Its autocrats trying to kill neighboring democracy in Ukraine.
Posted on 03/05/2022 4:46:17 AM PST by FLT-bird
This is a segment reviewing the Deep State's history of manipulating Ukraine and effecting regime change in 2014 that led directly to Russia's annexation of Crimea, the conflict in the Donbas and now Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Surprise, Surprise, the story is not what you will hear from the establishment media.
It features all the standard Neocons pulling the strings including key Iraq war architect Victoria Nuland. Russia was no more prepared to accept Ukraine being in NATO than the US was prepared to accept Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. All of this was entirely predictable. If the US gets involved militarily this time, the consequences could be much worse than the disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.
By the way, he also highlights how these same Deep State actors were many of the same ones doing all they could to subvert the Trump presidency and no doubt "fortify" the 2020 election. Trump was against their endless foreign wars which is very bad for profits.
Putin’s attack and capture of the Nuke Plants in Ukraine are his ace in the hole to reverse sanctions. Biden’s giving the Russians the oil production sales to Europe is what has caused all of this turmoil. It gave Russia the money for this entire invasion and intimidation of the rest of the world. No stopping the Russians now.
Glenn Greenwald spells it out ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrfeyjKCaPs
Its autocrats trying to kill neighboring democracy in Ukraine.
At this rate you can find a lot wrong the American Revolution too. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have happened. There’s always corruption until Jesus comes back.
In the immediate near term, it’s better for Ukraine to pull through this. Please get a grip.
If it’s somehow OK for Putin to invade Ukraine with great loss of life and destruction of infrastructure, by the same token we can and should cleanse our own region of Russian/Chinese influences by invading Cuba and Venezuela.
Where was the outrage when Soros took over Ukraine?
Repeating:
At this rate you can find a lot wrong the American Revolution too. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have happened. There’s always corruption until Jesus comes back.
In the immediate near term, it’s better for Ukraine to pull through this. Please get a grip.
It really goes back to Putins first day. He inherited a pile of shit, he had one asset, on Jan 1 2000.
The Cold war was lost and over by JAN 1 1990. Thanks to the Germans and Americans just plain out spending the soviets in gross dollars while the US and German economies thrived.
Could not give away Soviet West Wheat or oil in 2001. US and world foreign policy ignored Putin until 2014. No pressure was put on him to reform because it would have killed the russian stock market that was the wests only intrest, trade on the success or failure first free russia, that would eventual get around to open elections.
The terms of Russias surrender were made when the IMF bailed out Russia pension funds and the russian stock market soured through 1998. Not that anyone in russia was informed or knew what the string attached were. They were complainance in the the
JAN 1 2000 NATO membership of Poland.
Russia as a empire that could legitimately in their own historical context expand westward was over.
Putin is fighting a war 22 years to late. His economy is only supported by oil at 80/bbl where the natural premium over production costs price is 25% lower. WHeat, Products directly from cheap Natural Gas he has to compleat against his own customers and the united state. The EU and United states rarely miss at the same time on delivering those products with very little chances for a russian score for a production year.
The war is NOT in Ukraine, it is in the media. Consider Wag-the-dog.
We are ALL watching, in realtime, the Deep State Swamp being drained. Only, we are all interpreting it differently.
The Swamp has already lost this war, for the most part. However, they still control some territory. That territory is mostly the media, some financial sectors, and many good people’s minds. The latter includes many folks rooting for Ukraine in this.
Understand, I’m not saying that I think Putin made a good move here. In fact, I don’t think he did. He should have limited himself to recognizing the two eastern breakaway provinces and sending in peacekeepers. He could have defended that citing the example of NATO in Kosovo and it would have been impossible for the Neocons to make a good argument against it. Russian troops were welcomed in those places and not a shot was fired.
That said, it was entirely predictable that Russia would not be willing to tolerate a large resource rich country like Ukraine with historic ties to Russia and with a sizable ethnic Russian minority to become a potential launch pad for further NATO expansion or for destabilizing/threatening Russia. The Deep State got called on their skullduggery and now they’re trying to up the ante by getting us involved directly against a nuclear armed state in a country in which we have no significant national interests.
Russia’s objective is regime change in Ukraine.
The Deep State’s objective is regime change in Russia. They are willing to sacrifice whatever number of Ukrainians it takes to kill enough Russians to achieve that end. The strategy is to make the war as long and bloody as possible to destabilize Russia.
The likely outcome is that Russia loses Ukraine as a buffer state against the West, but that China gains Russia as a buffer state against the West.
Bkmk
The US, Rusia, and Ukraine entered into a treaty whereby Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for “security guarantees” of its territorial integrity, etc. Now that Russia has grossly violated the treaty, should the US let it be known that our treaty obligations force us to replace what Ukraine lost. Not saying this is a good idea — just food for thought.
What ARE we obligated to do under this treaty, and why is there no discussion of this in the public domain?
Getting involved in a war against a nuclear armed country when our vital national interests are not at stake......why?
For the feels? How will it feel when escalation and counter escalation lead to a nuclear exchange leaving millions in our country dead? Will we think it worth it....for Ukraine?
The signatory states to the Budapest Memorandum (not a ratified treaty, please note) committed to 'respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine'.
I won't pretend to have read the Memorandum, but apparently there is no cast-iron guarantee by any signatory to militarily intervene on Ukraine's behalf.
I suppose the existence of the Budapest Memorandum might give political cover for e.g. the provision of lethal aid.
This politicial figleaf applies to all signatories of course.
Remember that America (under Obama) grossly violated the 'independence and sovereignty' of Ukraine when Obama backed the coup in 2014.
The Russians might make the case that anything they do to restore the status quo ante is therefore legitimate under the terms of the Memorandum.
But ... the BM is not a treaty. It's also not the reason why Ukraine divested itself of nukes.
I'm given to understand by the internet that 'in 1993 the Ukrainian and Russian governments signed a series of agreements giving up Ukrainian claims to the nuclear weapons and the Black Sea Fleet, in return for $2.5 billion in debt cancellation'.
If true, this sounds like a straightforward business agreement. Ukraine didn't trust the west with its freedom and get betrayed: instead, it sold its claims to its nukes and warships.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.