Our $40 billion helps keep up Ukrainian defenses in a war of attrition with Russia over Ukrainian sovereignty. (It is not about “democracy.”) What “say” does this give the US in peace negotiations?
To the Ukrainians: "Come to the peace table to negotiate armistice lines, or we will withhold aid. We are not willing to spend more money for you to defend your nation. i.e. because we can cut your defense capability, we can force you to surrender your sovereignty to one of our main geo-political antagonists. This is Obama-style diplomacy. Madness - the US extorting its own national self-annulment, in this case a proxy surrender to the post-Cold War axis powers. The US cannot keep a client state while threatening to sell it out to Russia. The Ukrainian nationalists - and the rest of the world - will know just what American support means. The American “say” in peace negotiations will be an exercise in hypocrisy. The agreement will be signed in bad faith (as were the Minsk accords). Ukrainian nationalists will not abide by the terms of an armistice agreement which de facto cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia. Partial Russian withdrawal, de-militarized zones are not enforceable by third parties (Nato, the UN ???). The war will continue because because war is Ukraine’s final say in its sovereignty, not $40 billion in promised aid.
How much is Ukraine worth economically long term to Russia?
None of what you said are good reasons and again Ukraine’s ‘nationalism’ is based on lies and continuing with the plan of wasting money on weapons (which groups like the Azov are going to use to kill their own people and sell the weapons on the dark web) doesn’t end the conflict, it’s prolonging it and they’re only using them as expendable pawn for their own goals. Both the Biden Admin and Zelensky could care less about sovereignty and innocent civilians.
Here’s the real cost, other countries sovereignties suffering to save one sovereignty:
As far as what I’ve been able to sort out, the U.S. promised Russia that we would not expand NATO (Bush to Gorbachov in 1990), but Clinton renigged on that promise and did expand it, after which it doubled from its original size. In 08 at the NATO summit, it was declared that Ukraine and Georgia would also become members of NATO.
After ballistic missiles started appearing in Poland, ostensibly directed at Iran, Putin said Russia wasn’t going to tolerate it. He believed the U.S. intended to put missiles in Ukraine also. So the expansion of NATO was a factor in provoking Russia’s invasion.
As Meersheimer said, “Had the West not pursued NATO expansion into Ukraine, it is unlikely there would be a war in Ukraine today, and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine. In essence, Washington played the central role in leading Ukraine down the path to destruction.”
My comment was actually in response to Liz’s response to me.
I have no doubt that come winter, the populations of Europe will want their leaders to go back to doing business with Russia.
Russia is actually killing innocent civilians in far greater numbers than accidental deaths resulting from foolish demonstrations in favor of Ukraine in Europe. But - from your posts here - you don’t think that Ukrainians civilians are innocent or, indeed, victims of Putin’s invasion, “expendable pawns” for his goals of empire.
Ukrainian nationalism is no more built on “lies” than any other nationalism. That it is built on lies is itself a lie. I realize that you believe that Russian nationalism deserves to obliterate Ukrainian nationalism. You have chosen a side in the war - Russia, a global political threat to the US, whatever the color of US leadership. Political hatred of Biden and the Great Reset oligarchs should not blind you to that geo-political truth.
Your “waste of money” arguments are not based on any coherent cost-benefit analysis for either Russia or Ukraine or any nation supporting Ukraine. I have yet to see you set out Putin’s accounting.
There was no formal understanding binding America - or NATO - to a policy of non-expansion. It would be absurd to have a defensive alliance refrain for expanding its membership lest it provoke war with the very state it was formed to defend itself from.
Whatever Bush “promised” Russia could not survive his administration. Russia is well aware of this. Indeed, Bush could have changed is mind during his tenure in office. Clinton did not cause America to renege on a “promise”. Whatever was announced in 08, neither Ukraine nor Georgia became NATO members - due in part to the pro-Moscow faction, disguised as “realists”, in the IC, State and academia (like Mearsheimer) who influence policymakers against “provocative” NATO expansion.
It is a shame that Georgia and Ukraine were not granted membership in NATO immediately upon their separation from the soviet bloc. Russia would not have invaded them. NATO membership did expand to include other former Soviet satellites, who have not been invaded. Finland and Sweden are seeking NATO membership - as a means of deterring invasion or preventing being extorted into territorial or political concessions by the threat of invasion. Joining, or applying for membership, did not lead any of these nations “down the path to destruction”.
There was never a general Western understanding that Russia would have a veto over its former satellites joining Europe or NATO, although ad hoc diplomatic side-assurances were made to appease the Kremlin’s “security concerns” by several US administrations. Obama came close to ceding such a veto in his removal of missiles from Eastern Europe. Had he left them, Russia would not have marched on Kyiv when Biden took office. Obama’s policies of not provoking war with Russia provoked Russia into war in Ukraine.
Why do you quote Mearsheimer? Do you agree with his “offensive realist” political theory? Putin does. Russia is behaving as Mearsheimer’s theory predicts: waging offensive wars for its hegemonic security. Putin can be confident that his rationale will be validated by the Western academics who supplied it to him.
C.Gee, You again made no sense and no proof of your arguments. You continue to ignore the consequences for disastrous US foreign policies. Look at getting involved in the Middle East for everyone, what that a good example of keeping things stabilize?
Although Bush’s agreement with Gorbachov wasn’t formal, it was still a move that, had we abided by it, would have held weight. Clinton broke it against the advice of others, and it had consequences.
The quote from Miercheimer serves to point out that if, as you say, “the American say in peace negotiations will be an excersize in hypocrisy”, the hypocrisy was already well underway back when Clinton broke Bush’s promise.
Yes, interesting how quickly Spartz was accused of promoting Russian propaganda as soon as she questioned where the weapons were going and how the aid money was being spent.
As if Biden - already known for his shady dealings with Ukranian oligarchs, not to mention his gift of weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan - was beyond reproach and unquestionably trustworthy with money and weapons!
Leaked audio from days after the 2016 election, before Trump’s inauguration—Biden calls Poroshenko, then head of state of Ukraine, and threatens him with assassination if he cooperates with the incoming Trump administration.
And the weapons going to Ukraine are also probably going to militant mafia gangs like the KLA, who in the Yugoslav wars committed pogroms, rapes and organ trafficking of ethnic Serbs, Jews and Romanis, and the Clintons and Madeleine Albright back these groups and put the blame on Milosevic.
Not a fan of Henry Kissinger, but the idea proposed by Steve Bannon in this episode of Warroom of allying with Russia and keeping Russia separate from China’s influence in order to beat the CCP is kind of the same as Henry Kissinger says. Just like in the Cold War, there was a Realpolitik move to ally with China against the Soviet Union (see the Sino-Soviet split).
Yes, all the money being funneled to Ukraine is benefitting the globalist oriented Administrative States of the E.U., the U.S., and Ukraine.
Who suffers are the actual citizens under their rule, and the rest of the world, through the collapse of economies that the war is exacerbating.
It also pushes Russia into a closer alliance with China, forming a dangerous enemy axis.
Great lecture - glad to finally hear the entire thing.
Mearsheimer lays out clearly the history of the “remarkably foolish policies” of the U.S. and NATO, starting with Bush and continuing till Biden, that provoked Russia into its invasion of Ukraine.
It has created a “perverse paradox” for the U.S., in which the more successful we are at achieving our war aims, the more likely it is that the war could turn nuclear.
And because neither side is willing to back down, is likely to be a long, protracted war.
Among the terrible consequences, we are already seeing the undermining of economies and destabilization of democracies worldwide.
