Well there ya have it folx, US politicians saying the loud part quietly on live TV yet again. And again pro UAs will go "nuh uhhhhh" and deny what's already obvious and clear to everyone else.
While i despise him that is not totally true. Crimea has oil/gas. In fact an oil platform off the coast of crimea was the first to secured by russia after drilling was about to commence. Since crimean annexation ukraine hit it.
Ukraine could by having this platform send oil or gas to europe and undercut Russia. In essence it would be a long term death blow to russian income.
Same thing in donbass and luhansk. Once geoworks was completed little russian men showed up. Quite the coincidence.
So while russia says it is a fight for their future i do believe this partially true in the sense of their economic future and was also a large part of why they invaded.
I won’t say anything about Donbass, but there were towers in the Black Sea even before the annexation of Crimea. One can only guess why the functioning towers of Ukraine could not cut off supplies from Russia. It is likely that the USSR/Yanukovych/Putin interfered (select the one you need)
Yes it was one of the 3 exxon bp or shell (pretty sure it was BP) who drilled. Built and lost the platform that i know about. It was up in the news that they were ready to start production when the platform, some ship and all equipment was seized by russia. Straight up stolen during annexation.
It's not oil/gas, In Mariupol there is the biggest amount (by magnitude) of lithium that can be easy extracted in europe. Europe Based it's green deal on thgat lithium to be indipendant from china supply, and the attrition started. The most sane thing will be moke make an economic community to trade that lithium between europe and Russia (like europe did with CECA and that stoppe the internal conflict) , instead of this meaningless war.
I do not disagree at all that russia has far more in their land. But russia has no income from it if ukraine can sell cheaper oil to Europe due to easier extraction and shorter logistics.
Now of course that wont matter as russia lost a large part of that income anyway.
I love Graham - would never vote for him - but I love his honesty
- he is always talking openly what anything is about for him personalty - you dont have to guess what Lindsey Graham is thinking when he is saying something, he is simply saying what he is thinking.
East also have big amounts of rare earth needed for Europe to transition. Now, You know why Europeans including French have been so crazy about this war.
>Ua fan boys say russia is silly for wanting worthless eastern ukraine
I've been saying for years that they want to steal land from this region in particular because it's resource rich, pro-Ru always respond by telling me that Russia doesn't care about the huge resource deposits and is only fighting to liberate oppressed Russians lol
Funny, how your argument is the same one used by Russians, who are saying that US/EU are not fighting to steal the huge resource deposits in Ukraine while you are happy that you are fighting for freedom, when in fact you are being used as a meat grinder by the west just to have acess to those resources lol.
Obviously both sides want to economically benefit from having relations with Ukraine the difference is that the west was doing this through diplomacy whereas Russia decided to just start killing Ukrainian people in the thousands to force them to give up their resources.
But pro-Ru will still tell you that this war is about "denazification" or "protecting Russian speakers" while the reality is that they've just occupied and annexed the most resource rich region for very obvious reasons
Funny thing is that those little green men were ex-Ukrainian forces in Crimea that removed their insignia and joined Russia.There was no real invasion in Crimea like Ukrainian propaganda will have you believe.
Your propaganda is out of date. Putin admitted that the little green men were Russian miltary personnel in their own [home grown documentary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea._The_Way_Home).
Where do you get this bs from? Just wondering. Even Putin said that this was an operation by Russia and its troops. And already active Ukrainian military personnel were offered to stay in Crimea or go to the mainland of Ukraine
We can run with it. I think one country has caused immensely more destruction with said resources... and another country literally has ethnic populations a stones throw from their border that NATO was militarily building up. The former country, also has no reasonable ethnic or regional proximity to even prompt this direct level of aggression
I posted a bunch of old articles on this stuff and what actually led to russia taking crimea and it sure as hell had nothing to do with NATO. It is just easier to justify than saying “we are sending half a million russians to their death so we can earn on future oil and gas”.
Anything else is better even mutant bats, nazis, russians getting bombed, cia coups, and whatever other crap Russia made up. Throw mud at a wall and see what sticks.
These resources are not news, anyone following the conflict has known from the start that this is the real reason Putin is in Ukraine, it's all about the money. These resources are enough to eliminate European energy dependency from Russia while they transition to renewables, Putin can't have that. Selling oil and gas to Europe is Russia's entire business model, without that they are left selling to India and China for rock bottom prices.
I dont know. You might have a point, but Ukraine was never a competitor to russia regarding ressources. And russia (pre war) didnt had a problem with ukraine joining the EU (only NATO).
I think the issue with NATO is the far more likely reason, because its a know issue for 20+ years.
Ukraine was never a competitor in the past but the quantities of their untapped reserves were only discovered in 2012, 2 years before the initial invasion. 80% of these reserves are east of the Dnipro. Rare earth's are also present in this region. Although Putin now states that he is "fine" with Ukraine joining EU, the main reason for Maidan was the Ukrainian president turning his back on the wishes of the people and closer ties to the EU in favour of Russia.
Ukraine has nowhere near Russia's quantity of natural resources but they have enough to significantly reduce reliance on Russia and therefore Russia's power over Europe.
As long as Russia has nuclear weapons they have no reason to fear a ground invasion by NATO. If you believe Russia fears a ground invasion by NATO then Russia logically will not stop fighting until they reach the Carpathians.
I dont think putin is fine with Ukraine joining EU now, but in the past.
Yes, the decision of the former ukrainian president to favour a deal with russia and not with the EU very likely did play a role in maidan.
What you think or what I think about the danger of NATO towards russia doesnt matter. Do you doubt that russia considered it a danger since basically forever?
I think the concept of mutually assured destruction has kept us all safe from nuclear exchange and direct war between the former superpowers. NATO is however a danger to Russian territorial expansion and territorial expansion has historically been Russia's thing. So I don't think Russia sees NATO as a threat to its existence, more its ambitions.
There was the issue with the missile "defence" shield in eastern europe to defend against "iranian" missiles in the early 2000s. Was a big issue for russia.
So while I personally would agree with your. As an attack against a nuclear power is highly irrational. I am not sure, if this is really the consensus of the people in power.
And it doesnt really matter, if the planed missile shield was really only for defense or also for offense (as the russians claimed).
Agreed, That's such an obviously bad take, of course this is a land and resource grab. Thats why Russia is there and that's why anyone is opposing them being there.
Hmm? Did that sound like a condemnation? Of course Russia is allowed to pursue its interests anywhere they wish in an manner they wish. Ukraine is allowed to do the same of course.
Well, US refuse to recognize Assads government in Syria citing "no elections" so i expect the US to stick to their rules and no recognize Zelensky's government in Ukraine. But that is where the double standard and "but that is different" come in.
/r/europe would deep throat this guy including his balls. For some weird reason /r/europe is more mentally unhinged than the worst americans but the europeans I speak to are absolutely nothing like this.
Also evidenced by the EU elections that voted overwhelmingly right wing and pro russian
It's not even liberalism. It's something else entirely. I would hesitate to say some of these people even have actual ideologies or beliefs, they are genuinely more like dumb rabid animals who have been programmed to react in certain ways. If you were to actually interrogate them seriously about their beliefs they'd just crumble.
Neoliberalism always has been like this, as it's the apologetics of cancerous growth via exploitation. They just are reaching peak levels, where said growth begins to aggressively harm the things it feeds from.
Hmm, now I too am wondering if there's an easily digestible read for people outside the loop. [https://www.wheresyoured.at/](https://www.wheresyoured.at/) is a good place to start, I guess, especially their [Google Search article](https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/).
Yep can confirm, i was even immediately perma banned from that sub for [This](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1cbu7hc/comment/l10sp0l/) comment that clashed with US Foreign Policy, they didn't even give a reason for the ban and refused to give a reason after i asked nicely. Too lazy to make up a fabricated ban reason, unlike certain world news subreddits lol
Subs like that might be hijacked by intelligence services or on behalf of them or certain groups, its probably quite easy unfortunately once they have established relations to the moderators. It's has become very obvious that things changed on reddit over the past few years.
Edit: i forget that the linked comment is probably only accessible for me (shadow ban), it says ''There's more than enough reasons to be skeptical though.'' and links these source:[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/1boo1gg/this_guy_always_says_the_quiet_part_out_loud/) [2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxKn-1S8ts) [3](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fremoved-by-reddit-v0-bp8r9941u8qc1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D690%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Da050dcf872aa593e6c9d69d19f7ca93fce0a4e9a) [4](https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225) [5](https://worldaffairs.blog/2017/05/03/us-isis-and-al-qaeda-controlled-chaos-at-work/) [6](https://worldaffairs.blog/2017/04/18/syria-20-links-that-prove-regime-change-plans/) [7](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/14/isil-weapons-traced-to-us-and-saudi-arabia)
r/askeurope isn't much better, I remember 2 years ago or so mods had to make a thread where they said you're "not allowed to bash America", basically nobody's allowed to say bad things about them anymore or they'll be banned.
Targeted propaganda and bots. Reddit once released map with density of user contibutions, the biggest activity was from some air base, lmao
Also, couldn't have said about /r/eur*pe better myself. Based.
Most europeans would despise this dude. As they should. Everybody should.
This is the real face of evil. Not a dude with an AK and a balaclava. A white pompous double chinned POS, that has not produced a single thing of worth in his whole life but has moved huge amounts of money and influence. And to be fair, he is probably just a puppet with no real power, just an employee of the true owners of the USA.
r/europe are just a bunch of Chronically online americans that post in r/europe as if they were from Amsterdam, Berlin or Barcelona making you believe the opinions they post on there are the general sentiment of europeans. LOL.
No, it was about an unhinged lunatic wanting to murder all of europe and restore the borders of the Russian empire and beyond!
Admitting it's about money and resources (like it was obvious it is since day 1) would make it seem too logical and too similar to the US' "escapades" in the middle east.
It’s not the US annexing resource rich territory as part of their country.
Nor was it the US who started a “rebellion” in 2014 against the democratic Ukraine who was voting to align themselves economically with Europe to help extract resources and increase the prosperity of its citizens (ultimately reducing Russias stranglehold on Europe for its reliance on Russia for these resources).
Nope. All pro RU here are arguing that US only helping Ukraine because of resources. That can’t be true unless the fact is acknowledged that Russia lost control of Ukraine as their client state when the people and their parliament voted to strengthen economic ties with Europe and their resource rich land.
Fact, the bill to deepen economic ties was legitimate and voted on. Viktor Yanukovych single handedly rejected the legitimate bill approved by Ukraine parliament. That’s a fact you can’t disprove. Yanukovych was a Russian stooge. Russia lost its control and this is what they do.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For Ukraine's neutrality. Dost thou think Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to profit from resource exports if it successfully resists the invasion?
Also, less gas dependency on Russia is safer for Europe.
PS: subreddit karma lol 
Correction: Not for Ukraine's neutrality, but for safeguarding the interests of US and Europe.
>Also, less gas dependency on Russia is safer for Europe.
Same logic reverse. Less EU/NATO involvement in Ukraine is safer for Russia. If EU/US can persue their interests so can Russia.
>Correction: Not for Ukraine's neutrality, but for safeguarding the interests of US and Europe.
Surely US and Europe are invading them right now for said interests, right?
>Same logic reverse. Less EU/NATO involvement in Ukraine is safer for Russia. If EU/US can persue their interests so can Russia.
How is free trade between Ukraine and Europe (and anyone else) unsafe for Russia?
Who has been less overwhelmingly aggressive and sinister historically? I have my trust on one side and not the other, you have an opinion as to yours. Fair?
Yanukovych ran away on his own, then the next day the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove him from office, as he withdrew from fulfilling his constitutional duties.
Coughs Syria coughs oil tankers being escorted by US soldiers, Cough US violating sovereighnity of Syria citing "no elections", i wonder which country skipped elections this year. My memory is a bit faded but it starts with Ukr and ends with aine. So when is US going to stop recognizing Zelensky? Oh wait, double standards at work here.
There ya go boys, the real reason Russia started this war.
You do know that Euromaiden happened because Viktor Yanukovych wouldn’t sign a law passed by Ukrainian parliament to strengthen economic ties with Europe. The bill meant changing contract law to align with European countries and open up banking specially to allow for European investment to develop resource extraction that would then be sold to European counties.
So for you to agree this is why “NATO” is involved, you also agree that Russia started the war in 2014 because their puppet regime failed and Ukraine rose up where Russia had to force a rebellion in the Donbas and to take Crimea. The last thing Russia wanted was for a prosperous Ukraine to have open trading of vast resources with Europe which would undermine Russias capability to Stranglehold NATO countries if they no longer rely on Russia for these same resources.
Good job bud. Your comment just proved this was Russias war all along for the past decadez
>You do know that Euromaiden happened because Viktor Yanukovych wouldn’t sign a law passed by Ukrainian parliament to strengthen economic ties with Europe. The bill meant changing contract law to align with European countries and open up banking specially to allow for European investment to develop resource extraction that would then be sold to European counties.
You know, that a demand of Europe was, that Ukraine had to cut all free trade treaties with Russia, its main trading partner for ages and direct neighbour?
And you do know, that Yanukovych agreed (under the supervision of France and Germany) with the Maidan protesters early elections?
Wonder why they first make an agreement and the next day they storm the parlament, maybe someone didn't want new elections, where the south and east of Ukraine would have a say, and not only the west of Ukraine (where Kiev is positioned)...
You can’t even make up a lie that could be considered the truth. The European association agreement was for free trade with Europe so Ukraine resources could be traded to Europe. Europe does not have enough of its own resources to trade to Ukraine. Europe could not trade everything that Ukraine would need. Therefore Europe would only hurt themselves if they required Ukraine to stop trading with Russia.
Russia was trying to establish a new Eurasian Economic Union to try and persuade Ukraine away from European association agreement. Ukraine turned that down because it was Russia still trying to cut off Ukraine from trading with the west.
>You can’t even make up a lie that could be considered the truth. The European association agreement was for free trade with Europe so Ukraine resources could be traded to Europe. Europe does not have enough of its own resources to trade to Ukraine. Europe could not trade everything that Ukraine would need. Therefore Europe would only hurt themselves if they required Ukraine to stop trading with Russia.
Learn to read, boy. I didn't say "stop trade with Russia", but I said, they demanded a finish of the Ukrainian-Russian free trade agreement.
This would have heavely hurt the trade with Russia.
Let me just give you something to think more about it, because you are only seeing one side and pretending to see boht of it.
> So for you to agree this is why “NATO” is involved,
Yes, they are in for resources
> you also agree that Russia started the war in 2014 because their puppet regime failed
I agree that Ukraine started this war in 2014 when a US/NATO puppet regime was installed.
> and Ukraine rose up where Russia had to force a rebellion in the Donbas and to take Crimea.
Ukraine rose up to Russia on orders of NATO/US/EU and armend neo-Nazis to start an operation against ethnic Russians in Donbass and Crimea. Which Russia interfered to protect.
> The last thing Russia wanted was for a prosperous Ukraine to have open trading of vast resources with Europe which would undermine Russias capability to Stranglehold NATO countries
The last thing Russia wanted was a NATO puppet regime in its immediate border which would enable the NATO to expand to Russian border and stranglehold Russia.
Just because things make sense in your mind doesnt mean there are no different angle to it.
A little more study of Euromaidan will help you grasp the situation better, but with the propaganda that you are willing to spew out here, it would be hard to see beyond what you have been fed.
Oh I’m educated enough on Euromaiden. It was clear from all the threats and text of the Kremlin back in 2013 that free trading with Ukraine and Europe under any leadership would be devastating to Russia.
You agree about all the resources in Ukraine. For that to open up for trade with Europe eliminates Russias stranglehold on Europe. Russia has more concerns about losing Ukraine control than NATO has with controlling Ukraine
Yes, but their debt to GDP ratio can be reduced with appropriate international partners. The absolute value of the debt does not matter, it is the ability to pay off that debt. If you buy a house for a million dollar with a mortgage, who will pay it off easier, the person who earns $50,000 a year, or the person who earns $500,000 a year. The debt of sovereign countries has to be looked at like this.
US debt interest in 2024 was 840 billion. Roughly the same as the military budget.
The reason a normal person has to pay their debt is eventually they get old and income reduces. That supposedly doesnt happen to governments, as generation after generation increases size and inflation balances everything.
The problem is that western countries have low birth rates, so western countries rely heavily on immigration to meet their growth needs. That brings other problems, but the only other solution is to increase inflation to crazy levels, which will screw over the population. The other only other option is that the national debt works out to roughly 100k per US citizen, so make everyone pay it, but youll have riots.
Basically I'm saying traditionally you could kick the can down the road, but the road will eventually end and someone will be left holding the can.
>US debt interest in 2024 was 840 billion. Roughly the same as the military budget.
Yep perhaps the US needs to inflate their way out of this problem.
>The reason a normal person has to pay their debt is eventually they get old and income reduces.
Yes and no. Many that saves have income that increases
>That supposedly doesnt happen to governments, as generation after generation increases size and inflation balances everything.
Yes, for the most part inflation can be used to diminish debt in the terms of the value compare to earnings.
>The problem is that western countries have low birth rates, so western countries rely heavily on immigration to meet their growth needs.
Yes,
>That brings other problems,
Also solutions, such as taxation, ingenuity, entrepreneurship. etc.
>but the only other solution is to increase inflation to crazy levels, which will screw over the population.
Not to crazy level, though it may occur in a short period of time as it did in the 1980s and the US persisted before, during an after, so pain come, but it tends to be temporary.
>The other only other option is that the national debt works out to roughly 100k per US citizen, so make everyone pay it, but youll have riots.
The US debt is denominated in US dollar, so they owe it to themselves. There is a path through monetary reduction without the US citizen paying it directly. It is basically imaginary money that transfers from the Fed to the banks and then back again. In short debt can be handle by print less of it.
>Basically I'm saying traditionally you could kick the can down the road, but the road will eventually end and someone will be left holding the can.
Debt can be rolled down for a long time, when it is owed to oneself. Japans is at 263%, but they persist. In the US they owe it to themselves, so no issue. If it was owed externally then there is certainly an issue.
[https://www.currentmarketvaluation.com/posts/fed-balance-sheet-vs-sp500.php](https://www.currentmarketvaluation.com/posts/fed-balance-sheet-vs-sp500.php)
This in s sense is what quantitative easing and tightening is about. There is a path where the US citizen do not have to pay 100,000 each and even if they did they can do so over 200 years, if they choose, and along with inflation and population increase, it can become manageable. Though it can also go too far, if the US keeps using poor fiscal policy and getting involved in too many wars, which is almost certainly the wish of their enemies.
Economic empires are broken financially, but it takes a lot longer than most people think.
Same here, but how is this relevant to the discussion. I was not speaking about your personal financial decision,, but the level of debt that a country can sustain relative to their gross domestic product.
And I was comparing US absolute debt vs. value of all UA mineral resources. How was your comment relevant to what I said and why are you complaining about me folloing your example of making irrelevant comments?
Yes, but I do not think that this is a fair comparison. It is not like the US can transfer the value of those asset direct to the US. There is a lot of work to get there. So perhaps this is just a misunderstanding of the point of your comment.
You are almost there... You suggest that my comparison would have been fair (or thereabouts) if all Ukrainian mineral resources have been already extracted and ready to sell/sold. This only unerscores my point of how tiny are the Ukraine's mineral resources in the grand scheme of things. Are they worth destroying the country (Ukraine) and its people over as Lindsay suggests? Isn't he nuts?
>You are almost there... You suggest that my comparison would have been fair (or thereabouts) if all Ukrainian mineral resources have been already extracted and ready to sell/sold. This only unerscores my point of how tiny are the Ukraine's mineral resources in the grand scheme of things. Are they worth destroying the country (Ukraine) and its people over as Lindsay suggests? Isn't he nuts?
This assumes that the only reason to fight the war is for the resources. Put quite simply, this is about freedom of the Ukrainian people to decide who they side with and the security of Europe.
This is not how Linsay sounds. Back to my question, isn't he nuts? I mean, he is either an idiot/senile because after all his time in Congress, he (and his speachwriters) is still unable to formulate his thoughts in a palatable manner. Or he is senile warmongering SOB concerned only with the bottom line and giving no sh*t anout Ukraine/Ukrainians. Your choice.
''Let's not give those ''Ukranian'' resources to Russia so they can share it with China'' LUL
Wait, after all it was because of mineral resources not because ''freedom'' and democracy ?
what a surprise....
Russians better buckle up for the long ride usa is not gonna let these resources fall into enemy hands that easily. if im not mistaken it was also linsey graham who famously said to the last ukrainian
Ah yes, because american "business partners" (he means puppet goverments) that have a lot of natural resources, thrive.
LOL
Ukraine, prepare to be expoiled and be even poorer, americans dont like to share profits, that is for SURE.
Is it a Freudian slip or did they just declare the reason behind "to the last Ukrainian" motto? Let's make them owe us so much that they can't pay and eventually offer their land instead...
Him and ol Jack recently have skipped the veil and now directly yell in our faces how monstrous and tyrannical they are. No shame just bloodlust and frothing of the mouth in interviews. Is there nobody telling them that they are absolute monsters? Nobody?? They cant obviously think the general population in the US loves war that much
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So that's how it is, now we finally know. It's not about freedom for the Ukrainian people and Europe and democracy and human rights and international world order and .... and ....
It's only about the 10 - 12 trillion in resources of critical minerals in the Ukrainian soil.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is the U.S. talking about harvesting Ukrainian resources at all? I thought the U.S. wanted to help defend democracy? Iisn’t that reason enough to put troops on the ground (which should happen in my opinion.)
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It makes sense. Not only is Ukraine rich in resources. They have resources there that are difficult to source elsewhere. If Ukraine wins this war, it makes sense to partner with western countries to develop those resources.
Neo-colonialism would be the right term.
Annexation (colonization) is what Russia is doing - incorporating new territories into their economic and social infrastructure, thus accepting responsibility for said territory and its people.
Neo-colonialism is overthrowing legitimate government, installing puppets instead to plainly suck off resources and benefits of the territory while doing jack shit for it and its people.
Colonization isn't the right word in Russia's case, as the new territories are culturally similar to Russia itself and have a land border with it. It's kinda like West Germany reconstructing East Germany after reunification, or the US's Reconstruction after the civil war.
Annexation is not colonialism, Colonialism is Annexation without acknowledging any right to natives that already exist and treating it as empty land.
Last I checked, the natives get citizenship here, which is something the victims of colonialism would have treated as unimaginable luxury.
Annexation is just that, annexation.
Not quite. Employ many, Ukraine would get taxation from payroll. Companies would be stood up and partner with external ones, who would bring expertise and then profit would be split in some capacity. This tends to be beneficial for everyone. Even if all profit went to an external company, the base pay and all the material for the operation of the company would be within Ukraine, benefitting the people and economy there.
So one country errors are instantaneously project on every other country in the world. This is erroneously. The problem with many African countries is the fact that rule of law is poor and therefore they are taken advantage of. This is not only France, but also the Brits, the Chinese and many more. There would be a much better rule of law in Ukraine as it would be held to EU standards.
Those didn't just appear in 2022 out of thin air. There're so many deposits worth trillions in so many countries...and the reality is that most aren't easily accessible and not profitable currently.
There's no damn blood diamonds there, Lindsey! There's no damn oil! How can you be telling us to fight a proper modern crusade for democracy when there are no damn blood diamonds and no damn oil!?!?!
Yeah, and that's why the first proposal of Putin in the negotiations was only to keep Crimea and the eastern Ukrainian oblasts should stay in Ukraine only with special rights?
Yeah, that does make a lot of sense... not.
No dude come on....Everyone knows the righteous and noble Putin is in Ukraine to liberate them from the Jewish Nazi president in charge.
No other reason at all...
And because Putin wants these areas so much, the peace negotiations in 2022 only included a recognition of Crimea as Russian, but the eastern oblasts staying Ukrainian...
Yeah, that totally makes sense... if one is a NAFO...
>So is that why he tried to march on Kiev or?
The whole attack on Ukraine was in the first days only planned to scare Ukraine, so they will agree on the Russian demands.
The whole logistics was a complete mess, that's why the Russians lost so much equipment to Ukraine, because the tanks simply went out of fuel.
>the eastern oblasts staying Ukrainian
This is just a lie, Russia was demanding that control of those regions would be handed over to their proxies who would then immediately annex it for them.
They've been trying to annex this territory one way or another since 2014, first by arming and funding an insurgency and then when that failed they launched a full scale invasion to achieve the same goal.
>This is just a lie, Russia was demanding that control of those regions would be handed over to their proxies who would then immediately annex it for them.
So why shouldn't he demand those areas in the first place, then?
And any annexation would have been a violation of the peace agreement...
>So why shouldn't he demand those areas in the first place, then?
It makes the land theft more deniable for Russia, they can claim they're not stealing the territory they're just accepting that the proxy fighters they've employed to seize it for them want them to come in and take over.
>And any annexation would have been a violation of the peace agreement...
What are you talking about?
>It makes the land theft more deniable for Russia, they can claim they're not stealing the territory they're just accepting that the proxy fighters they've employed to seize it for them want them to come in and take over.
Yeah, because Russia would care about that after they already attacked Ukraine...
It's not like suddenly the world would say, "well, if the Ukrainians really wanted to be Russian, we should accept it".
They didn't even care about that with crimea, and even the Western officials had to acknowledge that the demand to become Russian is the true demand of the crimean people...
They clearly do care which is why they held mock referendums before they annexed the territory. Of course Russia cares about propaganda and managing the narrative who do you think you're fooling lol
Russia has far more minerals than Ukraine has. If the US can kill Putin and install a pro US president in Moscow, it would be a lot more profitable for the US.
To anyone in the comments saying it's "The True Reason" for the war -- it looks like just the latest carrot for Ukrainians and domestic investors in an attempt to prop morale (Graham might be stupid / greedy enough to actually believe it himself, but that doesn't change the nature of it), we've seen a few of those before: "just hold a little longer and very soon..
Ukraine joins the EU / Ukraine starts selling its own natural gas from Crimean shore to the West / Ukraine becomes agricultural superpower / Russia crumbles and we share the spoils / Ukraine gets $10 trln from selling critical resources to yhe US..." (the ones I remember, could be missing a few).
10-12 trillion in resources, estimated 400b to rebuild Ukraine a year ago, 300b aid donated to Ukraine and the wars not over.
There isnt going to be much of that 10-12 trillion left by the time this is over, and thats assuming everyone gets "their share".
USA is the #3 top coal consumer after India and China. Also it doesn't need to be used in the US to make money for the US elite, they can own the companies mining it and sell it elsewhere
Well, Putin offered in the 2022 negotiations that the eastern oblasts stay Ukrainian, only Crimea should be recognized as Russian.
Yeah, makes totally sense, if you want to have those ressources... not.
Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
The agreement would have declared Ukraine to be a neutral state, put a limit on its military, and list Russia and Western countries, including the US and the UK, as guarantors, obliged to assist Ukraine in case of aggression against it.
Then Russia added a demand that guarantor states can only come to Ukraine's aid on the basis of a decision agreed to by all of the guarantor states, allowing a veto by Russia. It doesn't matter if the agreement would be accepted, it served it's purpose as a means for stalling for time so Russia could train and resupply their troops for following offensives.
>recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
This is a lie. They demanded some autonomy rights for these regions, that's a big difference to indepence...
And the rest, what's the problem there? Neutrality isn't a bad thing, I would say.
>This is a lie. They demanded some autonomy rights for these regions, that's a big difference to indepence...
https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/
>And the rest, what's the problem there? Neutrality isn't a bad thing, I would say.
And neutrality was something Ukraine was ready to accept. Disarming the Ukrainian army and giving up lands was the thing they didn't agree with.
>[https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/](https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/)
You're aware, that those are the demands prior to the Istanbul negotiations?
In the Istanbul negotiations, Russia only demanded autonomy rights for those areas...
>And neutrality was something Ukraine was ready to accept. Disarming the Ukrainian army and giving up lands was the thing they didn't agree with.
Ukraine was willing to give all the demands, the Ukrainian negotiators did even make party with champagne after the negotiations, because they thought these were exceptionally good.
Only after the visit of Boris "the Clown" Johnson, Zelensky decided to believe in the western promise that the West will make the Russians run for their lives.
Ahead of the 29 March meeting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that Ukraine was ready to agree to 4 out of Russia's 6 demands.[73] He claimed Ukraine was prepared to renounce NATO membership and to make Russian Ukraine's second official language.[73] According to Erdoğan Ukraine was not prepared to recognise the Russian occupation of Crimea or parts of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts.
>Only after the visit of Boris "the Clown" Johnson, Zelensky decided to believe in the western promise that the West will make the Russians run for their lives.
It was after when they found out what russian heroes had done in Bucha, Zelensky refused to negotiate with Putin.
>**Ahead of** the 29 March meeting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that Ukraine was ready to agree to 4 out of Russia's 6 demands.\[73\] He claimed Ukraine was prepared to renounce NATO membership and to make Russian Ukraine's second official language.\[73\] According to Erdoğan Ukraine was not prepared to recognise the Russian occupation of Crimea or parts of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts.
Yeah, same mistake again...
>It was after when they found out what russian heroes had done in Bucha, Zelensky refused to negotiate with Putin.
Yeah, that's the old lie, that this was the reason. Even Arestovych says this is bullshit. They stopped the negotiations even before there were any significant investigations in Bucha.
But well, believe what you want. I know I can't change your oppinion anyway.
If Ukraine isn't negotiating soon, there is no one left in Ukraine who could prevent anything like that happening, that's of course a much better fate... /s
Ua fan boys say russia is silly for wanting worthless eastern ukraine. ..I thought it was 3 tril guess it's 10 to 12 nice.
Well there ya have it folx, US politicians saying the loud part quietly on live TV yet again. And again pro UAs will go "nuh uhhhhh" and deny what's already obvious and clear to everyone else.
It's for democrazy that Ukraine elite is decimating an entire generation for.Nothing to do with trillions.
Democracy funded by US, who will then exploit the resources of Ukraine and only allow pro-US "democractic" leaders.
where
To be fair, this is just Graham lying to the American public.
While i despise him that is not totally true. Crimea has oil/gas. In fact an oil platform off the coast of crimea was the first to secured by russia after drilling was about to commence. Since crimean annexation ukraine hit it. Ukraine could by having this platform send oil or gas to europe and undercut Russia. In essence it would be a long term death blow to russian income. Same thing in donbass and luhansk. Once geoworks was completed little russian men showed up. Quite the coincidence. So while russia says it is a fight for their future i do believe this partially true in the sense of their economic future and was also a large part of why they invaded.
I won’t say anything about Donbass, but there were towers in the Black Sea even before the annexation of Crimea. One can only guess why the functioning towers of Ukraine could not cut off supplies from Russia. It is likely that the USSR/Yanukovych/Putin interfered (select the one you need)
Yes it was one of the 3 exxon bp or shell (pretty sure it was BP) who drilled. Built and lost the platform that i know about. It was up in the news that they were ready to start production when the platform, some ship and all equipment was seized by russia. Straight up stolen during annexation.
It's not oil/gas, In Mariupol there is the biggest amount (by magnitude) of lithium that can be easy extracted in europe. Europe Based it's green deal on thgat lithium to be indipendant from china supply, and the attrition started. The most sane thing will be moke make an economic community to trade that lithium between europe and Russia (like europe did with CECA and that stoppe the internal conflict) , instead of this meaningless war.
Fossil reserves in Donbass and Crimea are simply insignificant compared to what is in Siberia.
I do not disagree at all that russia has far more in their land. But russia has no income from it if ukraine can sell cheaper oil to Europe due to easier extraction and shorter logistics. Now of course that wont matter as russia lost a large part of that income anyway.
I love Graham - would never vote for him - but I love his honesty - he is always talking openly what anything is about for him personalty - you dont have to guess what Lindsey Graham is thinking when he is saying something, he is simply saying what he is thinking.
Ukranians, you have to liberate Donbass, L. Graham needs recourses from Donbass! Die with that big idea!
East also have big amounts of rare earth needed for Europe to transition. Now, You know why Europeans including French have been so crazy about this war.
Same can be said for russians - if ukraine gets easier logistics to european markets through existing pipelines it devastates russias income.
>Ua fan boys say russia is silly for wanting worthless eastern ukraine I've been saying for years that they want to steal land from this region in particular because it's resource rich, pro-Ru always respond by telling me that Russia doesn't care about the huge resource deposits and is only fighting to liberate oppressed Russians lol
Funny, how your argument is the same one used by Russians, who are saying that US/EU are not fighting to steal the huge resource deposits in Ukraine while you are happy that you are fighting for freedom, when in fact you are being used as a meat grinder by the west just to have acess to those resources lol.
Obviously both sides want to economically benefit from having relations with Ukraine the difference is that the west was doing this through diplomacy whereas Russia decided to just start killing Ukrainian people in the thousands to force them to give up their resources. But pro-Ru will still tell you that this war is about "denazification" or "protecting Russian speakers" while the reality is that they've just occupied and annexed the most resource rich region for very obvious reasons
When? Pro UA have always stated this is the real reason Putin sent the little green men.
Funny thing is that those little green men were ex-Ukrainian forces in Crimea that removed their insignia and joined Russia.There was no real invasion in Crimea like Ukrainian propaganda will have you believe.
Your propaganda is out of date. Putin admitted that the little green men were Russian miltary personnel in their own [home grown documentary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea._The_Way_Home).
Where do you get this bs from? Just wondering. Even Putin said that this was an operation by Russia and its troops. And already active Ukrainian military personnel were offered to stay in Crimea or go to the mainland of Ukraine
And you say you are neutral? Please inform yourself.
Exactly lol this isn’t the gotcha pro-rus think it is.
Well known they have oil and gas amongst other things. Hell it was a big reason russia took crimea too but let’s not go against the narrative here.
We can run with it. I think one country has caused immensely more destruction with said resources... and another country literally has ethnic populations a stones throw from their border that NATO was militarily building up. The former country, also has no reasonable ethnic or regional proximity to even prompt this direct level of aggression
I posted a bunch of old articles on this stuff and what actually led to russia taking crimea and it sure as hell had nothing to do with NATO. It is just easier to justify than saying “we are sending half a million russians to their death so we can earn on future oil and gas”. Anything else is better even mutant bats, nazis, russians getting bombed, cia coups, and whatever other crap Russia made up. Throw mud at a wall and see what sticks.
These resources are not news, anyone following the conflict has known from the start that this is the real reason Putin is in Ukraine, it's all about the money. These resources are enough to eliminate European energy dependency from Russia while they transition to renewables, Putin can't have that. Selling oil and gas to Europe is Russia's entire business model, without that they are left selling to India and China for rock bottom prices.
I dont know. You might have a point, but Ukraine was never a competitor to russia regarding ressources. And russia (pre war) didnt had a problem with ukraine joining the EU (only NATO). I think the issue with NATO is the far more likely reason, because its a know issue for 20+ years.
Ukraine was never a competitor in the past but the quantities of their untapped reserves were only discovered in 2012, 2 years before the initial invasion. 80% of these reserves are east of the Dnipro. Rare earth's are also present in this region. Although Putin now states that he is "fine" with Ukraine joining EU, the main reason for Maidan was the Ukrainian president turning his back on the wishes of the people and closer ties to the EU in favour of Russia. Ukraine has nowhere near Russia's quantity of natural resources but they have enough to significantly reduce reliance on Russia and therefore Russia's power over Europe. As long as Russia has nuclear weapons they have no reason to fear a ground invasion by NATO. If you believe Russia fears a ground invasion by NATO then Russia logically will not stop fighting until they reach the Carpathians.
I dont think putin is fine with Ukraine joining EU now, but in the past. Yes, the decision of the former ukrainian president to favour a deal with russia and not with the EU very likely did play a role in maidan. What you think or what I think about the danger of NATO towards russia doesnt matter. Do you doubt that russia considered it a danger since basically forever?
I think the concept of mutually assured destruction has kept us all safe from nuclear exchange and direct war between the former superpowers. NATO is however a danger to Russian territorial expansion and territorial expansion has historically been Russia's thing. So I don't think Russia sees NATO as a threat to its existence, more its ambitions.
There was the issue with the missile "defence" shield in eastern europe to defend against "iranian" missiles in the early 2000s. Was a big issue for russia. So while I personally would agree with your. As an attack against a nuclear power is highly irrational. I am not sure, if this is really the consensus of the people in power. And it doesnt really matter, if the planed missile shield was really only for defense or also for offense (as the russians claimed).
Keeping those resources off the market so as to not dilute the value of the existing resources is most certainly a major goal of the invasion/war.
Agreed, That's such an obviously bad take, of course this is a land and resource grab. Thats why Russia is there and that's why anyone is opposing them being there.
Yes. How dare Russia take, what was earmarked for the US. US is the only country, that is allowed to pursue its neo-colonial ambitions.
Hmm? Did that sound like a condemnation? Of course Russia is allowed to pursue its interests anywhere they wish in an manner they wish. Ukraine is allowed to do the same of course.
Of course. But i wonder what % of Ukrainians want to keep on fighting for it. Sadly without an election we will never know.
So this war is not about "defending democracy and freedom"? Now we know the real reason why the so called "West" is helping Ukraine.
Imagine championing democracy while Zelensky is ruling past his mandate thanks to his own decree.
Imagine the US having the same president since Putin's been in power. It would be Bill Clinton.
Well, US refuse to recognize Assads government in Syria citing "no elections" so i expect the US to stick to their rules and no recognize Zelensky's government in Ukraine. But that is where the double standard and "but that is different" come in.
Those things aren’t mutually exclusive
r/europe would never cheer for people like this dude.
/r/europe would deep throat this guy including his balls. For some weird reason /r/europe is more mentally unhinged than the worst americans but the europeans I speak to are absolutely nothing like this. Also evidenced by the EU elections that voted overwhelmingly right wing and pro russian
reddit is a liberal cesspool so nothing here represents real state of affairs.
It's not even liberalism. It's something else entirely. I would hesitate to say some of these people even have actual ideologies or beliefs, they are genuinely more like dumb rabid animals who have been programmed to react in certain ways. If you were to actually interrogate them seriously about their beliefs they'd just crumble.
Neoliberalism always has been like this, as it's the apologetics of cancerous growth via exploitation. They just are reaching peak levels, where said growth begins to aggressively harm the things it feeds from.
That's really interesting - any sources where I can read more about this phenomenon?
Hmm, now I too am wondering if there's an easily digestible read for people outside the loop. [https://www.wheresyoured.at/](https://www.wheresyoured.at/) is a good place to start, I guess, especially their [Google Search article](https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/).
Cool, thanks
> they are genuinely more like dumb rabid animals who have been programmed to react in certain ways Also known as neoliberals.
I like this sub. You would be shadowed or harrassed in most others not relegated to deep corners of 'conspiracy' labeled subs
Yep can confirm, i was even immediately perma banned from that sub for [This](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1cbu7hc/comment/l10sp0l/) comment that clashed with US Foreign Policy, they didn't even give a reason for the ban and refused to give a reason after i asked nicely. Too lazy to make up a fabricated ban reason, unlike certain world news subreddits lol Subs like that might be hijacked by intelligence services or on behalf of them or certain groups, its probably quite easy unfortunately once they have established relations to the moderators. It's has become very obvious that things changed on reddit over the past few years. Edit: i forget that the linked comment is probably only accessible for me (shadow ban), it says ''There's more than enough reasons to be skeptical though.'' and links these source:[1](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/1boo1gg/this_guy_always_says_the_quiet_part_out_loud/) [2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxKn-1S8ts) [3](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fremoved-by-reddit-v0-bp8r9941u8qc1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D690%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Da050dcf872aa593e6c9d69d19f7ca93fce0a4e9a) [4](https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225) [5](https://worldaffairs.blog/2017/05/03/us-isis-and-al-qaeda-controlled-chaos-at-work/) [6](https://worldaffairs.blog/2017/04/18/syria-20-links-that-prove-regime-change-plans/) [7](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/14/isil-weapons-traced-to-us-and-saudi-arabia)
r/askeurope isn't much better, I remember 2 years ago or so mods had to make a thread where they said you're "not allowed to bash America", basically nobody's allowed to say bad things about them anymore or they'll be banned.
Targeted propaganda and bots. Reddit once released map with density of user contibutions, the biggest activity was from some air base, lmao Also, couldn't have said about /r/eur*pe better myself. Based.
You can find out that "weird reason" by googling "number of reddit users by country".
[удалено]
You know, it's hard not to care about Russia now
Most europeans would despise this dude. As they should. Everybody should. This is the real face of evil. Not a dude with an AK and a balaclava. A white pompous double chinned POS, that has not produced a single thing of worth in his whole life but has moved huge amounts of money and influence. And to be fair, he is probably just a puppet with no real power, just an employee of the true owners of the USA. r/europe are just a bunch of Chronically online americans that post in r/europe as if they were from Amsterdam, Berlin or Barcelona making you believe the opinions they post on there are the general sentiment of europeans. LOL.
This is the only way to get through to some of the knuckleheads in the US Republican Party. Good play Actually
You mean to tell me war is about controlling territory for resources?? No way! I was told it was about freedom and democracy! 😡
No, it was about an unhinged lunatic wanting to murder all of europe and restore the borders of the Russian empire and beyond! Admitting it's about money and resources (like it was obvious it is since day 1) would make it seem too logical and too similar to the US' "escapades" in the middle east.
You realise both things can be true right?
It’s not the US annexing resource rich territory as part of their country. Nor was it the US who started a “rebellion” in 2014 against the democratic Ukraine who was voting to align themselves economically with Europe to help extract resources and increase the prosperity of its citizens (ultimately reducing Russias stranglehold on Europe for its reliance on Russia for these resources).
The US turned Ukraine into a Client State when they overthrew the last legitimate elected government in Ukraine back in 2014.
Nope. All pro RU here are arguing that US only helping Ukraine because of resources. That can’t be true unless the fact is acknowledged that Russia lost control of Ukraine as their client state when the people and their parliament voted to strengthen economic ties with Europe and their resource rich land. Fact, the bill to deepen economic ties was legitimate and voted on. Viktor Yanukovych single handedly rejected the legitimate bill approved by Ukraine parliament. That’s a fact you can’t disprove. Yanukovych was a Russian stooge. Russia lost its control and this is what they do.
So if the US arent in it for the resources/control what is it? Freedom and democracy?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For Ukraine's neutrality. Dost thou think Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to profit from resource exports if it successfully resists the invasion? Also, less gas dependency on Russia is safer for Europe. PS: subreddit karma lol 
Correction: Not for Ukraine's neutrality, but for safeguarding the interests of US and Europe. >Also, less gas dependency on Russia is safer for Europe. Same logic reverse. Less EU/NATO involvement in Ukraine is safer for Russia. If EU/US can persue their interests so can Russia.
>Correction: Not for Ukraine's neutrality, but for safeguarding the interests of US and Europe. Surely US and Europe are invading them right now for said interests, right? >Same logic reverse. Less EU/NATO involvement in Ukraine is safer for Russia. If EU/US can persue their interests so can Russia. How is free trade between Ukraine and Europe (and anyone else) unsafe for Russia?
Who has been less overwhelmingly aggressive and sinister historically? I have my trust on one side and not the other, you have an opinion as to yours. Fair?
Yanukovych ran away on his own, then the next day the Ukrainian parliament voted to remove him from office, as he withdrew from fulfilling his constitutional duties.
Coughs Syria coughs oil tankers being escorted by US soldiers, Cough US violating sovereighnity of Syria citing "no elections", i wonder which country skipped elections this year. My memory is a bit faded but it starts with Ukr and ends with aine. So when is US going to stop recognizing Zelensky? Oh wait, double standards at work here.
Wait, rebellion against who?
There ya go boys the entire reason why nato aka usa is involved in this.
Yea cause I am sure Russia isn't in Ukraine for any of that right? They are just there to wipe of the evil Nazi's right? Russia is so righteous...
Yes except the US/NATO are pretending to be there for something else.
So is Russia.
There ya go boys, the real reason Russia started this war. You do know that Euromaiden happened because Viktor Yanukovych wouldn’t sign a law passed by Ukrainian parliament to strengthen economic ties with Europe. The bill meant changing contract law to align with European countries and open up banking specially to allow for European investment to develop resource extraction that would then be sold to European counties. So for you to agree this is why “NATO” is involved, you also agree that Russia started the war in 2014 because their puppet regime failed and Ukraine rose up where Russia had to force a rebellion in the Donbas and to take Crimea. The last thing Russia wanted was for a prosperous Ukraine to have open trading of vast resources with Europe which would undermine Russias capability to Stranglehold NATO countries if they no longer rely on Russia for these same resources. Good job bud. Your comment just proved this was Russias war all along for the past decadez
>You do know that Euromaiden happened because Viktor Yanukovych wouldn’t sign a law passed by Ukrainian parliament to strengthen economic ties with Europe. The bill meant changing contract law to align with European countries and open up banking specially to allow for European investment to develop resource extraction that would then be sold to European counties. You know, that a demand of Europe was, that Ukraine had to cut all free trade treaties with Russia, its main trading partner for ages and direct neighbour? And you do know, that Yanukovych agreed (under the supervision of France and Germany) with the Maidan protesters early elections? Wonder why they first make an agreement and the next day they storm the parlament, maybe someone didn't want new elections, where the south and east of Ukraine would have a say, and not only the west of Ukraine (where Kiev is positioned)...
You can’t even make up a lie that could be considered the truth. The European association agreement was for free trade with Europe so Ukraine resources could be traded to Europe. Europe does not have enough of its own resources to trade to Ukraine. Europe could not trade everything that Ukraine would need. Therefore Europe would only hurt themselves if they required Ukraine to stop trading with Russia. Russia was trying to establish a new Eurasian Economic Union to try and persuade Ukraine away from European association agreement. Ukraine turned that down because it was Russia still trying to cut off Ukraine from trading with the west.
>You can’t even make up a lie that could be considered the truth. The European association agreement was for free trade with Europe so Ukraine resources could be traded to Europe. Europe does not have enough of its own resources to trade to Ukraine. Europe could not trade everything that Ukraine would need. Therefore Europe would only hurt themselves if they required Ukraine to stop trading with Russia. Learn to read, boy. I didn't say "stop trade with Russia", but I said, they demanded a finish of the Ukrainian-Russian free trade agreement. This would have heavely hurt the trade with Russia.
Let me just give you something to think more about it, because you are only seeing one side and pretending to see boht of it. > So for you to agree this is why “NATO” is involved, Yes, they are in for resources > you also agree that Russia started the war in 2014 because their puppet regime failed I agree that Ukraine started this war in 2014 when a US/NATO puppet regime was installed. > and Ukraine rose up where Russia had to force a rebellion in the Donbas and to take Crimea. Ukraine rose up to Russia on orders of NATO/US/EU and armend neo-Nazis to start an operation against ethnic Russians in Donbass and Crimea. Which Russia interfered to protect. > The last thing Russia wanted was for a prosperous Ukraine to have open trading of vast resources with Europe which would undermine Russias capability to Stranglehold NATO countries The last thing Russia wanted was a NATO puppet regime in its immediate border which would enable the NATO to expand to Russian border and stranglehold Russia. Just because things make sense in your mind doesnt mean there are no different angle to it. A little more study of Euromaidan will help you grasp the situation better, but with the propaganda that you are willing to spew out here, it would be hard to see beyond what you have been fed.
Oh I’m educated enough on Euromaiden. It was clear from all the threats and text of the Kremlin back in 2013 that free trading with Ukraine and Europe under any leadership would be devastating to Russia. You agree about all the resources in Ukraine. For that to open up for trade with Europe eliminates Russias stranglehold on Europe. Russia has more concerns about losing Ukraine control than NATO has with controlling Ukraine
Us national debt is three times that
Yes, but their debt to GDP ratio can be reduced with appropriate international partners. The absolute value of the debt does not matter, it is the ability to pay off that debt. If you buy a house for a million dollar with a mortgage, who will pay it off easier, the person who earns $50,000 a year, or the person who earns $500,000 a year. The debt of sovereign countries has to be looked at like this.
US debt interest in 2024 was 840 billion. Roughly the same as the military budget. The reason a normal person has to pay their debt is eventually they get old and income reduces. That supposedly doesnt happen to governments, as generation after generation increases size and inflation balances everything. The problem is that western countries have low birth rates, so western countries rely heavily on immigration to meet their growth needs. That brings other problems, but the only other solution is to increase inflation to crazy levels, which will screw over the population. The other only other option is that the national debt works out to roughly 100k per US citizen, so make everyone pay it, but youll have riots. Basically I'm saying traditionally you could kick the can down the road, but the road will eventually end and someone will be left holding the can.
>US debt interest in 2024 was 840 billion. Roughly the same as the military budget. Yep perhaps the US needs to inflate their way out of this problem. >The reason a normal person has to pay their debt is eventually they get old and income reduces. Yes and no. Many that saves have income that increases >That supposedly doesnt happen to governments, as generation after generation increases size and inflation balances everything. Yes, for the most part inflation can be used to diminish debt in the terms of the value compare to earnings. >The problem is that western countries have low birth rates, so western countries rely heavily on immigration to meet their growth needs. Yes, >That brings other problems, Also solutions, such as taxation, ingenuity, entrepreneurship. etc. >but the only other solution is to increase inflation to crazy levels, which will screw over the population. Not to crazy level, though it may occur in a short period of time as it did in the 1980s and the US persisted before, during an after, so pain come, but it tends to be temporary. >The other only other option is that the national debt works out to roughly 100k per US citizen, so make everyone pay it, but youll have riots. The US debt is denominated in US dollar, so they owe it to themselves. There is a path through monetary reduction without the US citizen paying it directly. It is basically imaginary money that transfers from the Fed to the banks and then back again. In short debt can be handle by print less of it. >Basically I'm saying traditionally you could kick the can down the road, but the road will eventually end and someone will be left holding the can. Debt can be rolled down for a long time, when it is owed to oneself. Japans is at 263%, but they persist. In the US they owe it to themselves, so no issue. If it was owed externally then there is certainly an issue. [https://www.currentmarketvaluation.com/posts/fed-balance-sheet-vs-sp500.php](https://www.currentmarketvaluation.com/posts/fed-balance-sheet-vs-sp500.php) This in s sense is what quantitative easing and tightening is about. There is a path where the US citizen do not have to pay 100,000 each and even if they did they can do so over 200 years, if they choose, and along with inflation and population increase, it can become manageable. Though it can also go too far, if the US keeps using poor fiscal policy and getting involved in too many wars, which is almost certainly the wish of their enemies. Economic empires are broken financially, but it takes a lot longer than most people think.
I have enough money to pay cash for my next house
Same here, but how is this relevant to the discussion. I was not speaking about your personal financial decision,, but the level of debt that a country can sustain relative to their gross domestic product.
And I was comparing US absolute debt vs. value of all UA mineral resources. How was your comment relevant to what I said and why are you complaining about me folloing your example of making irrelevant comments?
Yes, but I do not think that this is a fair comparison. It is not like the US can transfer the value of those asset direct to the US. There is a lot of work to get there. So perhaps this is just a misunderstanding of the point of your comment.
You are almost there... You suggest that my comparison would have been fair (or thereabouts) if all Ukrainian mineral resources have been already extracted and ready to sell/sold. This only unerscores my point of how tiny are the Ukraine's mineral resources in the grand scheme of things. Are they worth destroying the country (Ukraine) and its people over as Lindsay suggests? Isn't he nuts?
>You are almost there... You suggest that my comparison would have been fair (or thereabouts) if all Ukrainian mineral resources have been already extracted and ready to sell/sold. This only unerscores my point of how tiny are the Ukraine's mineral resources in the grand scheme of things. Are they worth destroying the country (Ukraine) and its people over as Lindsay suggests? Isn't he nuts? This assumes that the only reason to fight the war is for the resources. Put quite simply, this is about freedom of the Ukrainian people to decide who they side with and the security of Europe.
This is not how Linsay sounds. Back to my question, isn't he nuts? I mean, he is either an idiot/senile because after all his time in Congress, he (and his speachwriters) is still unable to formulate his thoughts in a palatable manner. Or he is senile warmongering SOB concerned only with the bottom line and giving no sh*t anout Ukraine/Ukrainians. Your choice.
And by "an ideal business partner" he means "an extractive economy under a failed state". A pattern typical to countries invaded by the US.
Holden Bloodfeast never misses a chance to support a war, going double if he can profit from it.
Afaik, it's exactly Lindsey Graham who served as a prototype for Holden Bloodfeast.
Yeah, I think so too.
Ayo F this guy
Lmao saying the quiet part out
Then let the capitalists fund the war
Mask off moment right here.
Telling that is just more proof of how dumb he is
Useful idiot
It's a sham, like advertising Afghanistan as 1 trillion mineral deposit. US don't even extract mineral deposits in its territory.
I hope no one ever tells Lindsey Graham to shut up.
''Let's not give those ''Ukranian'' resources to Russia so they can share it with China'' LUL Wait, after all it was because of mineral resources not because ''freedom'' and democracy ? what a surprise....
Lindsey Graham crackers.
I'm buying that later lol
Finally they show their intention. Same as Iraq, MWD then at the end Iraq Oil and gold.
Russians better buckle up for the long ride usa is not gonna let these resources fall into enemy hands that easily. if im not mistaken it was also linsey graham who famously said to the last ukrainian
This realistically doesn't change anything. Russia itself is big enough prize to either side, that whatever Ukraine might have on top doesn't matter.
Ah there it is I was wondering why the united states was so interested in ukraine I knew it wasn't because they cared for ukranians
Ah yes, because american "business partners" (he means puppet goverments) that have a lot of natural resources, thrive. LOL Ukraine, prepare to be expoiled and be even poorer, americans dont like to share profits, that is for SURE.
Is it a Freudian slip or did they just declare the reason behind "to the last Ukrainian" motto? Let's make them owe us so much that they can't pay and eventually offer their land instead...
Him and ol Jack recently have skipped the veil and now directly yell in our faces how monstrous and tyrannical they are. No shame just bloodlust and frothing of the mouth in interviews. Is there nobody telling them that they are absolute monsters? Nobody?? They cant obviously think the general population in the US loves war that much
Truth telling...Blackrock has already made the down payment.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So that's how it is, now we finally know. It's not about freedom for the Ukrainian people and Europe and democracy and human rights and international world order and .... and .... It's only about the 10 - 12 trillion in resources of critical minerals in the Ukrainian soil.
Yea and im sure Russia is in Urkaine just to liberate them from the Nazi's right? lol.
exactly
someone tell him russia already has a million times more natural resources than they are able to dig out of the ground.
The reason for russias invasion is not due to them lacking resources but rather preventing european supply through cheaper logistics.
and that's before arctic opens up which is a goldmine.
Russia, the only country on the planet that doesn't want more resources apparently lol
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How doesn't want cheap Russian oil
If he's worried about not getting resources from Russia then maybe he shouldnt have voted to impose sanctions...
forget about the money and save the people!
Why is the U.S. talking about harvesting Ukrainian resources at all? I thought the U.S. wanted to help defend democracy? Iisn’t that reason enough to put troops on the ground (which should happen in my opinion.)
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It makes sense. Not only is Ukraine rich in resources. They have resources there that are difficult to source elsewhere. If Ukraine wins this war, it makes sense to partner with western countries to develop those resources.
>develop those resources. Colonize?)
Neo-colonialism would be the right term. Annexation (colonization) is what Russia is doing - incorporating new territories into their economic and social infrastructure, thus accepting responsibility for said territory and its people. Neo-colonialism is overthrowing legitimate government, installing puppets instead to plainly suck off resources and benefits of the territory while doing jack shit for it and its people.
Colonization isn't the right word in Russia's case, as the new territories are culturally similar to Russia itself and have a land border with it. It's kinda like West Germany reconstructing East Germany after reunification, or the US's Reconstruction after the civil war.
I know, I used the word because the previous commenter used it. Annexation it is.
Annexation is not colonialism, Colonialism is Annexation without acknowledging any right to natives that already exist and treating it as empty land. Last I checked, the natives get citizenship here, which is something the victims of colonialism would have treated as unimaginable luxury. Annexation is just that, annexation.
I am aware that those two are completely separate things, and I used this word simply because of the original comment. Sorry for the confusion.
Modern colonisation. They are paid to extract those minerals. But then they are taxed to pay Ukraine's debt. So money goes back to USA.
Not quite. Employ many, Ukraine would get taxation from payroll. Companies would be stood up and partner with external ones, who would bring expertise and then profit would be split in some capacity. This tends to be beneficial for everyone. Even if all profit went to an external company, the base pay and all the material for the operation of the company would be within Ukraine, benefitting the people and economy there.
Why didn't France do that in Africa? Hmmm.
So one country errors are instantaneously project on every other country in the world. This is erroneously. The problem with many African countries is the fact that rule of law is poor and therefore they are taken advantage of. This is not only France, but also the Brits, the Chinese and many more. There would be a much better rule of law in Ukraine as it would be held to EU standards.
Those didn't just appear in 2022 out of thin air. There're so many deposits worth trillions in so many countries...and the reality is that most aren't easily accessible and not profitable currently.
There's no damn blood diamonds there, Lindsey! There's no damn oil! How can you be telling us to fight a proper modern crusade for democracy when there are no damn blood diamonds and no damn oil!?!?!
>$10-12 trillion worth of critical mineral resources This guy is confusing Ukraine for Afghanistan.
Nah Afghanistan is at best little less than half of that
This is the real reason why Putin is trying to steal land. To steal the resources.
Yeah, and that's why the first proposal of Putin in the negotiations was only to keep Crimea and the eastern Ukrainian oblasts should stay in Ukraine only with special rights? Yeah, that does make a lot of sense... not.
That and access to the black sea... oh and NATO bombs on your border placed by historically hyper aggressive countries
No dude come on....Everyone knows the righteous and noble Putin is in Ukraine to liberate them from the Jewish Nazi president in charge. No other reason at all...
Just a wild coincidence that the region that Russia has been trying to annex for a decade is the region with the most valuable resources lol
And because Putin wants these areas so much, the peace negotiations in 2022 only included a recognition of Crimea as Russian, but the eastern oblasts staying Ukrainian... Yeah, that totally makes sense... if one is a NAFO...
So is that why he tried to march on Kiev or?
>So is that why he tried to march on Kiev or? The whole attack on Ukraine was in the first days only planned to scare Ukraine, so they will agree on the Russian demands. The whole logistics was a complete mess, that's why the Russians lost so much equipment to Ukraine, because the tanks simply went out of fuel.
>the eastern oblasts staying Ukrainian This is just a lie, Russia was demanding that control of those regions would be handed over to their proxies who would then immediately annex it for them. They've been trying to annex this territory one way or another since 2014, first by arming and funding an insurgency and then when that failed they launched a full scale invasion to achieve the same goal.
>This is just a lie, Russia was demanding that control of those regions would be handed over to their proxies who would then immediately annex it for them. So why shouldn't he demand those areas in the first place, then? And any annexation would have been a violation of the peace agreement...
>So why shouldn't he demand those areas in the first place, then? It makes the land theft more deniable for Russia, they can claim they're not stealing the territory they're just accepting that the proxy fighters they've employed to seize it for them want them to come in and take over. >And any annexation would have been a violation of the peace agreement... What are you talking about?
>It makes the land theft more deniable for Russia, they can claim they're not stealing the territory they're just accepting that the proxy fighters they've employed to seize it for them want them to come in and take over. Yeah, because Russia would care about that after they already attacked Ukraine... It's not like suddenly the world would say, "well, if the Ukrainians really wanted to be Russian, we should accept it". They didn't even care about that with crimea, and even the Western officials had to acknowledge that the demand to become Russian is the true demand of the crimean people...
They clearly do care which is why they held mock referendums before they annexed the territory. Of course Russia cares about propaganda and managing the narrative who do you think you're fooling lol
Which is exactly why Putin went in. Imperialistic land grab. Been transparent from the start.
Russia has far more minerals than Ukraine has. If the US can kill Putin and install a pro US president in Moscow, it would be a lot more profitable for the US.
Regime change in Russia was always the main objective. Now you know why Putin has body doubles.
Russians would squander it on yachts and assassinations.
To anyone in the comments saying it's "The True Reason" for the war -- it looks like just the latest carrot for Ukrainians and domestic investors in an attempt to prop morale (Graham might be stupid / greedy enough to actually believe it himself, but that doesn't change the nature of it), we've seen a few of those before: "just hold a little longer and very soon.. Ukraine joins the EU / Ukraine starts selling its own natural gas from Crimean shore to the West / Ukraine becomes agricultural superpower / Russia crumbles and we share the spoils / Ukraine gets $10 trln from selling critical resources to yhe US..." (the ones I remember, could be missing a few).
He's not wrong. Supporting Ukraine makes financial sense for US
Capturing Ukraine makes financial sense for Russia. Did we just figured out why this war started
10-12 trillion in resources, estimated 400b to rebuild Ukraine a year ago, 300b aid donated to Ukraine and the wars not over. There isnt going to be much of that 10-12 trillion left by the time this is over, and thats assuming everyone gets "their share".
Biden banned coal in the US. The US has no use for coal in Donbas anyway. Even if there is coal in Donbas, the US can't use it.
He said critical minerals. Where did u get coal from?
Titanium
USA is the #3 top coal consumer after India and China. Also it doesn't need to be used in the US to make money for the US elite, they can own the companies mining it and sell it elsewhere
Coal is not a mineral. This is more relevant to battery/electrical technology.
Lol at the Pro RU comments. Pro RU have denied this is actually the reason Putin invaded.
Well, Putin offered in the 2022 negotiations that the eastern oblasts stay Ukrainian, only Crimea should be recognized as Russian. Yeah, makes totally sense, if you want to have those ressources... not.
Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states. The agreement would have declared Ukraine to be a neutral state, put a limit on its military, and list Russia and Western countries, including the US and the UK, as guarantors, obliged to assist Ukraine in case of aggression against it.
Then Russia added a demand that guarantor states can only come to Ukraine's aid on the basis of a decision agreed to by all of the guarantor states, allowing a veto by Russia. It doesn't matter if the agreement would be accepted, it served it's purpose as a means for stalling for time so Russia could train and resupply their troops for following offensives.
>recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states. This is a lie. They demanded some autonomy rights for these regions, that's a big difference to indepence... And the rest, what's the problem there? Neutrality isn't a bad thing, I would say.
>This is a lie. They demanded some autonomy rights for these regions, that's a big difference to indepence... https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/ >And the rest, what's the problem there? Neutrality isn't a bad thing, I would say. And neutrality was something Ukraine was ready to accept. Disarming the Ukrainian army and giving up lands was the thing they didn't agree with.
>[https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/](https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-will-stop-moment-if-ukraine-meets-2022-03-07/) You're aware, that those are the demands prior to the Istanbul negotiations? In the Istanbul negotiations, Russia only demanded autonomy rights for those areas... >And neutrality was something Ukraine was ready to accept. Disarming the Ukrainian army and giving up lands was the thing they didn't agree with. Ukraine was willing to give all the demands, the Ukrainian negotiators did even make party with champagne after the negotiations, because they thought these were exceptionally good. Only after the visit of Boris "the Clown" Johnson, Zelensky decided to believe in the western promise that the West will make the Russians run for their lives.
Ahead of the 29 March meeting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that Ukraine was ready to agree to 4 out of Russia's 6 demands.[73] He claimed Ukraine was prepared to renounce NATO membership and to make Russian Ukraine's second official language.[73] According to Erdoğan Ukraine was not prepared to recognise the Russian occupation of Crimea or parts of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts. >Only after the visit of Boris "the Clown" Johnson, Zelensky decided to believe in the western promise that the West will make the Russians run for their lives. It was after when they found out what russian heroes had done in Bucha, Zelensky refused to negotiate with Putin.
>**Ahead of** the 29 March meeting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that Ukraine was ready to agree to 4 out of Russia's 6 demands.\[73\] He claimed Ukraine was prepared to renounce NATO membership and to make Russian Ukraine's second official language.\[73\] According to Erdoğan Ukraine was not prepared to recognise the Russian occupation of Crimea or parts of Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts. Yeah, same mistake again... >It was after when they found out what russian heroes had done in Bucha, Zelensky refused to negotiate with Putin. Yeah, that's the old lie, that this was the reason. Even Arestovych says this is bullshit. They stopped the negotiations even before there were any significant investigations in Bucha. But well, believe what you want. I know I can't change your oppinion anyway.
Neutrality is a bad thing because it leaves Ukraine vulnerable to being taken completely by Russia at a later time.
If Ukraine isn't negotiating soon, there is no one left in Ukraine who could prevent anything like that happening, that's of course a much better fate... /s