I vaguely remember an article about the Russian Oligarch Abromovich <sp?) who owned Chelsea Football Club who had negotiated a peace deal back at the beginning, but was rebuked by the West re:USA, for the same reasons given in the article you site. Oh, he was forced to abandon Chelsea and all his investment in them, if I recall?
Could be the same as you site.
1 Like
@cigarmanstan Yep… Exactly, it’s very unfortunate that so many in this forum have such a blinkered polarised view of world events… As I have said over and over… A weak US Administration is dangerous for all Western Nations…
I don’t care if Mickey Mouse was voted into the White House… As long as his policies are sound, for the quiet majority and not the noisy minorities and the stupidity and incompetence that is gripping US Politics today dissipates.
We need a new style of leader that opens conversation’s with out in the cold Nations like Russia…
Both self made men… Trump and Ramaswamy appear to be the only Politicians that are not from the Old, Stale, Jaded generation of Career Politicians who live in the past…
Trump when President flew into North Korea and opened discussions with Kim Jong Un… So he has form for thawing relations with recalcitrant nations…
Unlike this steered from the shadows Administration… Currently pouring Billions of hard earned US Dollars into two conflicts which has nothing to do with them…
Some people just cannot work out things for themselves… The Guardian Article (The Guardian is believed to have a lean left bias) below gives good insight into what caused the Russian aggression into the Crimea and the continuation into greater Ukraine…
“US and Nato leaders proceeded with new rounds of expansion, including the provocative step of adding the three Baltic republics. Those countries not only had been part of the Soviet Union, but they had also been part of Russia’s empire during the Czarist era. That wave of expansion now had Nato perched on the border of the Russian Federation.”
"Moscow’s patience with Nato’s ever more intrusive behaviour was wearing thin. The last reasonably friendly warning from Russia that the alliance needed to back off came in March 2007, when Putin addressed the annual Munich security conference. “Nato has put its frontline forces on our borders,” Putin complained. Nato expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”
A few more inconvenient facts for those posting in this thread…
1 Like
Some of Ukraine’s assistance may be based on the credibility of U.S. security assurances in the Budapest Memorandum
In comparison to NATO security guarantees and the guarantees the United States’ mutual security treaties with Japan and South Korea, the Budapest memorandum does not carry as much weight as the NATO security guarantees or U.S. security guarantees
Despite Ukraine’s demand for U.S. security guarantee, the U.S. refused to do so, They settled for U.S. security assurances.
Assurances for Ukraine
Before agreeing to give up this nuclear arsenal, Kyiv sought three assurances. First, it wanted compensation for the value of the highly-enriched uranium in the nuclear warheads, which could be blended down for use as fuel for nuclear reactors. Russia agreed to provide that.
Second, eliminating ICBMs, ICBM silos, and bombers did not come cheaply. With its economy rapidly contracting, the Ukrainian government could not afford the costs. The United States agreed to cover those costs with Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance.
Third, Ukraine wanted guarantees or assurances of its security once it got rid of the nuclear arms. The Budapest Memorandum provided security assurances.
Unfortunately, Russia has broken virtually all the commitments it undertook in that document. It used military force to seize, and then illegally annex, Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in early 2014. Russian and Russian proxy forces have waged war for more than five years in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas, claiming more than 13,000 lives and driving some two million people from their homes.
Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments. True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond.
Washington did not promise unlimited support. The Budapest Memorandum contains security “assurances,” not “guarantees.” Guarantees would have implied a commitment of American military force, which NATO members have. U.S. officials made clear that was not on offer. Hence, assurances
Why care about Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum | Brookings
It’s understandable that most countries view China as a threat when it’s becoming a global powerhouse.
Several countries have accused China of bullying tactics.
Since the fall of the USSR, NATO has grown from 16 to 32 Members, Do you think Russia/Putin might be feeling just a little bit threatened
@SmallPaul How about you actually read the Guardians in-depth and factual article on discussions with NATO and the Ukraine over the past two decades before you go posting swathes of cut and paste text once again…
Like many in these forums that have no detail to back up their supposed facts…
You and BillyBob are getting your opinions confused with facts…
Peterma obviously has me on mute… Thank God I no longer have to put up with his Posts from the Edge… The expansion of NATO into former Soviet nations is what has caused Russia’s aggression as it tries to build a buffer against further expansion…
All explained in detail in the Guardians compressive article from 2022… Posted previously…
2 Likes
are you referring to this, if not post your link
Nato is growing reckless over Ukraine – and Russia’s German military leak proves it
READ the posts…
lol, Enjoy your mourning, Trendswithbenefits
As of today, here is where we stand on Ukraine aid.
Johnson tells senators he’s still looking for path on Ukraine aid
Speaker Mike Johnson told Republican senators during their closed-door retreat Wednesday that he was committed to finding a path ahead for Ukraine aid in the House of Representatives, a sign GOP senators took to mean that aid to the embattled country isn’t yet dead in Congress.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma, told CNN that Johnson made clear “he understood the importance and the urgency of it and was looking for a path forward.”
But Johnson’s message to senators also indicated the package he is looking at is unlikely to look like the $95 billion package the Senate passed. Republicans have been looking at using some kind of loan program, which wouldn’t outright give equipment to Ukraine, but would be part of a kind of lend-lease program.
CNN reported earlier this month that Johnson has been working closely with House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, to find a way to craft a Ukraine aid package that could include elements like McCaul’s REPO Act, which would seize Russian assets and transfer them to Ukraine – and perhaps a way to include some of the aid in a loan program, an idea originally floated by former President Donald Trump.
The goal of McCaul and Johnson’s efforts was always to get the bill to the floor by late March or early April. McCaul said Johnson will put such a House foreign aid bill on the floor after the appropriations process is done. The federal government faces another deadline to avert a partial government shutdown March 22.
has anyone heard this story of a Boeing whistle-blower committing suicide on the eve he was to testify? This stinks like the Jeffrey Espstein “suicide”
I sware the US has become the Empire from Star Wars
More like aid to the US military-industrial complex as that is where most of this money ends up
1 Like
Dennis, you will be right
Even if the aid wasn’t for military purposes, why not let American companies profit from it?
Back in that interview he made it clear that he didn’t feel threatened by the existence of NATO, even figured such talk as harking back to the cold war era and therefore “capable of causing damage”
Is it the case that because the increase in NATO membership that you mention is made up from former, cold war era. Soviet States over which Russia had absolute control I wonder.
These States were not invaded by NATO, they chose to join - there has been no mass protests from their citizens wishing to leave so reasonable to assume that their respective Govts have acted according to citizens’ wishes.
One wonders why former Soviet States felt the need to join NATO - and then the most recent entries from Finland & Sweden (who had a policy of neutrality since 100’s years back) What could possibly have caused citizens who have opted to stay out of armed conflict for so long to have a change of heart.
3 Likes
My feelings are mixed on Tik Tok, but if there’s evidence of a security threat due to China’s government involvement, I’m in favor of the ban
The US House of Representatives voted Wednesday to pass a bill that could lead to a nationwide ban against TikTok, one of the world’s most popular social media apps. It’s not yet clear what the future of the bill will be in the Senate.
Here’s what you need to know about the vote and what may happen next:
-
Who voted for the bill: The House vote was 352 to 65, with 50 Democrats and 15 Republicans voting in opposition. In a rare show of bipartisanship, the measure advanced unanimously out of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, and President Joe Biden has said he would sign the bill if it makes it to his desk.
-
Why the bill passed: Lawmakers supportive of the bill have argued TikTok poses a national security threat because the Chinese government could use its intelligence laws against TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, forcing it to hand over the data of US app users.
-
What the legislation would do: The bill would prohibit TikTok from US app stores unless the social media platform — used by roughly 170 million Americans — is spun off from ByteDance. The bill would give ByteDance roughly five months to sell TikTok. If not divested by that time, it would be illegal for app store operators such as Apple and Google to make it available for download.
-
Uncertain future in the Senate: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer remained uncommitted Wednesday to the next steps in the Senate, just saying that the chamber will review the legislation. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, and the panel’s top Republican, Marco Rubio of Florida, urged support for the House bill, citing the strong showing in Wednesday’s vote. Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, the chair of Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, wants to create a durable process that could apply to foreign entities beyond TikTok that might pose national security risks.
-
What TikTok is saying: TikTok has called the legislation an attack on the constitutional right to freedom of expression for its users. China’s foreign ministry called the bill an “act of bullying.” In a video posted on X (formerly Twitter), CEO Shou Chew thanked the community of TikTok users, and said the company has invested in keeping user “data safe and our platform free from outside manipulation.” He warned that if the bill is signed into law, it will impact hundreds of thousands of American jobs and take “billions of dollars out of the pockets of creators and small businesses.”
-
Opposition to banning TikTok: Former President Donald Trump, who was once a proponent of banning the platform, has since equivocated on his position, while Democrats are facing pressure from young progressives among whom TikTok remains a preferred social media platform.
-
Potential antitrust issues: The market for social media services is highly concentrated, which could make it hard for TikTok to even find a buyer that US competition regulators could accept, antitrust experts say.
“May have”, “appeared to have”. Rumor with no facts. Perhaps it was the discovery of the Buccha massacre, the looting of occupied towns and murders of civilians, and indiscriminate bombings Russian was making at the time. Better yet, we should take the public comment made by the Ukrainian delegation that was there, at the meeting: “not the time”
The US is part of NATO. NATO’s job is also the US’s job. One and the same, as a member of the organization.
The US doesn’t ship 3.5% of its GDP to Europe. There’s a reason why we spend so much on defense. It’s about jobs, whether here on the mainland or abroad. The US military is one of the largest employers in the world.
I recall Bolton and Mattis, both members of Trump’s admin, claiming that Trump’s time in North Korea and on Twitter battling Kim, was the closest the US has been to WW3 than most people understand.
I don’t consider that diplomacy. That’s not “a new style of leader” any country needs or wants.
Putin’s recent claims about feeling threatened by the expansion of NATO and then his subsequent annexation of Crimea directly influenced Finland and Sweden to change their long standing neutrality. A completely expected move, given Russia’s actions.
In wanting to prevent expansion (if we are to believe that), Putin has caused expansion. It doesn’t say much for his strategic prowess. What a blunder on his part.
That’s the difficulty with power - we tend to believe it’s real even when it’s not.
Chechnya was difficult but power prevailed, Georgia much less a problem & again power did it’s thing.
Crimea - now a little tact, guys with their emblems removed - soldiers on leave & on their own time - a little collateral in over 300 ppl being killed with a buk on a Boeing 777 - power ensured nobody held accountable.
And then to Ukraine - power whispered yet another walk in the park…
@BillyBobPimpton What a load of Bullshite… Now I know I’m conversing with a dreamer… North Korea is incapable of targeting it’s weapons on any Nation with accuracy… Kim Jong Un lives in an isolated fantasy land of his own power and strength… No chance of starting let alone sustaining any war…
Bolton is an out and out war monger who was in the process of trying to sell his book when these comments were made… And you question an in depth report from a reliable media outlet…
Published before the mainstream media madness of the post Trump era…Wake up to yourself