War in Ukraine

[LSU-SIU]

I think the peace talks would be a lot more successful if the only question was the change of territory. Putin wants a lot more than that.

Russia has laid out the purpose of the action long ago, this is why the Russians floated the idea early on as to Poland annexing the Western side. With that said, the grind will continue, no real easy off-ramp here... the neocons setup up a doozy. Trump is starting to own this one, imo. Trump basically has one of two choices - fund the money laundering scam or don't fund it.

Russia is unlikely to get a peace agreement they want from the West, as the whole West is divided on this at this point. The problem is - its really not about the land per se. They have to have a long term solution which is not being discussed.

The only real long term solution being provided to the Russians at this point is the total elimination of the Ukraine, which could still take considerable time, resources and meat. Not much has change since late 2022 or early 2023. Grind on.

 

[dalton_vol]

Here is some fake news

 

[LSU-SIU]

Here is some fake news

Its a nothing burger. The Ukraine might as well signed the same deal with Russia, its absolutely worth no real value.

 

[LouderVol]

I think more so putting American interests on the ground to try to end the war and prevent future aggression. Sounds like the desire is also to draw European investments to put more global, non-military assets there to help in the prevention. They seemingly believe that it'll be far less inflammatory to Russia than US military guarantees or NATO membership for Ukraine.

so nation building...yay. 20 years later, several trillion dollars later, we will be turning over Ukraine to Russia.

 

[NorthDallas40]

so nation building...yay. 20 years later, several trillion dollars later, we will be turning over Ukraine to Russia.

I’m still trying to understand how future weapons provided to Ukraine will be monetized to fund this endeavor for investment in Ukrainian mining infrastructure. I guess as long as mining equipment and service providers take payment in 155mm artillery rounds or 120mm SABOT rounds it’s going to all magically work itself out?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I’m still trying to understand how future weapons provided to Ukraine will be monetized to fund this endeavor for investment in Ukrainian mining infrastructure. I guess as long as mining equipment and service providers take payment in 155mm artillery rounds or 120mm SABOT rounds it’s going to all magically work itself out?

I think it's a matter of potential profits paying for the weapons. Kind of like if you go to a bank, unemployed and bankrupt, they won't give you a loan. But if you own your own mining corp, you're more likely to be able to pay them back.

 

[LouderVol]

Russia has laid out the purpose of the action long ago, this is why the Russians floated the idea early on as to Poland annexing the Western side. With that said, the grind will continue, no real easy off-ramp here... the neocons setup up a doozy. Trump is starting to own this one, imo. Trump basically has one of two choices - fund the money laundering scam or don't fund it.

Russia is unlikely to get a peace agreement they want from the West, as the whole West is divided on this at this point. The problem is - its really not about the land per se. They have to have a long term solution which is not being discussed.

The only real long term solution being provided to the Russians at this point is the total elimination of the Ukraine, which could still take considerable time, resources and meat. Not much has change since late 2022 or early 2023. Grind on.

what type of revisionism is this?

no they didn't. as recently as February of 2024, Putin was talking about rebuilding the Russian empire. before that it was he was only interesting in denazifying Ukraine. or he was fighting literal devil, but also the figurative one. or complete disarmament of Ukraine, or determining who could rule Ukraine, or just keeping Ukraine out of NATO, or taking away all of Ukraine's Black Sea access, or just the liberation of Dontesk, or recognizing referendums .

when the Poland thing was first brought up it was Russia claiming Poland/NATO was proposing it, and they (Russia) denied this modern day Molotov Ribbentrov, because they had no interest in territory outside of Dontesk. it was only later that Russia admitted it was their plan. and we kept being promised it was going to happen any day that Poland was going to move in from the west, and that was going to justify Russia. and it all never occurred.

Russia has changed their reasoning as often as they could to justify whatever message they were currently spouting.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I think it's a matter of potential profits paying for the weapons. Kind of like if you go to a bank, unemployed and bankrupt, they won't give you a loan. But if you own your own mining corp, you're more likely to be able to pay them back.

And we’re all speculating until we see the actual signed agreement. But right now I can’t understand how weapons become investment funds unless you re-monetize them. IE sell them.

The provided statements have said “future weapons count as US contribution to the fund.” So no that isn’t consistent with your speculation RE profits. Profits indicates there are revenues from the sale of resources.

Also by executing this deal Trump is taking ownership of US involvement from this point onward.

 

[LouderVol]

I’m still trying to understand how future weapons provided to Ukraine will be monetized to fund this endeavor for investment in Ukrainian mining infrastructure. I guess as long as mining equipment and service providers take payment in 155mm artillery rounds or 120mm SABOT rounds it’s going to all magically work itself out?

yeah it makes no sense. its like reverse collateral. we will give you weapons if you do this to eventually pay us off the proceeds from this deal which isn't explained in the slightest.

I am thinkings its another Budapest Memorandum. Sounds nice, but there is some tricky legalese language in there that makes people think one thing, but it says another. Ukraine never gets the military support they thought they were getting. and the US tax payer continues to shell money out for the long con with no real end in sight.

 

[NorthDallas40]

yeah it makes no sense. its like reverse collateral. we will give you weapons if you do this to eventually pay us off the proceeds from this deal which isn't explained in the slightest.

I am thinkings its another Budapest Memorandum. Sounds nice, but there is some tricky legalese language in there that makes people think one thing, but it says another. Ukraine never gets the military support they thought they were getting. and the US tax payer continues to shell money out for the long con with no real end in sight.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And we’re all speculating until we see the actual signed agreement. But right now I can’t understand how weapons become investment funds unless you re-monetize them. IE sell them.

The provided statements have said “future weapons count as US contribution to the fund.” So no that isn’t consistent with your speculation RE profits. Profits indicates there are revenues from the sale of resources.

Also by executing this deal Trump is taking ownership of US involvement from this point onward.

Yes. It does. The statements all state that US gets first right to profits made from the mineral enterprises. US and Ukraine both put in equal shares to the fund that will pay for the enterprise to be built. Apparently, part/all of US's share may be in weapons. When it becomes profitable, US begins to get their investments back.

So, yes. My understanding is that it effectively monetized the weapons. It sounds like it sets up a revenue producing enterprise that will allow the US to sell weapons instead of donate them.

Additionally, if the claims per rare earth materials and minerals in Ukraine is true, it gives the US a source that gets us out from under China's thumb on that.

Rumor Warning:

 

[LSU-SIU]

what type of revisionism is this?

no they didn't. as recently as February of 2024, Putin was talking about rebuilding the Russian empire. before that it was he was only interesting in denazifying Ukraine. or he was fighting literal devil, but also the figurative one. or complete disarmament of Ukraine, or determining who could rule Ukraine, or just keeping Ukraine out of NATO, or taking away all of Ukraine's Black Sea access, or just the liberation of Dontesk, or recognizing referendums .

when the Poland thing was first brought up it was Russia claiming Poland/NATO was proposing it, and they (Russia) denied this modern day Molotov Ribbentrov, because they had no interest in territory outside of Dontesk. it was only later that Russia admitted it was their plan. and we kept being promised it was going to happen any day that Poland was going to move in from the west, and that was going to justify Russia. and it all never occurred.

Russia has changed their reasoning as often as they could to justify whatever message they were currently spouting.

We'll have to agree to disagree, seems pretty simple to me. They have been pretty consistent as to the long term solution i.e. nazis out, nato out, no large scale Ukrainian military, etc.

as recently as February of 2024, Putin was talking about rebuilding the Russian empire

You would have to provide what he was saying in context, you saying he was saying that he wants the old USSR back isn't the same as him saying it. I would have to see what you are saying in context, meaning don't tell me.

when the Poland thing was first brought up it was Russia claiming Poland/NATO was proposing it, and they (Russia) denied this modern day Molotov Ribbentrov, because they had no interest in territory outside of Dontesk.

This was mostly floated around, it wasn't something I recall Putin saying. Do you have an interview? Or are you putting a whole bunch of things together yourself?

If what you are saying is correct there would be logical reason for Russia to sit down with the Ukraine in 2022, let alone entertain additional talks with the U.S. or the Ukraine now. It would serve no real purpose.

Nobody cares about or wants Eastern Ukraine.... that was the purpose of the floating of Poland annexing it, but even they aren't stupid enough for that. If the purpose is control Eastern Ukraine, I have no idea why... there would be no reason to sit down and talk.

2025
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...peration-ukraine-remain-unchanged-2024-02-07/

"Demilitarisation, denazification, (and) ensuring the safety of people living in those regions that have already become Russian, protecting them from direct attacks and actually saving their lives," Peskov told reporters on a conference call.

2023
Putin vows no peace in Ukraine until Russia meets its unchanged military goals

He reiterated that Moscow’s goals in Ukraine — “de-Nazification, de-militarization and a neutral status” of Ukraine — remain unchanged. He had spelled out those loosely defined objectives the day he sent troops into its neighbor in February 2022.

Seems like they are going to keep going until its addressed. It doesn't seem complex at all. I am not saying you have to agree with what they want but it seems pretty easy to understand, but the basic concept isn't all that difficult or confusing on the surface.

Nobody really wants Eastern Ukraine, which is part of the problem. I don't want them either, matter of fact... .if we could stop sending my money there that would be great.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Yes. It does. The statements all state that US gets first right to profits made from the mineral enterprises. US and Ukraine both put in equal shares to the fund that will pay for the enterprise to be built. Apparently, part/all of US's share may be in weapons. When it becomes profitable, US begins to get their investments back.

So, yes. My understanding is that it effectively monetized the weapons. It sounds like it sets up a revenue producing enterprise that will allow the US to sell weapons instead of donate them.

Additionally, if the claims per rare earth materials and minerals in Ukraine is true, it gives the US a source that gets us out from under China's thumb on that.

Rumor Warning:
View attachment 739329

I hear you. Really I do. However I am still struggling to understand how the initial funding occurs to get international investment in mine development and services. Yes I agree once initial fund capitalization has occurred what you are postulating on makes sense.

Also yes pivoting to Ukraine or literally anyone else than China serves US defense interests greatly by itself. That’s before you even consider EV batteries and your next iPhone or XBox.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Nobody really wants Eastern Ukraine, which is part of the problem. I don't want them either, matter of fact... .if we could stop sending my money there that would be great.

Tell me you have no damn idea what you’re talking about without actually saying it Homer. Go check out a geo survey map of eastern Ukraine for metal and mineral deposits

 

[LouderVol]

We'll have to agree to disagree, seems pretty simple to me. They have been pretty consistent as to the long term solution i.e. nazis out, nato out, no large scale Ukrainian military, etc.



You would have to provide what he was saying in context, you saying he was saying that he wants the old USSR back isn't the same as him saying it. I would have to see what you are saying in context, meaning don't tell me.



This was mostly floated around, it wasn't something I recall Putin saying. Do you have an interview? Or are you putting a whole bunch of things together yourself?

If what you are saying is correct there would be logical reason for Russia to sit down with the Ukraine in 2022, let alone entertain additional talks with the U.S. or the Ukraine now. It would serve no real purpose.

Nobody cares about or wants Eastern Ukraine.... that was the purpose of the floating of Poland annexing it, but even they aren't stupid enough for that. If the purpose is control Eastern Ukraine, I have no idea why... there would be no reason to sit down and talk.

2025
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...peration-ukraine-remain-unchanged-2024-02-07/


2023
Putin vows no peace in Ukraine until Russia meets its unchanged military goals



Seems like they are going to keep going until its addressed. It doesn't seem complex at all.

Nobody really wants Eastern Ukraine, which is part of the problem.

western ukraine.

it was part of Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson. he was questioning Ukraine's right to exist because it had been part of the Russian Empire, not the USSR. I am sure bits and pieces have been sprinklered around over time too, but that would be a good place to start. he made it clear he was righting some wrong by retaking old Russian controlled territory.

demilitarizing is not seizing more territory. a "neutral" Ukraine is not one that is controlled by Russia and or Poland.

the nazi aspect always a red herring. it was first that all of Ukraine was controlled by Nazis, Zelensky was one you know as long as you ignore that whole Jew thing. then it was just the military that was full of Nazis, then it was just the eastern parts, again as long as you ignore those eastern parts with the most nazis also had a corresponding increase in Russians vs the rest of the Ukraine. then it was just one regiment of Nazis, until it came out the Russians had their own version of the azob units. the same nazis that the Russians defeated at Mauripol, capturing several thousand before agreeing to release. hard to argue you are trying to de-nazify the place if you are just releasing those nazis back to fight you again.

none of that is pushing Ukrainians out of Ukraine, or removing Ukraine as an entity.

 

[LSU-SIU]

western ukraine.

it was part of Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson. he was questioning Ukraine's right to exist because it had been part of the Russian Empire, not the USSR. I am sure bits and pieces have been sprinklered around over time too, but that would be a good place to start. he made it clear he was righting some wrong by retaking old Russian controlled territory.

demilitarizing is not seizing more territory. a "neutral" Ukraine is not one that is controlled by Russia and or Poland.

the nazi aspect always a red herring. it was first that all of Ukraine was controlled by Nazis, Zelensky was one you know as long as you ignore that whole Jew thing. then it was just the military that was full of Nazis, then it was just the eastern parts, again as long as you ignore those eastern parts with the most nazis also had a corresponding increase in Russians vs the rest of the Ukraine. then it was just one regiment of Nazis, until it came out the Russians had their own version of the azob units. the same nazis that the Russians defeated at Mauripol, capturing several thousand before agreeing to release. hard to argue you are trying to de-nazify the place if you are just releasing those nazis back to fight you again.

none of that is pushing Ukrainians out of Ukraine, or removing Ukraine as an entity.

You are writing a whole bunch and I refuse to read it. The reason is simple, they have been willing to sit down and talk... there is no reason for Russia to sit down and talk with the Ukraine in 2022, and from what was gathered they basically had a working outline of an agreement pre-Boris.

Zelensky was one you know as long as you ignore that whole Jew thing. then it was just the military that was full of Nazis

Yet, the U.S. had various military units on their terrorist list as of 2022. Saying he is a Jew is like I saying I'm Catholic because my mom is Catholic.

Regardless, I am not saying you have to agree with Russia, but what they have said is pretty simple and isn't complex... you don't have to agree with them.

So.... my take is the grinding will continue until there is a long-term solution as I basically said in 2022 as nobody has addressed their 3 big things. You said or implied they keep changing but it doesn't appear to me to be so, we don't have to agree with them but they have been easy to understand.

You don't build an Empire with Western Eastern Ukraine, nobody wants it. And for good reason.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I hear you. Really I do. However I am still struggling to understand how the initial funding occurs to get international investment in mine development and services. Yes I agree once initial fund capitalization has occurred what you are postulating on makes sense.

Also yes pivoting to Ukraine or literally anyone else than China serves US defense interests greatly by itself. That’s before you even consider EV batteries and your next iPhone or XBox.

I think we're on the same page.

As I understand it--and I think some of the bullet points that I read this morning make it explicit--the US will match Ukraine in cash investments to get things started. US future investments may take the form of weapons.

Agreed on the defense and trade interests of the materials. I suspect that one reason for the interest in Greenland and Western Canada as well. (And it sounds like Alberta is moving toward a referendum on leaving Canada. Not saying it'll happen at all, much less Alberta becoming a US state...)

I'm holding out hope that this works out, with no guarantees. In my limited capacity, it sounds like the best option to try to end this **** sandwich where there are no good options, and definitely no guarantees. Ukraine is in a helpless situation without us and can't keep sending people to die. But I don't think anything good comes from the US signing a treaty to go to war with Russia. I don't think we can just keep sinking money into a proxy fight, and... again with the men dying on both sides.

With US interests in Ukraine, Ukraine has some leverage in negotiations that they didn't have yesterday. Maybe this allows a negotiated end. And maybe if the US has economic interests in Ukraine, and civilians on the ground working at mining and refining operations, it's mark Ukraine as a no-go zone. Just as the US doesn't want to escalate with a nuclear foe now, they won't want to in the future.

 

[dalton_vol]

so nation building...yay. 20 years later, several trillion dollars later, we will be turning over Ukraine to Russia.

Especially when/if another dem is elected. He'll be fine to give it to Russia

 

[dalton_vol]

I think we're on the same page.

As I understand it--and I think some of the bullet points that I read this morning make it explicit--the US will match Ukraine in cash investments to get things started. US future investments may take the form of weapons.

Agreed on the defense and trade interests of the materials. I suspect that one reason for the interest in Greenland and Western Canada as well. (And it sounds like Alberta is moving toward a referendum on leaving Canada. Not saying it'll happen at all, much less Alberta becoming a US state...)

I'm holding out hope that this works out, with no guarantees. In my limited capacity, it sounds like the best option to try to end this **** sandwich where there are no good options, and definitely no guarantees. Ukraine is in a helpless situation without us and can't keep sending people to die. But I don't think anything good comes from the US signing a treaty to go to war with Russia. I don't think we can just keep sinking money into a proxy fight, and... again with the men dying on both sides.

With US interests in Ukraine, Ukraine has some leverage in negotiations that they didn't have yesterday. Maybe this allows a negotiated end. And maybe if the US has economic interests in Ukraine, and civilians on the ground working at mining and refining operations, it's mark Ukraine as a no-go zone. Just as the US doesn't want to escalate with a nuclear foe now, they won't want to in the future.

Exactly....

 

[BeardedVol]

Especially when/if another dem is elected. He'll be fine to give it to Russia

Lol, did Biden give Ukraine to Russia?

Why Trump Is Giving Putin Everything He Wants

If the U.S. president holds all the cards, why hasn’t he won any concessions from Russia?

www.theatlantic.com

 

[NorthDallas40]

Especially when/if another dem is elected. He'll be fine to give it to Russia

 

[dalton_vol]

View attachment 739343

How hard is it to understand??? dems tend to give away stuff America builds with no return

 

[dalton_vol]

Lol, did Biden give Ukraine to Russia?

Why Trump Is Giving Putin Everything He Wants

If the U.S. president holds all the cards, why hasn’t he won any concessions from Russia?

www.theatlantic.com

As always, you don't understand the context.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Lol, did Biden give Ukraine to Russia?

Why Trump Is Giving Putin Everything He Wants

If the U.S. president holds all the cards, why hasn’t he won any concessions from Russia?

www.theatlantic.com

Pay walled, but from what I can read: Why does the article state that Trump holds all the cards while also stating that he doesn't hold all the cards?

 

[NorthDallas40]

How hard is it to understand??? dems tend to give away stuff America builds with no return

Oh I get your partisan BS clearly you’re an open book champ.