[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Triggaaar]

So we’re all agreed Ukraine is winning, Russia can’t ultimately…so what on earth is Donald doing?!

I don't know about all agreed, but that's certainly what I think.

Russia could win if we gave up supporting Ukraine (doesn't seem likely), and Russia could half win if Ukraine decided that losing their land in exchange for a lasting peace was worth it (eg, if Russia eventually came to realise they couldn't take over Ukraine, and couldn't stop the war and rearm without Ukraine joining Nato etc).

As for Trump - I honestly think he's just a bit (I'm playing it down) stupid. I think that Trump believes Ukraine can't win (for example it's true that Ukraine can't force Russia out of the occupied lands), so he figures he'll make a deal that Ukraine have to accept, we'll give him the Nobel peace prize, and that'll be that.

But I don't think that's the reality. Ukraine would be mad to accept a deal that a) gives Russia their land, and b) doesn't give them cast iron security over the rest of their country. If they were to do that, it would be suicide. It's guaranteed that Russia would build a much bigger army, and invade again.

It's possible that Ukraine could give up their land in exchange for Nato membership, but that would be a tragedy.

I pray that my armchair analysis is correct, and that Ukraine can continue this war until Russia collapses and withdraws, so that Ukraine can get it's land back, and join Nato (and the EU).

 

[Eric the meek]

I don't know about all agreed, but that's certainly what I think.

Russia could win if we gave up supporting Ukraine (doesn't seem likely), and Russia could half win if Ukraine decided that losing their land in exchange for a lasting peace was worth it (eg, if Russia eventually came to realise they couldn't take over Ukraine, and couldn't stop the war and rearm without Ukraine joining Nato etc).

As for Trump - I honestly think he's just a bit (I'm playing it down) stupid. I think that Trump believes Ukraine can't win (for example it's true that Ukraine can't force Russia out of the occupied lands), so he figures he'll make a deal that Ukraine have to accept, we'll give him the Nobel peace prize, and that'll be that.

But I don't think that's the reality. Ukraine would be mad to accept a deal that a) gives Russia their land, and b) doesn't give them cast iron security over the rest of their country. If they were to do that, it would be suicide. It's guaranteed that Russia would build a much bigger army, and invade again.

It's possible that Ukraine could give up their land in exchange for Nato membership, but that would be a tragedy.

I pray that my armchair analysis is correct, and that Ukraine can continue this war until Russia collapses and withdraws, so that Ukraine can get it's land back, and join Nato (and the EU).

I was going to reply to PS but you've covered it all really. And I can't type as fast as you. EIther that Or my brain doesn't work as fast.

The logic from Jason Jay Smart is that if Trump wants the rare earths et al, then he needs to get the Russians out. He can get them out by keeping the weapons flowing to Ukraine. Hey! What about getting the Europeans to pay for them as well?

P.S. I've heard one Nato membership plan mooted. Don't let Ukraine join yet, but if Russia attacks once, then Ukraine joins Nato straight away.
Hey presto - Nato membership is guaranteed.

 

[portlock seagull]

Btw, does anyone listen to the weekly podcast called Battleground, with historians Saul David and Patrick Bishop both of who I respect and have bought several books from. I stopped listening about a year ago, not because it was poor. I just found it too grim, and also felt conflicted by its entertainment element when thousands are dying. I couldn’t stomach anymore.

Regardless, what have they had to say about the war since beginning of this year - if anyone is an avid listener and can summarise?

 

[SouthSaxon]

People look at Trump, the man whose casino went bankrupt and, lord knows how, see a talented businessman who knows how to Get Things Done.

He doesn’t understand what he’s dealing with is not an illogical conclusion.

 

[Sirnormangall]

I'm not just referring to Ukraine. Much wider than that. But regardless, FWIW, I don't think we ever learn (as human beings) i.e. all those cliches about strong armed forces is price for peace, don't give in to bullies, appease at your peril blah blah blah. Because when it comes down to it, our very security is NOT worth paying for in most peoples eyes until it's too late e.g. the moment of crisis. Until then, and even then, people aren't interested or bury heads in sand. For example, when war arrived in 1939 we eventually we had to spend 46% of our GDP on military - so what's 5% now in that context?! Well, it seems to be 2-3% more than the average Brit wants to pay to ensure their security!

I don't understand people's thinking on lots of matters. Health and Security are all the only things that matter when you strip things back, and yet aren't what people are prepared to pay more for. Instead, people want to be taxed less so they can go on nice holidays, spend on leisure activities, a new car etc etc. These are utterly irrelevant in the event a foreign power undermines your freedom and democracy or worse still, occupies you. But I'm just old fashioned as they say. That and read a lot of history / geopolitics in my time!

Personally I’d be happy to pay more tax for better defence. Or better still, keep tax levels unchanged and reappraise how it’s spent. I get fed up at seeing central and local government wasting millions - I won’t give examples as I don’t want to turn this into a political thread as there are enough of those already.

 

[portlock seagull]

People look at Trump, the man whose casino went bankrupt and, lord knows how, see a talented businessman who knows how to Get Things Done.

He doesn’t understand what he’s dealing with is not an illogical conclusion.

It isn’t. But he does control / is controlling the narrative right now, and setting the pace of events which is powerful negotiation when his so called allies have to meet, confer and agree whilst Trump broadcasts he’s done a deal and (lying) everybody thinks it’s ‘tremendous’ blah blah

 

[FatSuperman]

People look at Trump, the man whose casino went bankrupt and, lord knows how, see a talented businessman who knows how to Get Things Done.

He doesn’t understand what he’s dealing with is not an illogical conclusion.

It's hard to know if he's actually a genius playing at being a prick. Yes, every business he owns seems to go bankrupt, but he personally waddles off after trousering millions. So if his goal is to get rich no matter how, then he's doing a great job.

Then with his politics, who knows what he really thinks or if he thinks much about it at all. We can get a sense of his character from how he has been recorded over the years, and it's basically a classic rich, white misogynist. No surprise there. But part of me wonders whether he actually does understand what he's doing. Take the current message about reciprocal tariffs and including VAT as a tariff. Now obviously it is absolutely insane to suggest that VAT/sales taxes are effectively a tariff on US product - it's a general sales tax on everything. However, let's imagine if he actually fully understands that, but he knows the majority of his base won't care, they'll just shoot their pistols in the air screaming "let's do this". He'll fire everyone up and drown out all sensible debate with irrational noise. Other politicians can't debate with him because he refuses to engage in a rational conversation, he'll just say they have to drop their VAT on US goods or get a 20% reciprocal import tarriff. We either swallow that madness, or find some way of negotiating - recent history suggests most of his rhetoric is one of two things;

Posturing to get other parties to negotiate on poorer terms
Rile his base up so they think he's doing well (even if what he agrees is pretty much the status quo - his base never know that)


Alternatively he's an absolute imbecile... but that seems even more far fetched given he doesn't seem to follow up on these threats.

 

[Triggaaar]

P.S. I've heard one Nato membership plan mooted. Don't let Ukraine join yet, but if Russia attacks once, then Ukraine joins Nato straight away.
Hey presto - Nato membership is guaranteed.

Obviously Russia wouldn't agree to that. 'Of course we wouldn't attack' they'd say, 'we are a peaceful nation, but Ukraine could conduct another one of their false flags to get membership'. All a load of nonsense of course. Ukraine being in Nato would be for the single reason of stopping Russia invading again, and the only reason Russia don't want Ukraine in Nato is because they want to be able to invade again.

Like everything else, Russia will only agree to anything once everyone knows Russia has lost.

 

[portlock seagull]

Personally I’d be happy to pay more tax for better defence. Or better still, keep tax levels unchanged and reappraise how it’s spent. I get fed up at seeing central and local government wasting millions - I won’t give examples as I don’t want to turn this into a political thread as there are enough of those already.

I don’t disagree, it’s just most don’t think similarly and last I looked my piggy bank alone can’t sustain the uplift that’s needed. Moreover, most of our European NATO members as we know do not / will not pay anywhere near what supposed to never mind more. So we are very much in a minority in our thinking when it comes down to the question of ‘would you pay more?’

 

[Triggaaar]

whilst Trump broadcasts he’s done a deal and (lying) everybody thinks it’s ‘tremendous’ blah blah

Oh god we've got that to look forward to in a few days haven't we

"I've got a deal. It's tremendous. The experts can't believe how good it is, they said it's the best bit of negotiation they've ever seen. Maybe it's the best ever, I don't know, but that's what they're saying." etc.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I can’t quite believe what Starmer has said tonight: basically we have to have a US backstop. So he’s telling Putin that Europe hasn’t got a plan B. Now of course Putin probably assumes that, but why tell him straight out? Doh!

 

[Bodian]

It's hard to know if he's actually a genius playing at being a prick. Yes, every business he owns seems to go bankrupt, but he personally waddles off after trousering millions. So if his goal is to get rich no matter how, then he's doing a great job.

Then with his politics, who knows what he really thinks or if he thinks much about it at all. We can get a sense of his character from how he has been recorded over the years, and it's basically a classic rich, white misogynist. No surprise there. But part of me wonders whether he actually does understand what he's doing. Take the current message about reciprocal tariffs and including VAT as a tariff. Now obviously it is absolutely insane to suggest that VAT/sales taxes are effectively a tariff on US product - it's a general sales tax on everything. However, let's imagine if he actually fully understands that, but he knows the majority of his base won't care, they'll just shoot their pistols in the air screaming "let's do this". He'll fire everyone up and drown out all sensible debate with irrational noise. Other politicians can't debate with him because he refuses to engage in a rational conversation, he'll just say they have to drop their VAT on US goods or get a 20% reciprocal import tarriff. We either swallow that madness, or find some way of negotiating - recent history suggests most of his rhetoric is one of two things;

Posturing to get other parties to negotiate on poorer terms
Rile his base up so they think he's doing well (even if what he agrees is pretty much the status quo - his base never know that)


Alternatively he's an absolute imbecile... but that seems even more far fetched given he doesn't seem to follow up on these threats.

Yes - I've been thinking this for a while.

You don't get to his age with the wealth he has seen come and go, and get voted to be president twice whilst also being a congenital idiot.

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

So we’re all agreed Ukraine is winning, Russia can’t ultimately…so what on earth is Donald doing?!

There is a shed load of circumstantial evidence that Trump is, and has been for a very long time, a Russian asset. Looking at his failed businesses over the years it was often Russian (cough) 'businessmen' that bailed him out. He would end up with deals where it's hard to see what the other (Russian) party gained. Only really makes sense if they were cultivating him. Then there's the push to get him elected. Don't remember Putin caring so much about any other Republican candidates.

Personally, I think he was and probably still is Putin's creature. Remember: Russians play a very, very long game.

 

[Wozza]

Trump wants his Nobel peace prize...the self centred scum

Or just money.



So depressing.

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT:

There is no definitive proof that Donald Trump was a cultivated Russian asset, but circumstantial evidence has led to speculation. Here are some key points often cited:

1. Trump’s Business Ties to Russia
   • Trump pursued real estate deals in Russia for decades, including the proposed Trump Tower Moscow, which was still being negotiated during the 2016 campaign.
   • Russian oligarchs and investors have been linked to Trump properties, suggesting financial entanglements.
2. Trump’s Unusual Deference to Putin
   • Trump has repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and appeared reluctant to criticize Russian actions, including election interference.
   • In the 2018 Helsinki summit, Trump publicly sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies on the issue of Russian election interference.
3. 2016 Election Interference & Trump Campaign Contacts
   • The Mueller Report documented extensive Russian efforts to help Trump’s campaign, though it did not establish a direct conspiracy.
   • Several Trump associates, including Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, had links to Russian officials or intermediaries.
4. Paul Manafort’s Role
   • Manafort, Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, had long-standing ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.
   • He shared internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, who allegedly had Russian intelligence ties.
5. Trump’s Foreign Policy Stances
   • As a candidate and president, Trump repeatedly pushed policies beneficial to Russia, such as undermining NATO and delaying military aid to Ukraine.
   • His administration sought to weaken sanctions imposed on Russia after its annexation of Crimea.
6. FBI Counterintelligence Concerns
   • In 2017, the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump was acting as a Russian agent.
   • Reports suggested concerns within intelligence circles about Trump’s private meetings with Putin, where no U.S. officials were present.

None of this conclusively proves Trump was a cultivated Russian asset, but it forms a pattern that has fueled ongoing suspicion. Some believe he was an unwitting asset—useful to Russia due to his business vulnerabilities and policy positions—rather than a recruited agent.

 

[portlock seagull]

Oh god we've got that to look forward to in a few days haven't we

"I've got a deal. It's tremendous. The experts can't believe how good it is, they said it's the best bit of negotiation they've ever seen. Maybe it's the best ever, I don't know, but that's what they're saying." etc.

Yep, and if literally every other person on the planet thought otherwise he’d call it fake news.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I can’t quite believe what Starmer has said tonight: basically we have to have a US backstop. So he’s telling Putin that Europe hasn’t got a plan B. Now of course Putin probably assumes that, but why tell him straight out? Doh!

I disagree. Starmer is basically saying to Trump " Are you committed to NATO or not?" and has thrown in Britain's commitment to a peacekeeping force. He's done this ahead of the US-Russia showdown tomorrow, so if Trump caves he's effectively binning off NATO.

I believe Europe is now thinking beyond NATO - their Plan B - but does not want that to happen. And NATO still includes Turkey and Canada that are powerful Allies.

Russia is weaker than Trump realises and I think he has miscalculated very badly.

 

[Scappa]

Just for fun, I asked ChatGPT:

There is no definitive proof that Donald Trump was a cultivated Russian asset, but circumstantial evidence has led to speculation. Here are some key points often cited:

1. Trump’s Business Ties to Russia
   • Trump pursued real estate deals in Russia for decades, including the proposed Trump Tower Moscow, which was still being negotiated during the 2016 campaign.
   • Russian oligarchs and investors have been linked to Trump properties, suggesting financial entanglements.
2. Trump’s Unusual Deference to Putin
   • Trump has repeatedly praised Vladimir Putin and appeared reluctant to criticize Russian actions, including election interference.
   • In the 2018 Helsinki summit, Trump publicly sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies on the issue of Russian election interference.
3. 2016 Election Interference & Trump Campaign Contacts
   • The Mueller Report documented extensive Russian efforts to help Trump’s campaign, though it did not establish a direct conspiracy.
   • Several Trump associates, including Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, had links to Russian officials or intermediaries.
4. Paul Manafort’s Role
   • Manafort, Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, had long-standing ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.
   • He shared internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, who allegedly had Russian intelligence ties.
5. Trump’s Foreign Policy Stances
   • As a candidate and president, Trump repeatedly pushed policies beneficial to Russia, such as undermining NATO and delaying military aid to Ukraine.
   • His administration sought to weaken sanctions imposed on Russia after its annexation of Crimea.
6. FBI Counterintelligence Concerns
   • In 2017, the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump was acting as a Russian agent.
   • Reports suggested concerns within intelligence circles about Trump’s private meetings with Putin, where no U.S. officials were present.

None of this conclusively proves Trump was a cultivated Russian asset, but it forms a pattern that has fueled ongoing suspicion. Some believe he was an unwitting asset—useful to Russia due to his business vulnerabilities and policy positions—rather than a recruited agent.

He's been on the KGB's radar at least since he married Ivana Zelnikova in 1977

Ukraine's refusal to dig/make up dirt on Biden during the build up to the previous election will still be stuck deep in Trump's craw

Donald Trump | Vatnik Soup

In today’s #vatniksoup, I’ll introduce an American politician, media personality and businessman, Donald Trump. He’s best-known for serving as the 45th president of the US, and for promoting pro-Kremlin viewpoints regarding Putin and the Russo-Ukrainian war.

vatniksoup.com

 

[portlock seagull]

There is a shed load of circumstantial evidence that Trump is, and has been for a very long time, a Russian asset. Looking at his failed businesses over the years it was often Russian (cough) 'businessmen' that bailed him out. He would end up with deals where it's hard to see what the other (Russian) party gained. Only really makes sense if they were cultivating him. Then there's the push to get him elected. Don't remember Putin caring so much about any other Republican candidates.

Personally, I think he was and probably still is Putin's creature. Remember: Russians play a very, very long game.

He employs the same strategies and tactics as Putin and other tyrants eg spreads conspiracy theories, presents himself as a hero of this moment, attacking human rights to name a few.

 

[portlock seagull]

I disagree. Starmer is basically saying to Trump " Are you committed to NATO or not?" and has thrown in Britain's commitment to a peacekeeping force. He's done this ahead of the US-Russia showdown tomorrow, so if Trump caves he's effectively binning off NATO.

I believe Europe is now thinking beyond NATO - their Plan B - but does not want that to happen. And NATO still includes Turkey and Canada that are powerful Allies.

Russia is weaker than Trump realises and I think he has miscalculated very badly.

I’ve no faith in Turkey, their leader is also a tyrant and without the US in NATO no one else has anywhere approaching their might even if Turkey ‘stepped up’, which it wouldn’t. In fact I could see it more likely stepping down to act in its own interests if American withdrew. Plus, all the time Russia has nuclear weapons and is crazy enough to use them, I don’t think weakness can be debated.