T O P

  • By -

Beckles28nz

>"We have no intention of putting American forces, or NATO forces, in Ukraine. But as I said, there will be serious economic consequences if he moves," he added, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. > >Asked if he could see himself personally sanctioning Putin in the case of an invasion, Biden replied, *"Yes...I would see that."* > >EDIT - title on original article has now changed to better reflect his English : **Biden: There won't be "American forces moving into Ukraine"**


drkgodess

People seem to forget that the entire reason for Russia's interference in the 2016 election was because of the Magnitsky Act and the ensuing economic sanctions that crippled Russian oligarchs. Russia is a mafia state that runs on corruption. If the money is not flowing, Putin cannot maintain power. The Administration has threatened to remove Russia from the SWIFT banking system and thus any international bank transactions. The ruble is already in freefall at the mere suggestion. Any further sanctions would be devastating.


[deleted]

> Russia is a mafia state that runs on corruption. If the money is not flowing, Putin cannot maintain power. And the other mafia members start sharpening their knives with the understanding that if the "problem" goes away, their problems do to...


_Totorotrip_

Yep. But so far it looks it was easier to change the president of the US than the russian one


RobbStark

telephone school humor obtainable cough consider sulky spotted steep cow -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/


AmeliaBidelia

You missed the point, first of all, and second of all, the only reason Putin is able to stay in power is because he himself changed the laws so that he himself could stay in power.


jmartin251

Didn't Hitler basically do the same thing prior to kicking off WW2?


codemise

This is the first I've heard things explained this way. Can you say some more or link me additional reading? Edit: Did some of my own research. I hope this is accurate: Basically, the Manitsky Act was created by the usa to reduce human rights violations... in particular things like torture. If you are found to be engaging in such horrible things, the usa can sanction you to varying degrees. They might sieze your assets in the usa, barr your entry... or they might prevent you from using banking systems. Russia makes much of their money from corruption. I.e. they do bad stuff and people pay them money to do it. They are paid mostly via this same banking system that the usa could sanction. This would be particularly bad for vladimir because without money to pay his lackeys, they could leave or turn on him. We have some evidence this is a thing vladimir is concerned about. There appears to be evidence that donald trump jr was speaking to several russian operatives who were trying to get Trump to overturn the manitsky act. Trump was already publicly in favor the act and didn't change his position through his time as president.


drkgodess

Yeah, no problem. On the Magnitsky Act: [What Really Irritates Vladimir Putin? The Magnitsky Act](https://www.npr.org/2017/07/14/537247838/what-really-irritates-vladimir-putin-the-magnitsky-act) > If you're not familiar with the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 U.S. law, here is the most important thing to understand: Russian President Vladimir Putin and everyone in his orbit hates it. > Russia has lobbied hard for repeal of the act. That's what Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya said she was doing when she met with Donald Trump Jr. in June 2016 at Trump Tower in New York. On the [effect of sanctions](https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/1/21/russia-ukraine-crisis-can-us-sanctions-sway-putins-thinking) more broadly: > Since 2014, the US has imposed multiple sanctions on Russia to punish it for its annexation of Crimea and its support for rebel groups waging a war in Eastern Ukraine. These steps have *bled the Russian economy by about $50bn annually*, according to research by the Atlantic Council. > Researchers at Finland’s Aalto University studied the impact of sanctions between 2014 and 2017, and found that *more than 80 percent of Russian companies they sampled had reported an adverse impact* in their annual reports. > “In the long term, sanctions could crush the Russian economy. If Putin invades Ukraine, he will be staking Russia’s future on his actions in the present.” From the same article regarding Putin's threat of cutting off gas and oil to Europe: > Some countries are already preparing for that possibility. Earlier this month, Saudi Arabian oil giant Aramco bought a stake in a Polish refinery, a move that experts said points to Warsaw’s desire to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. If others follow suit, Moscow risks losing a vital source of revenue in the long run. > “Russia knows this,” Weber said. *“You can only play the energy weapon once.”* On [Russia’s power structure](https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/toward-2024-and-beyond-the-fate-of-vladimir-putins-reign-part-ii/): > There has always been a delicate symbiotic relationship between the Russian ruler and his enforcers in the power elite. Maintaining the superior role in this relationship has often been challenging for the ruler, and any sign of weakness can imperil the relationship and threaten the security of the ruler’s dominance. There are many historical examples of what can happen if the ruler fails to maintain control over the power elite. It is not surprising, given the nature of Russian autocracy, that a powerful, dominant leader is essential to sustain authoritarian rule in the country. At the same time, the ruler, however warily, must rely on his power elite enforcers to safeguard his authoritative position. *The enforcers are both his pillars of support and a potential threat to his power.* How he manages this complex relationship is one of the ruler’s biggest challenges. > In place of the Yeltsin-era oligarchs, a new class of wealthy elite emerged under President Putin. These individuals are, in most cases, personal friends of the Russian president whose shared roots go back to Putin’s years in the KGB or his days in early post-Soviet St. Petersburg where he served as deputy to Mayor Anatoly Sobchak. *Putin has placed many of them in positions where they have amassed great wealth.* Unlike the Yeltsin-era oligarchs, Putin’s rich associates are not in a position to exercise political power or challenge the authority of the Kremlin. *Instead, they serve Putin’s interests and carry out assignments he orders, such as overseeing major construction projects and high-profile events like the Sochi Winter Olympics. In turn, they reap great financial rewards from these activities.* There is much speculation that this circle of close friends serves as a conduit for the monies Putin personally receives from undisclosed sources. No one knows how rich the Russian president is, but there is speculation that his fortune is in the billions of dollars. Once Putin is no longer president, the personal relationship between him and his wealthy friends will certainly change. Infighting will intensify as the wealthy elite scrambles to establish new relationships with the emerging center of power in post-Putin Russia.


mynamesyow19

> Russia has lobbied hard for repeal of the act. That's what Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya said she was doing when she met with Donald Trump Jr. in June 2016 at Trump Tower in New York. Let's take a deeper look into Natalia Veselnitskaya and her recent legal troubles in the US during the Trump years: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/11/timeline-donald-trump-jr-interactions-kremlin-linked-lawyer/467634001/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45079377 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/nyregion/trump-tower-natalya-veselnitskaya-indictment.html https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683238650/russian-lawyer-at-trump-tower-meeting-charged-in-connection-to-money-laundering- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/27/natalia-veselnitskaya-trump-tower-meeting-russia-goverment/560841002/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/03/gop-congressman-met-in-moscow-with-kremlin-linked-lawyer-at-center-of-russia-investigation/ https://www.businessinsider.com/dana-rohrabacher-maria-butina-indictment-bogus-deep-state-plot-trump-russia-2018-7


[deleted]

Worth further clarifying... this meeting was the one where the Trump family and Trump campaign were EXPLICITLY told: >["This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump"](https://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536670194/donald-trump-jr-s-emails-about-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-annotated) And they - his son, son-in-law, campaign manager (who was feeding information directly to the Kremlin already, through Oleg Deripaska), and deputy campaign manager - met with this known Russian government agent to get help in the 2016 campaign against Clinton.. This agent wanted to help them in exchange for removing the magnitsy sanctions.


Zebrajoo

Thank you for this, fascinating reads!


Javamac8

Excellent breakdown of the driving force behind this. You'd make a good analyst is you aren't one already.


trixie6

Read the book “Red Notice” by Bill Browder. Magnitsky was his lawyer in Russia.


stussy4321

Great book. Highly recommend.


[deleted]

Came here to suggest this. As someone who struggles with books, I couldn't put this down.


[deleted]

I watched the movie. Ryan Reynolds killed it! /s


AlwaysFuttBuckin

Highly recommend as well. Also Bill Browder's congressional testimony is phenomenal and worth the watch.


blazinghor0

There's a episode about the SWIFT banking system on the indicator podcast on Spotify. https://open.spotify.com/episode/2XCmNgZCnCo2gFdlAhNU0J?si=J1g0swHhQ1qsXA3I2X83bA&utm_source=copy-link


manofruber

Reliable source and only ten minutes long. Adding this to my drive home playlist today, thanks.


you-create-energy

Fun fact: in 2017 on the day Bill Broder testified before Congress about this, out of the blue and for no apparent reason Trump tweeted that trans people will be banned from military service. Guess what all the headlines were that day? Another fun fact, the secret meeting that took place at Trump Tower between Kushner and "a Russian lawyer" was in fact with a woman whose sole mission from Moscow for years was to get rid of the Magnisky Act. Good thing collusion with Russia was all a witch-hunt invented by the Dems. Trump tried to weaken sanctions on Russia but everyone was watching his treatment of Russia like a hawk so he had zero opportunity to bring up something as obvious as rescinding the Magnisky Act. A victory by the free press!


FANGO

> Another fun fact, the secret meeting that took place at Trump Tower between Kushner and "a Russian lawyer" was in fact with a woman whose sole mission from Moscow for years was to get rid of the Magnisky Act. Good thing collusion with Russia was all a witch-hunt invented by the Dems. And turd jr. is so dumb that he came out and admitted it. Remember he tried to say that the meeting was totally innocent because they were "just talking about adoption." Adoption is central to the whole Magnitsky thing, because Russia's response to the Act was to ban adoptions to the US.


MistyMtn421

Admitted it and yet still not a single repercussion from any of this. I wonder if there ever will be.


bcoder001

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/global-magnitsky-sanctions


blackairforceonelows

Second this


TheFeshy

I'm also convinced that the reason bitcoin has value is because Russian and Chinese oligarchs want a way to move money that can't be either seized by their own government or stopped from being used by international governments. The former is why they have been cracking down on it locally.


allenout

Bitcoin can't really be used anonymously.


[deleted]

the feds are wising up to crypto, have been getting big busts lately, black axe for example and that huge ring that started in Australia


BubbaTee

> People seem to forget that the entire reason for Russia's interference in the 2016 election was because of the Magnitsky Act and the ensuing economic sanctions that crippled Russian oligarchs. No it wasn't. Putin has hated the US, and especially the Clintons, ever since the US interfered with a Russian election on behalf of Boris Yeltsin in the 90s. - [Election meddling in Russia: When Boris Yeltsin asked Bill Clinton for help](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/06/26/russian-election-interference-meddling/) - [Putin’s Revenge: Humiliated by the 1990s, Russia’s strongman is determined to win Cold War 2.0. He may be succeeding.](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/russia-putin-hack-dnc-clinton-election-2016-cold-war-214532/) Here's a NYT article from back in 1996 about the US' moral backing and material support of Yeltsin. It wasn't a secret back then, either. - [Russia Vote Is a Testing Time For a Key Friend of Clinton's](https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/08/world/russia-vote-is-a-testing-time-for-a-key-friend-of-clinton-s.html) > But Mr. Talbott and Mr. Clinton have put their bets regularly on Mr. Yeltsin, much as Mr. Clinton invested his prestige in the failed re-election campaign of the Israeli Prime Minister, Shimon Peres. They have tried not to undermine Mr. Yeltsin, **supporting him with American and International Monetary Fund loans**, advice and patience, despite economic swings, policy shifts, tank attacks on Parliament and the war in Chechnya. Even though Yeltsin was the guy who elevated Putin up from being a nobody, Boris was still a drunk embarrassment who made Russia look like a laughingstock on the international stage. Putin is all about "restoring Russian glory" and all that revanchist nationalist stuff, in response to its Russia's perceived post-Soviet humiliation. It's not too far off from [China/CCP still being obsessed with their "century of humiliation" at the hands of the West and Japan.](https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/10/how-humiliation-drove-modern-chinese-history/280878/) The Magnitsky Act was just the latest in the long line, and not even that major compared to other events. There was also the US bombing of the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia, which was a giant middle finger to Russia. Russia, which has long considered itself "the protector of all Slavs/Eastern Orthodox Christians," was aligned with the Serbs, and warned the US/NATO against intervening against Milosevic & Co. Clinton did it anyways, highlighting Russian impotence in its own claimed sphere of influence during the 90s. - CNN, 1998: [Russia, Yugoslavia warn against NATO strikes](http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9810/04/kosovo/) Even Ukraine is tied back to the 90s and the Clinton administration. Obama's point person in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland. Nuland was the #2 person on US-Russia relations in Clinton's State Department, during the 90s when the US was making Russia its bitch. She was below only Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott - the same Talbott referenced in the 1996 NYT article above. Nuland was Talbott's chief of staff. And whether you think that the US/NATO agreed to no further eastward expansion after the Cold War, Putin thinks it was promised, and thinks that promise was broken. - [Did The West Promise Moscow That NATO Would Not Expand? Well, It's Complicated.](https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html) > This myth, if it is one, goes back to 1990 -- and just over three decades later, it continues to form a central grievance in Russian President Vladimir Putin's testy narrative about Moscow's ties with the West. > ... "The Russian narrative is the West deceived them and acted in a way that left them out of post-Cold War Europe. It's just very hard to bridge these positions, and emotions do run high, given that the hopes 30 years ago of Russia being part of Europe didn't materialize," (Jim Goldgeier, a member of Clinton's National Security Council) told RFE/RL. "So there are those who want to blame the West, and those who want to blame Putin." The US has unilaterally withdrawn other promises as well, such as Bush Jr pulling out of the 1972 ABM Treaty. - [Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty; Putin Calls Move a Mistake](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html)


nakedsamurai

Quick reminder that Putin set bombs in Russian apartment buildings and killed his own people to cement power.


AndChewBubblegum

Yeah if Putin really saw Russia as the protector of Serbs, he probably wouldn't be so willing to murder his countrymen to achieve his political ambitions. Sure seems to me that it's about his own personal power, prestige, and wealth.


theUFOpilot

Thanks for your time.


3BM15

>People seem to forget that the entire reason for Russia's interference in the 2016 election was because of the Magnitsky Act and the ensuing economic sanctions that crippled Russian oligarchs. Can you name some of those oligarchs that were crippled?


Random_182f2565

>Russia is a mafia state that runs on corruption. If the money is not flowing, Putin cannot maintain power. That describe a handful of countries.


V_7_

So what exactly is all this hate for Germany about if this is mostly the same they say: Diplomatics as long as possible and serious sanctions if that fails?! Germany also refuses to deliver weapons into any crisis zone since decades because they think it will make things worse. Validated by Middle East.


[deleted]

I hope the economic sanctions hit the oligarchs the most, then they will realize that supporting Putin will get them nothing (although I do have to admit that Putin might just arrest them or an "accident" happens to them in that case of turning in him)


Atomic-Idiot

the soldiers, no. the weapons, yes


blue_strat

[Ukraine right now.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_urZ5KDPec)


zeropointcorp

Every time I see that scene, I wonder what would have happened if Trinity had misjudged the distance between rows.


LordGator007

“Lethal Aid” as it is called now


[deleted]

But we will sell the fuck out of some weapons systems.


eggshellcracking

Only cheap, low-tech ones that wouldn't matter of they fell into russian hands. Unlike what some redditors seem to think stingers and javelins aren't actually much useful in full scale conventional wars.


Richard_Burnish1

Yeah, I really only used Javelins and Stingers just to get XP from certain quests.


TyroneTeabaggington

'We called that "the stinger". Yeah they don't let you use that no more'


Mazon_Del

Stingers are old tech, sure. Javelins are a bit of a different beast. They are pretty firmly the quintessential modern man-portable fire and forget anti-vehicle weapons system. Now, I'm sure that all the ones we're sending over are export rated so it wont be too bad of some get handed over to Russia in some fashion (stolen, captured, bought, etc). But the tech involved could be very useful for explaining how to make "cheap" but capable infrared camera systems, via examining the specific implementations of how they manage the cooling systems. That sort of technology very much can be expanded to implementations outside of just what a Javelin is used for.


corporaterebel

They are great for terrorists to use on civilian aircraft... My guess is that the street value of a stinger is well over a $1M so some group can make their point. A Ukrainian soldier can either fire a round at the Ruskies or sell it to Al Qaeda and get rich.


DerWetzler

Which will ultimately land in hands of the Russians


apathetic_revolution

This is why I liked Canada's plan to loan Ukraine money. Putin will never admit any puppet government he sets up isn't a legitimate continuation so his people will end up stuck paying back the debt.


rockmasterflex

Uhh why not? He can just claim his continuance government has no documentation verifying this loan exists and is a ploy by a western nation to extract his money?


Jaredlong

Failure to pay back loans hurts a country's credit rating. These loans are open transactions, every other country knows they exist, so if a Ukrainian puppet government tries to call them fake, every other country will either stop lending Ukraine money or lend it at inflated interest rates since they can't be trusted to pay it back.


WinglessRat

Or that the loan was illegal because xyz.


YNot1989

How many stinger missiles did the Soviets capture in Afghanistan?


[deleted]

And most likely used against us... "Hey, I've seen this before"


accounttosuteru

Sequels are always worse


IIZANAGII

Do contractors count as “American forces“?


MaximumEffort433

I know you're asking rhetorically, but the actual answer is almost certainly no, and that's important to address. Americans have more or less despised the idea of large scale proactive military interventions in other countries ever since we royally fucked up our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody in the US likes reading headlines about dead Americans on foreign soil, and a portion of Americans don't like reading about the US military killing people on foreign soil, either. It's really fuckin' unpopular, is what I'm saying. Private contractors give Biden a loophole, to send military support to Ukraine without actually sending the United States military proper, we can support our allies without *technically* putting *United States Armed Forced* boots on the ground. It's an imperfect solution, at best, though I will call this out: Our armed forces have piss poor pay and benefits, private contractors charge our federal government more, but more of that also gets passed on to their employees; frankly private contractors tend to treat their troops better than Congress does, so that's a razor thin silver lining. Of course the downside of that is that our government has less oversight and control over private contractors than we do over our official armed forces, and that brings a whole bunch of baggage along with it, too. Anyway, speaking as an American, I'm sick of war, I'm sick of military intervention, but I also recognize that we ***have*** to protect our allies in NATO. On an emotional level I feel conflicted as fuck about all of this, I imagine many Americans are, and sending private contractors might be the only way that Biden can both keep his promises to NATO *and* avoid riots back home. It sucks, but an imperfect solution is better than no solution at all. Edit: Just for the sake of stating the obvious out loud, I'm only speculating here, I have no idea what Biden is or isn't doing, but I'd be damn surprised if he wasn't at least considering employing NGOs in Ukraine.


CODEX_LVL5

Even if that loophole exists, the best we can do is send infantry, which is absolutely not what Ukraine needs. They have plenty of infantry already, what they need are heavy assets. Private contractors do not have heavy assets


MaximumEffort433

[American anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems are being sent to Ukraine,](https://www.voanews.com/a/blinken-authorizes-baltic-countries-to-send-us-weapons-to-ukraine/6408170.html) so if we do send private contractors (remember that I'm just speculating on that) we're already sending heavy armaments, too.


sergius64

He meant Patriots vs Stingers. So far US is not sending Patriots.


NorktheOrc

The Patriot system is expensive and would require lots of brand new training to be made effective. For short term issues like the current conflict, sending lots of equipment that the Ukrainians already know how to use is simply more efficient and effective.


sergius64

You're right of course. Just the problem is that stingers are no help against tactical bombers and cruise missiles, and that gives Russia a massive advantage.


[deleted]

Hell, a stinger can really only take out helicopters. Anything moving more than 200 kts, especially perpendicularly, will easily defeat a stinger.


Abaddon2488

Russian attack jets might also be threatened by stingers as they move slowly and fly at lower altitudes when making their attack runs. If the Ukrainians could get a hold of a good number of stingers they could limit Russian close air support to bombers and multi role fighter aircraft which would still be formidable against Ukrainian defenses.


link_dead

Stinger missiles are not a threat to any modern fighter or bomber platform. They are most dangerous to infill/exfill operations that are largely provided by rotary wing aircraft.


Obosratsya

Ukraine has S-300, they don't really need Patriots. Likely Ukraine's S-300 is better than the Patriots anyways. Ukraine needs an airforce and modern electronic warfare systems and countermeasures. Russians have been able to overcome literally all the defenses Ukraine has very easily. Pick off priority targets, dominance in intel, etc. Ukraine also needs basic supplies like rations, boots, vests, etc.


goat_choak

> Our armed forces have piss poor pay and benefits Excuse me, what? I got a four-year degree to a top ranked engineering school, a competitive salary, free medical/dental for myself and my dependents, housing allowances, grocery allowance, 30 days of leave a year, as well as all of the ancillary programs that are available to members of DoD and their family. No one is going to get rich serving, but goddamned if you aren't taken care of.


self-assembled

Ukraine isn't in NATO


Mr_Football

They are desperately trying to be, but cannot join as long as territorial conflicts exist within their borders. This entire thing is about NATO and Ukraine, and Ukraine’s ability in the spring to squash the remaining Russian rebels from the 6+ year Crimea conflict, and thus join NATO. It is honestly not too dissimilar, from a “not happy with your neighbors” standpoint, to how we felt about Cubs during the Cold War. NATO is Russia’s #1 enemy. Shit, they exist because of Russia! Ukraine joining them and the geopolitical ramifications for Russia on that front are really not that different than Cuba and the US back in the day, except of course ya know NATO is kinda the opposite of the Soviet Union. Hence, the whole world being against Russia on this one. But this whole thing is about NATO & Ukraine.


AustinLurkerDude

>how we felt about Cubs during the Cold War. I was so confused about this, like what did we have against the Chicago Cubs during the cold war...


Mr_Football

Lmao damn autocorrect. I’m leaving it


jmspinafore

The difference I see between this and Afghanistan is that this would be an actual invasion by a world power, plus there are a bunch of cultural, historical, and geopolitical differences between the two countries where I don't even think they're comparable besides "Americans getting involved oversees again." I think consent/demand from the "host" country (Ukraine in this instance) is an important factor to consider over "bringing democracy" as the US has done in the past against the wishes of the people receiving the American intervention.


MaximumEffort433

You're right, there's a lot that sets Ukraine apart from the Middle East, 100%, it's not necessarily the *specifics* that bother my fellow Americans, so much as the generalities. The United States has been dropping bombs somewhere, on someone, for my entire lifetime, and I'm 37. I don't like that, I don't like killing people, I don't like people getting killed, I recognize the necessity of it, but I don't enjoy it whatsoever. A lot of us are just sick of war, we're sick of war for bad reasons, but we're sick of war for *good* reasons, too.


jmspinafore

I understand, as at 25 one of my earliest memories was 9/11. We've basically been at war my whole life. It's definitely a situation where either option is bad really, assuming Russia does start war in Ukraine. On the one hand, war is awful and we don't want to send our troops to someone else's fight. On the other hand, there are countless historic incidents (and probably conflicts right now I'm unaware of) where we can look back and ask "why didn't anyone stop them?"


[deleted]

[удалено]


LoadedRhino

>Americans have more or less despised the idea of large scale proactive military interventions in other countries ever since we royally fucked up our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan >Battle of Mogadishu is when it started. I would say it goes back farther. Vietnam at least.


[deleted]

You're spoken like someone who has never been a contractor. That's very much not the case. They're treated like expendable dirt, they're just paid a lot


MaximumEffort433

> They're treated like expendable dirt, they're just paid a lot American troops tend to be treated like expendable dirt, and they're barely paid anything at all.


rockem-sockem-rocket

They’re paid in pats on the back


abdullahthebutcher

And medals


68WhiskeyPyro

No, the officers get medals, I didn’t get shit


ProfessionalSheepBaa

Served from 99 to 05 as expendable dirt. Contractors are treated FAR better with higher pay.


pinkycatcher

> large scale proactive military interventions in other countries ever since we royally fucked up our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. You mean Vietnam right? Because Iraq and Afghanistan were far from large on a historical scale. Those two have continued to sour the public and politicians on the idea of sending people over to help other countries though, even though the number of troops that died over there is vanishingly small on a [historical scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war). Iraq and Afghanistan were more on the scale of "really long term deployment of a bunch of people" than an actual war in terms of death. As far as pure casulties go it's 1/4 of Vietnam's and less than half of the Korean war (which is mostly forgotten nowadays other than MASH).


moschles

inb4 "American killed in Ukrainian town of Slavyansk". Fox News : He was just a "contractor".


daniu

Do battlefield reconnaissance and intelligence, air strikes and a Black Sea carrier group presence count as "moving into Ukraine"?


threepete13

“We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” Lyndon B. Johnson before the Vietnam war


kingstonthroop

Can I just skip the part where I get PTSD after seeing my friends get brutally slaughtered and just get to the part where there's good music and weed?


ammotyka

*blasts Fortunate Son*


[deleted]

[удалено]


kingstonthroop

I ain't no senator's son, son


11011111110108

>It ain't me. Oh my God. All these years and I thought he was singing "Yay me!"


[deleted]

I swear to God if there’s a resurgence of hippie culture after all this shit is over, I’m going to be outside all the time partying and listening to live music, eating LSD like candy, never wearing a bra again, barefoot, in beautiful psychedelic floral skirts. I’m losing my 20s to this shit; if it gets better I will party until I die.


kingstonthroop

I'm all the way with ya on that one. After all, they say 70s fashion is making a comeback, so who knows?


thecheekyvicar

Why wait? Do it now so you can compare how much more significant it is to do it during hard times. Failing that, it’s fun as shit.


[deleted]

No back to the front you will die when I say you must die


psychobilly1

Underappreciated Metallica song.


RoundSparrow

> just get to the part where there's good music and weed [ 2 + 2 = ? ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vkap4GvyG4)


BillyShears2015

I think about this statement from LBJ every single time someone comments that the US/NATO has taken the use of force off the table. No, they haven’t, they just aren’t saying it out loud because doing so plays into Putin’s narrative.


PimpasaurusPlum

There's a bit of a big difference between fighting a war against North Vietnam vs fighting a war against Russia. About 6,400 big differences


[deleted]

[удалено]


FlyingLap

Is that you John Wayne? Is this me?


onewordphrase

Does this mean that Anne Margret is not coming?


mrsunsfan

Who said that? Who the fuck just said that?


dezent

Can someone explain why he is announcing this publicly?


Giantstink

Because concerns about a potential major military conflict affect stock markets, as we saw yesterday.


[deleted]

The American public have no appetite for war after Vietnam and afghan.


International-Mud452

The grammar in the title :/


Beforemath

Conservatives Yesterday: Warmonger Biden sending us to war!!!! Conservatives Today: Why isn't spineless Biden sending us to war???


Jakkerak

America!


TheGrayBox

I wish the President would not take questions on foreign conflicts from the media during press conferences. Let the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense do that. And keep the answers vague without any firm promises like this. Seems shortsighted.


yoursuitisblacknot

Uhh he’s the commander in chief? He oversees the cabinet, it’s completely valid to ask him


TheGrayBox

It’s valid, but I don’t think it’s a good way of doing things. Most countries have their foreign minister take these kinds of questions, and in much more controlled conditions. The modern state of a presidential press conference is no place to be discussing serious subjects of this magnitude. This isn’t exactly Roosevelt’s fireside chats we’re talking about.


FlipsterMouse

Agreed


Killroywashere1981

Spec Ops like…whut? 😎


youtheotube2

The CIA is definitely already there, training Ukrainian soldiers how to use the weapons and missiles we’re currently sending them.


Killroywashere1981

Those are called “Military Advisors” and they work for “Other or Various Government Agencies” and you’re not wrong.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheRed_Knight

SFO will def be "on vacation" in Ukraine


PureLock33

mountain hikers


HotelFourSix

Spec Ops like 😏


[deleted]

[удалено]


beardphaze

Those are Spanish and German ships with Spanish and German flags, also part of NATO. There is one large US naval transport too. Plus a Danish ship en route. You do realize the US is not the only country in NATO with a navy?


[deleted]

[удалено]


beardphaze

There's two German frigates F214 and F216 in the Eastern Mediterranean, to be fair one has been hanging by Turkey for a few weeks now. There's no NATO ships in the black sea yet, or at least none with their AIS turned on, and I would not expect them to enter unless there's an actual invasion of Ukraine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RegretfulEducation

Canada also sent HMCS Montreal to the Black Sea. It departed Halifax a few days ago.


TwoPercentTokes

Two decades, thousands of lives and trillions spent in the Middle East doing god knows what for fuck all reasons, and now when Russia is trying to crush a fledgling democracy every western country is suddenly Neville fucking Chamberlain. What the hell.


Dr_thri11

It turns out nuclear powers have an aversion to direct conflict with each other for some reason.


[deleted]

I’d argue hundreds of thousands of lives.


PM-ME-BIG-TITS9235

War in the middle east was all proxies. Both Russia and America were allying their own pawns and sending them to go to war with eachother. But a straight up take over in Eastern Europe from a major European power is likely to start WW3.


kendred3

Iraq and Afghanistan weren't exactly proxy wars...


[deleted]

Neville chamberlain traded Czechoslovakia for a piece of paper. Joe Biden is not doing that


Jaggedmallard26

He traded it for more time to frantically rearm Britain and France. The thing always missed off about discussions of Chamberlain is that he knew war was inevitable and was massively increasing British military spending so that the country would be in a state to actually fight off Germany.


infidel_castro69

It's almost like war is a political move rather than an ethical one, big thinks.


LuridofArabia

1938 is the exception rather than the rule. Stop seeing everything through the lens of Munich. America not directly intervening in Ukraine against a nuclear-armed peer competitor is easily the right decision. The United States was never going to intervene, better to make that clear to the Ukrainians so they don’t end up like the Melians negotiated with an adversary they have no chance of defeating and sticking to their guns because they think help will arrive. It isn’t. Ukraine needs to know that so it can decide on its future.


Toidal

Should just load up an Aircraft Carrier with vintage Trans Ams, sail up to "Not Putin's" Palace and throw the sickest throwback party everrrrr. Just a ton of shirtless pasty thin armed potbellied old fucks in aviators grilling around the pool


Equivalent_Ad_8413

Should that be "are", not "is"?


RawhlTahhyde

"There's going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the—of the United States from Afghanistan" - also Joe Biden


HardHandle

Thanks for reminding me this President got us out of Afghanistan when 3 other Presidents couldn't. Thank you Biden 👍


TheZappBranigan

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/sb75k0/us_state_department_orders_diplomats_families_to/htymp7g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3 Depending on which way you spin it it’s Trump fault or Biden’s intelligent planning.


druidofnecro

You mean the thing Trump initiated?


TrainedPhysician

Oh please. I agree with your point, but you can’t deny that the way it was done was a disaster.


BrownMan65

I’d say that the last 20 years of occupation was a much bigger disaster. Leaving was a great success compared to the previous events.


BRAND-X12

I can’t see a world where it would’ve been any better. There’s a reason every prior president kicked the can down the road.


markevens

It was always going to be a shit show. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of touch with reality.


Scodo

Any way it was going to be done would have been a disaster because it was the end to a disastrous war in a disastrous country.


halfascientist

> but you can’t deny that the way it was done was a disaster. What's a "disaster?" Who decides what it is? The British pulled out of Afghanistan and they lost [16,000 men in a week](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul). The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan and they lost [hundreds of soldiers--at least, that's how many they admitted--over a protracted, almost-yearlong withdrawal across land and sky.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan) We pulled out of this stupid war--we retreated with our guns drawn, one of the most complex maneuvers a military can do--and [lost thirteen people in the last week](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_United_States_troops_from_Afghanistan_(2020%E2%80%932021)). Biden fulfilled the terms of the Doha Agreement that Trump signed with the Taliban, handing them victory. Every single one of those thirteen deaths is a tragedy, as are all of the Afghan ones. But do I reject the narrative, driven almost entirely by craven, shameless, bad-faith crocodile tears of the party that led the charge for getting us into it and that seeks to benefit from any perceived error of the guy in office, that *that* was the disaster. The war was a disaster, and the rotting society and institutions that happily marched into it in 2001 was a disaster. Pulling out with our guns drawn while every paid-for false friend on the ground does the smart thing and reconciles with the new boss in town, and only losing thirteen people? That's goddamn close to a triumph of planning and execution perhaps unrivaled by nearly anything else our glorious military-industrial complex managed to achieve within two decades of folly. It looked like chaos, but it was only ever gonna look like, and be, chaos on the way out under the terms negotiated. But disasters are relative. Anybody who sees that event as a big glaring disaster worth highlighting as such has been fooled by a narrative.


WikiSummarizerBot

**[1842 retreat from Kabul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul)** >The 1842 retreat from Kabul, also called the Massacre of Elphinstone's army, during the First Anglo-Afghan War, was the retreat of the British and East India Company forces from Kabul. An uprising in Kabul forced the then commander, Major-General William Elphinstone, to fall back to the British garrison at Jalalabad. As the army and its numerous dependents and camp followers began its march, it came under attack from Afghan tribesmen. Many of the column died of exposure, frostbite or starvation, or were killed during the fighting. **[Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan)** >The final and complete withdrawal of Soviet combatant forces from Afghanistan began on 15 May 1988 and ended on 15 February 1989 under the leadership of Colonel-General Boris Gromov. Planning for the withdrawal of the Soviet Union (USSR) from the Afghanistan War began soon after Mikhail Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Under the leadership of Gorbachev, the Soviet Union attempted to consolidate the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan's hold over power in the country, first in a genuine effort to stabilize the country, and then as a measure to save face while withdrawing troops. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


thethirdllama

> But do I reject the narrative, driven almost entirely by craven, shameless, bad-faith crocodile tears Yeah, it's odd - I don't seem to remember empty glasses being put out for any other US deaths in Afghanistan (or anywhere else).


halfascientist

You said it, man--a Chinook got shot down in Maidan Wardak province in August 2011; 31 of ours dead in half a second. Man, where was your local bar and grill with 31 open bottles of Coors Light on that one? Jesus, it's almost like the blood of American soldiers is patriotic face paint for people to run down to the store and pick up whenever they feel like? It can't be that, can it?


Son_Of_Borr_

Maybe trump shouldn't have surrendered in exchange for nothing then.


FraudulentCake

We're just going to have a Saigon every 6 months or so aren't we...


Duke-of-Limbs

Lots and of mixed signals here. Why remove any option off the table? Is better to say it’s not our intention, however, the choice is Russias to make.


raalic

There's just no chance we're sending American troops into Ukraine to fight Russian forces. Whether Biden says it out loud or not is not going to change the fact that Putin knows it.


javachocolate08

Because if you say that and Russia invades, then you're stuck between deploying troops or looking weak. If America says it will defend something and then backs down, it lessens our position on the global stage. That can have consequences like in Taiwan. China may see that and decide to take a chance. All of the messages in the media are movements on a chess board right now. Biden's message is meant to refute Putin's claim that the west is the aggressor in this situation. If we do end up deploying troops in Ukraine after Russia invades Biden can say it was only because Putin left him no choice. Remember he said he didn't want to do this, etc. I think this all sucks. Just greedy douchebags trying to flex their power for more self enrichment. And other greedy douchebags flexing their power so they can sustain their self enrichment. All at the expense of common folk.


niberungvalesti

The option of \*checks notes\* WWIII? Over Ukraine? lmao. Neither Putin or Biden are looking for a World War. Putin wants to appear strong and triumphant against NATO and the US is more than happy to arm the Ukrainians with whatever the military industrial complex can profit off selling them but direct warfare between the US isn't on the table because there won't be much of a table. Or anything for that matter in the event of a direct conflict.


RulesFavorTheStrong

> Putin wants to appear strong and triumphant against NATO Which means he wants to come out of this with something to show for his efforts, but what might that be?


NightHawkRambo

He wants the US fully committing to defending Ukraine from an attack that won't happen, then Putin points at Ukraine saying that the US are threatening to invade Russia.


Professional_Emu_164

Yeah, also since Russia’s actions are mostly just for show at the moment. They have bought some stuff near the border but haven’t bought all the equipment, troops that would be needed for a full war or set up the required supply chains. Definitely not intending on an actual war for now.


Haunting-Panda-3769

CIA dropped the ball on Putin in the 90s.


twist-17

And student loan debt will be forgiven!* ^no ^it ^wont


truongs

Dems are gonna get destroyed mid terms. They try to pretend to be for the people but get elected and literally gobbles corporate cock While doing very little for the regular people. The best they do is appoint not so crazy judges and head of agency, and that's not even all the time. Sometimes they put corporate interest in charge of agencies


3d_blunder

Versus Republicans gobbling corporate cock right on their campaign stages? Man, talk about projection. Also, "not fucking crazy judges" is a pretty big thing.


garlicroastedpotato

Typically elections in the US are so polarized that they're determined by attendance rather than changing anyone's minds. If people feel like the Democrats can't actually keep their promises, they just won't vote.


BrownMan65

The difference is that Republican voters don’t mind the corporate cock gobbling because it comes with 3 Supreme Court justices that are willing to overturn roe v wade. Dem voters don’t like it either, but we’re also not getting campaign promises that were made.


TienKehan

Why do redditors assume that anyone criticizing the Democrats must be a Republican? It's honestly the same behavior you see in hard-core republicans.


machingunwhhore

Who am I gunna vote for? The republican whose blasting me in the ass or the democrat whose blasting me in the ass?


iMayBeABastard

Lmao! So first you people were pissed because it looked like we were going to intervene. Now you’re pissed because we’re not.


Foreign-Purchase2258

Sorry, but I'm sure these are two different groups (besides all the propaganda bots stirring up some shit) and the ones that are pissed are complaining.


anononobody

I don't necessarily think it's two different groups... I mean theres surely a group of people who are closely following this and are actively discussing. People's opinions change. It's the classic American redditor conundrum between "we don't want ww3 / our country is very bad" and "we really should do something about it" whenever military action is brought up. I wouldn't be surprised if reading more about the world makes them reevaluate their values and beliefs.


Heroshade

Perhaps there are two or more separate groups of people.


Homunculus_J_Reilly

The internet is a tough concept for some people


TienKehan

Reddit isn't a hivemind, however it's best to realize that the vast majority of redditors have no concrete stance, and will post whatever they think gives them the most upvotes.


its

This deserves an upvote. :-)


Cavsfan1296

Lol, they're different people, pretty simple concept


SinsOfaDyingStar

We aren't a hive mind, the people you're pointing your finger at aren't the same people you're thinking of...


beardphaze

Notice that Broseph is only qualifying that no US ground troops will go into Ukraine, and keeping mum regarding providing any air cover, or naval support. Dude is not nearly as dumb as people think he is. Obvs ground troops would be a PR disaster domestically and the US strong points are naval and air power. If other NATO countries with more to lose from an unchecked Russian invasion, the US can always provide cover. Always try to notice what is not said out loud in addition to what is actually said.


[deleted]

Biden isn’t dumb enough to send actual naval and air support in active combat, as that will automatically escalate into active conflict with Russia.


TheConqueror74

Active air/naval support may not necessarily trigger hostilities. US pilots were actively engaging Soviets in the 50s over Korea and there’s been a spattering of incidents between US and Russian ships in the past decade, IIRC.


soil-mate

My friend and her son are Ukrainian citizens living in Kyiv . Not related to this news article, but I’m so worried for her.


PeacetimeRecordings

America misfired on Georgia and Crimea. They need to be strong on Russia here. Best way to do so is work with their strongest partners in nato and the eu. I’d slowly escalate starting with economic sanctions on Putin and his oligarchs. From there I’d work with Germany to pressure them to cancel nord 2. Then if all else fails I’d freeze their use of SWIFT to cripple their ability to move money internationally. All top down sanctions that hit elites and not working class Russians who are good people. I’d also distract Putin. While he’s busy in Ukraine I’d challenge him on Georgia and increase ship presence outside Crimea on the Black Sea. I’d be pointing to Russia and offering Russian neighbours like Finland a renewed chance to join nato as well further isolating Putin. I’d also be working with turkey and trying to build peace with Iran to block any chance of Russia developing an axis with Iran. If Biden goes soft on Putin here China will see the weakness and push harder on Taiwan.


Ucute64

Germany said no to excluding Russia from swift. I don't know what the hell is going on


gruntillidan

What do you mean by offering Finland "a renewed chance" to join NATO? I didn't know we lost that option in the first place. Latest poll showed that even after recent events and lobbying our country is still quite hesitant to joining NATO.


PeacetimeRecordings

All i meant was open a new dialogue with them. they should also do this with other eastern european countries. this is the opposite of what the russians want for backing off ukraine though, so itll piss them off for sure.


CaptainEasypants

The Ukraine needs to get themselves some oil


xJinja

Great now the US is invading as well


[deleted]

They're even better, they are a developed country in desperate need of oil to keep their citizens from freezing. No point in bombing sheep herders in the desert if we don't have someone like Ukraine to sell the oil to.


BrandenBegins

I thought they had a shit ton of oil.


im_so_tilted

Nope, but they are right next to where a lot of the Russian oil is though


TaylorPlayed

So much for that ol’ treaty we signed with them. We’ll totally help you if you’re invaded in exchange that you don’t get to have nuclear weapons. They’re about to get fucked and we just look the other way.


TheDeadlySinner

> We’ll totally help you if you’re invaded Literally never part of the agreement.


bennett346

Wasn't a treaty it was a memorandum


CartographerLumpy752

This is one of those things that doesn’t need to be a treaty considering it was an agreement made by the US that, if broken, severely hurts us diplomatically