Prior to 1991, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and had Soviet nuclear weapons in its territory. On December 1, 1991, Ukraine, the second most powerful republic in the Soviet Union (USSR), voted overwhelmingly for independence, which ended any realistic chance of the Soviet Union staying together even on a limited scale.[1] More than 90% of the electorate expressed their support for Ukraine's declaration of independence, and they elected the chairman of the parliament, Leonid Kravchuk as the first president of the country. At the meetings in Brest, Belarus on December 8, and in Alma Ata on December 21, the leaders of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine formally dissolved the Soviet Union and formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).[5][6]
Man, how Ukraine must wish they'd held onto those weapons. If they'd even kept just 10 or 50 of them, it's a safe bet that Russia would never think about invading Ukraine. Let alone slaughtering unarmed Ukraine civilian populations.
It's inspiring to see so many Russians in at least 53 major cities risk arrest and imrisonment, or worse, such is their outrage at their own government's massive invasion of Ukraine, and slaughter of unarmed civilians, just in a vain attempt to demoralize the Ukraine government to make them surrender. If anything, it has steeled Ukraiinians' resolve to fight to the last man.
There is also possibly similar resistance among the Russian soldiers in Ukraine themselves. A 42-mile Russian military convoy headed for the Ukraine capital of Kiev has been stalled and not moved for 6 days now. This could manifest that the conscripted Russian soldiers themselves don't want to fight. There are about 190,000 Russian soldiers in the invasion force, who would occupy a Ukrainian nation of over 40 million people, only a tiny fraction of them Russian-speaking. The Russians can lay waste to cities with artillery, but they cannot hope to occupy Ukrainian cities, and will eventually have to withdraw. They can only hope to keep the Russian-dominated regions (see the language map of Ukraine I posted earlier) such as Crimea and other provinces on the easternmost border with Russia. And the Russian soldiers can't be eager to go into cities where they will lose all advantage.
I've yet to hear a clear explanation of Putin's ultimate goal in all this. It seems like an enormous waste of resources and lives. That will ultimately cause Putin to be pushed out as leader of Russia. And with the prospect of losing all power, and possibly being tried and executed for war crimes, Putin has no incentive to back down. He has already threatened to use nuclear weapons. Either inside Ukraine, or against NATO countries, including the U.S.
Just prior to Russia invading Ukraine, they had amassed 130,000 soldiers on the Ukraine border, about 70% of Russia's available infantry. At now 190,000 in Ukraine, that has risen to close to 100% of available forces. That's an enormous risk. Putin has brought in military divisions from as far away as Vladivostok. If Russia were to face an external invasion from anywhere on its vast border, or an internal uprising.... there would be no reserve to deal with it. This could be the catalyst for a Russian revolution.
The official line of the Kremlin and state-friendly media is in line with Putin’s assessment – that Russia had no choice but to respond to Ukrainian “aggression”, and the military is crippling Ukraine’s defence capability while avoiding civilian casualties.
Alexander Kots, war correspondent from the tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda, who is stationed in Donbas, reported that on Wednesday evening “Ukraine tried to solve its territorial issue by force”, but rebel fighters had beaten back a Ukrainian advance across the Donets River.
It's hard to believe that even the Russian population could believe that. But if your news coverage doesn't show the footage of 1.7 million of Ukraine's 41 million people fleeing to other country in just the last 11 days, if they don't see the western news footage of Russian artillery decimating Ukraine cities and slaughtering unarmed civilians, if you don't see footage of Russians declaring cease-fires and then killing unarmed Ukrainians as they just try to leave the war-torn area, violating their own cease-fire, then maybe the Pravda version is believable.
That number of fleeing refugees to Poland and other nations has now risen to over 3 million.
My only speculation for an endgame is that maybe Putin will offer a peace deal to withdraw from so much of occupied Ukraine, that negotiating to keep a few dominantly Russian-speaking regions such as Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, and perhaps portions of Zaporizhia and Kherson will appear generous of Putin.
But the Ukrainians, pissed off and smelling blood, might gaamble on taking their whole country back. But given that Putin has already threatened to use nuclear weapons, and could lob some tactical nukes on the way out, the Ukranians should take any reasonable offer the Russians give. That would pretty much leave Putin with the territory he had before the invasion ever began.
It would be reasonable possibly have a U.N.-supervised vote in these regions, to give the small regions that would prefer to be Russian over to Russia control, or for areas deeper inside Ukraine, offer to pay their moving expenses to the Russian side, if they wish to leave. But with already 3 million who have left Ukraine, an immediate vote would skew the result, omitting a huge ratio approaching 4 million who have already left as refugees.
In the long term, Russia has killed any desire in Ukraine to reach a cooperative economic or shared military security agreement with Russia, for perhaps a hundred years or more. They have driven Ukraine into the West's orbit, away from any cooperation or shared security with Russia.
Which is unfortunate, because there is a lot of shared history between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine was actually the birthplace of Russia, with Kiev the Russian cultural center in the early period. Until a Turkish invasion seized Kiev, and the Russian center became Moscow, that had previously only been a frontier fort until then.
It's a safe bet that if Ukraine had held onto their nuclear arsenal in 1991, even a tiny portion of it, Russia would not have just invaded them. And there's a lesson there for the whole world from that. If I were Taiwan, I would be furiously developing a nuclear weapons program. If I were Japan, or South Korea, same thing. If I were Germany or Poland, same thing. Or Kazakhstan, the former center of the Soviet Union's arsenal and nuclear testing, who like Ukraine, surrendered their nuclear arsenals back to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Who like Ukraine, Putin has vocally expressed a desire to reclaim by Russia. Likewise Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, same thing, as Iran steams toward nuclear weapons capability, with the long-range missiles and submarines to carry them and become an immediate threat to their neighbors.
All these nations have seen that international assurances mean nothing, and the nuclear umbrella of the United States, Britain, France or other nuclear powers is not the protection it used to be, if it ever was. Their only assurance against invasion is to have a nuclear deterrant. Prime examples being nuclear-armed Israel, and a far more bellicose (but nuclear armed) North Korea.
Although with the current invasion of Ukraine over the last 3 weeks, due to state-owned propaganda media, Putin temporarliy enjoys 90% popular support inside Russia. Once the truth seeps in, and the crushing effect of economic sanctions, that support will decline.
With no one else to turn to, Putin has basically sold Russia into slavery to China, its only ally capable of sustaining Russia through this economic exclusion from most of the free world. Russia is sustained almost solely by its oil industry, and China is buying Russia's oil, but at a hugely discounted price. China and Russia 5 years ago began a somewhat secretive economic and military alliance. At the time both were world powers, but it is clear China is now the senior partner in that alliance, with Russia now completely dependent on China.
Regarding my own opinion about the Ukraine/Russia conflict, while there's no defending the wholesale slaughter of children, hospitals, and other Ukrainian civilians, I agree with what Pat Buchanan wrote back in 2006-2007: That the U.S should have ended all its mutual defense agreements at the end of the Cold War in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. That we could always have chosen to come to a nation's defense after, if we wanted to after that, but would no longer have been obligated by treaty to enter a war. That the era of Soviet global expansion was no longer a threat., and the basis for NATO no longer existed after Dec 1991. And that such mutual defense pact treaties are what caused the first and second world wars.
So since Russia had completely collapsed at that point (1991) it was pointless to continue those defense agreements, and was actually provocative against Russia, alienating a country we could have possibly made into an ally.
Further, beyond keeping the NATO alliance, NATO was expanded into former Warsaw Pact countries, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Rumania.
And even further beyond that in recent years, expanding NATO membership even further into territories of the former Soviet Union itself: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and more recently, proposed membership for former-Soviet Georgia, and within the last month before the invasion... Ukraine.
The U.S. further has U.S. troops training military forces in places like Armenia, Georgia, a war nearby in Iraq and Syria, U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 for 20 years, and since the World War II era have U.S. military presence in Turkey, in Japan, in South Korea. And that's not even a complete list. I posted an article here 20 years ago citing that the Russians even at that time already voiced concern over being encircled by the U.S. militarily, and that the noose was being further tightened.
I see very little information in George Orwell's news media here in the U.S., Fox included, regarding the motivation for Putin invading Ukraine when he did. You see a lot of B.S. such as "Putin is Hitler!", or "Putin hates freedom!" or just "Putin is evil", but astonishingly virtually no attempt to explain logically why Putin invaded at this time. In the two weeks prior to the invasion, President Biden at a press conference answered a question about Ukraine possibly being given NATO membership, and Biden said he was all for it, and we should fast track it.
I don't endorse or overlook massacre of Ukranian civilians by the thousands, bombing of hospitals, the Russians pointlessly levelling entire metropolitan cities, children almost gleefully targeted for killing (painted on an exploded missile: "For the children of Ukraine"), or mass rape of Ukrainian women by Russian soldiers or mercenary forces, all deliberate terror campaigns. But it would be delusion not to acknowledge that the U.S. over several decades has taken advantage of Russian weakness, and provoked Russia by expanding into their former territories, and specifically Biden urging a "fast track" of Ukraine NATO membership. The invasion of Ukraine began about 2 weeks after that.
I think I've seen two U.S. news media discussions that acknowledge Ukraine NATO membership was a red line the Russians would go to war over, and would never tolerate. Any more than we would tolerate Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba, or a Russian military base on the U.S./Mexico border. And where it goes from here, no one can say. But it showcases the incompetence of President Biden and everyone in his White House, to ignore Russia's obvious and clearly stated red line (NATO membership for Ukraine), and push the Russians this far. Ignoring months of military build-up on the Ukraine border.
The consequences of a rigged November 2020 election, and people who should never have gained power, but were given power. God help us all.
I don't know if most here are old enough to have seen it, but during and after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990-1991, and for 10 years after, virtually all the major U.S. news networks would nightly report the news in their normal fashion, but would also right after show and translate how the same events were simultaneously being reported in Russia. It was enlightening, to see both perspectives, and to better understand the Russian point of view.
That view of both sides is completely missing now, it's just portrayed as "Russian aggression" and "Putin is evil !" Even RT has been taken off the air, there is virtually no attempt to explain Russia's motivation, or to explain any logic to Russia's actions.
From outside the U.S. here are two reports that try to explain the history and geographic perspective for Russia to seek defensive borders, and in particular the treat of NATO expansion into former Soviet territories. Over centuries, the Mongols, the Turks (also called Tartars), the Ottomans, Napoleonic France, and the Germans, have all invaded Russia, whose vast open fields , with few mountains or sea borders, are very difficult to defend from invasion.
These two videos do a good job of explaining those considerations:
That Palki Shawarma chick looks hawt. I would like to invade her borders.
She is sexy. She also has a dry sarcasm to her commentary that I enjoy. She's as elegant as she is sexy. I definitely don't see a lot of women culturally dressed the way she is. But she's beautiful and pleasant to listen to nonetheless. I actually meet a lot of women here in Florida from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and other central Asian and far eastern nations, but for the most part they're doing their best to conform to western casual or office clothing, unless they just attended a wedding or some other festive event with others from their country.
The opening story is on Putin's threats to use nuclear weapons, and its deployment of weapons and escalated Defcon alert to back that threat. That it's the closest the U.S. and Russia have come to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis in Oct 1962, 60 years ago.
Also interesting is that the sanctions intended to "turn the Ruble into rubble" as President Biden boasted, have actually caused a drop in currencies of the U.S., India, South Korea, the Phillipines and the E.U. The total opposite the intended effect. Russia is selling its oil at vastly discounted prices, mostly to China, and India now purchases over tenfold the Russian oil that they did a year ago. But as the global economy worsens, it's questionable whether Russia can sustain its temporary gains that have increased value of the Ruble. And Russia has been hit with a 17% rise in inflation, roughly double that in the U.S., and unrest in the U.S. from rise to 8.6% inflation in one year (up from 1.4% inflation the month Trump left office) is causing support of Biden and the Democrats to crater.
A dissenting point of view from the narrative we've been fed for the last 4 months. In opposition, officer Richard Black who served from the frontlines of the Vietnam war and in higher positions until 1994, says (at many points similar to Pat Buchanan's view of NATO and a failed U.S. policy that has unnecessarily made an enemy of post-Soviet Russia by not disbanding NATO when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, and in further expanding NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries, and into former provinces of the former Soviet Union itself) has been pointlessly threatening toward Russia. And that threatening to expand NATO into Ukraine, on Russia's doorstep, is an intolerable last straw that Russia cannot permit.
And further unnecessarily runs a great risk of escalating to nuclear war.
The comments after are rather gushy. While I like his views and what evidence he cites, he says "I think...", "I believe..." and otherwise speculating is not making the case as well as he could. But he is certainly right that Russia has hypersonic missiles we dont, and has nuclear subs that could launch missiles just 20 miles off our shore and destroy Washington DC and all our major cities in minutes, and it's not worth the risk and unnecessary sabre-rattling of Biden and too many enabling establishment/RINO Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham.
At present, I disagree that Putin would, or even could, attack a NATO country. Putin is at the limit of his military resources just trying to hold A PORTION OF Ukraine. Putin can level cities with artillery from a distance, but his forces are incapable of occupying or holding Ukrainian cities. And his forces are taking devastating losses, in a relatively short period of 4 months so far, last I heard about 30,000 dead Russian soldiers (and Ukraine is taking equally high losses). Even if Putin were humiliatingly defeated, if he survived and remained in power, he could spend several years rebuilding militarily, and attack Ukraine or elsewhere again. Although if the defeat were humiliating and destructive enough, Putin would lose power or be killed, and cease to be a future threat.
But whether Putin is offered "an off-ramp" to avoid humiliation, or if Russia were thoroughly and humiliatingly defeated in Ukraine, either way he can rebuild, possibly learn from his mistakes how to be militarily more formidable, and strike again after a few years of re-armament.
Either way, the greater direct threat to the U.S. is China, and Biden's policy, rather than diplomatically separating Russia and China, has driven them together, along with Iran and North Korea. So Biden has done the opposite of good foreign policy, the opposite of protecting the United States.
President Trump demonstrated how well a president can use soft power, to avoid a costly war. Whereas the establishment, both Democrats and RINO Republicans, want to turn Ukraine into another 20-year war like Afghanistan or Iraq. A war Trump would have deterred if he were still president, before the conditions to provoke war could even begin. Trump won and ended existing wars, and prevented others from ever happening. In Korea and Iran, and deterred hostilities between the U.S. with Russia and China. For which George Orwell's liberal media gave him absolutely no credit.
( See also: Kazakhstan and weapons of mass destruction and Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction )
Kazakhstan had 1,400 Soviet-era nuclear weapons on its territory and transferred them all to Russia by 1995, after Kazakhstan acceded to the NPT [non proliferation treaty] .[140]
Ukraine had an estimated 1,700 nuclear weapons deployed on its territory when it became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, equivalent to the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.[141] At the time Ukraine acceded to the NPT in December 1994, Ukraine had agreed to dispose of all nuclear weapons within its territory. The warheads were removed from Ukraine by 1996 and disassembled in Russia.[142] Despite Russia's subsequent and internationally disputed annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine reaffirmed its 1994 decision to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state.[143]
Belarus, which since 2023 has resumed hosting Russian nuclear weapons, also had single warhead missiles stationed on its territory into the 1990s while a constituent of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, 81 single warhead missiles were stationed on newly Belarusian territory, but were all transferred to Russia by 1996. Belarus was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from May 1992[144] through February 2022, when it held a constitutional referendum resulting in the cessation of its non-nuclear status.[145] In connection with their accession to the NPT, all three countries received assurances that their sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity would be respected, as stated in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. These assurances have been flouted by Russia since the Russo-Ukrainian War began in 2014, during which Russia claimed to annex Crimea, occupied Eastern Ukraine, and in 2022, launched a full-scale invasion, with limited responses by the other signatories.[146][147][148]
As I said earlier, Ukraine was a nuclear state after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Uniton. They had nuclear weapons, and were in fact the 3rd largest nuclear power on Earth for about 2 years, before surrendering those weapons for dismantlement. Ukraine's ONLY condition for surrendering those weapons was that Russia respect Ukraine's territorial integrity and not invade Ukraine.
That Russia took only 22 years to violate that agreement, to take the Crimea region from Ukraine, and to then further expand into the Ukrainian territories of Donetsk and Luhansk, and then further began an all-out assault on Ukraine in Feb 2022, manifests how untruswrhy Putin is, and what a huge mistake it was for Ukraine to give up their only bargaining chip. Imagine if Ukraine had kept just 5 of those nuclear weapons. Or even just ONE. Russia would never have invaded Ukraine.
But with things as they are... Short of world war, I don't know in the current Trump-led negotiations how Russia can be forced to give up the regions of Ukraine that Putin currently occupies. But I'd hate to see Russia be awarded one acre of Ukrainian land in a treaty agreement, due to how badly they have violated their 1991 agreement with Ukraine.
If I were leading negotiations, I would require that the people in those occupied regions be polled whether they want their territory to be part of Ukraine, or part of Russia. And as I already cited, in Donesk and Luhansk, even these regions that are upwards of 70% Russian, they would still rather see their regions remain part of Ukraine. And THAT should be the final say in whether they become Ukrainian or Russian dominions.
The trick is how to return these regions to Ukraine.
I think short of world war, Trump could still use economic sanctions to cost Russia trillions, until they concede to give these territories back to Ukraine
The only portion that Russia arguably possibly has a claim to is Crimea, that Nikita Kruschev transferred away from Russia and to Ukraine only recently in 1954. But on the Ukrainian side, it could be argued that Crimea belonged to Ukraine for centuries before that.
But for the fact tha 5,000 people a week are dying in Ukraine on both sides, I'd say wait it out and let Russia suffer total defeat in Ukraine. That would guarantee Putin's government falls and ceases to ever be a threat to Ukraine, the EU or anyone else.
The well-known sources in this video present solid demographics for why Russia can't win in the long run. They can get tens of thousands more killed on both sides, but they can't win.
About a month ago, it was global news that Ukraine had fired long-range missiles deep into Russia and destroyed a number of Russia's strategic nuclear bombers. A major and devastating attack on Russia. That much was major news.
But another major attack after that by Ukraine occurred, that was less reported: Ukraine hackers and spies cracked the top secret submarine engineering technology and the sub-to-base communication of Russia's most sophisticated fleet of nuclear submarines. And that renders them useless, and Russia has recalled all these subs back deep into Russia. Which is essentially the same effect as sinking the entire fleet of these attack subs. They are so compromised, they can no longer be used.
Taking out a large percentage of Russia's nuclear bombers, and now a large percentage of their nuclear submarine fleet, that takes out much of Russia's nuclear deterrent nuclear triad.
Add to that how 90% of Russia's conventional military has either been destroyed or is currently bogged down in the Ukraine war, that leaves Russia incredibly vulnerable across the board.
And I've seen at least 2 videos that question whether Russia's nuclear weapons even work at all[/i].
Two videos that cite the overwhelming U.S. advantage in a conlict with Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea. Or even against the military capability of all these nations combined..
Trump is planning to meet Vladimir Putin in Alaska this week, as soon as Friday. There are a number of factors that combined are likely to bring Russia's war in Ukraine to a close.
First, this $8 billion dollar aid package to Ukraine from the U.S. to Ukraine (in Sept 2024, before Trump was re-elected), including F-16's and missiles, that will give Ukraine air superiority and the capability to then launch ground offensives to push Russian troops out of Ukraine.And combined with that, Ukraine will separately be reveiving even more aid and F-16's from other NATO countries to Ukraine.
On top of that, Trump negotiated about 2 weeks ago with the head of Saudi Arabia, for the Saudis to increase oil production, which will dramatically lower the global price per barrel of oil. And since Russia's economy is almost entirely based on oil revenue, this will severely decrease the funding for Russia's war capability.
On top of that, Trump is pressuring India and other major purchasers of Russian oil with punishing sanctions on those countries if they continue to buy Russian oil.
I've seen multiple generals say for a year that if the global price of oil falls below $50 per barrel, it will shut down Russia's ability to continue its war in Ukraine. And after several attempts in recent months by Trump to treat Putin as an equal and let Russia voluntarily end the war in a way treated with prestige on the global stage, since Putin has rejected these offers and actually intensified his attacks on Ukraine, Trump is now playing hardball and forcing Putin to end the war.
FUN FACT : Up until a week ago the NATO countries purchased more Russian energy than they gave in aid to Ukraine. So on the net, they were actually funding Russian victory in Ukraine. As part of the trade bill Trump just signed with the EU last week, the EU countries will be buying much more U.S. oil and natural gas (cutting off what they used to buy till then from Russia), and the EU countries will also spend much more (between 2 to 5% of each nation's GNP) on NATO military defense, which will allow them to give much more aid to Ukraine's military defense.
That last one was a mind-bender. That based on how much of Russia's conventional military forces used in the Ukraine invasion turned out to be substandard or non-existent, where money allotted to build weapons was stolen a nd pocketed by Russian leaders and officers, so the weapons were eiher sold for quick cash for under-paid officers, or never even built. And that Russia spends a total of about $60 billion a year on its entire military, including its nuclear weapons arsenal, so it is likely that many of its clatmed arsenal of nuclear weapons are non-existent or non-functional props as well. To the point that Russia may threaten a nuclear strike, but would never actually do it, because an all-out nuclear exchange from Russia where only 20 or 40% of their weapons work, but a U.S. counter-strike with nukes that are 100% real and lethal, would annihilate Russia.
As I said, it has similarly been questioned whether Pakistan's nuclear weapons would work at all. And now the question has been raised about a least a huge portion of Russia's nuclear arsenal.
And I've seen the same thing argued about China, both its conventional and nuclear forces.
The Ukraine invasion put on display how unprepared for war Russia is, and what gains Russia is making in Ukraine are being done by throwing tens of thousands of young Russian men into a slaughter, just to gain a few hundred meters of ground. And I think it is making China think twice about attempting a Taiwan invasion, because it could similarly be a humiliation for China, showing how unprepared for war they are as well. So not putting China's military to the test allows them to preserve an appearance of formidability, that would turn to humiliation and proven weakness in an actual war.
The same is true of North Korea, that is estimated might do some initial damage, but would be completely destroyed in a matter of weeks after beginning a war, since North Korea lacks the resources to fight a sustained war.
And we've all seen in the last few weeks how weak Iran's military is, after the bombing and destruction of their nuclear facilities, and the destruction of their Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, and Houthi proxies that used to encircle Israel.
And with Trump's sanctions, it is unlikely that these countries will be able to re-build their arsenals and create a threat again any time in the near future.
Unless a Democrat is elected president again at some point, and does what Biden did, rolling out a welcome mat for aggression and war by these countries. Biden's ceasing to enforce Trump's oil sanctions gave $100 billion to Russia, and $100 billion to Iran, and thus fully funded Iran's proxy war on Israel, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Two rogue nations that were completely neutralized as threats until Jan 2021, until Biden was inauguraed in Jan 2021 and completely destroyed that peace Trump had built in his first term.
And incredibly, Trump has reversed and calmed all that chaos, in just the first 6 months of his second term. Until Trump's second inauguration, we were literally drifting toward a third world war. What a difference one president makes.
ANOTHER FUN FACT: Russia has lost more tanks in Ukraine in the last 3 years than it lost in all of World War II.
This is a much larger and more devastating war than it often appears to be in the news media.
Ukraine had a pre-war population of 41 million, and that is down now to about 30 million. An estimated 1 million on both sides (questionably accurate, but a ballpark figure) have been killed, and uncounted injured and maimed. The rest have fled Ukraine, and are mostly sheltered in border states like Poland, Hungary and Rumania, and the rest of Europe. And the U.S., I've met many of them here in Florida. It's to be seen how many of them will return to Ukraine if / when a peace deal is signed. My observation is that people once uprooted tend not to go back.
It amazes me that, even 3 and a half years into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it still isn't fully explained why Russia invaded Ukraine, and why at this precise time in Feb 2022. Among the other reasons alreaddy cited, this video speculates that the overwhelming majority of Russia's economy (about 70%) is from fossil fuels, oil and natural gas. And that Europe in particular is shifting to a battery/lithium based alternative to what is Russia vital fossil fuel based economy.
And that Ukraine has about 10% of the global reserves of lithium deposits, and the EU was on the cusp of signing a huge deal with Ukraine to extract those reserves. So Russia was about to simultaneously lose a vast amount of their national fossil fuel revenue, and also simultaneously lose Ukraine politically to the EU. And on top of that, Ukraine was positioning to take away Russia's ability to sell is own lithium deposits to the EU nations.
Among other factors, such as Putin's obsession with re-building the Soviet empire and re-claiming what he terms Russia's former "near abroad" territories (specifically Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania., and Kazakhstan) . Add to that the loss of Russia's puppet leader (Yanukovich ) in 2014 and the loss of Russian influence over Ukraine, that even under pro-Russian leaders, the Ukraine population was increasingly desiring to leave Russian influence and partner economically and politically with the EU.
It's not as absolutely certain as the video's title makes it out to be,.but it's a solid fact-based theory for Russia's timing of the invasion in Feb 2022.
I would further add the press conference Biden held in early 2022 as the deciding moment, where Biden was asked whether he would intervene militarily if Russia invaded Ukraine. Biden said "Well, I guess maybe not if it was just a small invasion..."
And combined with the massive and embarassing failed U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, where we left our allies to be slaughtered, and 13 U.S. Marines were killed as the planes were leaving Baghram airport, Putin saw his moment. That the U.S. would do nothing to stop Putin, so Putin ordered the invasion. And just 3 weeks later Putin invaded. Puin was prepared to go in for several months, but that was the green light signal that Puttin told his generals: "Go."
Looks like we got less than nothing from the Trump/Putin meeting. Trump went from some tough talk on Putin before the meeting to now echoing Putin’s position. Not shocked.
Looks like we got less than nothing from the Trump/Putin meeting. Trump went from some tough talk on Putin before the meeting to now echoing Putin’s position. Not shocked.
It was generally not expected that the first Trump-Putin meeting would lead to instant peace.
But consider: Trump is a least out here negotiating peace, ATTEMPTING to get a peace deal tha could save 5,000 Ukranian and Russian lives a week. When Biden and his puppetmasters were in the White House, none of hem met ONE TIME, to EVEN TRY to negotiate peace in Ukraine.
And Trump in barely 6 months has already negotiated peace in : 1) India/Pakistan 2) Congo/Rwanda 3) bombed away Iran's nuclear arsenal 4) Cambodia/Thailand 5) between Egypt and Ethiopia 6) negoiatted peace between Armenia/Azerbaijan 7) between Serbia and Kosovo 8) multiple negotiations and ceasefires between Israel and the Iran-backed groups attacking them, including Hamas 9) multiple negotiations an cease-fires between Russia and Ukraine, on the path to a peace deal.
That's a lot of peace deals and saved lives worldwide, who would still be dying if Biden or Kamala were in the White House.
Hillary Clinton said she would nominate Trump for a Noble if he could broker peace with Russia & Ukraine. This isn’t a cheer for failure and war. It’s seeing a weak leader elevating an adversary and getting nothing for it. Trump had some tough talk before the meeting and then ended up with putting it on Zelenskyy to make a deal afterwards. Appeasement lead us into WW2 and it’s a lesson I hope we haven’t forgotten already.
Hillary Clinton said she would nominate Trump for a Noble if he could broker peace with Russia & Ukraine. This isn’t a cheer for failure and war. It’s seeing a weak leader elevating an adversary and getting nothing for it. Trump had some tough talk before the meeting and then ended up with putting it on Zelenskyy to make a deal afterwards. Appeasement lead us into WW2 and it’s a lesson I hope we haven’t forgotten already.
Afer meeting with Putin in Alaska, 8 other NATO country leaders flew to Washington DC and met with Trump in the White House exactly one day later. That doesn't sound like a "weak leader" to me. And certainly for 8 prominent world leaders to fly to Washington on that short of notice, they don't think so either.
What do they know that you don't, M E M? Probably quite a bit more than either of us.
And "weak leader" Trump also (1) got all the NATO countries a few months ago to increase their military spending to 5% of each's GNP. That will empower NATO nations to further aid Ukraine, and make all the NATO countries in Europe far safer as well against further Russian aggression.
And all these NATO nations less than a month ago (2) also signed a trade agreement with Trump to buy U.S. oil and natural gas, and to stop buying Russian oil and natural gas. That further weakens Russia's abiliy to wage war in Ukraine. So much for he "weak leader" narrative.
Add to that (3) the sanctions Trump put on India and China, if they continue purchasing Russian oil. Further crippling Russia's war economy and ability to stay in Ukraine.
And (4) Trump 6 weeks ago me with the Saudi leader, to have Saudi Araabia ramp up oil producion, to lower he global price per barrel of oil. As generals have been saying for a year, if the global price of il goes to $50 per barrel or lower, Russia loses the ability to continue the war in Ukraine.
Hillary conditioned her Nobel Prize endorsement of Trump on his being able to negotiate so Ukraine gets back ALL its Russian-occupied land, which doesn't seem likely. At least unless Trump's current rhetoric is a head-fake by Trump, to cover up what his actual final offer will be to Russia. Which is entirely possible, and characteristic of the calculated way Trump negotiates, that on the surface appears erratic, but is done to disorient those he is negotiating with.
I frankly would like to see a pause in negotiations until the sanctions on Russia fully take effect, and financially cripple Russia's ability to continue the war in Ukraine as their war-funding dries up, over the next 30, 60 or 90 days. I think that's the only way to get Russia to leave Ukraine territory, without either the U.S. itself or NATO forces militarily pushing them out. Which isn't going to ever happen. But then again, that would cost an average 5,000 casualties a week to wait it out, until that forces Russian withdrawal. And that would be another 20,000, or 40,000 or 60,000 dead.
The alternative is to let Russia keep its occupied territory, let Russia spend a few years rebuilding their military, and then when someone other than Trump is president, Russia would attempt another invasion when they were confident a U.S. president would not intervene on behalf of Ukraine, as Obama and Biden did not. And at that later date, Russia would take Ukraine, and maybe also Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. And Putin along with other Russian leaders have also threatened to invade and seize Poland.
So in the short term, it would cost lives to prolong the Ukraine war until Russia's war machine is crippled by sanctions and forced to withdraw entirely from Ukraine.
Which as terrible as that further cost in lives would be, would still be better than all 30 million remaining Ukrainians being conquered, raped, tortured and liquidated by Russia, if Russia is permitted to keep its conquests, and use them as a staging ground to finish the job later, by a 1938-like "peace is at hand"-type agreement. Trump seems to be focused on a long-term solution, not an ineffective 1938 type agreement, that in 1938 led to a larger war just a year later.
Another comforting assessment of U.S. military strength. But perhaps a complacent view.
China in particular wouldn't try to take on the U.S. 1-on-1, they would use some kind of asymetric warfare tactic, such as cyber-warfare to simultaneously melt down our nuclear reactors, or stage miltiary troops inside the U.S., to attack bases from farmland they purchased near U.S. military bases, or use cyber-warfare to shut down the U.S. power grid, or take out the GPS satellites that allow our military forces to see and communicate.
The part that most assured me is the power of our allies overseas to come to our aid in other parts of the world. And far away U.S. military bases that could be self-sustaining even if cut off and not supplied by the U.S. itselff in a major war.
With the technological advances, I'm sure there are options for the enemy that we could not even imagine, particularly against conventional U.S. military forces. There is very new technology that could decide a war in hours or days, that until unleashed, would be completely unexpeced.
![[Linked Image from theoxfordscientist.com]](https://www.theoxfordscientist.com/uploads/1/1/6/4/1164472/language-map-of-ukraine_orig.png)
