US Coast Guard has ~13 Billion USD in budget, operates across the globe (there are USCG cutters both on Japan Sea and Black Sea) and is 5th or 6th strongest navy in the world:
Alternative title: Russia is getting richer while not being defeated by the US.
100k deaths is pure BS sourced by nothing except some propagandists wishful thinking. This kind of number would be impossible for Russia to hide we would have massive proofs.
Fwiw the US has given about 25% of it's 155mm shells to Ukraine and hasn't the capacity to replenish it at a good rate. They're buying shells to South Korea now.
I read that methodology of counting dead issuuch:
50 acme tanks destroyed -> one acme tank crew comprises of N men -> number of dead is 50xN. (Minus men seen run away in time)
Subscriber count, view count (neither of which is impressive), and being "big among people who read wikipedia" don't make that channel a higher quality source than any armchair general you can encounter at a bar.
Even by Youtube standards, the linked video isn't very good compared to channels like Perun. There's now a terrible number of channels reading off top 3 Google search results with the pathos of an expert.
The argument is that YouTube rewards what hivemind thinks is interesting and not what's correct or accurate.
Sargon of Akkad has 900k subscribers and according to the dude EU is two years away from collapse and open racial war because of immigration and the left since at least 2012 but none of that has realized. But a lot of people out there like his takes so he has subscribers.
They didn’t write 100K dead, but 100K killed or wounded, which doesn’t seem implausible. Obviously the large majority of those 100K is merely injured, not dead.
> Fwiw the US has given about 25% of it's 155mm shells to Ukraine…
Which doesn’t matter.
When I was on active duty (during the Cold War) at the end of the fiscal year they would send us out with obscene amounts of ammo to use because if it didn’t get used the budget would get cut for the next year.
Don’t you worry about the ammunition manufacturers, they are doing fine.
Define "obscene amounts". Ukraine shoots like 6.000 155mm rounds per day. US manufacturers can't produce that much, US government is currently doing market survey for potential new manufacturers, because Army reserves were severely depleted.
No one is going to fuck with the US regardless of how many 155mm shells we have.
Ukraine can't say the same, because unlike the US, they agreed to unilateral nuclear disarmament. After all, we told them we had their backs. What could possibly go wrong?
100k casualty would mean between 20k and 33k KIA depending on if the army is on the offense and if the medical supply are well distributed.
Russia isn't getting richer, everyone is getting poorer because of this conflict (it's econ 101).
I also know someone in the French military industry (big wig at Thales) who is extremely happy of how the russian equipment performed and actively recruit right now because he knows that even if the conflict end quickly, there is now way Russia keep its second place as world arms dealers, and already have a selling point about how the only russian equipment that wasn't disappointing used Thales optics, electronics and/or avionics. Don't know if it's real, but it seems backed by data and i don't see why he would lie to me (he knows i'm not interested).
Rising oil prices did benefit Russia immensely, though. IIRC their budget revenue even increased during the first half of 22. They shouldn't be doing that well now anymore (with falling prices and increasing restrictions). Of course it depends if EU will resume buying Russian gas at a large scale when/if current storage runs out.
Rising oil price have an effect on the world productive system, that's why we have decades of evidence oil having very low elasticity of demand, but also of supply. Rising oil price might have benefited Russia's budget, but not its productive system.
How horribly cynical. Ukrainian lives are not worth "peanuts".
The real "defeat" would have been enough credible deterrence by western forces that Russia would never have attempted this, with enough diplomacy they would not have felt the need to.
It's a travesty that this war ever happened, no one should feel like a winner.
Are you saying USA provoked the war, or somehow haven't done enough to avert it? If you remember events before the beginning of confrontation, it seems that USA was bending outwards trying to prevent invasion. What else could we do?
You seem to be arguing for more aggressive American interventionism, a perennial national political debate of rather global concern. I think you can rest assured it will be on quite the rise for the foreseeable future.
It seems likely that this recent invasion wouldn't have happened had severe sanctions been levied after Crimea was invaded. Or if Ukraine had been admitted to NATO. There were probably other more diplomatic avenues available. But it's hardly my area of expertise.
Well, Ukraine wanted to join NATO, so the US could have given them a security guarantee for if Russia invaded further than Crimea. Russia never wants to be seen as the ones causing escalation, even when they are, so it seems unlikely they'd have tested that guarantee. Would have saved a lot of lives.
Looking at what happened, it would also have saved a lot of lives if the US and allies had used their air forces to remove Russia at the beginning of the conflict. Never agreed with the assessment that would lead to ww3 or nuclear exchange, Russia would lose or everyone would lose in both cases.
Sadly, this is exactly what Ukrainian lives are worth to the US Military Industrial Complex.
Meanwhile in one of the worst years for stocks in recent history, Northrop Grumman & Lockheed Martin are having a banner year. So this war may be bad for Ukrainians but it is clearly in the financial interests of the US war machine to keep it going as long as possible.
The government, arms companies, watching how the weapons are being used in near real time, in HD, with drone footage, and sometimes annoying music overlaid is probably priceless.
That doesn't make that much sense. The US isn't sending Ukraine their advanced weapons, only old and/or moderately simple equipment. HIMARS is the only interesting one so far and they've given short range rockets.
I think for the Western military it's the intelligence about the state of the Russian forces that has been invaluable. But they know now, so it's not of much ongoing use.
It's an irrelevant whataboutism attempting to use emotions to convince people that abandoning an ally to conquest and cultural genocide is the "moral thing to do." Coupled with ignorant populism to boot.
It's not irrelevant, I've been screaming about the homeless problem for years on here and no one wants to do anything substantial. How about you get your war and we get homeless relief - since the solution is to just print non-existent money anyway? You really don't care about the homeless which I believe is evil too.
So, we just have to entirely ignore the human cost of war. Someone has to take that weapon system into the field and fire it at someone else. You can distract yourself with the small price tag of the munitions if you like, but you are essentially discussing the act of killing.
Wouldn't it also "cost us peanuts" to pursue peace?
This is a bizarre calculus to apply from the sidelines.
Yes, you're right, it would cost us peanuts to help negotiate how much of a peaceful country should be turned over to barbarian invaders in exchange for a (doubtless temporary) ceasefire.
Sometimes "peanuts" isn't the bargain you think it is.
Sadly this is true. People do not learn until they feel pain. And that means this has to keep going until the pain is felt by whoever loses, at the highest level.
The human cost of Russia's aggression would happen regardless. Ukraine wants to defend themselves and wants weapons. The US and allies send weapons. Everyone wins except Russia.
I wouldn't consider losing territory equivalent to losing lives. Also, isn't the opinion of those living in Crimea important?
Ukraine wants to defend themselves _and_ to retake Crimea, something they cannot do on their own, so they need weapons. Who is winning is not at all clear. When this started, it was assumed that Russia would collapse very quickly, so far this has not happened.. at what point is this strategy reconsidered?
Is the possibility of reconsideration already at hand, and are articles such as these meant to serve as a bulwark against breaks for peace? It makes me suspicious.
Assumption is that russia does not want peace. It wants a pause during which it can rebuild its military strength and repeat the war again, until ukraine de facto looses sovereignty (becomes similar to belarus)
> I wouldn't consider losing territory equivalent to losing lives.
Russian behavior in occupied regions makes it quite obvious that those are equivalent, at least for people who dare to not identify as Russian.
> Also, isn't the opinion of those living in Crimea important?
To a degree, although you need to consider policies of expelling non-Russians from Crimea and intentionally settling Russians there in how much stock you give that.
> When this started, it was assumed that Russia would collapse very quickly,
There was also fairly widespread surprise how well Ukraine held on.
It is intentionally framed that narrow, because this article is a direct refutation of the idea that aid should be discontinued because the price tag is too expensive.
It didn't cost peanuts. A lot of them died. Same with the NVA. We lost 58,000, but they lost well north of a million (Vietnam -I suspect the ratio is even higher for Afghanistan).
Much as I dislike their philosophy, I have to have respect for their dedication and discipline. It has to be pretty damn difficult to keep fighting against a military machine like that, when everyone around is in a hundred pieces.
The Taliban achieved their war goals, but they didn't eliminate or degrade the US ability to conduct offensive operations. They failed to put a dent in our tank fleet or airforce (to name two components). In that sense, the two conflicts have been very different. Ukraine is waging a conventional war, whereas the Taliban used asymmetric guerilla warfare.
Considering it cost 2 trillion for a war on terror that yielding little results: yeah the defeat of our closest peer rival for a fraction of that is an economical buy
> Ukraine is no Vietnam or Afghanistan for the US, but it is exactly that for Russia.
In some ways it is similar to an Afghanistan for the US; the US supplied arms to Afghanistan in the Soviet-Afghanistan war. The conditions are different here, I think, and I hope this doesn't foreshadow a future US-Ukraine war.
Russia can't be defeated as long as it has nukes. It's in the US and the entire world's interest(except Ukraine and few european countries) to not make Russia into another North Korea. With Russia's historical ally winter arriving, the enemies of Russia are not gonna have it as easy.
> Russia can't be defeated as long as it has nukes.
Why not? The Soviet Union lost a few times, even with nukes. The US has lost repeatedly, even with nukes. I don't know why nukes would prevent it from losing. Prevent it from being taken over, maybe, but that's not really what's at stake here.
I keep hearing from Western pundits that Russian economy is tanking, but isn't it the other way around? The US economy is doing very bad, energy prices are skyrocketing, and Europe is looking into a freezing cold winter. Meanwhile Russia has surplus energy and is making global strategic alliances with China and India and other potentially smaller player. Turkey is playing the role of a neutral mediator between Russia and the West. The US doesn't even have its house in order: massively polarized society with the gap between left/right drifting wider and deeper.
Russia just showed very clear to the whole world how weak it is. In this light, non-western players happily take their gas/oil/money and trade, but it's them who make the rules and the prices. Soon they will make economical inroads and make the country dependent - even faster if the government destabilizes. They will be as free and self-sufficient on the world stage as North Korea.
US and Europe economies are not doing well but it is high likely that Russia will do way worse:
> According to independent analysis by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2022 will be a bad year for the Russian economy. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to drop by at least 5.5% in the best scenario to almost 9% in the worst scenario.
Russia is officially in a recession now, and by their own forecasts will remain so throughout 2023 at least. Europe and the US are not quite in a recession yet, although close to it. GDP growth is predicted to be around 0% for both Europe and the US in 2023. Russia is doing clearly worse right now.
> I keep hearing from Western pundits that Russian economy is tanking, but isn't it the other way around?
Last time I've checked Russia had to purchase arms from Iran because they are no longer able to produce those themselves due to severed supply from Europe, while plenty of european countries are increasing military development and production.
Russia is also forced to disassembly some of their passenger planes for spare parts because they no longer can ship those from Airbus or Boeing.
Russia can no longer import semiconductors from US/Europe, Taiwan, Korea or Japan. This effectively stopped their high-tech industry from working. This hit their civil and military aviation (which includes production of their AA, CM and cruise missiles, and passenger plane program).
Civilian production is also seriously affected by the sanctions. Lada cars are now produced in very basic variant due to no access to parts from EU or Asia.
Russia is also recommissioning soviet-era arms because they are no longer able to use their "modern" tech without weakening their military on other fronts.
Because Russian government is de facto a mafia state, the govt itself considers large companies ran by people outside of oligarchy a threat to itself, meaning that Russia has no national industry it can turn to for filling in the gaps created by sanctions:
Bank of Russia is doing whatever it can to protect country's economy from crisis, but they are doing it in same way that Turkey does: through selling their reserves. They can't do that forever.
If we divide out the US defense budget to the threats it faces, Russia would perhaps be of the order of $100bn-150bn in spend-to-threat. So spending just $40bn a year, erodes a threat value of $100-150bn, a two-to-three time return
Does the money given to Ukraine come out of the defense budget, or does it come on top?
If it's the latter, then the above sentence makes no sense. $40bn is less than $100, but so what when it's in addition to it?
Great argument to cut US defense budget in half. If we can defeat Russia for pennies the US is vastly overpaying to defend against paper tiger enemies.
> Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy institution based in Washington DC
> CEPA’s mission is to ensure a strong and enduring transatlantic alliance rooted in democratic values and principles with strategic vision, foresight, and impact. Through cutting-edge research, analysis, and engagement, we provide innovative insight on trends affecting democracy, security, and defense to government officials and agencies
In other words, it is a US government sponsored, CIA think tank about manipulation of European countries, and CIA/NATO unofficial media publisher.
FYI, the account that you are replying to has a very long track record of pushing this talking point (and other crank opinions), so do not think that you are engaging in a good faith discussion with someone who can be convinced (1) - if they could be, it would have happened long ago. They're here to push that opinion into the public sphere.
That account was even banned from posting for a while (2), thankfully. Why it was allowed back, I do not know.
I read this entire call. The CIA is not mentioned. It's talking about the situation on the ground and details how the US is trying to help the Ukrainian opposition . It does show the US lied when it said it was "working with all sides" but nothing in the call shows the US was directly involved in the start of the conflict, funded the opposition prior to the coup, or that the CIA was involved.
This article doesn't state that the CIA started the conflict. It says that the CIA was helping the interim government in Kiev end the rebellion. That occurred after the revolution. In fact the article states "The interim Kiev government took charge in late February after months of street protests forced the ouster of Kremlin-friendly Yanukovych."
"Citing unnamed German security sources, Bild am Sonntag said the CIA and FBI agents were helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set up a functioning security structure. It said the agents were not directly involved in fighting with pro-Russian militants". Helping the new Ukrainian government end the rebellion would occur post revolution i.e. post coup. This doesn't prove earlier involvement.
This is a complex article with two sections so I divided it up
Part 1 - Marcy Wheeler, not the author of this article but is a senior policy analyst at Pando is quotes by the article's author
This article first says "Marcy Wheeler, who is the new site's "senior policy analyst," speculated that the Ukraine revolution was likely a “coup” engineered by “deep" forces on behalf of “Pax Americana”:
“There's quite a bit of evidence of coup-ness. Q is how many levels deep interference from both sides is.” - Marcy Wheeler
What's Pax Americana? It doesn't offer any evidence of that. The term has a link to a tweet thread that says the Ukrainian parliament staged a coup but offers no evidence. The tweet links to "http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/06/28/the-next-honduras/" which is about the Paraguay coup in 2012 (I don't know anything about this coup except that it's not Ukraine). Is this some other conspiracy about American power expansion in South American? It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about..
She also mentions Q. I'm not sure if she's referring to the cult or using it as a general term for deep state activities. Either way it's difficult to see a person use it and not lose respect.
Part 2 - The main article by Mark Ames
The main article is an investigation into Marcy Wheeler's more general claims about US involvement in the Ukrainian revolution. Why didn't she do that since she's part of this news source and made the accusation......
I maan sure the US encouraged things but the pro Russian president Yanukovych was removed from office by Ukraine's parliament in 328 to 0 vote. Here's a pic of them after the vote https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26304842. They look quite cheerful to me and not just forced by the CIA to do it.
“Why not start talking about [peace talks] before you throw another 100,000 lives into the abyss?” the second U.S. official said.[0]
You can have of course have 100,000 KIA and be winning regardless, but, in that case, why would the US be pushing for negotiations now? You’d have to be very naive to think this is humanitarian concern. So maybe that picture painted for Western audiences is not accurate after all?
The biggest win, imo, is nipping a potential WW3 in the bud. If Russia were winning, it would have been emboldened to attack more European countries. It might have emboldened China to attach Taiwan.
Putin was showing traits of early hitler where he was up to annex whatever the hell he thought was next. But unlike hitler, Putin is losing badly. A weak Putin Russia also means that there is no chance that Russia attacks any other country.
I wish the media, especially conservative media, focused more on this point rather than partisan politics.
Putin’s hubris coupled with Ukraine’s bravery is reshaping the world for decades to come. Instead of fomenting chaos, the war is expanding Western influence, solidarity, and military power. There is no true victory for Russia, even somehow seizing all of Ukraine, at this point, would still be an economic, geopolitical, and military loss over the following decades. China gains a northern vassal and discounted energy, but I question whether that makes up for the setback of a reinvigorated Western alliance.
All this for Putin’s pride? He set Ukraine up for the role of morally righteous heroic defenders, and they are exceeding all expectations in living up to it. Giving the West an existential threat with a moral cause to support that aligns with their long term pure self interest is dumbfounding.
They may not have fulfilled all their main goals to a 100%. However, they seem to be still occupying large amounts of territory that belonged to the Ukrainian government, including most of the Dombas and the water sources of Crimea.
No, but even a Pyrrhic victory appears out of reach. A 100% instant capitulation by Ukraine wouldn't undue most sanctions, NATO expansion, Western military buildup, their tarnished military reputation, or even a semblance of their recent soft power. It's projected to take 10+ years to create the manufacturing base needed just to start rebuilding their former military strength, dependent as it was on Western sources.
I don't think anyone sees a way out of this that approaches a "win" from the Russian perspective.
Not yet, but every week they occupy less and less territory, lose more soldiers and more equipment.
> They may not have fulfilled all their main goals to a 100%. However, they seem to be still occupying large amounts of territory that belonged to the Ukrainian government, including most of the Dombas and the water sources of Crimea.
They don't seem so confident in keeping Crimea, they are building defences in it already.
117 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] threadUkraine military budget: ~6 Billion.
And I still have to dodge motorcycles going the wrong way through red light in bike paths.
Police defunding in Seattle would be a disaster for example.
https://www.uscg.mil/budget/
Fwiw the US has given about 25% of it's 155mm shells to Ukraine and hasn't the capacity to replenish it at a good rate. They're buying shells to South Korea now.
Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljhWeHWN1QM
Even by Youtube standards, the linked video isn't very good compared to channels like Perun. There's now a terrible number of channels reading off top 3 Google search results with the pathos of an expert.
Sargon of Akkad has 900k subscribers and according to the dude EU is two years away from collapse and open racial war because of immigration and the left since at least 2012 but none of that has realized. But a lot of people out there like his takes so he has subscribers.
Which doesn’t matter.
When I was on active duty (during the Cold War) at the end of the fiscal year they would send us out with obscene amounts of ammo to use because if it didn’t get used the budget would get cut for the next year.
Don’t you worry about the ammunition manufacturers, they are doing fine.
Ukraine can't say the same, because unlike the US, they agreed to unilateral nuclear disarmament. After all, we told them we had their backs. What could possibly go wrong?
100k casualty would mean between 20k and 33k KIA depending on if the army is on the offense and if the medical supply are well distributed.
Russia isn't getting richer, everyone is getting poorer because of this conflict (it's econ 101).
I also know someone in the French military industry (big wig at Thales) who is extremely happy of how the russian equipment performed and actively recruit right now because he knows that even if the conflict end quickly, there is now way Russia keep its second place as world arms dealers, and already have a selling point about how the only russian equipment that wasn't disappointing used Thales optics, electronics and/or avionics. Don't know if it's real, but it seems backed by data and i don't see why he would lie to me (he knows i'm not interested).
The real "defeat" would have been enough credible deterrence by western forces that Russia would never have attempted this, with enough diplomacy they would not have felt the need to.
It's a travesty that this war ever happened, no one should feel like a winner.
> The cost-benefit analysis of US support for Ukraine is incontrovertible
No
> or somehow haven't done enough to avert it?
Well, it's patently obvious that the war wasn't averted.
>If you remember events before the beginning of confrontation, it seems that USA was bending outwards trying to prevent invasion.
I don't remember the US doing much at all when this started several years ago.
Looking at what happened, it would also have saved a lot of lives if the US and allies had used their air forces to remove Russia at the beginning of the conflict. Never agreed with the assessment that would lead to ww3 or nuclear exchange, Russia would lose or everyone would lose in both cases.
1. No full-on invasion in feb’22
2. The full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine and the restoration of the pre-2014 borders.
3. Ukraine being free to seek to join Nato and/or EU.
Meanwhile in one of the worst years for stocks in recent history, Northrop Grumman & Lockheed Martin are having a banner year. So this war may be bad for Ukrainians but it is clearly in the financial interests of the US war machine to keep it going as long as possible.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/11/17/us-empire-views-ukra...
I think for the Western military it's the intelligence about the state of the Russian forces that has been invaluable. But they know now, so it's not of much ongoing use.
It's evil.
They gave Putin all the power, Putin surrounded himself with yes-men, then corruption made sure nothing gets done to specifications.
In paper, Russia was a military superpower, in practice, all the resources got stolen along the way.
and transferred to the West
Wouldn't it also "cost us peanuts" to pursue peace?
This is a bizarre calculus to apply from the sidelines.
Sometimes "peanuts" isn't the bargain you think it is.
Ukraine wants to defend themselves _and_ to retake Crimea, something they cannot do on their own, so they need weapons. Who is winning is not at all clear. When this started, it was assumed that Russia would collapse very quickly, so far this has not happened.. at what point is this strategy reconsidered?
Is the possibility of reconsideration already at hand, and are articles such as these meant to serve as a bulwark against breaks for peace? It makes me suspicious.
Russian behavior in occupied regions makes it quite obvious that those are equivalent, at least for people who dare to not identify as Russian.
> Also, isn't the opinion of those living in Crimea important?
To a degree, although you need to consider policies of expelling non-Russians from Crimea and intentionally settling Russians there in how much stock you give that.
> When this started, it was assumed that Russia would collapse very quickly,
There was also fairly widespread surprise how well Ukraine held on.
Meanwhile the US and their NATO allies spent, what, a trillion on that war?
Dedicated defense seems to be very good now at defeating foreign troops.
Much as I dislike their philosophy, I have to have respect for their dedication and discipline. It has to be pretty damn difficult to keep fighting against a military machine like that, when everyone around is in a hundred pieces.
In some ways it is similar to an Afghanistan for the US; the US supplied arms to Afghanistan in the Soviet-Afghanistan war. The conditions are different here, I think, and I hope this doesn't foreshadow a future US-Ukraine war.
Why not? The Soviet Union lost a few times, even with nukes. The US has lost repeatedly, even with nukes. I don't know why nukes would prevent it from losing. Prevent it from being taken over, maybe, but that's not really what's at stake here.
> According to independent analysis by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2022 will be a bad year for the Russian economy. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to drop by at least 5.5% in the best scenario to almost 9% in the worst scenario.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/impact-sanct...
Last time I've checked Russia had to purchase arms from Iran because they are no longer able to produce those themselves due to severed supply from Europe, while plenty of european countries are increasing military development and production.
Russia is also forced to disassembly some of their passenger planes for spare parts because they no longer can ship those from Airbus or Boeing.
Russia can no longer import semiconductors from US/Europe, Taiwan, Korea or Japan. This effectively stopped their high-tech industry from working. This hit their civil and military aviation (which includes production of their AA, CM and cruise missiles, and passenger plane program).
Civilian production is also seriously affected by the sanctions. Lada cars are now produced in very basic variant due to no access to parts from EU or Asia.
Russia is also recommissioning soviet-era arms because they are no longer able to use their "modern" tech without weakening their military on other fronts.
Because Russian government is de facto a mafia state, the govt itself considers large companies ran by people outside of oligarchy a threat to itself, meaning that Russia has no national industry it can turn to for filling in the gaps created by sanctions:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1501382714427166721
Bank of Russia is doing whatever it can to protect country's economy from crisis, but they are doing it in same way that Turkey does: through selling their reserves. They can't do that forever.
Does the money given to Ukraine come out of the defense budget, or does it come on top?
If it's the latter, then the above sentence makes no sense. $40bn is less than $100, but so what when it's in addition to it?
I must have missed it, was there ever a vote on that?
When does the War Powers Act kick in?
Fight a proxy war with a nuclear power, see what happens!
I would prefer not to see what happens.
> CEPA’s mission is to ensure a strong and enduring transatlantic alliance rooted in democratic values and principles with strategic vision, foresight, and impact. Through cutting-edge research, analysis, and engagement, we provide innovative insight on trends affecting democracy, security, and defense to government officials and agencies
In other words, it is a US government sponsored, CIA think tank about manipulation of European countries, and CIA/NATO unofficial media publisher.
I was there. What about you?
That account was even banned from posting for a while (2), thankfully. Why it was allowed back, I do not know.
1)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32314627
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32990026
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32314574
2)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32323579
"Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call" - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
"The CIA And FBI Are Reportedly Advising Ukraine As Pro-Russia Separatists Spread Across The Country" - https://www.businessinsider.com/cia-and-fbi-reportedly-advis...
"Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show" - https://pandodaily.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-u...
Our use of CIA/State Dept Tech Camp to help foment revolution, video posted by US embassy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpIoBUDuL3U (also see this for background on how we use the program elsewhere: https://www.fastcompany.com/1744389/hillary-clintons-senior-...
"Washington Was Behind Ukraine Coup: Obama admits that US “Brokered a Deal” in Support of “Regime Change”" - https://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-was-behind-ukraine-...
"How and why the U.S. Government Perpetrated the 2014 Coup in Ukraine" - https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/06/04/how-and-why-the-u-s-go...
"In the rapidly worsening Ukraine fiasco, the U.S. is reaping exactly what it sowed" - https://www.salon.com/2022/02/02/in-the-rapidly-worsening-uk...
"A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War" - https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia...
"The 2014 coup in Ukraine" - https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/2014-coup-ukraine
"The United States Is Reaping What It Sowed in Ukraine" - https://progressive.org/latest/us-reaping-sowed-in-ukraine-b...
"Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault" - https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t...
I don't want to overwhelm you with sources, so this is a good balanced start if you're looking for more information.
"Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call" - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
------------------------------------------
I read this entire call. The CIA is not mentioned. It's talking about the situation on the ground and details how the US is trying to help the Ukrainian opposition . It does show the US lied when it said it was "working with all sides" but nothing in the call shows the US was directly involved in the start of the conflict, funded the opposition prior to the coup, or that the CIA was involved.
------------------------------------------
"The CIA And FBI Are Reportedly Advising Ukraine As Pro-Russia Separatists Spread Across The Country" - https://www.businessinsider.com/cia-and-fbi-reportedly-advis...
------------------------------------------
This article doesn't state that the CIA started the conflict. It says that the CIA was helping the interim government in Kiev end the rebellion. That occurred after the revolution. In fact the article states "The interim Kiev government took charge in late February after months of street protests forced the ouster of Kremlin-friendly Yanukovych."
"Citing unnamed German security sources, Bild am Sonntag said the CIA and FBI agents were helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set up a functioning security structure. It said the agents were not directly involved in fighting with pro-Russian militants". Helping the new Ukrainian government end the rebellion would occur post revolution i.e. post coup. This doesn't prove earlier involvement.
------------------------------------------
"Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show" - https://pandodaily.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-u...
------------------------------------------
This is a complex article with two sections so I divided it up
Part 1 - Marcy Wheeler, not the author of this article but is a senior policy analyst at Pando is quotes by the article's author
This article first says "Marcy Wheeler, who is the new site's "senior policy analyst," speculated that the Ukraine revolution was likely a “coup” engineered by “deep" forces on behalf of “Pax Americana”:
“There's quite a bit of evidence of coup-ness. Q is how many levels deep interference from both sides is.” - Marcy Wheeler
What's Pax Americana? It doesn't offer any evidence of that. The term has a link to a tweet thread that says the Ukrainian parliament staged a coup but offers no evidence. The tweet links to "http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/06/28/the-next-honduras/" which is about the Paraguay coup in 2012 (I don't know anything about this coup except that it's not Ukraine). Is this some other conspiracy about American power expansion in South American? It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about..
She also mentions Q. I'm not sure if she's referring to the cult or using it as a general term for deep state activities. Either way it's difficult to see a person use it and not lose respect.
Part 2 - The main article by Mark Ames
The main article is an investigation into Marcy Wheeler's more general claims about US involvement in the Ukrainian revolution. Why didn't she do that since she's part of this news source and made the accusation......
You can have of course have 100,000 KIA and be winning regardless, but, in that case, why would the US be pushing for negotiations now? You’d have to be very naive to think this is humanitarian concern. So maybe that picture painted for Western audiences is not accurate after all?
[0]: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/14/u-s-ukraine-milley-...
Putin cannot pull out of Ukraine without being overthrown, and Zelensky cannot concede land to Russia without similarity losing power.
So the two nations will continue to fight and many tens of thousands more will die until the populations are ready to accept compromise.
Putin was showing traits of early hitler where he was up to annex whatever the hell he thought was next. But unlike hitler, Putin is losing badly. A weak Putin Russia also means that there is no chance that Russia attacks any other country.
Putin’s hubris coupled with Ukraine’s bravery is reshaping the world for decades to come. Instead of fomenting chaos, the war is expanding Western influence, solidarity, and military power. There is no true victory for Russia, even somehow seizing all of Ukraine, at this point, would still be an economic, geopolitical, and military loss over the following decades. China gains a northern vassal and discounted energy, but I question whether that makes up for the setback of a reinvigorated Western alliance.
All this for Putin’s pride? He set Ukraine up for the role of morally righteous heroic defenders, and they are exceeding all expectations in living up to it. Giving the West an existential threat with a moral cause to support that aligns with their long term pure self interest is dumbfounding.
They may not have fulfilled all their main goals to a 100%. However, they seem to be still occupying large amounts of territory that belonged to the Ukrainian government, including most of the Dombas and the water sources of Crimea.
No, but even a Pyrrhic victory appears out of reach. A 100% instant capitulation by Ukraine wouldn't undue most sanctions, NATO expansion, Western military buildup, their tarnished military reputation, or even a semblance of their recent soft power. It's projected to take 10+ years to create the manufacturing base needed just to start rebuilding their former military strength, dependent as it was on Western sources.
I don't think anyone sees a way out of this that approaches a "win" from the Russian perspective.
Not yet, but every week they occupy less and less territory, lose more soldiers and more equipment.
> They may not have fulfilled all their main goals to a 100%. However, they seem to be still occupying large amounts of territory that belonged to the Ukrainian government, including most of the Dombas and the water sources of Crimea.
They don't seem so confident in keeping Crimea, they are building defences in it already.