DarkMonohue said:In reply to 02Pilot :
I think we can all read between the lines there.
I'd say more, but I somwhow don't wield enough power to speak and act with absolute impunity.
This is the only forum that I participate in that regularly shows restraint in such matters. It's an admirable quality.
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:Since Zelenskyy is the dictator who started the war, maybe the new American angle will be to support Russia with troops and material so they can finish off their rightful work of getting rid of Nazi's.
Not going to get political but shame on anyone who tries to paint today's comments in some kind of positive Pro Democratic light. It's not any kind of a game.
Come on now. You're smarter than this.
Putin invaded Ukraine. Russia was the aggressor. There is no evidence that Ukraine was supporting any sort of Nazi anything. That's Russian propaganda. Feel free to try to refute that with any verifiable and unbiased news sources.
"You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"In a televised speech at 05:55 Moscow time (02:55 GMT), Mr Putin announced a "military operation" in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region. This area is home to many Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Parts of it has been occupied and run by Russian-backed rebels since 2014."
"I should have invaded Ukraine earlier, Putin tells Russians in TV marathon"
Xceler8x said:Come on now. You're smarter than this.
He's clearly being sarcastic. The context being a statement that came from the top of the US government yesterday.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:Xceler8x said:Come on now. You're smarter than this.
He's clearly being sarcastic. The context being a statement that came from the top of the US government yesterday.
Oh, thank goodness. I totally misread that. I had a whole diatribe written up about legitimizing Putin's bullsh!t. NATO is our best bet for any sort of stability going forward. Nibbling Putin's taint like the US leadership currently is doing is the path to ruin.
In reply to Xceler8x :
There's a line that shouldn't be crossed. Pretty sure you're dancing all over it.
Soooo... I am currently curious to find out if "recent statement" have any relationship to what is actually going on in the negotiations or their goals. I always find it is useful, when interpreting the statements of certain people, to do a bit of a "count to ten" thing, since in many cases.... Anyway, as o2 has pointed out, it is certainly having an affect, whether that was intended or not....
I haven't seen any specifics about results from the talks yet, but there seems to be a clear want to re-open embassies etc, which enables better communication, which is clearly one of the goals of the talks.
This one talks very much to the careful maneuvering that happens with such talks that 02 talks about (point / counterpoint / counter, counterpoint etc):
Russian President Vladimir Putin is reportedly trying to optimize the Russian negotiations delegation to be most effective with the specific individuals whom the United States chooses for its negotiation delegation, likely in an effort to extract maximum concessions from the United States. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on February 19 that Putin will appoint a negotiator for talks with the United States after the United States appoints its own negotiator.[1] Russian opposition outlet Meduza reported on February 19, citing a source close to the Kremlin, that the United States was the first to select its delegation for the February 18 bilateral talks in Saudi Arabia, after which Russia attempted to "select relevant" counterparts for each of the selected US officials.[2] The source claimed that Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev's appointment to the delegation appeared largely as a response to US demands that Russia appoint someone that would "understand" the United States. Another source close to the Kremlin told Meduza that Putin may appoint his aide Vladimir Medinsky to the Russian negotiations delegation if Ukrainian representatives join future negotiations because Medinsky took part in the Spring 2022 Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in Istanbul. The source claimed that the Kremlin does not need to include Medinsky in the Russian delegation so long as negotiations remain bilateral between the United States and Russia. The Moscow Times reported on February 19, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the February 18 US-Russia meeting, that the Kremlin seeks to restore access to roughly $6 billion worth of frozen Russian Central Bank reserves in the US.[3] The source claimed that the Russian negotiations delegation in Saudi Arabia pushed for the United States to agree that both countries fully resume the operations of their diplomatic missions in the other country and to return Russian diplomatic property in the United States, which US authorities had previously seized on charges of being used for intelligence purposes. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on February 18 that the United States and Russia had agreed to restore "the functionality of [their] respective missions in Washington and Moscow."[4] The Kremlin appears to be attempting to push the United States to accept economic and diplomatic terms that are unrelated to the war in Ukraine, possibly in return for Ukrainian and Western concessions that are related to the war.[5] US acceptance of these economic and diplomatic terms — without demanding any Russian concessions on Ukraine in return — would give away leverage that the United States will need to achieve US President Donald Trump's stated objective of achieving a lasting and enduring peace that benefits the United States and Ukraine.
From a strictly, and very cold, perspective, it does seem that, currently, the US (just the US here) seems to very much have the upper hand here. There seems to be a lot the US can "do" for Russia, but very little that Russia, can "do" for the US (comparatively). This of course is if you essentially ignore Ukraine (like I said, very cold), which is, not the US.... (did I mention this was a very cold way of looking at it?)
I am not sure how much this indicates anything (?):
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz reiterated on February 18 that US President Donald Trump's position that the war in Ukraine must end in a way that is "fair, enduring, sustainable, and acceptable to all parties involved" remains unchanged.[6]
US Special Representative for Russia and Ukraine Keith Kellogg arrived in Kyiv on February 19 for his first official visit to Ukraine
Meanwhile, while the big kids on the block talk, Ukraine stands behind one of them and keeps kicking him in the nuts:
Ukrainian forces continue to conduct drone strikes against Russian energy facilities supplying the Russian military.
Head of Ukraine's Center for Combating Disinformation Lieutenant Andriy Kovalenko stated that Ukrainian forces struck the Rosneft Syzran Oil Refinery in Syzran, Samara Oblast on the night of February 18 and 19.[13] Kovalenko noted that the refinery has a processing capacity of 8.9 million tons of oil per year and produces fuel, jet fuel, and bitumen
In reply to aircooled :
There may be more the US has to offer Russia on the positive side, but getting Russia to desist from its ongoing hybrid warfare campaign against Europe and stop transferring technology to Iran are reasonable gains as well.
It's just way too early to say much of anything. After all, the Paris Peace Talks began in 1968 and didn't result in an agreement until 1972, one that was presented to South Vietnam's Thieu as a fait accompli. He was so enraged that he basically refused to accept it, but that didn't stop the US from leaving, and we know how that turned out. Compared to that debacle, I suspect these talks will be reasonably successful in that Ukraine is left sovereign and sustainable, but it might take just as long to get there.
The issue with that I see, is the lack of any enforcement mechanism. Russia could just continue their hybrid warfare as is, and continue to deny it. As it is, it has been happening since far before the Ukraine invasion, that only intensified it.
In reply to eastsideTim :
The US (and West) has a lot of economic muscle to throw around. An economic mechanism could certainly be used. There are currently a lot in place. Russia can pretend they are economically sound, but they are clearly very much hurting.
Removing those for good behavior and re-applying for bad behavior. Historically, the West has been relatively far less aggressive with those, but now that they are in place, it should be far easier to turn them back on if they are reduced (now that they have practice in how to get them done).
Obviously, releasing economic restrictions and essentially fueling the Russian military machine is something that needs to be a consideration.
Meanwhile, while the big kids on the block talk, Ukraine stands behind one of them and keeps kicking him in the nuts:
That's justified. They deserve a seat at the table. It's their people dying on the field. It's their country at risk. To freeze them out isn't right. Any negotiation without them involved isn't legitimate nor should be upheld.
In reply to Xceler8x :
There seems to be an assumption by many that these negotiations are the primary negotiations for the ending of the war. There really is no indication of that. As has been the case for a long time now, getting the Russians to even talk in any reasonable way about ending the war is a huge step, and I don't think we can say that has really even happened yet. The US setting the groundwork for not only how to talk, but maybe giving some indication of what cards they hold (what the can do to, and for the Russians) seems to be a necessary first step and not a step that needs to involve the Ukrainians.
There are some discussions with Ukraine:
US Special Representative for Russia and Ukraine Keith Kellogg met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv on February 20. Zelensky stated that he had a "good" conversation with Kellogg during which they discussed the battlefield situation, the return of all Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs), and effective security guarantees for Ukraine.[16] Zelensky reiterated Ukraine's readiness to make a "strong, effective investment and security agreement" with the United States and stated that Ukraine has proposed the "fastest and most constructive" ways to achieve such results.
Regarding those POW's:
The Financial Times (FT) published an investigation on February 20 supporting ISW's long-held assessment that Russian military commanders are either complicit in or directly enabling subordinates to execute Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs) in clear violation of international law
FT's investigation suggests that more senior Russian commanders may also be complicit in issuing orders to execute Ukrainian POWs
And... it's highly likely that there will be zero repercussions for that. The Russians certainly don't care.
Repercussions? Probably not
Rewards ? For the guy who kills the most of the Nazi terrorist degenerates (or whatever the Russian baseless insult of the week is). Probably yes .
Xceler8x said:Meanwhile, while the big kids on the block talk, Ukraine stands behind one of them and keeps kicking him in the nuts:
That's justified. They deserve a seat at the table. It's their people dying on the field. It's their country at risk. To freeze them out isn't right. Any negotiation without them involved isn't legitimate nor should be upheld.
I've never met a more determined people than the Ukrainians who want their country back. I suspect whatever the outcome of this "peace deal" becomes they won't forget the war crimes that happened to them, and they won't stop extracting "justice" for them in Russia. If a deal is forced upon them, it won't last long.
I found this interesting. A write-up from a knowledgeable source. What do you guys think?
Here is some information that may put things in context.
In 1994, the Soviet Union had fallen, leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of fragile, corrupt and possibly hostile successor states. 3,200 warheads were left behind in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, many atop ICBMs that could launch and hit anywhere in the world.
There was not much concern about the ones in K-stan or Belarus as neither country had the technical know-how to maintain or launch them. Treaties with Russia quickly drew those nukes back within Russian territorial boundaries.
Ukraine was a very different story. Ukraine was a technological and manufacturing powerhouse from the former USSR and had both manufactured most of those nukes and missiles, but also was the primary source of trained personnel to maintain them and build new ones. In fact, Russia actually had to conclude a later treaty with Ukraine to provide skilled labor to maintain those nukes that Russia had. But that is another story.
Knowing Ukraine had the know-how and capability to posess nukes, but also knowing Ukraine, at the time was hopelessly corrupt and did not want to spend money on those nukes, the US, UK, Russia and Ukraine entered into nuclear non-proliferation talks with the goal of de-nuclearizing Ukraine. Those talks succeeded, and became UN Treaty Registration Number 52241, colloquially known as the Budapest Memorandum.
In agreement to return the nukes to Russia, Russia, the US and Great Britain gavce vague security assurances which boiled down to two concrete treaty responsibilities. First, none of the signatories would invade Ukraine (ha!) and in the event of invasion, the signatories would be required to meet and determine a course of action to support Ukraine's sovereignty.
Fast forward, and in the mid 2010's Russia both invaded Ukraine, starting an eleven year period of hostility and violence, mostly through proxies but exploding to the full scale war we know today. UK and US met, as per the our treaty obligations and determined to support Ukraine through arms, training and humanitarian aid. In addition to our treaty responsibilities, the US, under Joe Biden, also convinced many of our European allies to support Ukraine in a similar manner. This was due to intelligence that indicated Russia was planning additional quick invasions, with Moldava scheduled to be invaded the first week of March, 2022.
It was a lot easier to perform our responsibilities because a popular movement in Ukraine had existed for years combatting corruption, leading up to the creation of an immensely popular Ukrainian TV show, Servant of the People, where a high school teacher became president and cleaned up the corrupt government. This series so resonated with the reform minded psyche of the Ukrainian people that the star of that show, Volodymry Zelenskyy, an accomplished actor, was drafted into politics and in a stunning upset, actually elected President on a reform platform very similar to what his TV character championed. Certainly an example of life following art.
But it boiled down to the fact that a pro-democracy, anti-corruption government in Ukraine made performing our treaty obligations an easier pill to swallow.
In 2025, the US had repudiated our treaty obligations and are refusing to continue to support Ukraine, as agreed in our required meet and confer.
Now, this is a good deal of history and we approach our real point.
Ukraine is, to date, the only country in the world that has given up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. It is also the only country in the world to be invaded by one of those guaranteeors, and also the only country in the world to have another one of those guaranteeors refuse to abide by their treay responsibilities.
Other countries are watching this, and weighing the value of developing nukes and retaining them, vs the value of negotiating away their nuclear armament. And they overwhelmingly see that giving up nukes results in existential threats to their sovereignty and existence as a culture, and that the most powerful countries in the world are either doing the invasion, or standing by while it happens.
The conclusion is that if Ukrain falls, there will be significant increased nuclear proliferation as a result. No one will, ever again give up so much as a single nuke. And if nukes proliferate, they will eventually be used.
This boils down to one idea: If we do not support Ukraine, eventually millions of people, possibly people you know and love, will die in nuclear fire.
But we can prevent that, right now, by demanding US leaders abide by agreement 52241.
In reply to Xceler8x :
What's the source?
The logic is flawed, and the use of facts selective. The Budapest Memorandum was never more than a diplomatic note, not a treaty - it was never ratified, and includes no enforcement mechanism; thus, there were never any "treaty obligations." This sentence makes an extraordinary leap: "Russia, the US and Great Britain gavce (sic) vague security assurances which boiled down to two concrete treaty responsibilities." What? How are "vague security assurances" the same as "concrete treaty responsibilities"?
Ukraine is not the only country to give up nuclear weapons; South Africa also relinquished its arsenal, which was developed locally (with a lot of Israeli help), not simply stationed on its territory.
But the most ridiculous straw man is this: "The conclusion is that if Ukrain (sic) falls, there will be significant increased nuclear proliferation as a result. No one will, ever again give up so much as a single nuke. And if nukes proliferate, they will eventually be used. This boils down to one idea: If we do not support Ukraine, eventually millions of people, possibly people you know and love, will die in nuclear fire." Seriously? Nuclear weapons have proliferated over the last 76 years - shouldn't we have all died in a "nuclear fire" by now?
02Pilot said:In reply to Xceler8x :
What's the source?
The logic is flawed, and the use of facts selective. The Budapest Memorandum was never more than a diplomatic note, not a treaty - it was never ratified, and includes no enforcement mechanism; thus, there were never any "treaty obligations." This sentence makes an extraordinary leap: "Russia, the US and Great Britain gavce (sic) vague security assurances which boiled down to two concrete treaty responsibilities." What? How are "vague security assurances" the same as "concrete treaty responsibilities"?
Ukraine is not the only country to give up nuclear weapons; South Africa also relinquished its arsenal, which was developed locally (with a lot of Israeli help), not simply stationed on its territory.
But the most ridiculous straw man is this: "The conclusion is that if Ukrain (sic) falls, there will be significant increased nuclear proliferation as a result. No one will, ever again give up so much as a single nuke. And if nukes proliferate, they will eventually be used. This boils down to one idea: If we do not support Ukraine, eventually millions of people, possibly people you know and love, will die in nuclear fire." Seriously? Nuclear weapons have proliferated over the last 76 years - shouldn't we have all died in a "nuclear fire" by now?
The thing about dying in a nuclear fire is that it can happen any time. Just takes a couple bad decisions by leaders with more ego than sense, and we have more than one of those out there right now.
An interesting picture. This is a Ukrainian F-16 operating (reportably) near the front. Note the insignia.
The load out is interesting also. Three drop tanks: needed since they need to operate from the far eastern part of Ukraine. Looks like AMRAAMs on the tips and Sidewinders on the outer rails (I believe those can only hold AA missiles). The mid rails are empty, and likely held what it was delivering (e.g. JDAM). Also of interest is if you zoom in, it looks like those mid-rails are those adapters that provide missile detection and defense while also allowing stores to be mounted below them.
These are likely operating at very low altitude with the radar off, to avoid detection, but clearly able to take on any air targets, if needed.
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:
The thing about dying in a nuclear fire is that it can happen any time. Just takes a couple bad decisions by leaders with more ego than sense, and we have more than one of those out there right now.
As noted previously, and thankfully, it takes a lot more than bad decisions by a leader, at least in the case of the US and Russia. There are numerous safeguards, for obvious reasons, that very much keep any leader from simply "hitting the button". It has to go through at least a few other people (military leaders etc) and confirmations.
aircooled said:bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:
The thing about dying in a nuclear fire is that it can happen any time. Just takes a couple bad decisions by leaders with more ego than sense, and we have more than one of those out there right now.
As noted previously, and thankfully, it takes a lot more than bad decisions by a leader, at least in the case of the US and Russia. There are numerous safeguards, for obvious reasons, that very much keep any leader from simply "hitting the button". It has to go through at least a few other people (military leaders etc) and confirmations.
Once events are set in motion they can be difficult to contain, especially if the people behind the people are onside. I just hope the leaders in charge of our collective future know what they are doing and understand the risks of brinkmanship. I do not have a good feeling about the state of the world at all right now.
In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :
My feeling is that the large states have too much at stake to trigger Armageddon. What concerns me more are the individuals and small players who are vested in an end times ideology.
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:aircooled said:bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:
The thing about dying in a nuclear fire is that it can happen any time. Just takes a couple bad decisions by leaders with more ego than sense, and we have more than one of those out there right now.
As noted previously, and thankfully, it takes a lot more than bad decisions by a leader, at least in the case of the US and Russia. There are numerous safeguards, for obvious reasons, that very much keep any leader from simply "hitting the button". It has to go through at least a few other people (military leaders etc) and confirmations.
Once events are set in motion they can be difficult to contain, especially if the people behind the people are onside. I just hope the leaders in charge of our collective future know what they are doing and understand the risks of brinkmanship. I do not have a good feeling about the state of the world at all right now.
Yes, it can happen at any time. O2 correct me if I misinterpreted, I think his point what yes it can happen but it hasn't in 76 years.
So apparently starlink is on the table to he cut off if Ukraine doesn't agree to a deal to payback the US for it's aid by giving up mineral rights worth $500B.
In reply to johndej :
From what I can tell, yes, the major point of discussion between the US and Ukraine is some sort of minerals deal (which has been mentioned previously). The US seemed to start out with rather aggressive requests, and the Ukrainians rejected that.
Some of the "pissyness" (!) from the US side is likely the result of these negotiations.
You do need to be rather careful with the information that is coming out (like I noted, "counting to 10" is always a good idea), especially if it sounds a bit provocative, because:
Russian state media and Kremlin officials appear to be leveraging select statements from US officials alongside long-standing Russian narratives to create tension between the United States and Ukraine and undermine faith in America's commitment to Ukraine. Ukraine's Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported on February 21 that the Kremlin has ordered Russian state media personalities and other prominent voices in the Russian information space to intensify narratives aimed at creating discord in Ukrainian society and discrediting Ukraine among Western allies.[1] The GUR stated that Russian actors intend to amplify narratives falsely alleging that the West has "betrayed" Ukraine, the United States is not concerned about Europe's and Ukraine's opinions, the Ukrainian government is illegitimate, the Ukrainian military is losing on the frontline, and "corrupt people" are stealing billions of dollars of US aid from Ukraine. The GUR reported that the Kremlin is also preparing to declare "victory" over Ukraine and possibly over NATO on the third anniversary of the full-scale invasion – February 24, 2025.
ISW has recently observed Kremlin officials and prominent voices in the Russian information space amplifying these narratives and other select statements from US officials aimed at sowing discord between Ukraine and its allies.[2] ISW continues to assess that Russian President Vladimir Putin's theory of victory is built on the assumption that Russia can outlast Western support for Ukraine and that Putin is thus attempting to bring about the cessation of Western and particularly US support for Ukraine.[3] Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) reported that Russian actors also intend to incite protests in Ukraine via social media posts on February 24, 2025, and will offer to pay protestors if they attend rallies in Ukraine.[4] The SBU asked Ukrainian citizens to be cautious of Russian efforts to manipulate Ukraine's information space ahead of the third anniversary of the war.
No information from the Russia US talks yet, from what I can tell. My prediction is: Prepare to be underwhelmed. Many predict that Russia is not serious at all about actually negotiating peace (just seeing what they can get I suppose)
Russia may not want to stop the war, and may take no action to that affect.... but... the ticking time bomb that is their economy and the state of their military, are footsteps... that keep getting louder. This summer is the predicted potential tipping point.
Good to know that all Ukraine needs to do to maybe retain some level of US support is to definitely give away generations of future economic potential. The weak kid being shaken down for lunch money basically.
In reply to aircooled :
Counting to 10 internally but seeing that same information repeated along with other tidbits that are much less encouraging to the successful end, as defined by Ukraine, on the local nightly news leads me to believe they are relevant to the discussion. I very much hope that there are much more calculated conversations being had but Occom's razor thinks simple bruts may be behaving as such much less more sinister options.
You'll need to log in to post.
