Russia Invades Ukraine

[calvegas04]

Didn’t know that. Seems strange to ask him to do that. It’s not like one of those countries where there is a militant coup and he doesn’t have the backing of his military. Doesn’t matter what I think, but I think he did the right thing.

Russia was within miles of taking the capital within the first few days before being beaten back. They were trying to throw him a life line.

 

[NorthDakota]

The German conservative CDU party won their election which is good for Ukraine as they want to ramp up German defense spending and continued support for Ukraine.

What does German support offer? Ramping up defense spending takes time. It isn't 1935 anymore where people can just pump out relatively rudimentary machines en masse.

The war will probably be done rather soon. Fox (take it or leave it) was saying a deal could be done this week.

 

[drayer54]

Baier is best in class.

 

[GowerND11]

1. The UN is complete garbage and doesn't hold any weight outside of a few villages in Africa

2. It's just not great being apart of the group of countries that voted no.

When you allow the Soviet Union (now Russia) the ability to veto resolutions while 14 others vote yes.... Yeah UN messed up A A Ron

 

[NorthDakota]

When you allow the Soviet Union (now Russia) the ability to veto resolutions while 14 others vote yes.... Yeah UN messed up A A Ron

The UN reminds me a bit of the EU or NATO. The primary function is to scold people that don't care if they get scolded by some dorks in New York City.

My favorite thing i come across on social media is Europeans whining about countries in the EU or NATO blocking things and how that country needs to be removed from said group. I'm sitting there thinking "you set up a group of countries requiring unanimous support to act, you invite every country under the sun, and get mad when some don't agree?" And the first reaction is to scream that they should be removed or threatened.

All these international orgs seem nice in theory but I'm pretty sure they are all basically useless in practice.

 

[Irish#1]

Russia was within miles of taking the capital within the first few days before being beaten back. They were trying to throw him a life line.

I'm aware that Russia came in aggressively at the start. Still he wasn't fighting an internal coup with no military backing. I would wonder how well received he would be upon a return if he had fled the country leaving his citizens behind to fend for themselves?

 

[Irish#1]

The UN reminds me a bit of the EU or NATO. The primary function is to scold people that don't care if they get scolded by some dorks in New York City.

My favorite thing i come across on social media is Europeans whining about countries in the EU or NATO blocking things and how that country needs to be removed from said group. I'm sitting there thinking "you set up a group of countries requiring unanimous support to act, you invite every country under the sun, and get mad when some don't agree?" And the first reaction is to scream that they should be removed or threatened.

All these international orgs seem nice in theory but I'm pretty sure they are all basically useless in practice.

Governing other countries is not on the top of other countries list.

 

[calvegas04]

The UN reminds me a bit of the EU or NATO. The primary function is to scold people that don't care if they get scolded by some dorks in New York City.

NATO has gone to war for the US when 9/11 happened. The UN would have held a vote condemning it which Russia would have voted no

 

[GowerND11]

I'm aware that Russia came in aggressively at the start. Still he wasn't fighting an internal coup with no military backing. I would wonder how well received he would be upon a return if he had fled the country leaving his citizens behind to fend for themselves?

Not that you wouldn't be thinking this too, but this was probably at the top of the list of reasons why he didn't leave.

 

[NorthDakota]

Governing other countries is not on the top of other countries list.

It's at the very top of European's list. The EU basically exists so they can tell each other what to do. Then they go to the Hague and pretend they have a court for the world. The US has a law on the books authorizing an invasion of the Netherlands to save American or allied people from being prosecuted there. So it's a fake court. They come to the UN and say "oh this thing over there is bad, let's condemn it!" Like I said earlier, it's scolding. African warlord? Bad! Putin? Bad! Netanyahu? Bad! They won't do shit about it but say "you are condemned!"

It's just funny. Like OG NATO you have a group set up around working together to keep western Europe from being swallowed up by the Soviet Union. We all agree! Good. Disagreements will happen, but we are ready to rock when the Soviets hit the Fulda Gap. Hopefully the fact that we are working together dissuades them from ever doing it.

But you invite Estonia, Romania, Hungary, etc., you are now way out over your skis. People are not going to see eye to eye. And you need consensus to act! A country that isn't even in NATO got attacked and Europeans went into meltdown. "What happens if Estonia is next? You won't die for Tallinn!" They are all telling on themselves, why invite Estonia into NATO if you are worried NATO countries won't defend Estonia?

I think NATO is a house of cards being propped up by the US. They are afraid of being exposed as a 2005 mortgage bond. Their militaries are basically ceremonial vestiges of their respective glorious pasts. They won't fight or build up unless they think their country is on the line (see Poland). That's why they are lashing out at the US right now. They have gotten way too used to us subsidizing their silly low production high vacation way of life. They want to ride their old prestige as respected and powerful countries without being respectable or powerful.

 

[Irish#1]

https://www.ft.com/content/1890d104-1395-4393-a71d-d299aed448e6

 

[ab2cmiller]

https://www.ft.com/content/1890d104-1395-4393-a71d-d299aed448e6

Behind a firewall, unable to even preview the article. What was it about?

 

[Irish#1]

NATO has gone to war for the US when 9/11 happened. The UN would have held a vote condemning it which Russia would have voted no

Agree, but it seems to take something catastrophic to really pull them together.

 

[Irish#1]

Behind a firewall, unable to even preview the article. What was it about?

Sorry, didn't realize that. Ukraine has agreed to a minerals deal. Also being reported by Clay Travis.

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/1890d104-1395-4393-a71d-d299aed448e6

Kyiv has agreed terms with Washington on a minerals deal that Ukrainian officials hope will improve relations with the Trump administration and pave the way for a long-term US security commitment. Ukrainian officials say Kyiv is now ready to sign the agreement on jointly developing its mineral resources, including oil and gas, after the US dropped demands for a right to $500bn in potential revenue from exploiting the resources. Although the text lacks explicit security guarantees, the officials argued that they had negotiated far more favourable terms and depicted the deal as a way of broadening the relationship with the US to shore up Ukraine’s prospects after three years of war. “The minerals agreement is only part of the picture. We have heard multiple times from the US administration that it’s part of a bigger picture,” Olha Stefanishyna, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister and justice minister who has led the negotiations, told the Financial Times on Tuesday. The original draft’s highly onerous terms — which President Donald Trump presented as a means of Ukraine repaying the US for military and financial aid since Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion — provoked outrage in Kyiv and other European capitals. After President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected that initial text last week, Trump called him a “dictator” and appeared to blame Ukraine for starting the war. The final version of the agreement, dated February 24 and seen by the FT, would establish a fund into which Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of proceeds from the “future monetisation” of state-owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, and associated logistics. The fund would invest in projects in Ukraine. It excludes mineral resources that already contribute to Ukrainian government coffers, meaning it would not cover the existing activities of Naftogaz or Ukrnafta, Ukraine’s largest gas and oil producers. However, the agreement omits any reference to US security guarantees which Kyiv had originally insisted on in return for agreeing to the deal. It also leaves crucial questions such as the size of the US stake in the fund and the terms of “joint ownership” deals to be hashed out in follow-up agreements. After three years in which the US was Kyiv’s primary military aid donor, Trump has overturned Washington’s policy by opening bilateral talks with Russia, without any European allies or Ukraine at the table. Ukrainian officials said the deal had been approved by the justice, economy and foreign ministers, and held out the prospect of Zelenskyy travelling to the White House in the coming weeks for a signing ceremony with Trump. “This will be a chance for the president to discuss what the bigger picture is. And then after it, we will be able to think of the next steps,” said one official. The Trump administration’s initial sweeping proposal called for a reconstruction investment fund in which the US “maintains 100 per cent financial interest”. Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of the fund’s revenues from mineral resource extraction, including oil and gas and associated infrastructure, up to a maximum of $500bn. Those terms, described as unacceptable by Ukrainian officials, have been removed from the final draft. The mandate for the fund to invest in Ukraine is a further change Kyiv had sought. The document states the US will back Ukraine’s economic development into the future. Ukrainian officials added that the deal was just a “framework agreement” and that no revenues would change hands until the fund was in place, allowing them time to iron out any potential disagreements. Among the outstanding issues is to agree the jurisdiction of the agreement. Zelenskyy’s government will also have to seek approval from Ukraine’s parliament, where opposition MPs have signaled they will at the very least have a heated debate before ratifying such a deal. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Tuesday that it was “critical that this deal is signed”, though she did not provide an update on the talks.

 

[Irish#1]

It's at the very top of European's list. The EU basically exists so they can tell each other what to do. Then they go to the Hague and pretend they have a court for the world. The US has a law on the books authorizing an invasion of the Netherlands to save American or allied people from being prosecuted there. So it's a fake court. They come to the UN and say "oh this thing over there is bad, let's condemn it!" Like I said earlier, it's scolding. African warlord? Bad! Putin? Bad! Netanyahu? Bad! They won't do shit about it but say "you are condemned!"

It's just funny. Like OG NATO you have a group set up around working together to keep western Europe from being swallowed up by the Soviet Union. We all agree! Good. Disagreements will happen, but we are ready to rock when the Soviets hit the Fulda Gap. Hopefully the fact that we are working together dissuades them from ever doing it.

But you invite Estonia, Romania, Hungary, etc., you are now way out over your skis. People are not going to see eye to eye. And you need consensus to act! A country that isn't even in NATO got attacked and Europeans went into meltdown. "What happens if Estonia is next? You won't die for Tallinn!" They are all telling on themselves, why invite Estonia into NATO if you are worried NATO countries won't defend Estonia?

I think NATO is a house of cards being propped up by the US. They are afraid of being exposed as a 2005 mortgage bond. Their militaries are basically ceremonial vestiges of their respective glorious pasts. They won't fight or build up unless they think their country is on the line (see Poland). That's why they are lashing out at the US right now. They have gotten way too used to us subsidizing their silly low production high vacation way of life. They want to ride their old prestige as respected and powerful countries without being respectable or powerful.

I get what you're saying, but I think it takes something like 9/11 or Ukraine like Calvegas mentioned for them to really pay attention.

 

[calvegas04]

Agree, but it seems to take something catastrophic to really pull them together.

It's a defensive treaty if I'm not mistaken? So it understandably does take something big for action to take place.

 

[NDVirginia19]

NATO has gone to war for the US when 9/11 happened. The UN would have held a vote condemning it which Russia would have voted no

That point taken, but NATO members in Europe were in the cross hairs of radical islamic terror attacks as well and had a vested interest in the Afghanistan mission. NATO had tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan for OEF. They had just a hundred or so sporadically in OIF, and it was mostly to train the Iraqi police force and conduct humanitarian missions rather than conduct offensive operations. The UK, in a bilateral fashion, contributed about 40K+ troops for OIF .

 

[calvegas04]

That point taken, but NATO members in Europe were in the cross hairs of radical islamic terror attacks as well and had a vested interest in the Afghanistan mission. NATO had tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan for OEF. They had just a hundred or so sporadically in OIF, and it was mostly to train the Iraqi police force and conduct humanitarian missions rather than conduct offensive operations. The UK, in a bilateral fashion, contributed about 40K+ troops for OIF .

Check out this documentary about the Danish troops in Afgan, they went through it too.

 

[NorthDakota]

It's a defensive treaty if I'm not mistaken? So it understandably does take something big for action to take place.

It's not defensive in practice

 

[calvegas04]

It's not defensive in practice

What countries have NATO involved without being attacked first?

 

[calvegas04]

Crazy, Trump will be 6ft under before anything is even mined in Ukraine

 

[calvegas04]

 

[GATTACA!]

At least the price of eggs is cheaper.

 

[calvegas04]

 

[Sea Turtle]

You guys bashed Trump because he was selling Ukraine out by giving Putin everything he wants.

Then he strikes a deal that he probably won't even live to see its fruition but it's good for the country AND Ukraine. You bash him for that.

This gives us a stake in Ukraine and now Trump will allow Ukraine to fight on maybe push Russia back. You bash him for that. I thought you wanted Russia defeated?

There was a reason that Russia was puzzled and saying behind the scenes that this was too good to be true and that it could be a trap. But since they recruited Trump to be a secret agent man in 1987, I guess they should have known 😆

Honestly, there is no pleasing some of you people.

 

[NorthDakota]

What countries have NATO involved without being attacked first?

Libya? Serbia?

 

[calvegas04]

Libya? Serbia?

Didn't know they were officially NATO operations. Further proof they they are on the right side of history

 

[Sea Turtle]

 

[NorthDakota]

Didn't know they were officially NATO operations. Further proof they they are on the right side of history

Libya has open air slave markets 15 years later.

 

[calvegas04]

Libya has open air slave markets 15 years later.

Makes sense why russia is such a close ally to them and opening bases there