31–40 of 48 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
There's more lithium in Russia than there is in Ukraine. Developing their own resources would be a better use of their time and money than invading Ukraine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
There's more lithium in Russia than there is in Ukraine. Developing their own resources would be a better use of their time and money than invading Ukraine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's more lithium in Russia than there is in Ukraine. Developing their own resources would be a better use of their time and money than invading Ukraine.
Mineral aquisition is a bit of a furphy here .. in my estimation the more important goals for Russia here were expanded access to Black Sea ports, main land access to Crimea, and water supply security to Crimea ... and a nostalgia for the Olde Russian Empire Made Great Again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of defensive countries have lost wars too.
This seems less like a country losing a war and more like the US and Russia partnering in an attempt to impose an unfavourable deal on Kyiv. Which makes the above justification of a Ukraine absence from divvying up the spoils after a defeat rather circular.
I dont understand the difference here. Losing a war usually comes with unfavorable terms.
Ukraine is absent from table because durable military power is the table stakes, and they were always a proxy. If the US has decided it is done using Ukraine to bloody Russia's nose and scare Europe into line, then it's basically over.
From the US real politik perspective, it was always a win-win situation going in. The US will walk away with 2 new NATO allies, increased NATO spending, and severed trade with Russia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mineral aquisition is a bit of a furphy here .. in my estimation the more important goals for Russia here were expanded access to Black Sea ports, main land access to Crimea, and water supply security to Crimea ... and a nostalgia for the Olde Russian Empire Made Great Again.
I think it was mainly about not losing face internally when the separatists would have been defeated. Like, there was a bridge. Water can be piped. The port in Sevastopol was big enough. Etc. And there is no way some mines can repay all the costs just as the invasion of Iraq wouldn't be repaid by Iraqi oil ever.
As a water supply it was a greater than a single pipe .. or even ten. Crimea was running critically low on water after a few years and Russia was keen to restore that otherwise the taking of Crimea rang hollow.
These aren’t peace talks then, they’re talks on how to divide up the spoils.
> These aren’t peace talks then, they’re talks on how to divide up the spoils. That's what peace talks are all about. Do you think Japan and Germany had a say in what they had to give up at the end of WW2?
[flagged]
[flagged]
> Moreover, the premise of Hegseth is a lie. The EU has spent more on Ukraine aid than the US Nope. In military aid his claim is correct, you can see it from your own source you linked: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s... Only if you include refugee aid then the EU amount exceeds the US, but that has no bearing on the outcome of the war (this is where most of the EU funding goes to). What…
The Kiel Institute divides aid into three categories: military, financial, humanitarian. By the end of 2024, Europe and the US had delivered roughly the same amount of military aid, and Europe had committed to a lot more in the future:
US Europe
Delivered 64 62
Committed 66 100
Total 130 162
The second largest category was financial aid, which is also vital for the war effort, because much of it has been provided for rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and ensuring resilience against further attacks:
US Europe
Delivered 47 57
Committed 50 131
Total 97 188
US Europe
Delivered 3 16
Committed 13 13
Total 16 29
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why people are pretending to be surprised. When the Soviet Union or Uncle Sams props your army up to fight the other you were in for a bad time. There are like books written about events like these.
I think if you're fighting off a straight up invasion you take the help you can get. That's it. This isn't your typical proxy war situation where US and Russia just pick sides in an internal conflict. This was something else.
Was it really help if the outcome ends up being worse than without any help? I'm taking about loss of life, property, and land.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if you're fighting off a straight up invasion you take the help you can get. That's it. This isn't your typical proxy war situation where US and Russia just pick sides in an internal conflict. This was something else.
> you take the help you can get Was it really help if the outcome ends up being worse than without any help? I'm taking about loss of life, property, and land.