What’s the motivation, if the Russians have the strong cards in this upcoming peace negotiation the current administration feels the need to weaken the Ukrainian side equipment? Slice of the minerals?
He forces Ukraine to take a bad deal by removing their ability to walk away. That deal involves more revenue for him and ensures that he gets to tell his voters that he kept his promise to end the war. His first impeachment was over trying to extort Ukraine’s assistance in election rigging so the humiliation is an extra bonus.
Trump/Musk/Republicans have taken the side of a fascist dictator Putin. Every recent move wrt Ukraine has benefitted Russia. Even if it means betraying democratic allies and decades long alliances.
People have different idea but roughly the Ukrainian plan seems to be hold the current lines approximately, destroy Russian assets and work on Russia collapsing economically to the extent they have to pull back a bit like their Afghanistan experience.
I am confused why you ask this of the proponents. The proponents think that Russia is performing horrendous war crimes and must be stopped from encroaching further. We see massacres such as Bucha where Russia had a couple of days and indiscriminately butchered innocent civilians and realized that there is no other way but to keep fighting to stop Russia from taking more territory and lives.
My question is more looking for what changes to the strategy are proposed? Arming Ukraine hasn't stopped Russia from these crimes so far. There's certainly some turning point point where US, or NATO, involvement will be seen as a declaration is war against Russia and it's allies, right?
Another commenter suggest sent a video about this that I'll watch later, I suspect the answer lies there, but thought I'd share with you so you can have some understanding of what someone who sees both side's surface level plans as confusing and problematic .
What encroachment do you mean? There isn't much encroachment other than sabotage. Perhaps some financing of undermining political parties.
There was significant encroachment of eastern Europe, but that has slowed down due to attention going towards the Ukraine war.
The main goal in Ukraine should be to make sure that Russia has as little benefit from their invasion as possible. Luckily this is effectively wholly compatible with Ukrainian goals.
I wish Europe and the US would have just put their foot down and kicked out Russia swiftly and decisively in 2022.
Rather the have adopted the doctrine of "Ukraine can't lose, but Ukraine may not win". Always supplying just enough arms to keep the Ukrainian front from collapsing not to "stir up" Russia.
Doesn't seem like that would have made anything better though. I thought the general consensus was that direct action would have just escalated things?
I watched a video recently that discussed all the grudges against the West/NATO Russia (Putin) has been holding onto since the mids 90s that makes them feel justified now.
Drain Russia in the war. Make them pay for every day they are invading. Make them pay in human lives, make them pay in losy industrial output. Make them pay in economic welfare. Not just on Ukrainian soil.
If at all possible, take back any Ukrainian territory. Reduce whatever gain they got from this invasion. But even if the current line stands, the more Russia can be made to bleed, the less it will think that war can be a net postive for them.
You realize all the printed money goes towards European and US arms manufacturers and just creates jobs in Europe and the US?
Even the billions in humanitarian support spend in Europe are mostly just housing refugees from Ukraine in Europe thus flows to landlords and supermarkets in Europe.
This war in Ukraine is costing us pennies for each dollar that Russia is wasting in the blood fields of Ukraine.
It doesnt create jobs in US. It is another bulk order of factory line-items for those already ingratiated with a comfy MIC contract. No one benefits except the neo-cons and the ones already with their feet up.
Europe's bill may create jobs in Europe, if it was genuine.
>billions in humanitarian support spend in Europe are mostly just housing refugees from Ukraine in Europe thus flows to landlords and supermarkets in Europe.
I am sure printing money to then distribute to those with real estate property to house migrants is doing well for your housing/immigrant crises.
>This war in Ukraine is costing us pennies for each dollar
Approximately 46 pennies on every dollar that exists has been printed or misspent in the last 5 years.
Now that the state-level propaganda machine is starting to wear down, the world is realizing that America wants America First.
> Approximately 46 pennies on every dollar that exists has been printed or misspent in the last 5 years.
What does this even mean?
And do you realize that most of American GDP prowess in the last 40 years was driven by running a trade deficit and letting the world loan the money back to the US?
Even if it doesn't enter M1 circulation and directly increase monetary supply, it put upwardly increasing inflationary pressure on the dollar by inflating demand artificially.
Increasing M1 alone doesn't necessary lead to inflation. Unless people spend money nothing realky changes. I am also not sure who would care about cash and equivalents when M2 and M3 measures are usually much bigger.
I would look more towards outstanding bonds or GDP to debt ratio. The US has overspent for decades but it worked very well because as world's reserve currency it didn't lead to currency depreciation as any other country would have experienced in a similar situation.
Trump just wants the war to end. Ukraine doesn't want to surrender a chunk of its territory under bad terms, so they won't make a deal. Putin is more than happy to take a deal that means they win. Trump thinks that if he weakens Ukraine then they'll be more willing to take a bad deal. He also doesn't like Ukraine or Zelenskyy, so has no particular desire to do them a favour.
Ukraine already surrendered chunk of its territory few years ago. You think this time it will be different and Russia won't try to take Ukraine again once it rebuilds its military potential?
No of course I don't. Russia will certainly try again. Ukraine is absolutely right to not want to do this! I'm just pointing out what Trump's motivation is.
The difference is that in the future (assuming the mineral deal goes through), there would be US citizens operating mineral franchises on Ukrainian territory. So if Russia harmed them in the future, we would be drawn into an actual war.
There were US citizens and businesses in Ukraine last time. Russia will just go around them like they did then. Having some US businesses will provide zero protection.
Assuming mining those minerals would actually make economic and strategic sense for US companies, considering significant long-term investments require stability. And that a significant US workforce would even be required for that. And that the US administration doesn't just make a bargain with Putin about leaving these mining operations alone while doing whatever the fuck else they want.
Could Ukraine maneuver around Trump by instead signing a minerals deal with UK+EU? Better to give the $600b (optimistically) to friendly allies. The problem is UK+EU does not have equivalent defense contractors. US gets what it wants as well, by disconnecting from the conflict.
> Name one American who would volunteer to fight because a Thai ship got attacked by Yemeni rebels while travelling through an Ethiopian straight to an Egyptian canal.
Apparently, the entire US Navy was okay with that volunteer assignment.
Their economy is in a terrible spot because of the war. International sanctions mean Russia has extreme trouble selling its natural resources or importing necessary products, and what trade it can do it pays a stiff premium for. Its massive defense spending might appear to boost GDP but it's all unproductive and it's driving massive inflation. Then you got oil refineries and other such infrastructure periodically exploding. And true end to the war means an end to all those problems and is the only way for them to avoid their economy collapsing. Of course at the end they'll need to be careful about how they draw down defense spending to avoid recession but they'ed at least be in the drivers seat, as opposed to what they are looking at should the war continue for another 1 to 2 years.
