Should we be worried about war

Here's what you said:

A senator has said that they want indirect control over the trillions worth of minerals in Ukraine, and that they did not want Russia or China to "get their hands on them" and said that this was why the US was pushing for war.

Graham obviously never said the US was "pushing for war", so you read into his comments that the US was pushing for war. How is supporting Ukraine with military, financial and humanitarian aid as they defend their nation from a genocidal invasion "pushing for war" on the part of the US?

Can you try to just answer that one simple question?

Very poor for the future....

But the trouble is, Putin is confident, he is taking territory, Ukraine is war wary, the West is fed up.

I said an age ago - the Ukraine invasion thread - and was told i was talking rubbish, that Russia can sustain war more or less indefinitely, in regard to Ukraine, the sanctions haven't worked, Russia economy is doing ok ish, it is still trading worldwide, China and our so called ally, India, is provided hard currency and dual use technology.
EU/UK sanctions are shit, Russians still driving around in brand new Jaguars, LR's, BMWs Merc etc etc

Putins terms for "peace" wont be acceptable to Ukraine, the war will continue and Russia will take all of Ukraine, probably via some sort of puppet Govt should Trump stop arming Ukraine.

Its bleak and its all on the West or rather Biden/US, for not supporting 100% Ukraine with what it needed at the beginning.

Just to be clear, the senator said that there were trillions worth of minerals in Ukraine, and that they did not want Russia or China to "get their hands on them" and said that this was why the US should get behind making sure Ukraine wins. He refered (euphemistically?) to Ukraine being a "great business partner". If you watch the interview, this exasperated comment came at the end of the bit about Ukraine, and you can judge what he meant and context for yourself. I am not sure why the other poster thought that there were no credible links for this, and not sure why they interpreted my comment as anti US - as you will see from the interview with Face the Nation a few months back (which is still on youtube) there is more than one school of thought on all this in the US

For completeness, I confirm that I also said in the same post (which was agreeing with another poster it is worth wondering who will actually benefit from all this) that Crimea is of huge strategic value commercially and militarily in terms of indirect control. I also said that the push and pull in Ukraine between the west and Russia started well before 2014 and what I meant was that there were huge investments by the west in Ukraine in the period running up to 2014 whereas up to this point, 2014, there were open borders between Ukraine with Russia and that (I think) that there were Russian subsidies in relation to various industries in eastern Ukraine, but in 2014 the Ukrainian government was asked to sign an agreement with Europe which would change that dynamic, under which there would be a relationship with the EU, of significant value to the EU. This is the best of my understanding and if anyone wants to provide any sources to the contrary or confirming it, that would be great.

Actually you said that there had been a lot of investment. If it wasn't what I was referring to, what were you referring to? Genuine question.

My question was definitely not because I couldn't be arsed (how rude!)

You're a day late and a dollar shy coming to this thread.

Amongst other things, the thread has discussed Ukraine, Russia, Russia's attitude to the Ukraine, Russia's attitude to former eastern European allies, the attitude of European countries with direct borders to Russia and Belorussia to Russia, etc.

If you want to take it down a new and very specific side track, you're going to have to provide the link to the agreement, and then build your argument with a lot more effort than just telling me to provide a link.

You're making a lazy side track and I can't be arsed doing the hard work for you just because you can't be arsed.

The Senator was Lindsey Graham and he mentioned the minerals as one of many reasons to support Ukraine with US military supplies and other aid, so that they could resist the brutal and illegal Russian invasion. Only on MN would this get twisted into the US "pushing for war".

FFS, the Russians were "pushing for war" when they invaded a sovereign country.

Well as I say, i am not an expert on accession states. What do you mean, own it? We are talking about Ukraine in this thread - do you know about the investment and the agreement I referred to?

Ukraine isn't one of the accession states.

It's your example. Own it.

You said there was a lot of investment by the EU in "eastern accession states" - was my example what you meant? It seems you are an expert on "eastern accession states" and investment - I am not - hence wondering if you had a link to the 2014 draft agreement?

It's your example, you provide the link.

There were huge investments by the west in Ukraine in the period running up to 2014. Up to 2014, there were open borders in Ukraine with Russia - I think that there were Russian subsidies in relation to various industries in eastern Ukraine, but in 2014 the Ukrainian government was asked to sign an agreement with Europe which would change that dynamic, under which there would be a relationship with the EU, of significant value to the EU - is this an example of what you mean, and can you link a copy of it?

Your post here was incredibly rude, and you completely misunderstood what I was saying, but you asked for a credible source re minerals and to give you this, if you google the key words I put in my post it will take you to a number of sources as the senator who originally said it has repeated it many times. He originally said it in an interview with Face The Nation a few months ago and this is still on youtube. If you have any more problems, let me know.

I have no idea either!

I dont know who Bill Browser is, or that the Russian guy was telling the truth, or even Russian for that matter, and the sheep comment is my own words not his.But hi point was that the vast majority may well complain about the state, but accept what they're told, and don't seek to drill down further. Many (older) have a very rose-tinted view of the old Soviet era where the massive disparities of wealth and privilege wasn't flaunted.
You're right, and I accept we in the West are presented with our own set of propaganda, but I can easily seek out alternative perspectives without risk.

.

I'm more worried for the members of our armed forces than whether or not I have enough food in the house 😪

In relation to what this Russian guy said, about treating people like sheep - this goes against what Bill Browder was saying in a recent Times Radio interview, which was that Putin's actions over the last few years have been to get votes, ie what the Russian people wanted. Although Bill had previously indicated that the people there are enslaved.

The takeaway here is that there are a lot of human beings in Russia and each will see things differently and that given that we are effectively in a cold war situation we really have no idea what is absolutely accurate reporting and what is and is not propaganda.

That sort of mischief is attempted continually by Russia, china, N Korea and not to mention independent bad actors...
Just another day at the office.

Always.

Everything about this framing is wrong.

Russia are already pissed off with the UK and already in the firing line for the things they feel capable of doing to us. None of this has included the level of retaliation you appear to be alluding to here, and it's not going to happen because the Russian regime know full well how stupid it would be.

Additionally, your post ignores the nailed down fact that appeasing Putin is the bigger risk. We already know this because of his behaviour in the past. There isn't an option where we let him have what he wants and he agrees to be reasonable. Appeasement is the greater risk.

@oakleaffy thanks, do you mind if I give them to my boss for Xmas? 😁

@Rosscameasdoody he won't attack a NATO country because he knows it would be suicide to do so. Ukraine wasn't a NATO member and so it was an easy target.
Just the same as he, despite his threats, didn't go on to attack Sweden and Finland once they joined.
We had all this posturing during the cold war from Russia.

Met a Russian guy in Austrian airport while coming back from skiing just after the Ukraine land grab. He spoke about how the Russian people are treated like sheep, they are fed the state line and 99% of them believe it word for word. They've had this since the communist revolution, so this is their normal. A few see the outside world and have a more balanced PoV, but if they speak up too loudly, they'll be be detained (like his neighbour who went on to stab himself to death and also hang himself while in prison). The Russians like a 'strong leader' so while Putin's bare-chested horse riding looks ridiculous in the West, it resonates in Russia to most people. Putin is a product of the Cold War era, he despises all that glasnost stuff of the 1980s/90s, he wants to restore the old Soviet Union as his legacy. He has become increasingly belligerent with age and his circle of 'advisors' has become ever smaller, they're all scared of him and tell him what he wants to hear, and he knows he's running out of time to rebuild the old USSR. His approach seems to become increasingly like a mafia run country to the west, but I think it's increasingly like the old USSR, except the power is now focussed around a single individual.
The West, by providing weapons to Ukraine are slowly grinding down the Russian resources at great cost to Russia.
Nobody knows what will happen when Trump takes over the US, but Ukraine obviously wants to be in the strongest position possible at the beginning of any peace negotiations.

Quite. I'm so sick of people who hang on Putin's every word. He said this and he said that. As if you can trust anything a psychopath says.

The Irish are going to the polls for the third time next Fri.. Referendum in March, Local Elections in June, General election next Friday.
The elections usually take place in Community centres & primary schools. Next Fri will be the third day many schools will close due to elections. Ridiculous. Surely they could be held on Saturdays!

The number of elections this year has mostly been the periodic coincidence of individual electoral cycles featuring the most populous electorates. I don't see how that comes under a definition of "unrest", although it does risk things being less politically stable if it meant that there were a large number of governments in transition - particularly those regarded as having a stabilising influence.

With the US in transition (why does it take them so long to change government?) and their role being prominent in NATO, and Germany having a political wobble and not being the stabilising influence in the EU we came to expect under Merkel, things are a little unsteady in the West.