Biden presidency:

quote:

Pelosi Just Gave The Game Away Over Ukraine

Zero Hedge
MONDAY, FEB 14, 2022 - 12:25 PM

We have been looking for this exact political construct and today we got it. Nancy Pelosi appears on ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulos to discuss current events. This was all planned in advance. This is guaranteed to be a political pantomime.

The first topic is the “Russia-Ukraine crisis,” with Stephanopoulos asking Pelosi directly if she believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is about to invade Ukraine. Nancy Pelosi’s response tells us all we need to hear:

PELOSI: “Well, I think we have to be prepared for it. And that is what the president is — yes, I do believe that he is prepared for an invasion. I also understand why the President of Ukraine wants to keep people calm and that he wants his economy not to suffer. But, on the other hand, if we were not threatening the sanctions and the rest, it would guarantee that Putin would invade. Let’s hope that diplomacy works.

It’s about diplomacy deterrence. Diplomacy deterrence. And the president’s made it very clear. There’s a big price to pay for Russia to go there. So, if Russia doesn’t invade, it’s not that he never intended to. It’s just that the sanctions worked.” … “I’m very proud of the work that the president has done.”

Can you see the domestic political scenario that has been created out of thin air?
Democrats need a win on something; anything, to shift the narrative and change the reality of their failure into an illusion of success.

First, accuse Vladimir Putin of doing something he never intends to do, a fabricated scenario. Second, tell the world you will strongly respond to the fabricated scenario. Third, tell the world the exact date when the fabricated scenario is supposed to happen. Then, when the fabricated scenario never happens, it is because you are so brilliant and strong to have outmaneuvered and cowed the Russians.

Declare the absence of the Ukraine invasion event as the result of your brilliance and announce a foreign policy victory. That, my friends, is exactly what has taken place.

Yes, this is exactly how pathetic they are.

Link

Are there really 100,000+ Russian troops near the border with armor and artillery ready to move in? Are there any photos of this?

My friend in Ukraine thinks it's all being overblown as well:

"For now the situation is still ok. Nothing serious and nothing to worry about. The news they are showing on us channels are not always true. My father lives near the countries border. And there is nothing serious going on there. Let’s see how it is in some time. Nevertheless the markets are down already. People are loosing money and dollar is getting up."

Sounds like a dump and pump - crash Ukraine's market, buy at the low, then ride it back up. And take "credit" for averting the invasion with empty threats.