The Biden/NATO/Putin/Zelensky conundrum

[seanD]

While warmongering is pretty much the only thing that gets bipartisan support between the Reps and Dems, who all seem to have an insatiable desire for WW3, pushing a "Russia is going to invade Ukraine any moment" narrative, the one political leader downplaying it all is the one that runs Ukraine, Zelensky...

Opportunity Knocks: Ukraine Seeks US Money, Loans, Weapons While Downplaying 'Russian Invasion'

At a moment Ukraine's top defense leadership, as well as President Volodymyr Zelensky himself, is urging the Biden administration to calm its dangerous and hyped rhetoric regarding a possibly "imminent" Russian invasion of Ukraine (Kiev has said all week that all indicators suggest this just isn't so), it seems the Zelensky government will at least use the occasion to get what it wants from Washington. Or, put another way, perhaps the quid pro quo now emerges after the Ukrainians long kept mum on the Biden family and Burisma scandal.

We could add that Kiev is now so openly pushing back against White House assessments as to the actual level of the 'Russia threat' on Ukraine's borders, that it's proving quite awkward and embarrassing for team Biden. As Northeastern University political science professor Max Abrahms put it this week (while generally addressing mainstream media and pundits), "You guys aren’t making a big enough deal of this weird dynamic that American leaders are more worried than Ukrainian leaders of Russia invading Ukraine. This needs to be explained."

Now Axios is reporting in an exclusive: "The chairman of Ukraine's parliament has sent a letter to eight U.S. senators outlining four specific requests for security assistance and sanctions that Kyiv believes will help deter a Russian invasion."

Again, it appears the logic for Ukraine's government is that it might as well make use of the tense situation, understanding full well the "threat" is hugely inflated, to get what it wants out of the US hawks. After all, the opportunity for US billions to pour in has never been hotter.

Germany also seems to be indifferent if not outright resistant against the hawkish narrative, which makes for a very awkward and tangled geopolitical situation.

So if NATO and the hawks in the US are pushing a narrative about imminent invasion and sanctions, while the head honcho of the EU is split about the issue, and the guy leading Ukraine is downplaying it, what do we make of all this?

[Ronson]

I predict in some fashion or another, there is going to be two countries: a West Ukraine and an East Ukraine. Whether it's through Russian invasion or some sort of negotiations, a partial purchase, a combination of all of these, I don't know.

But eastern Ukraine is solidly pro Russian, just as the west is pro west. It's an easy division, and Putin wants a wide land bridge leading to Crimea and his navy.

Zelensky knows this is inevitable.

[seanD]

I predict in some fashion or another, there is going to be two countries: a West Ukraine and an East Ukraine. Whether it's through Russian invasion or some sort of negotiations, a partial purchase, a combination of all of these, I don't know.

But eastern Ukraine is solidly pro Russian, just as the west is pro west. It's an easy division, and Putin wants a wide land bridge leading to Crimea and his navy.

Zelensky knows this is inevitable.

Interesting. You don't think it'll end up like Vietnam?

[Ronson]

Interesting. You don't think it'll end up like Vietnam?

With US involvement? No. Aside from the warmongers in DC, the average American couldn't care less about Ukraine - or even find it on a map. There's no way the hawks are going to sell this war to America.

[seanD]

With US involvement? No. Aside from the warmongers in DC, the average American couldn't care less about Ukraine - or even find it on a map. There's no way the hawks are going to sell this war to America.

Depends on how they would go about selling it. Gulf of Tonkin false flag sold the Vietnam war and they did it in spite of the fact there was still a lot of public resistance against it. And folks, both on the political left and right (especially on the left, which is kind of strange), seem pretty anti-Russia.

[rogue06]

As an aside, all of this really puts the final nail in the coffin of the Ukraine phone call hoax. Even those who thought Schiff's reality-free "interpretation" of the call was sacred writ and the heard from a friend, who heard it from a friend who heard some water cooler gossip is the gold standard of eye-witness, must realize that if Trump had actually been strong-arming Ukraine that Zelensky would be telling everyone about that to please the Democrats and get even more aid. With Trump out of office for over a year now, the claim that Zelensky was lying out of fear of Trump is even less credible now than it was then.

[rogue06]

With US involvement? No. Aside from the warmongers in DC, the average American couldn't care less about Ukraine - or even find it on a map. There's no way the hawks are going to sell this war to America.

Americans learn geography via the countries we send troops into.

[rogue06]

272894404_10223823748173496_8624347324832750036_n.jpg

[Ronson]

272894404_10223823748173496_8624347324832750036_n.jpg

I like how his thought bubble is empty.

[Ronson]

Just a thought that occurred to me. Do people here remember that Ukraine was (until recently) called "The Ukraine"? Because it was always considered a region of greater Russia. Like in America saying "The Midwest" or "The East Coast" or something, The Ukraine was a vague region. It's borders became more definite after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Again, just a thought about this shadowy area of the world that the U.S. really should stay clear of. I can't imagine Americans would want to get embroiled in something like this. It's not like someone flew jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon or something, attacking America and killing thousands of Americans.

[rogue06]

Just a thought that occurred to me. Do people here remember that Ukraine was (until recently) called "The Ukraine"? Because it was always considered a region of greater Russia. Like in America saying "The Midwest" or "The East Coast" or something, The Ukraine was a vague region. It's borders became more definite after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Again, just a thought about this shadowy area of the world that the U.S. really should stay clear of. I can't imagine Americans would want to get embroiled in something like this. It's not like someone flew jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon or something, attacking America and killing thousands of Americans.

Ukraine as a nation goes back at least a millennia with their being the most powerful one in Europe back in the 10 and 11th cent. Since then their fortunes have wavered and have been dominated by others including Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth, Russia and the Soviet Union for the past few centuries.

As an aside, didn't Putin once promise to respect their borders if they gave up their nuclear stockpile -- which they did?

There is a very valuable lesson in there.

[Ronson]

Ukraine as a nation goes back at least a millennia with their being the most powerful one in Europe back in the 10 and 11th cent. Since then their fortunes have wavered and have been dominated by others including Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth, Russia and the Soviet Union for the past few centuries.

It is conspicuously absent from most of my European history memory.

As an aside, didn't Putin once promise to respect their borders if they gave up their nuclear stockpile -- which they did?

Did he? I don't recall.

I know that Putin had secured a lease for Crimea to house Russia's navy (where it was historically kept) but that it became endangered when Biden and John Kerry started visiting Kyiv and courting its leaders toward the west. If I was Putin, I would think "Where in the heck am I going to put Russia's navy once Ukraine joins NATO?"

There is a very valuable lesson in there.

I have always tried to put myself in a Russian mindframe on world events, because the US never tries to. Biden certainly isn't. Yeltsin was "led to believe" NATO would not expand into former Soviet republics. Whether or not that assurance was clearly spelled out or not might be in contention, but that's what Moscow believed when it started dismantling.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

Now, Putin wants those assurances in writing. I doubt that is going to happen since the encroachment already happened, but a troop pullback might.

[rogue06]

It is conspicuously absent from most of my European history memory.

Tbh, for the majority of Americans, I doubt they know much if any history of countries east of Germany.

[Ronson]

Tbh, for the majority of Americans, I doubt they know much if any history of countries east of Germany.

Possibly. I know that my lessons in European history didn't include much in the east.

[rogue06]

Did he? I don't recall.

I know that Putin had secured a lease for Crimea to house Russia's navy (where it was historically kept) but that it became endangered when Biden and John Kerry started visiting Kyiv and courting its leaders toward the west. If I was Putin, I would think "Where in the heck am I going to put Russia's navy once Ukraine joins NATO?"



I have always tried to put myself in a Russian mindframe on world events, because the US never tries to. Biden certainly isn't. Yeltsin was "led to believe" NATO would not expand into former Soviet republics. Whether or not that assurance was clearly spelled out or not might be in contention, but that's what Moscow believed when it started dismantling.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-b...-leaders-early

Now, Putin wants those assurances in writing. I doubt that is going to happen since the encroachment already happened, but a troop pullback might.

Actually, it was just before Putin moved to Moscow and entered politics.

In 1994 Ukraine, Russia, U.S., and Britain signed the "Budapest Memorandum" (a Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) where the latter three pledged to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine."

Moreover, the signers also confirmed their commitment to "seek immediate" U.N. Security Council action "to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression."

Needless to say, even though Ukraine handed their nukes over to Russia, the agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on given Russia's subsequent behavior.