4 ms·

Here is the actual draft treaty: https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en Notice t

Here is the actual draft treaty: https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en Notice that it is purely focused on security guarantees. It does not say, as you incorrectly asserted, that Russia gets sole rights to Ukraine's natural resources. Both Russian AND Western billionaires would continue to be able to exploit them. Sure, Russian ones might have an advantage because it's on their doorstep and they speak the same language. But that's geography for you. Ironically, since Washington refused this treaty, Russia will likely gain exclusive economic access to eastern (done) and southern (WIP) Ukraine, and former Ukraine will become landlocked if not dissolve entirely to Poland et al.

monetus 3y ago
This is prior to March 2023, and ignores the annexation of the gas fields, as well as the additions Russia has added to it's constitution since the war began. Being from 2021, what relevance does that document have? Ukraine was not party to that, and had within its constitution a mandate to join NATO. Hundreds of thousands of casualties for what? Here is a map of the gas fields - https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/euobs-media/30196762d9c69fc2eeb5daf9391f405a.jpg https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/euobs-media/30196762d9... Please act in good faith.
- pphysch 3y ago
  > Please act in good faith FWIW, disagreement does not equate to "bad faith". The "Russia invaded Ukraine mainly for its natural resources narrative" requires extraordinary cherry-picking of historical fact to support. - Russia already has oodles of natural resources. They export them to the West for a bargain. This is not Japan in WW2. - Do a modicum of research on post-Soviet IR in Europe. What were Gorbachev's and Putin's agendas vis-a-vis Europe, based not on Applebaumian psychoanalysis but public statements and action? Study the Budapest Memo, Putin's 2007 MSC speech, Minsk agreements, etc. - Also do a modicum of research on the agendas from the other side. What was Brzezinski saying about post-Soviet geopolitics? What is Victoria Nuland working on in the Bush, Obama, and Biden State Departments? What was Yalta European Strategy about? How did Zelensky rapidly rise from clown to president? What does the leaked Nuland-Pyatt call reveal? There is an enormous amount of historical fact that we can build our understanding on, rather than resorting to simplistic Zeihan-tier pseudo-intellectualism.
  - monetus 3y ago
    I mentioned bad faith not out of disagreement but because it seemed like you were dodging the points brought up. This thread began by stating the war was begun by malicious American entities, in its entirety. They aren't mutually exclusive, but again, the occupation of gas fields, and now the embargo of grain, is about depriving the Ukrainian government. not domestic shortages. That is the thing that makes me mention bad faith. I have researched these agendas, and I recheck the records and rumors frequently. The zeihen doomerism is disenguine hawking of his trade and book, but what makes you think that this war is all an American diplomatic failure brought at the behest of western billionaires? A war is complicated, and simplifying it isn't helpful.

monetus 3y ago

This is prior to March 2023, and ignores the annexation of the gas fields, as well as the additions Russia has added to it's constitution since the war began. Being from 2021, what relevance does that document have? Ukraine was not party to that, and had within its constitution a mandate to join NATO. Hundreds of thousands of casualties for what? Here is a map of the gas fields - https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/euobs-media/30196762d9c69fc2eeb5daf9391f405a.jpg https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/euobs-media/30196762d9... Please act in good faith.

pphysch 3y ago
> Please act in good faith FWIW, disagreement does not equate to "bad faith". The "Russia invaded Ukraine mainly for its natural resources narrative" requires extraordinary cherry-picking of historical fact to support. - Russia already has oodles of natural resources. They export them to the West for a bargain. This is not Japan in WW2. - Do a modicum of research on post-Soviet IR in Europe. What were Gorbachev's and Putin's agendas vis-a-vis Europe, based not on Applebaumian psychoanalysis but public statements and action? Study the Budapest Memo, Putin's 2007 MSC speech, Minsk agreements, etc. - Also do a modicum of research on the agendas from the other side. What was Brzezinski saying about post-Soviet geopolitics? What is Victoria Nuland working on in the Bush, Obama, and Biden State Departments? What was Yalta European Strategy about? How did Zelensky rapidly rise from clown to president? What does the leaked Nuland-Pyatt call reveal? There is an enormous amount of historical fact that we can build our understanding on, rather than resorting to simplistic Zeihan-tier pseudo-intellectualism.
- monetus 3y ago
  I mentioned bad faith not out of disagreement but because it seemed like you were dodging the points brought up. This thread began by stating the war was begun by malicious American entities, in its entirety. They aren't mutually exclusive, but again, the occupation of gas fields, and now the embargo of grain, is about depriving the Ukrainian government. not domestic shortages. That is the thing that makes me mention bad faith. I have researched these agendas, and I recheck the records and rumors frequently. The zeihen doomerism is disenguine hawking of his trade and book, but what makes you think that this war is all an American diplomatic failure brought at the behest of western billionaires? A war is complicated, and simplifying it isn't helpful.