Grunching

There is rumor that the west foiled peace talks on purpose

What potential peace talks would that be in reference to? Putin has given no signs or indications in rhetoric or behaviour that talks are remotely on the table. Quite the opposite considering the terrorizing of civilian infrastructure, for instance. If Putin was to indicate signs of peace talks, historical precedent would suggest that this is mostly an attempt to try and get pre-talk concessions such as slowing down western arms deliveries, or partial cease fires to let them rebuild before prior offensives. But he hasn't even tried that.

Did you say this weeks / months ago? What are the specifics of this "new" rumor?

https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1600470652363866113

However, in May the Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda, citing “sources close to [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky,” reported UK prime minister Boris Johnson “appeared in the capital [Kyiv] almost without warning” on April 9, bringing “two simple messages.”

“The first is that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”

Since then, the peace talks went dead and there's been lots and lots of bloodshed and violence. Oh, and lots of weapons funding!

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/arti...nclair-feature

Russia invaded with 200 000 troops in late February. Even if we know nothing more than that, it would be a dubious take that there should exist some kind of genuine desire for peace by the Russian regime in early April. At that point, they had achieved almost none of their strategic goals and we were only a bit over a month into the war.

One principle we must establish first of all is that willingness to participate in peace talks is very different from an actual desire for peace. People opposed to war more than anyone need to understand this.

If we look at the actual timeline, five attempts at peace talks were attempted throughout March, and they achieved very little. Even attempts at establishing evacuation corridors for civilians were fruitless, since the Russians simply did not respect the corridors. We saw both Ukrainian civilians, foreign volunteers and reporters killed by Russian forces as a result.

By the end of March and in the beginning of April, Russia had escalated their efforts on the ground. This as a response to strategic losses in several places that forced them to withdraw forces. It was after these withdrawals in early April, that we learned of the mass murder and war crimes in places like Bucha, revelations which we quickly learned was only the tip of the iceberg.

Basically, the insinuated claim from the article's headlines and introduction, that some genuine peace process was sabotaged by foreign state leaders is fairly ridiculous. If anything it shows a callous willingness to only focus on specific events in the timeline to create a false impression.

I was amazed to hear that the USA has spent more on this war than Afghanistan and also how little many Nato countries have contributed like England and Canada
As well with no troops

Where tf did you hear this? You think the states spent more in 10 months than they did in 20 years? Do you just inhale everything you're told wholesale?

Oops meant to type Iraq war My bad Yeah the Afghan war is in the trillions

I have the USA at just over 100 billion $ spent with the latest 45 billion

2nd Iraq war was 8 years long and cost ~2 trillion. Do you really think an 8 year long war with boots on the ground is cheaper than a 10 month (and counting) proxy war? I'd really like to see your source on this.

Damn 1.9 trillion your right. I must have fallen for one of those right wing talking points. My Bad Apologies

Though I am right on US spending compared to the rest of Nato

Perhaps you were thinking of the Grenada war.

All the best.

Your GDP is way higher than any other NATO member so it stands to reason you will spend more. The rest of NATO combined don't have $800 billion spare to spend on the military per annum.

You definitely have so i am glad you are suspicious of that. Maybe i and e_d and others are having some impact.


What the right wing talking point is, is a hyper focus on how much 'individual events' cost (health care, ukraine) as if everything is paid for with new money as opposed to a re-allocation of the existing budget to other priorities. Something the same media never raises when it comes to things like tax cuts for the wealthy or corporations.


Do you know why they do lozen? Ask yourself why it matters how much of the US military budget they dedicate to Ukraine if they deem it better spent there than on other priorities? Ask yourself what the taxpayer gains if that same money is not sent to Ukraine and just goes into another Aircraft carrier or the amounts of military contract money they are not required to account for?

Suddenly you are roused to want to demand to know how it is being paid for, who else is contributing, etc, etc, and if the Ukraine war ends tomorrow and the same money disappears into dark money military holes to never be accounted for you and MSM will hardly raise a question about it, even if the spending remains exactly the same.

Do you know why that is?

The Americans spend more on defence because they want to -- nobody's forcing them to maintain about a dozen aircraft carriers, which is mildly ridiculous -- and because of the pork barrel and because US taxpayers are conditioned to put up with it, viewing the whole world beyond their borders as weird and menacing and 'too foreign'. Germany has been slacking on defence lately and France is a bit behindhand at 1.9% of GDP compared to the NATO requirement of 2%, but the UK is at 2.3%. The Ukrainians certainly appreciate British military aid, particularly anti-tank weapons, though US assistance in regard to logistical supplies, heavy artillery and certain forms of tech will become more important as the war grinds on. If the Americans don't want allies, or international influence, they can always cut the budget and stay home and cower under their kitchen tables in case anything 'foreign' happens.

Once Russia withdraws their troops from Ukrainian territory, including from Crimea, negotiations can begin.

The French and Germans have the US to protect them. If the US doesn't protect itself, who is going to?

Russia has no natural protective border like the U.S. does. In fact that's why it's so big, because it was often invaded due to poor border security and the strategy evolved to prevent that was to acquire more land.

Obviously the U.S. does not want to invade or occupy Russia. It just needs to sell weapons and to be impactful and threatening. Elite greed is obviously ruling us, but now that we've ramified the defense industry so deep into our economy there's no telling what kind of shocks we would experience if it saw a major decline. It's the same reason why Nancy Pelosi traveled her nuclear grade trolling over to Taiwan.

Berlin is being goaded into contributing more in the form of advanced tanks at a recent gathering of allies. That's what I want to see, is Germany being more active in war. That's akin to enjoying the taste and texture of chewing fistfuls of sand


Good things are coming when Japan and Germany both increase their military spending significantly at the same time. One can only hope the weapons dealers don't play as fast and loose with lives as the bankers who brought us 2008. I'm not so optimistic. Mistakes happen, especially when you do stupid things

Putin is going down as the ALL TIME DUMBASS of 2022 and it's not even close, but that's a different post

The US has large oceans on both sides and its only contiguous neighbours are Canada and Mexico. It faces no plausible non-nuclear threat. It doesn't need that fleet of carriers for defence, only for imperial posture, and the US presence in Europe lately has been minimal.

What's mainly required is Germany giving Poland the export sign-off to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, as the Poles wish to do. The Poles do know a bit about getting invaded by the Russians.

Yeah this back and forth on the tanks. Germany does not want to seem like the first to provide tanks. The USA says there tanks are not the best for this type of warfare and hard to maintain

I was shocked that Germany has 200 of these tanks still in the boxes per say never used

Lets stop with the politics and give them the tanks

IAMTHISNOW ?

Russia is the aggressor in this matter. That is all.

When they killed the czar? Or was it when they wanted to prosecute Nazis rather than let them become NATO generals?