Russia Attacks Ukraine - 23 Feb 2022 #11

[Betty P]

RSBM
Russia (the Soviet Union) and the US were allies during the WWII,
along with Great Britain and China. They are known as the "Big Four."

Not really. The Allies and Russia had common enemies they had to defeat. The US never trusted Russia (Soviet Union) during the war and especially so as the war was ending. The Russian military didn't coordinate with the Allies during that time. They did their own thing. It all evolved into the Cold War, East & West Germany, Berlin Wall, etc.

 

[Betty P]

"Zelensky 'refuses to sign'
Donald Trump's 'problematic' minerals deal
amid tensions between world leaders.

View attachment 565725

A Ukrainian source told Sky News:

'The agreement is not yet ready to be signed,
there are a number of problematic issues,
and in the current form of the draft,
the president is not ready to accept it'.

'Today,
the drafts do not reflect a partnership in the agreement
and contain only unilateral commitments by Ukraine'.

This story is developing, more to follow."

Zelensky 'refuses to sign' Donald Trump's 'problematic' minerals deal

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is reportedly not ready to sign a controversial minerals deal with Donald Trump that may see him give away billions in critical elements and revenues.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Good for Zelensky! Corporations are not governments. They can't offer security, they have no authority to govern or negotiate treaties. Trump and Russia are just trying to steal Ukraine's assets and leave them unprotected.

Hopefully, whatever bad deals Trump is pushing on Ukraine can be voided once Trump is out of office.

 

[Cedars]

The fewer options Ukraine has, the better the deal the US can get.

What meaning does a 'deal' have in such a situation?

Trump himself loves ripping up deals. (Such as that the military support to Ukraine was freely offered, not a loan they were expected to pay back.)

Trump knows Putin is not going to 'honor' any deals made by Zelensky.

It's not for the benefit of the US, it is to benefit the image of Trump.

 

[Bibbers]

The fewer options Ukraine has, the better the deal the US can get.

Whoa. Do you want the US to be the world's bully? Your comment is extremely discouraging.

 

[Amonet]

Whoa. Do you want the US to be the world's bully? Your comment is extremely discouraging.

I was feeling very frustrated when I posted that.

What I meant by it is that Trump seems to be treating a number of different things, during this presidency, as business deals. I can imagine a businessperson who wants to buy another business finding ways to tear the business own, crash the price, then buy it up cheap as a person who's saving a failing business.

I just had a horrible feeling after reading some of the info in previous prices that after the "prime real estate" comments about Gaza that Trump was kind of treating Ukraine in a similar way. He has to balance the books back home and the minerals deal in Ukraine would be a positive if one looked at this from a business perspective.

But that's not what's happening here, is it? I was overreacting and being silly.

And then I read that Zelensky feels the wording on the 'deal' is rather unilateral, and it is President Trump who's been talking about Zelensky doing a deal, for which it kind of means terms of surrender to Putin. I don't believe everything Zelensky says without question. But it does reinforce my concerns, and I just hope I am being irrational. "Deals" need to be negotiated, there's back and forth while different things are ironed out. I hope it will work out and that it is a positive deal for Ukraine without being overly expensive or cumbersome for the US. And I do hope the war will end.

I think it's not a bad thing that the while Trump is talking one way, that Starmer talks of sending more munitions support to Ukraine. We need Putin to not feel too comfortable that he's going to get everything and maybe all of this is to confuse Putin with some good guy/bad guy routine.

 

[branmuffin]

I’ve never heard of a country being forced to give its assets to the US in exchange for protection. That sounds like something a gang of mercenary criminals would demand, JMO. Everything is a business deal with some people. No ethics or diplomacy, just highway robbery.

I hope Americans realize that if Russia is allowed to keep the stolen land, they will continue to invade other European countries. Norway will be next because Russia wants access to their ports.

The US is supposed to try to be the good guys, like our permanent allies. Russia has never been an ally of the US.

Unfortunately, that happened to the UK during WW2 when they gave the US information regarding the production of penicillin and other discoveries regarding radar, never to get the patents back again. They were given because they were under attack from Germany and thought their ally would protect the patents, not steal them.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

What meaning does a 'deal' have in such a situation?

Trump himself loves ripping up deals. (Such as that the military support to Ukraine was freely offered, not a loan they were expected to pay back.)

Trump knows Putin is not going to 'honor' any deals made by Zelensky.

It's not for the benefit of the US, it is to benefit the image of Trump.

If ending this war helps President Trump's image I'm all for it. JMO.

 

[HmmMysterious]

If ending this war helps President Trump's image I'm all for it. JMO.

How about Ukraine's future? The fate of Europe, even?

 

[Simply Southern]

History proves repayment for war cost is common....
Link to US State Dept

Technical Difficulties

 

[Sarahlou]

How about Ukraine's future? The fate of Europe, even?

I don't think people whose focus is Trump's image care about Ukraine or Europe. I don't even know what to say any more. It's all so exhausting.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I don't think people whose focus is Trump's image care about Ukraine or Europe. I don't even know what to say any more. It's all so exhausting.

I sure do. The ending of this war is in everyone's best interest. JMO.

 

[branmuffin]

As per the article.....
Earlier this week Keir Starmer said that he was ready and willing to send British troops to Ukraine to help guarantee its security, should there be a ceasefire.

But so far he too is unclear as to what they might be asked to do.
......
2,500 troops is a good start, but it will take thousands
It will take highly trained pilots, drone operators, medical personnel, etc
They will need a fully operational military base
A full functioning military Air Base
They need air and naval support
They'll need to restore communication systems
They need to secure the nuclear reactor and reinforce the damage
They'll need intelligence

The US would have to go in built a air base, a military base, build a fully functioning hospital, and fully equip and maintain. You're talking a trillion dollars or more. It's not just sending in troops it's huge infrastructure cost.

The US has experienced, we protected Germany after the world war.

Moo

The US has 750 military bases all over the world with almost 200K active duty personnel. They started in the UK in WW2 then spread to Germany, Japan, Korea as recognition as to who their most recent enemies were. Most of the bases are in Germany and Japan. So I don't really think the US has to build any military bases, they already have tons of them.

 

[branmuffin]

History proves repayment for war cost is common....
Link to US State Dept

Technical Difficulties

It took 60 years for the UK to pay off the debt incurred. In 2006. All those warships are gone now but the US military bases in the UK are still there. It was the only way for FDR get help to Britain since the US was isolationist and nothing would have been passed in Congress.

 

[Simply Southern]

Good for Zelensky! Corporations are not governments. They can't offer security, they have no authority to govern or negotiate treaties. Trump and Russia are just trying to steal Ukraine's assets and leave them unprotected.

Hopefully, whatever bad deals Trump is pushing on Ukraine can be voided once Trump is out of office.

Moo....

Unless the war ends, there won't be anything left of Ukraine. It will all be Russian and will be a much greater risk to all of Europe.

The US taxpapayers have spent enough. Money to support Ukraine comes out of our paychecks weekly. We can certainly put the money to better use protecting the US and allies. We have given most generously.

The US gives hundreds of billions in addition to our NATO contribution to Ukraine. We are paying for humanitarian aid, additional direct cash payments and for Starlink, with many special and additional features Elon made possible just for Ukraine. The federal appropriations run out March 14th and Congress must pass a new budget, prior to or many agencies will be furlough. I see Congress direct funding ending very shortly and confident direct funding will not be in the new budget. Have we heard any of our congressional representatives demanding we continue to fund, with no return on investment? Even those that disagree with the president are silent. Sends a message most of the world is missing.

Many do not have an understanding of the US funding/financial system. Money is controlled by elected officials to Congress.

I give it a week and US direct funding will cease. USAID and DOD are both over budget and running negative balances to date, could easily stop payments immediately, fully justified/ legal and would receive much Congressional support.

All my opinion....

 

[Warwick1991]

Having a besieged country yield its valuable assets for wartime assistance is not new. In most cases, such agreements are borne of desperation, and rarely end well. One of the worst examples took place during the Spanish Civil War, when the desperate Republicans, fighting the Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco, agreed to ship most of the gold held by the Bank of Spain to the Soviet Union. This was ostensibly used for the purchase of military equipment through the Soviets. Spain lost its gold reserves, and its currency was destabilized.

Moscow Gold (Spain) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To require Ukraine to provide its mineral wealth to the US will potentially impact its economy for years and foreclose future revenue from these resources. It is not in Ukraine’s national interest, just like the case of Spanish gold. JMO

 

[Cedars]

History proves repayment for war cost is common....
Link to US State Dept

Technical Difficulties

Perhaps that clarifies why Trump is claiming Ukraine started the invasion of their own country, etc.

So he can try to demand Ukraine pay, instead of Russia which actually started the war.

 

[Amonet]

Moo....

Unless the war ends, there won't be anything left of Ukraine. It will all be Russian and will be a much greater risk to all of Europe.

The US taxpapayers have spent enough. Money to support Ukraine comes out of our paychecks weekly. We can certainly put the money to better use protecting the US and allies. We have given most generously.

The US gives hundreds of billions in addition to our NATO contribution to Ukraine. We are paying for humanitarian aid, additional direct cash payments and for Starlink, with many special and additional features Elon made possible just for Ukraine. The federal appropriations run out March 14th and Congress must pass a new budget, prior to or many agencies will be furlough. I see Congress direct funding ending very shortly and confident direct funding will not be in the new budget. Have we heard any of our congressional representatives demanding we continue to fund, with no return on investment? Even those that disagree with the president are silent. Sends a message most of the world is missing.

Many do not have an understanding of the US funding/financial system. Money is controlled by elected officials to Congress.

I give it a week and US direct funding will cease. USAID and DOD are both over budget and running negative balances to date, could easily stop payments immediately, fully justified/ legal and would receive much Congressional support.

All my opinion....

Yes, other countries haven't been immune to financial/economic costs from this war either. It demoralises people in other countries. I'm in the UK and gas/electricity prices rose massively after the invasion of Ukraine. It's cost the government/taxpayers/consumers a lot of money, and then there's the money for arms and training Ukrainian troops. The UK, Poland and other nations have taken in a lot of people from Ukraine who wanted to get out to safety due to the bombing.

So yes, of course ending the war is best for everyone in Ukraine, Russia, Europe, US and elsewhere. I think the concerns here really are more about how Putin is allowed to take and if the diplomats and politicians can work out a way that is slightly less harsh for Ukraine, and slightly less rewarding for Putin.

 

[Cedars]

Having a besieged country yield its valuable assets for wartime assistance is not new. In most cases, such agreements are borne of desperation, and rarely end well. One of the worst examples took place during the Spanish Civil War, when the desperate Republicans, fighting the Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco, agreed to ship most of the gold held by the Bank of Spain to the Soviet Union. This was ostensibly used for the purchase of military equipment through the Soviets. Spain lost its gold reserves, and its currency was destabilized.

Moscow Gold (Spain) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To require Ukraine to provide its mineral wealth to the US will potentially impact its economy for years and foreclose future revenue from these resources. It is not in Ukraine’s national interest, just like the case of Spanish gold. JMO

Yes, and since WWII the US agreed with every other Western country that the priority of world politics was to oppose the Soviets and other tyrannies and support the growth of economically healthy democracies so that they could trade their resources freely and fairly, not with a gun to their head.

This was to avoid the closely linked series of crises of WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII.

If the US no longer cares about that, it doesn't mean the rest of the world will do the same.

JMO

 

[Simply Southern]

The US has 750 military bases all over the world with almost 200K active duty personnel. They started in the UK in WW2 then spread to Germany, Japan, Korea as recognition as to who their most recent enemies were. Most of the bases are in Germany and Japan. So I don't really think the US has to build any military bases, they already have tons of them.

If the US sends in military support they will have to have a place to work from. Everything in Ukraine is destroyed. They will need barracks the house/feed thousands of military, hospital to support military personnel, storage/repair facilities for equipment (tanks/vehicles), an entire ground and air communication system, currently they're working off of starlink, and more. They will need a fully operational Air Base, to get large cargo planes in and out, house military aircraft, the list is endless. They will need naval support, to protect the ports that will need to rebuild. You can't provide military support, in war torn country, without the basic necessities. It's not like we can run a shuttle bus/planes in and out. Russia could easily start shooting down the planes, block the ports. Ukraine's entire infrastructure is destroyed.

You are correct the US does have bases in the above countries. They are there to protect those countries. When the US agrees to provide support, on a long-term basis, after a war, we provide the full package. We provide everything needed. We stand ready, fully able and willing to support these countries.

Yea, Zelenskyy could have it all but he wants it for free. He wants hard working middle class citizens to give up another 20 to 50 a paycheck to pay. We are saying no. NATO and most European country are saying, we can give a little. In order for European countries to pick up the bill for Ukraine security, it would create a very high tax burden on their citizens. They know this, that is why they have not offered up billions of dollars for support.

All by opinion looking at it from a financial point of view, not only with the US but all Ukraine allies.

 

[Cedars]

Yes, other countries haven't been immune to financial/economic costs from this war either. It demoralises people in other countries. I'm in the UK and gas/electricity prices rose massively after the invasion of Ukraine. It's cost the government/taxpayers/consumers a lot of money, and then there's the money for arms and training Ukrainian troops. The UK, Poland and other nations have taken in a lot of people from Ukraine who wanted to get out to safety due to the bombing.

So yes, of course ending the war is best for everyone in Ukraine, Russia, Europe, US and elsewhere. I think the concerns here really are more about how Putin is allowed to take and if the diplomats and politicians can work out a way that is slightly less harsh for Ukraine, and slightly less rewarding for Putin.

Not to mention, it is well reported in Russian media that Putin doesn't want to stop at Ukraine, he wants to take back all the countries Russia lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it's so called "security zone". So that could include eg. Poland and East Germany.

Interestingly, much of Russia's stated hostility to Europe is because it is seen as a puppet of the American urge to dominate as the world's superpower. If the US were marginalized, no one knows how the dominos would fall.