Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, here’s Biden personally lobbying to disarm Ukraine on Nov 25, 1991, just as they become independent - to save Russia the headache.
> “The Soviet desire to get US support to destroy these weapons is not all because they worry they will be used against the United States. They worry they will be used against them (Russia).
> The Ukraine has a significant number of nuclear warheads on their landmass. They declare independence tomorrow, mr. president. They nationalize, in effect, all those weapons that are now on their territory.
> They become an INSTANT nuclear power, mr. president. With a government, we know naught of, in circumstances we cannot contemplate, and, for the Russian republic… a new dimension with which they have to deal.”
This was done with the knowledge that Russian nationalist leaders were already threatening the Baltics, Kazakhstan and Ukraine with military action.
It’s also mentioned that if a newly independent Ukraine doesn’t comply with disarmament, withholding food aid should be on the table.
Virtually suggesting that the U.S. starve Ukraine into submission on the eve of their independence.
Again, that’s Ukraine, a country that lost millions to a Stalinist genocide. Sam Nunn is a real class act.
To be perfectly clear, the two gentlemen here (Biden and Nunn) are Democrats. But these policies were Bipartisan.
Senator Lugar, Senator Nunn’s direct partner in all this, was a Republican. And in 1991, George H.W. Bush was president.
If you want to understand what the US foreign policy establishment was thinking at this time, read this attached thread.
It deep dives into what Ash Carter and his team at Harvard recommended the US do in reaction to the nuclear Soviet successor states.
1/ Hypothetical Mid-War 2024 Election Results in Ukraine 🗳️
Who would have won? These polls have the answer.
And it's not always Zelensky (👀Zaluzhnyi).
Data in the thread 🧵⤵️
2/ SOCIS polled Ukrainians 2x in 2024 (in Mar/Dec), and in the reports, we see 3 key results.
First, a large majority of Ukrainians do not support holding elections during martial law (✅) but more interestingly, Zelensky wins or loses depending on the opponent.
According to the results, 4-star Ukrainian general and diplomat Zaluzhnyi beats Zelensky (68% to 32% in the 2nd round) in both polls.
And Zelensky beats Poroshenko (67% to 33% in the 2nd round), if Zaluzhnyi does not participate.
3/ The attractiveness of a former general like Zaluzhnyi as a candidate is surely influenced by the fact that an hot war was occurring when the poll was conducted, however, that won't necessarily change right after some sort of weak ceasefire + elections.
.@McFaul thank you for hosting the event, good to see you speak in person. The question period was too short!
❎ I know this was done with no ill intent, but I would ask that you try to avoid promoting the idea that Ukrainians think Russians have some “genetic flaw.” This was very unhelpful to the discourse and we do not believe that. Please do not seed fringe parts of the discourse into the mainstream. Not only does it drive allied liberal Russians and Ukrainians apart, but it felt like you created a strawman that @vkaramurza immediately latched onto.
There are legitimate criticisms of Russia having a long cultural history of imperialism and this type of talk stifles those discussions. It is actually a soft form of the propaganda that the Kremlin has pushed (that Ukrainians are irredeemable nazis, thus Russia’s aggression is justified).
This was brought up TWICE during the conversation but specifically seeded by you unnecessarily. It’s too easy for people to cling to statements like this.
Thank you. 🙇♂️
❎ The second strawman I heard was the talk about breaking Russia into parts by @vkaramurza as if it’s the only other option to supporting bringing Russia back into the rule-based order. This is an unrealistic thing to discuss given the American establishment’s view on proliferation of nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. They will never let Russia Balkanize like Yugoslavia. And it is an explicit American policy to try to have just one nuclear power in Eurasia, as written by Ash Carter and implemented in the 90’s. This subject seems like it was just there as a rhetorical tool to impose some false dichotomy.
✅ @vkaramurza spoke of us all wanting to see Putin on trial. I agree with him and I believe he genuinely wants this. But the comparisons to the post-war trials of Nazi leadership or Milošević differ in a critical way, which is the nuclear angle and how this has changed American policy towards Russia (in contrast to the outcome of the conventional conflicts of non-nuclear Yugoslavia or Germany).
It seems unlikely we will see this ever happen, even if Putin loses the war. Stalin never faced a trial for the Holodomor, and likely, neither will Putin. He may live long enough to see the outcome of his actions, though.
Even if we hit the worst case scenario and ALL of Eastern Ukraine was occupied, the Dnipro River is a very strong line of defence for what would have been a second line of defence. This line is as strong as anything else we currently have in the east.
Russian fascist ideologue, Aleksandr Dugin has written that the ENTIRE Black Sea coast of Ukraine must be under Moscow’s control.
1/ Mike Waltz (R-FL) is also being considered for the Sec of Def position. He shared his personal views on Ukraine on Oct 18, 2024
Imo, he more closely aligns with Trump’s current position and is more likely to be selected over Mike Rogers because of that
His key points (1/2):
- Ukraine asked for weapons before the invasion, to deter Russia
- Biden’s admin was trying to de-escalate with Russia and not give Putin “an excuse to invade”, thus refused to provide weapons
- He criticized Biden’s statement that the U.S. is not sure how it would respond to a “minor incursions” in Ukraine, and Biden lifting sanctions on Nord Stream + the Afghanistan withdrawal
- He compared Afghanistan and Ukraine, the idea of spending money, without a clear idea of what success looks like
- He states that liberating all of Ukraine including Crimea is “not realistic”
- The interviewer comments that the presidential drawdown authority running out in a few months
- Mike further criticizes Biden for waiting so long to make an oval address to explain the purpose of the war
- He complaints about how the Europeans in Afghanistan weren’t useful because the Western European capitals (German, French) restrained their soldier’s operations, only allowing them to shoot if shot at.
- He says this is the largest European land war since WW2, calling out some allies who are stepping up (Poles, Baltics, Romanians, British really contributing). But the largest economies like Germany, Italy, France, Spain, are still not living up to their bare minimum 2% commitment
- He says the burden sharing should be disproportionate on the European side of the ledger. Until we force those tough conversations to happen, [Western Europe] is going to keep getting away with it
- France has an economy 4x the size of Polands, but is contributing 1/4th
- Criticism of the German tanks sent to Ukraine, and a discussion of the replacement valuations on the equipment (vs the actual value). He doesn’t seem to believe Germany is being honest about the value of their contributions
2/ The discussion shifts to Russia’s allies, North Korea, Kursk, and Iran + China more overtly supplying Russia.
Key Points (2/2):
- Re: Iran: China provides cash by buying illicit Iranian oil. He mentions Trump’s secondary sanctions threats to China - not allowing them to buy American oil if they buy Iranian oil. He doesn’t mention anything about secondary sanctions on Russia.
- Hezbollah and the Houthis apparently complained that they were out of cash to pay their fighters while under pressure from Trump. The belief is that internal uprisings may occur inside Iran if this is done again.
- he recommends going back to max pressure, drying the cash up, lifting American LNG bans and flooding the global market with oil. Trying to get the price down to $50/barrel, undermining the Iranian and Russian economies
- He complains that the U.S. is still buying Uranium for America’s nuclear industry from Russia, instead of opening more domestic mines and dealing with the legal environmental obstacles
- He mentions there’s not a single gas terminal allowed on the West Coast because of regulation (leaving East Asian countries with no choice but to buy Russian gas because we can’t export to them easily).
3/ In general, Waltz seems to have been a fairly strong supporter of Ukraine early on. He started using the language of “winning” the war in 2022. He opposed a bad peace / weakly negotiated scenario where Putin might attack Ukraine again in the future.
Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) who is being considered to lead the DoD, is a stalwart supporter of Ukraine. Here he is countering disinfo of misuse of military aid and speaking to how most the funds go to high-skilled jobs across America. Also, that it sends a signal to the CCP / China.
“I want to assure my colleagues that there has been no evidence of diversion of weapons provided to Ukraine, or any other assistance.
What most folks don’t realize is that the money DoD is spending on Ukraine is actually going towards creating high-skilled, good-paying jobs right here at home.
…
These includes jobs AZ to build stingers and javelins. Jobs in PA, OH, IA, MO to build ammunition. Jobs in TX, FL, AL to build Patriot missiles… Weapons factories in TN, FL, VA, WV.
Equally important to deterring China is standing by our commitment to Ukraine. Walking away sends the wrong signals to President Xi, and the Chinese Communist Party.
Let’s quickly come to a compromise that secures our border and keeps our commitment to Ukraine.”
Regarding any confusion about two different people with the name Mike Rogers, Fox did confirm it was Mike Rogers from Alabama.
Ukraine should NOT help Moldova liberate Transnistria
If they do, the EU will bring Moldova in as an unoccupied nation, then Germany will create fake excuses for why Ukraine can’t join until fully de-occupied or until it accepts Russian annexation of occupied Ukraine
If the EU lets in Moldova while partially occupied, Ukraine can enter the EU partially occupied
If Moldova enters the EU sans-Ukraine, the incentive for Romania to assist Ukraine may decrease and they may disengage
Ukraine should strategically try to enter the EU side-by-side with Moldova