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

[SouthSaxon]

Who needs narcotic assistance when you have a personality disorder?

 

[Shins]

It's going to be very depressing seeing Zelenskyy in Washington, I'm sure, what with the pressure to be completely robbed by Trump and his cronies.
Just hoping so much that Starmer stands up to trump any way he can and puts his foot down re fact checking him. I appreciate he's in a very tricky situation, but Macron did a fairly good job on that. Although I hated seeing all the touchy feely handshaking, backpatting and knee slapping, etc. Really hope starmer keeps his distance in that regard

I feel confused about this. Yeah it's crap and plays to Trump even though he's an evil dangerous human being. But countries leaders sometimes need to play the hand they are dealt, and they've all been dealt Trump. If this is the method needed to try and get a few more things from him, then so be it, sadly.

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

It 100% won't....... They will try and freeze conflict...... "peace".... and remove santions, replenish sovereign wealth fund, adapt plans to be "frozen assets" proof and keep the military industrial complex churning out a new huge stockpile of weapons then bide time for when Trump is gone.

The whole ruse that Trump is swallowing and paroting "we can't have NATO at our borders as it threatens security" is bullshit and invalidated by Finland doing just that along 1300 miles of new NATO border on their border. The Russians actions versus words, has been to move weapons and manpower away from the new NATO border to send to Ukraine.

Russia just wants to ensure no NATO for Ukraine or NATO troops to set up the future conditions for the next bite at full destruction/subjugation, when they're strong enough again and when political conditions change...... Ukraine is central to their imperial fantasies.

This. NATO is, and has always been, purely defensive. NATO has never in all its history invaded or threatened to invade anyone. Besides, with nukes no-one could successfully invade Russia. 'NATO expansion' has always been a pretext to leave countries in Eastern Europe unprotected so Russia can invade them. I find it stunning that so many in the west don't get this!

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

This is interesting about the minerals 'deal'.

 

[Triggaaar]

If Putin had captured Kiev he would have 2+ million extra (forced) Ukrainian soldiers at his disposal to meet grind Europe. Things could have been far worse then now. Russia is severely weakened.

Agreed.

As nice as it would be the lost land though cannot realistically be retaken without great cost, The Russians have dug in.

That's only if the attempt would be to retake by force, as opposed to pressuring the Russian economy.

The worry is him lifting sanctions which is what Putin will demand + Trump trade war against Europe

The sanctions must remain. Putin will demand they stop, but what is he offering in return? Nothing worth having.

 

[raymondo]

Which is what we've said from the start. Trump has even rowed back from saying it'll end, instead saying he may get a deal with Putin but can't promise it.

Zelenskyy needs to stay on side with the US without agreeing to give his country's resources away.

Yes and that's tricky - Trump will force him, timewise, into a decision. At the moment, he's likely to say ' no thanks ' (IMO).

 

[raymondo]

Agreed.



That's only if the attempt would be to retake by force, as opposed to pressuring the Russian economy.


The sanctions must remain. Putin will demand they stop, but what is he offering in return? Nothing worth having.

The sanctions from Europe will likely remain, those from the US... I'm less sure.

 

[raymondo]

When Trump made this speech yesterday, he was addressing Zelensky.

He is keen for Zelensky to sign the minerals deal tomorrow (sans security agreement).

I'm now wondering if he tells people what they want to hear. Were the harsh words he had for Ukraine a few days ago (Ukraine started the war etc) aimed at the imminent talks with Russia?

Yes, so Trump says cunning Putin wants the whole of Ukraine (pretty obvious) and the US offers no defence or guarantee against that.
So, to little old me, it's a clear acceptance from Trump that the war will continue .
I guess the deal is just hoping Ukraine defends current territory and starts rebuilding, paying US contractors.

It's all a bollox sideshow IMO.

 

[Eric the meek]

This is interesting about the minerals 'deal'.

That's a good video from Paul Warburg.

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that as the deal is a 'memorandum of understanding' and not a treaty, then Ukraine (or the US) can walk away from it at any point.

He suspects that the security guarantee may be 'to follow', and suggests this may be to avoid the Russians reacting badly.

He also speculates that the Trump team could have gone for clarity if they had chosen to, but they didn't. The wooliness/vagueness could therefore be a deliberate policy. Earlier, writing about their messaging being inconsistent, I more or less dismissed it as being a deliberate policy. Now I'm not quite so sure....

 

[Eric the meek]

Yes, so Trump says cunning Putin wants the whole of Ukraine (pretty obvious) and the US offers no defence or guarantee against that.
So, to little old me, it's a clear acceptance from Trump that the war will continue .
I guess the deal is just hoping Ukraine defends current territory and starts rebuilding, paying US contractors.

It's all a bollox sideshow IMO.

I recommend the Paul Warburg video.

He overdoes the risk of corruption IMO, but the other bits are.......interesting.

 

[aftershavedave]

I feel confused about this. Yeah it's crap and plays to Trump even though he's an evil dangerous human being. But countries leaders sometimes need to play the hand they are dealt, and they've all been dealt Trump. If this is the method needed to try and get a few more things from him, then so be it, sadly.

I heard on R4 that Starmer is not a slap-on-the-thighs type of man. Let's see how he reacts

 

[raymondo]

That's a good video from Paul Warburg.

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that as the deal is a 'memorandum of understanding' and not a treaty, then Ukraine (or the US) can walk away from it at any point.

He suspects that the security guarantee may be 'to follow', and suggests this may be to avoid the Russians reacting badly.

He also speculates that the Trump team could have gone for clarity if they had chosen to, but they didn't. The wooliness/vagueness could therefore be a deliberate policy. Earlier, writing about their messaging being inconsistent, I more or less dismissed it as being a deliberate policy. Now I'm not quite so sure....

I suspect the wooliness/vagueness is deliberate - it allows trump to say different things on different days as the whim takes him.

 

[armchairclubber]

I heard on R4 that Starmer is not a slap-on-the-thighs type of man. Let's see how he reacts

Thanks, I needed a chuckle.

 

[marlowe]

Trump's trying to manipulate and distort the narrative so he'll be able to say we had a deal in place which was all agreed with Ukraine which would have stopped the killing, but then Ukraine went back on the agreement, so the continuation of hostilities is all Ukraine's fault.

He obviously failed in his pathetic attempt to convince everyone that Ukraine were responsible for starting the war, so with his latest gambit he probably thinks he'll have a chance of convincing people that Ukraine are responsible for continuing the war, with his portrayal of them as the aggressors.

This in turn will provide Trump with the justification for his abandonment of Ukraine and his appeasement and support of Putin, who like him just wanted to achieve peace, unlike Zelensky.

It doesn't matter to Trump that most people won't buy that narrative as long as that justification exists in his warped mind and re-enforced and validated by his sycophantic enablers.

 

[raymondo]

Trump's trying to manipulate and distort the narrative so he'll be able to say we had a deal in place which was all agreed with Ukraine which would have stopped the killing, but then Ukraine went back on the agreement, so the continuation of hostilities is all Ukraine's fault.

He obviously failed in his pathetic attempt to convince everyone that Ukraine were responsible for starting the war, so with his latest gambit he probably thinks he'll have a chance of convincing people that Ukraine are responsible for continuing the war, with his portrayal of them as the aggressors.

This in turn will provide Trump with the justification for his abandonment of Ukraine and his appeasement and support of Putin, who like him just wanted to achieve peace, unlike Zelensky.

It doesn't matter to Trump that most people won't buy that narrative as long as that justification exists in his warped mind and re-enforced and validated by his sycophantic enablers.

That feels about it at the moment, sadly.

 

[Eric the meek]

It is sometimes useful to understand changes in the narrative contained in Russian disinformation.

In this case, it is the instructions given to 'Z-bloggers'.

Will we see a similar change of message on Russian state propaganda TV?