There is a difference between playing politics and claims that specifically NATO expansionism forced Putin to invade. The rebuilding of the Russian empire caused the invasion. Ukraine was first because Belorussia is not important nor is Prednestrovie. Also Ukraine is a huge resource both agriculturally and industrially. It’s a bread basket Every other why is a convinient excuse.
1 Like
Here is what I see. Russia makes up 40 percent of European continent with only about 15 percent of it’s population. All that untapped resources that EU wants…not to mention a gateway to western, central and even eastern Asia.
That’s what EU elitists see.
Are you going to deny that?
They will take access to it through trade and politics.They want those resources but through capitalism.
It’s cheaper for everyone.
The invasion went above and beyond that.
The Ukraine change of leadership move was politics. They wanted better trade agreements and easier capitalism. That’s geopolitics for ya.
1 Like
But not control over it.
What is power FaC?
Of coures control. But there are different types of control or actually control can be exerted in different ways.
I have a feeling you and I agree except for one little thing - specifically NATO expansionm.
Control is exactly why Putin invaded because he realized he was losing control and he wants that Empire.
Europeans, specially elites would love to have total control of all of Europe…but that’s the problem isn’t it? It has to be on their terms.
And they’re using American military might to force it on em. That’s the part that I resent.
As I said, Russia makes up 40 percent of Europe with only 15 percent of population. By rights that makes Russia the richest country in Europe due to it’s resources.
The wealth that can be made from it is astronomical.
Than add in accessibility to western Asia. Old saying goes…all that cheddar up for grab.
So that’s European elites fight…not ours. Ours ended the moment Soviet Commies had fallen.
1 Like
That is it in a nut shell. First Biden and the rest of NATO failed to make deployments that would have given Putin pause while he was conducting his build up. Then once it started it has been a fence straddle every since. Just enough to keep the blood/dollars flowing, but nothing to bring it to a conclusion one way, or another.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with any of that.
None of it justifies Russia invading Ukraine.
Poisoning Zelenskyy. Propaganda. Etc. could have worked just as well
The invasion is not justified by natos or eu hunger for resources and using American resources to build itself a pan European empire.
They are mutually exclusive issues.
Everybody and their mother knew that Europe is too dependent on Russia not to fence sit before or after the invasion. Trump was the only one who said it out loud. Good on him.
1 Like
They used the advantage of being able to attack South from Belarus towards Kiev, which was a sound tactic. The problem was they didn’t have the logistics in place for a sustained battle on that avenue of approach. They also underestimated the Ukrainian Army and over estimated their ability. A large percentage of the combat power in the strike towards Kiev never actually got into the fight, and their logistics failures made it worse. Then their failure to broaden the attack frontage and hold what they had taken led to a massive loss of resources.
2 Likes
Maybe not…but when is it a good time for Russia to “push back”?
My problem is Europe. Take the crises in Red sea ATM. That crises is something like 40 percent Europe global trade…and only couple percent of American global trade.
But yet who’s there fighting to keep it open? If you say mostly Americans you would be correct.
I don’t have a problem helping to keep that trade route open…my problem is Europe not doing much at all.
And Europe is basically non existing in Asia Pacific trade routes…but again that’s mostly American.
Meanwhile Russian resources are going to our competitors.
EU really dropped the ball on this one…and blaming Russia for failure of EU seeing a larger picture out of greed and control will only end up with nothing after 100s of thousand lives lost and trillions of dollars in damage economically.
That’s what I see.
1 Like
Interesting article…plays right in with what I’ve been saying.
“The European Union cannot defend Europe. Eighty percent of NATO’s defence expenditures come from non-EU NATO allies,” Stoltenberg, secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, told Reuters in an interview.
But this is most interesting part of it all.
He added that “any attempt to de-link Europe from North America will also divide Europe”. Many European nations, particularly in Eastern Europe, see the U.S. as their primary security guarantor and would oppose any move to change that.
Eastern Europeans doesn’t look to western Europeans for it’s security…they look too Americans for it’s security.
Think about that.
They’re expecting Europe total military budget to be 380 billion dollars. If they paid same percentage as United states on it’s defense, it should be 615 billion dollars.
Something to chew on.
1 Like
There are articles all over the place including the Times how Europe as it stands cannot defend itself.
I don’t disagree
If you read past the fun stuff of @Bill.in.PA posts he has been saying this for a while. Even if his reasoning was off sometimes. 
1 Like
That’s the problem…I don’t mind helping. But when you ask me for help and than expect me to do all the heavy work while you reap all the benefits…no way.
Putin doesn’t recognize Ukraine as being a sovereign nation.
Yeah… that was a bad thing. It is at the root of a lot of our immigration problems right now. You won’t see me defending the U.S. mucking around in Central and South America on behalf of United Fruit.
The NATO thing is nonsense… and anyone who saw the interview saw that Putin knocked that down as his justification for invading Ukraine.
1 Like
I can’t agree with that theory at all. Putin knew NATO wasn’t going to go in and protect Ukraine. A few extra brigades in eastern Europe or a few extra divisions wasn’t going to change that. I don’t think people are giving Biden enough credit for flooding Ukraine with arms before the invasion telling Russia that they were going to take heavy losses. Putin didn’t care. I’ve never even heard anyone use that excuse. That if we had a larger Atlantic Resolve or rushed in troops to Poland, and Romania and the Baltics that somehow Putin would have decided not to go. That seems pretty ridiculous to me.
There is a little bit of that.
That’s it’s not a Republican president. Therefore credit is diminished
It doesn’t take away from the fact that @Ben_Natuf ans @e7alr are right…. Not enough was given/done.
Bill thinks it’s a documentary.
2 Likes
They didn’t think it was necessary. They never anticipated more than token resistance from Ukraine. After all the Ukrainian President was just a comedic actor. He will flee at the first sign of Russians coming across the border and leave the country to the invaders. Right?
Note, there were several such predictions in this very thread …
