Zelensky trying to fast track NATO membership or get security guarantees

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: putnam6

China and Taiwan have a huge amount of leverage over the US. Debt held, assets owned stateside, but the biggest IMO is their monopoly on rare earth metals and chip manufacturing. Taiwan does a vast majority of advanced chip manufacturing. The reason is because of the close proximity to all the source materials in China just a skip away.

But, I think it would take as much resources intervening as it would to just either set up shop domestically, or with a more stable ally.

The problem is publicly traded companies are legally bound to fiduciary responsibility. Meaning they have to make the best decisions for their shareholders, and this almost always is in the context of short term decisions. That's how our lopsided relationship with China/Taiwan started. They used to be dirt cheep and now they're the only act in town.

I don't see any of our big corporations moving shop until it's too late.

Amazing isn't it, all these conflicts are painted as humanitarian issues, but the reasons we will actually go hot are almost always economical.

Perhaps if we are to go to war over microchips perhaps we ought to find a way to manufacture them ourselves, it's kind of ironic since we have found out our oil reserves are deeper than ever expected we now find ourselves potentially over a barrel for another commodity. A manufactured one at that, makes me wonder did somewhere along the line Xi knew precisely the strategic advantages of microchips?

Just throwing out ideas here, cause I will feel the pinch in my industry if anything stops China from shipping. It's already still not as stable, cheap, or quick as it was in 2019.

While I don't believe in nationalizing industries as some banana republics do, perhaps there ought to be some smaller companies dedicated to producing those essential items for us solely to keep us from this situation. Or tell the current companies they have to make sure a stockpile is available and contingency plans to ramp up production if needed. Instead, it seems we got bupkis, and it sounds strangely like the oil wars from the '70s on.

More from Ukraine currently, they evacuated Russian civilians gave them 10,000 rubles, now shelling the same region. that said Id expect the shelling to be very intense before there would be any ground campaign. Not sure if that is what is gonna happen here, they might be shelling just because they know they can.

liveuamap.com...

Russia Will not Invade Ukraine imho , unless they are allowed NATO status,

And i dont foresee that happening Ever.

Also China imho Will never invade Taiwan.

Stay Safe

Riouz

and this from Ukraine PRM media

prm.ua...



Seems Zelensky thought there would be more security guarantees after returning all nuclear weapons, hmm did NATO paint a rosier picture than Ukraine is actually seeing

originally posted by: Riouz5
Russia Will not Invade Ukraine imho , unless they are allowed NATO status,

And i dont foresee that happening Ever.

Also China imho Will never invade Taiwan.

Stay Safe

Riouz

So all of this is just some manipulation from TPTB? Im asking seriously why so sure?

imho No one wants a war with russia,the only way russia invades is if NATO status is given

Putin could take Kiev and imo no other country would stop him,

But i guess he already knows this,

Btw Ask France and Germany their true stance on Bidens Agenda...

Stay Safe

Riouz

a reply to: putnam6

If Putin isn't going to invade , and I don't think he is, then zelensky has nothing to worry about.

So why is he worried? or is he worried? Can't really know how a person feels from some article or quote.

a reply to: putnam6

Ukraine President @ZelenskyyUa: We gave up 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in 1994 in the Budapest Memorandum. Signed by US, UK, Russia, Ukraine. But we haven't gotten the security we were promised then.

And the moral of the story...

originally posted by: Riouz5
imho No one wants a war with russia,the only way russia invades is if NATO status is given

Putin could take Kiev and imo no other country would stop him,

But i guess he already knows this,

Btw Ask France and Germany their true stance on Bidens Agenda...

Stay Safe

Riouz

Personally Im pretty sure they want no part of France or German troops fighting in Ukraine, especially next to the Azov battalion which is exactly where the bee in Putin's bonnet originates, and where the current shelling and conflict seems to be.

Not saying they would support a completely non-Nazi Ukraine either, but they really aren't going to as long as there is the Nazi element there.

even 7 years ago the Guardian saw this potential eventuality

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: darkbake

I was just thinking that this was a nice return to a good political debate. And then you came along.

a reply to: putnam6

there ought to be some smaller companies dedicated to producing those essential items for us solely to keep us from this situation. Or tell the current companies they have to make sure a stockpile is available and contingency plans to ramp up production if needed.

It sounds so obvious and simple you have to wonder why this wasn't done.

Putin basically said not long ago, if Ukraine joined NATO and then took military action to take Crimea back from Russia, Article 5 would be triggered and then basically most of Europe would then be at war with Russia.

Slippery slope.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: putnam6

If Putin isn't going to invade , and I don't think he is, then zelensky has nothing to worry about.

So why is he worried? or is he worried? Can't really know how a person feels from some article or quote.

It's obvious he thought he was going to have more security and expects relief from the Budapest memorandum, or at least that's the Brookings Institute's thoughts, which FWIW sounds like something the left and Biden would follow.

Either that or he is watching vital areas get shelled, and he is playing this to the hilt to see what they can acquire from various NATO nations' military stockpiles. Even if NATO wanted to[they don't BTW] I doubt they could get enough boots on the ground to even slow an invasion

www.brookings.edu...

December 5 marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances for Ukraine. Russia has grossly violated the commitments it made in that document. That imposes an obligation on Washington to support Ukraine and push back against Russia. This is not just a matter of living up to U.S. obligations. It is also about preserving the credibility of security assurances, which could contribute to preventing nuclear proliferation in the future.

edit on 19-2-2022 by putnam6 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: putnam6

This is what I've been saying in other threads. The West has to walk a delicate line here. Ukraine was not only the 3rd largest nuclear power after the fall of the USSR, but they had also produced most of Russia's nuclear arsenal.

They gave up all their nukes and shut down the factories with the assurance that the West would provide assistance if Russia became aggressive.

Now the West are thrust into a position where they need to provide enough assistance to appease Ukraine while also avoiding WWIII. If they don't provide enough assistance then Ukraine may be forced to look into becoming a nuclear power once again.

originally posted by: Imhere
Putin basically said not long ago, if Ukraine joined NATO and then took military action to take Crimea back from Russia, Article 5 would be triggered and then basically most of Europe would then be at war with Russia.

Slippery slope.

Slippery slope indeed, and it's why I don't want Biden of Harris anywhere near this or its negotiations

a reply to: crayzeed

The Ukrainians have poked the Russian bear now they are crying "help us". it has literally nothing to do with NATO or anyone else. The Ukrainians have made their bed so let them lie in it.

Really? You're going to try and place the blame on Ukraine?

The only "crime" the guilty of is seeking closer economic ties with the EU 10 years ago. Since that time, Russia has annexed Ukrainian territory, fomented a civil war, and built a pipeline that circumvents Ukraine.

Russia is the only aggressor here and Putin has made no effort to hide his desire to bring Russia back to the good old days of the USSR. This isn't even the first time he's played this game. Both the invasion of Georgia and Moldova used the Olympics as a distraction and both were predicated on false flags.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: crayzeed

I think this is an excellent point of view which leaves open the gaping question of ''if Ukraine was so important to NATO defense against Russian encroachment why has it not been admitted from the start.'' I admit to ignorance over that period of recent history in that area so very possibly my question stems only from that though it does seem that Ukraine was no more than a tasty tid-bit left dangling for the Russian maw to chew up whenever it got around to it.

NATO is not an empire that gobbles up other countries. Every member country joined voluntarily and there is a list of requirements full members need to meet to be admitted.

Ukraine had applied as a part of NATO's Partnership for Peace Program. Meaning they were interested in working with NATO but were still in the process of meeting NATO's requirements for full membership.

A few years later, Russia bought off Ukraine's President, annexed Crimea, and fomented a civil war. Effectively setting back Ukraine's ability to meet NATO's requirements by decades.

originally posted by: turretless

originally posted by: putnam6

the Ukrainian President says: "I do not know what the President of the Russian Federation wants. That is why I propose to meet"

The option to start implementing the Minsk agreements (many years after they were signed) does not occur to him?

Don't act like both sides haven't violated the Minsk Agreement. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you check OSCE's reports, the Russian-backed separatists are responsible for more violations.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: putnam6

This is what I've been saying in other threads. The West has to walk a delicate line here. Ukraine was not only the 3rd largest nuclear power after the fall of the USSR, but they had also produced most of Russia's nuclear arsenal.

They gave up all their nukes and shut down the factories with the assurance that the West would provide assistance if Russia became aggressive.

Now the West are thrust into a position where they need to provide enough assistance to appease Ukraine while also avoiding WWIII. If they don't provide enough assistance then Ukraine may be forced to look into becoming a nuclear power once again.

I definitely see your point and it's why Im trying to wrap my head around all the pacts, agreements, and memorandums along with the brutal history of the region. We all can agree Ukraine suffered greatly in the past from both sides, and its position is understandable.

I don't know but what about the rumors that Ukraine was headed towards a government-aligned more with Russia till we stepped in and started funding the opposition don't know if they are true or not but it's certainly our CIA's MO.

a reply to: putnam6

Yanukovych and his party was primarily elected because they wanted to seek closer economic ties with the EU. Yanukovych then unilaterally accepted billions of dollars from Russia to return to stick with their existing partnership with Russia.

This then led to the Maidan protest and Yanukovych ultimately being impeached by his own party.

Yanukovych then fled the country to Russia and was suddenly billions of dollars richer while Ukraine was billions of dollars poorer.

This then led to a special election where Poroshenko was elected. This is where the narrative that the West fomented a coup to remove Yanukovych and install a puppet falls apart. Poroshenko was not the West's preferred candidate.