[BroJoeK]

JonPreston: "Lindsey Graham has just confirmed that they are not sacrificing the Ukrainian people for "freedom" and "democracy," but for Ukraine's minerals, which are worth trillions of dollars, and the West wants them.
This is unbelievable…"

What are "unbelievable" are endless Russian propaganda lies & nonsense we see repeated so often right here.

What Sen. Graham here is trying to explain is just one of many fundamental reasons why Vlad the Invader's conquest of Ukraine must not succeed.
Those reason include:

1. Moral Commandments:
   • #6 Thou Shalt Not Murder -- your neighbors civilians and military without serious justifications.
   • #7 Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery -- or rape your neighbors' women while you murder their men.
   • #8 Thou Shalt Not Steal -- your neighbors' territory, property, resources or children.
   • #9 Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Your Neighbor -- or lie about mythical "coups" or alleged persecutions to stir up violence in your neighbors' countries.
   • #10 Thou Shalt Not Covet -- your neighbors' land, properties, resources, people, children or happiness among other neighbors.

   Countries by Democracy Index:
   Shades of blue = democratic. Shades of red/brown = dictators

   

2. Legal: Russia's War Crimes in Ukraine
   • Prohibited weapons: gas attacks against Ukrainian forces
   • Kidnappings Ukrainian children, abduction and disappearances of Ukrainian civilians.
   • Attacks on civilians, their homes and other non-military property.
   • Stealing civilian assets such as hospital equipment and notoriously, Ukrainian washing machines, dishwashers and refrigerators.
   • Torturing civilians
   • Using civilians as human shields
   • Sexual violence against Ukrainian civilians
   • Widespread looting
   • Forced conscription of Ukrainians in Russian occupied territories
   • Mistreatment of POWs
   • Crimes that fit definitions of "genocide"
   • Criminal investigations by international courts including the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, the International Commission of Inquiry, the UN Human Rights Monitors, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and a proposed International Tribunal for Crimes of Aggression, among others.

   

3. Threats to the Western-democratic World Order
   While Russian propaganda babbles insanely about a "unipolar world" and an alleged "American Empire", the truth is the world today consists of around 200 independent countries, all of which are dependent on world peace and order guaranteed by western democratic militaries and peacekeeping forces.
   If Vlad the Invaders' Special Military Operations in Ukraine and elsewhere succeed, it will existentially threaten the world order as we know it and begin returning us to the 19th Century Age of Authoritarian Empires.

4. March of the New Axis of Evil Dictators -- Russia's Vlad the Invader, CCP China's Xi-snake, NoKo's Little Kim and Iran's Moolah Mullahs.
   We could add to that list any number of other two-bit brass-horn dictators -- from Venezuela's Chavez-Madura to Cuba's Castro-Canel to Belarus' Annexed Lukashenko and any number of tin-pot tyrants in Africa and Asia.
   Fact: since at least 2020, liberal Western-style democracies are in retreat and aggressive dictatorships are on the march.

   

5. Geo-strategic revanchism of the Old Soviet and Tsarist Russian Empires.
   Ukraine was, arguably, the "jewel in the crown" of the Old Soviet and Tsarist Empire-Prisons of Nations.
   Ukraine is roughly the size of Texas, with over 50 million talented people (in 1993), huge natural resources and strong industries -- conquest of Ukraine would add:
   • One-third to Russia's population = 50% to Russia's Russian-speaking population, and potential military manpower.
   • Less than 5% to Russia's overall territory, but over 20% to Russia's farmable land and agricultural production.
   • 20% to Russia's available raw materials and manufacturing capacity -- Sen. Graham's point.

6. Geo-strategic military preemption:
   Of nine historical invasion routes into Russia (according to Peter Zeihan in 2015), Russia directly controlled only two in 2013, though I'd add a third:
   • In the South -- East Caucuses coastal approach
   • In the South -- West Caucuses coastal approach
   • In the North -- White Sea Coast

   Peter Zeihan's nine invasion routes into Russia's heartland (as of 2015):

   In 2013, Ukraine controlled three more:

   • Polish Gap
   • Bessarabian Gap
   • Crimea

   The final three are:

   • The Baltic Coast (from Finland to Poland)
   • The Central Asian Corridor (North from Afghanistan)
   • The Tien-Altay Gap (from China through Kazakhstan)

   Vlad the Invader's conquest of Crimea removed one of three routes through Ukraine, but has now also added nearly 1,000 miles of new border with NATO's Finland.
   How then is Russia safer today than it was in 2013?
   If geo-strategic military preemption can justify Vlad Invading Crimea, how does it not also justify Vlad Invading every other country near one of Russia's historical invasion corridors?

Finally, it's well worth noticing that what Sen. Graham was talking about is not US or Western seizure of Ukraine's natural resources, but rather the importance of preventing Vlad the Invader from seizing Ukraine's natural wealth by conquest.

Can you count the nine historical invasion routes into Russia's heartland on this map?

[JonPreston]

What you saying? It’s not been about Freedom and democracy for Ukraine? And isn’t stealing natural resources from lesser nations part of your Neocon foreign policy? So why can’t Russia do the same? Who exactly does Lindsey Graham represent? And who the hell does America think they are! Now type, dammit.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Interesting about those invasion routes. But do they not point both ways? As Moscow is proving (so far rather unsuccessfully) in Ukraine?

[Red6]

Just grabbing things out of thin air, is no argument either.

Chechnya and Ostia are terrorist hot beds, even Uzbekistan.

I remember when Condeleeza Rice was lecturing the Russians regards Chechnya, until 9-11 happened and we got a good dose of Islamic terror of our own.

In fact, once the US was fighting Chechen volunteers in Iraq, suddenly the US had an epiphany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_siege (look at where the Islamic terrorists came from)

In fact, while we were looking for evil Russian spies behind every tree (while the Chinese are boring holes through us like Swiss cheese even in our intel and DoD), we failed to be able to use the information the Russians provided to us regards two Chechen brothers: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA2P02R/

The Europeans are paying for roughly ½ of this war in Ukraine while also absorbing the majority of the refugees (Fact). The Ukrainians are doing nearly all the bleeding (Fact). And the US is the one that stands to benefit on the world stage (Fact).

You might not like that statement, but it's true.

(1) Motive

Syria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

Libya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Iraq: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Venezuela: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020)

Fact: These are all nations we attacked, invaded, or sponsored a coup in. These are all nations that are aligned or formal allies with Russia. These are all oil and gas producing nations. None of these nations posed a threat to us when we attacked, invaded or sponsored a coup in them.

(2) History. Russia already in 1994 made it clear that they do NOT want NATO expanding into their former Soviet Republics and border states. They see this also as a promise we made with them: https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east

Biden was one of the people sounding the alarm in 1997 regards NATO East expansion into the Balkan States: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIoRKLdwxXA

The Russian invasion of the Republic of Georgia in 2008, and the Ukrainian limited operation in 2014 were clear signs that Russia will not accept us expanding NATO to their borders. In both cases, the US was heading on a path for NATO admission by these states.

Georgia 2008: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_38988.htm#:~:text=Allies%20agreed%20at%20the%20NATO,reconfirmed%20at%20successive%20NATO%20summits. (we don't even go back and edit the web pages and deny it, like we often do. Flat out, we decided to bring Georgia into NATO, and Russian said “Niet”)

Ukraine 2014: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30587924 (That was the cause of the war in 2014)

As usual, we apply a doubled standard. We don't want a foreign power setting up permanent bases along our border, and historically invaded countries (Grenada) and risked a war over this exact same issue (Cuban Missile Crisis). But when we want to put someone else in the same position we didn't find acceptable in 1962 and 1984 for us, why then of course it's all different and suddenly “sovereignty, democracy, human rights” come flying from our ass.

(3) Intel. Before a major invasion like this happens, there is a massive amount of chatter, logistics, rich folks getting a heads up (so they can move their stuff), things which happen that indicate it's serious: real and eminent. Our civil leadership and White House is briefed daily and it is nearly impossible not to know.

(4) Again common sense (Logic): Ukraine has the same rail gauge as Russia and they share many bridges and hard ball roads. Ukraine is large enough in landmass, economically and in infrastructure to support a very large foreign force be stationed there indefinitely. North East Ukraine is 6 minutes time of flight to Moscow for a hyper-sonic missile, and most of Russia's ballistic missiles are impacted by a first strike advantage and by missile defense if we set up in Ukraine. Our basing in Ukraine would entirely tip the scales of nuclear deterrence against Russia, the only area where they have parity with us. Ukraine has deep sea ports, large and many airfields able to support big warships and strategic logistics (C5) and bombers (B52/B2). The area between Ukraine and Russia offers many large maneuver corridors, through which we can shove a mechanized force (i.e. invade) and the larger cities and forests allow for things to easily be hidden. Finally, Ukraine borders Romania, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, NATO nations, making logistics via land from other NATO nations easy. It is from a national security standpoint, for Russia, unacceptable that Ukraine enters NATO. There is no rational person who would accept this situation is in Putin's shoes.

A war between Ukraine and Russia, even though Russia will prevail long term, will weaken Russia and give us more freedom of movement in those places where we and Russia have been struggling for control: Libya, Syria, Iraq, Venezuela, Niger (didn't go as we anticipated since we just got the boot there). This war in Ukraine makes it much harder for Russia to defend their sphere of influence around the world. It makes it harder for them to project force.

Our war industrial complex is working overtime, literally. In fact this has been a boost for US hardware even among our NATO allies: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/12/14/germany-clinches-8-billion-purchase-of-35-f-35-aircraft-from-the-us/

It's not just LM, it's Northrup Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, all of them: https://www.statista.com/statistics/260877/net-sales-of-lockheed-martin-to-the-us-government/

This has been an opportunity to eliminate the competition for gas in Europe: https://www.aa.com.tr/uploads/userFiles/ab870dc1-e87c-46af-a54e-cc928be7834a/gass.jpg

Meanwhile, our gas sales to Europe are going up: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2022.06.07/chart2.svg

In defense sales, oil and gas sales abroad, our ability to push Russia aside in the Middle East, North Africa and South America, we are the ONLY ONE that stands to benefit. Do you think Germany which is left with paying higher energy costs and is losing its competativeness, is flooded with refugees, and is hemoriging money for Ukraine is benefitting (they buy our weapons and buy our energy)? Who is the only real beneficiary in this war? People are starting to figure this out. This might not end well for NATO.

The average American is not a winner here. They pay the taxes for the 61 billion we give to Ukraine in a single appropriation. The winners are as usual the oligarchs, the ones that wanted NATO in Ukraine and stand to benefit even if a war starts. You're not any more wealthy, safe, or free. But you do have some image of yourself and faux morality with babble about sovereignty, democracy, and human rights to make yourself feel good if you support this war. That's how you sell it to the public, "you're a good person if you wear your double mask, you're patriotic if you get your vaccine..." You create some sort of association where you're a good person if you do or think as told: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/12/21/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-fight-against-covid-19/ Not because it makes sense, not because they have an actual sound argument, but because you're responsible, professional, patriotic, whatever if you do as they tell you. You see the same regards Ukraine.

Claiming our government “stumbled” into this war out of incompetence, is highly unlikely. I do believe we have a more or less incompetent civil leadership, but even they had to have known that this will cause a war: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

There was no pressing need for this. There was no eminent threat to us or the Ukraine. In fact, things in Ukraine were going very well, even for us. Why the sudden course change and push for NATO?

Ask yourself this, did it make sense in terms of Risk? Did it make sense in terms of ROI? We were already arming and training their forces, we were already feeding them intel... Ukraine was on a path to EU membership before the war and that was well in their reach. It makes no sense!

Proving that we wanted this war is another story. Unless there is some sort of a leak of documents etc. which show this (example Bush torture memo: a red pill) it will be almost impossible to prove and those people who want to be willfully ignorant will be able to live on in their blue pill world even though there is a plethora of evidence suggesting things are not as they appear both for the cause of this war, and how it is going.

Claiming our administration didn't know NATO expansion into Ukraine would cause a war, is like you trying to tell a traffic cop that you didn't know you had to stop at a red light. It's not even remotely feasible, BUT it's something where at least to the public you can pretend not to have known.