Ukraine Talk

Big Data

Charismatic Member
POSTER
PUBLIC
Joined
Jan 27, 2023
Messages
158
Points
410
Is it okay to open a discussion about Ukraine (or other news stories) that is just for opinions not for copy/pasted links to propaganda articles in the media or from activists or activist academics? I ask because all the threads I've looked at here open with a propaganda piece from one news rag or another.  I'd rather hear how you feel or what you're thinking as opposed to parroting pablum from media.

I'm going out on a limb and starting a discussion. If this is not allowed please delete this thread. I wasn't sure either way.

 
My first thoughts on Ukraine back in 2014 when the so-called "Maidan Revolution" took place was why and who's behind this. It was obviously a CIA operation ordered by then President Obamma.

It was illegal interference in the sovereign state of Ukraine. The same thing the CIA did all over Central America, Afghanistan, Africa and most aggregiously the Middle East. The Machiavellian schemes of the US Govt defy explanation or understanding. If you think you know the reasons you are only fooling yourself. The promises made by the US to get Ukraine into NATO were intended to destabilize Ukraine. At first the Ukrainians only wanted to join NATO but they didn't know that was the last thing the CIA wanted. They wanted war with Russia. Obama hated Putin for personal reasons and used the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder in a proxy war with Putin. Putin being the narcissistic tyrrant he is took the bait.

That's when the money started flying out of the US into the hands of the military industrial complex and back into the pockets of US politicians and lobbyists. In the intervening years from 2014 to present how many Ukrainians and Russians have died? I don't trust any estimates in the media. It's all lies and anyone with a brain should realize that. But I'm sure the numbers are in the 10's of thousands at the very least. A once beautiful and productive country has fallen into nothing short of resembling the Dark Ages or maybe the Stone Age. For what? To expand NATO and destabilize Russia? It has done both. I guess you call that success. I call it monstrous.

Here's a video clip of Zelensky talking about his Jewish heritage and that his mothertongue is Russian. He was a well known TV personality before he was a politician so he had good training on acting the part he is given.

i5Rr0lp.png
asDBOiv.png


Code:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1645535867442962432
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are absolutely welcome to state your opinion. In the west you are allowed to do that. Not like in Russia where even saying this is a war (which it is!) will get you up to 15 years in prison. Where the government can spew any propaganda they want and no one dares dispute it! I find it rich when eastern people keep harping about western propaganda! It is you who is the victim of propaganda, my friend.

Copy/pasted news articles are not western propaganda and you are welcome to post news articles with opposing views. I wouldn't try that in Russia though!

Russia invaded Ukraine! No one forced them to. In my opinion, to say this whole thing was caused by the U.S. and the CIA is ludicrous!

My understanding is when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea the Ukrainian people weren't very happy with Russia. They passed a law that the language used in government and taught in schools from then on would be Ukrainian. No one said Russian people couldn't speak Russian. Eastern propaganda!

People in Ukraine were not begging to be liberated. Have you noticed that Russian soldiers in Ukraine are not exactly being welcomed with open arms? 

As for your link it is very interesting to read through the comments section, especially those towards the end!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is bonkers, and this forum is not Twitter.  That video is a cartoon... are you kidding?

 
Thank you for clarifying the rules on discussion threads. Yes, the comments were interestingly amusing about AI. That's not the only clip of Zalensky as a TV/Social Media personality where his role is very different from the one we see him in now. Those were better days for sure.

I think you assumed I am Russian or a Russian sympathizer. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Neither of us know anything about each other other than we are members here. We only have the typed words we exchange. Can we agree on that statement at least?

I could say I live in Russia or America but members here would only have my word on that so it's pointless to claim such a thing. Likewise for you or anyone else. I have made no judgement on your nationality nor anyone elses.

If you truly believe all you read in western media then you have my sympathy because you have already drank the kool-aid. The same goes for anyone who believes all they read in any media print or social.

From what I've gathered reading other threads here there is a trend favoring Woke narratives rather than Awakened ones. This is the same on DebatePolitics too. At least there are a few on DP who mistakenly believe they can debate Wokeness. It can't be done.  Wokeness is a totalitarian mindset. No debate or dissent is allowed. It is a grotesque and twisted thing that poisons every one who falls into the trap. It has insinuated itself into all levels of education and the result is horrifingly obvious.

The War in Ukraine is the result of American CIA interference. Period. Russia/Putin took the bait and now they're in another Afghanistan debacle. The CIA was behind Russia's Afghanistan War too. You can deny that or you can accept it and justify it in some way. Most likely you will continue to deny it. That's the narrative fed to you.

I hope we can continue to discuss this and many other news of the world.

 
This is bonkers, and this forum is not Twitter.  That video is a cartoon... are you kidding?
Twitter is a social media platform. This forum is a social media platform. Zelensky is a cartoon character among many other laughable things.

 
Thank you Big Data. Thank you for bringing some fresh views to our pages. It's important to welcome all viewpoints not just the prevailing ones and yours is as valid as any. I'm surprised no one else has Thanked your posts here. Thanks are free to give. Even a Check mark is better than no recognition of your participation.

Please don't give up on us. The others are good people and will come around eventually.

I've used DebatePolitics myself and I've seen you there too. It is the big leagues compared to our little nook on the web. It takes a brave heart to take the plunge there. I'm just a lurker, :LOL:. When I want an adrenaline rush I put one toe in over there. Maybe some of our regulars are familiar with it too if not maybe they should try posting there. They'd come right back here pretty quick! 😆

 
Last edited by a moderator:
source
Code:
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4594046-us-forces-intercepted-more-than-80-attack-drones-and-at-least-6-ballistic-missiles-from-iran-and-yemen-says-central-command/

US forces intercepted more than 80 attack drones and at least 6 ballistic missiles from Iran and Yemen, says Central Command​

by Nick Robertson - 04/14/24 9:36 PM ET


American forces downed more than a quarter of the missiles and drones bound for Israel from Iran on Saturday evening, U.S. Central Command said Sunday.
American and European-allied destroyers shot down 80 Iranian attack drones and at least six ballistic missiles launched from Iran and Yemen and bound for Israel. It is estimated that about 350 missiles and drones were launched at Israel in the large-scale attack.

“Iran’s continued unprecedented, malign, and reckless behavior endangers regional stability and the safety of U.S. and coalition forces,” CENTCOM said in a statement. “CENTCOM remains postured to support Israel’s defense against these dangerous actions by Iran. We will continue to work with all our regional partners to increase regional security.”
Nearly all of the drones and missiles were intercepted before reaching their targets in Israel, with the Israeli government reporting no deaths and only minimal damage from the attack. It came in response to an Israeli strike on Iranian military leaders in a diplomatic building in Syria earlier this month.
The strike has raised fears over a wider regional conflict between Israel and Iran, as some Israeli leaders call for retaliation while others pledge themselves against war. President Biden spoke with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday to urge him against escalation in the conflict.
“This was a very aggressive and brutal attack, which looks like a declaration of war,” Israeli President Isaac Herzog said in a CNN interview Sunday. “But I also added immediately to say that we are not seeking war. We are seeking always peace.”
Arab governments in the region have also called for de-escalation, as has the United Nations.
“Now is the time for maximum restraint,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in an emergency U.N. meeting held Sunday at the request of the Israeli delegation.

“The people of the region are confronting a real danger of a devastating full-scale conflict. Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate,” Guterres said. “It’s time to step back from the brink. It is vital to avoid any action that could lead to major military confrontations on multiple fronts in the Middle East.”

source
Code:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4593405-jd-vance-urges-the-u-s-to-focus-on-itself-and-its-closest-allies-instead-of-ukraine/

JD Vance urges US to focus on itself and close allies instead of Ukraine​

by Lauren Sforza - 04/14/24 12:47 PM ET


Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio)
Greg Nash
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) speaks to reporters outside the Senate Chamber on Tuesday, September 19, 2023.

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) said Sunday that the U.S. should focus more on itself and its closest allies, such as Israel, instead of sending more aid to Ukraine.
Vance has been opposed to sending additional aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia, writing in a New York Times op-ed on Friday that more funding for the embattled nation will not change the outcome of the war, which he believes Ukraine can’t win. He said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the U.S. needs to focus on rebuilding its industrial base instead.

“Let’s take another weapon system that’s really important. The Patriot interceptor system definitely, almost definitely saved a lot of Israeli lives last night. The Ukrainians want thousands of those per year. Do you know how many we manufacture in a year Jake? 550,” he added.
He said that the U.S. does not have the capacity to support Israel, Ukraine and itself.
“We cannot possibly — I’ve repeated this for years now. We cannot possibly support Ukraine and Israel and our own defense needs in the way that these guys demand,” he said, adding that the U.S. should focus on supporting Israel because it is a closer ally in line with more of the U.S.’s national security interests.
He said that approving the supplemental aid request to Israel and Ukraine will actually harm Israel.
“But if we pass the Ukraine and Israel supplemental and send a ton of weapons to Ukraine that the Israelis need, we’re actually weakening Israel in the name of helping them. It doesn’t make any sense,” he said.

source
Code:
https://thehill.com/opinion/4593856-the-futility-of-the-war-in-ukraine-has-become-more-apparent/

Opinion

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

The futility of the war in Ukraine has become more apparent​

by Thomas Graham, opinion contributor - 04/15/24 9:00 AM ET

The great tragedy of the Russian-Ukrainian war is that it will ultimately prove to have been futile. The likely outcome — territorial adjustments in Moscow’s favor, security guarantees for Ukraine and Russia — could have been peaceably negotiated beforehand had leaders had a firmer grasp of the real balance of power or greater political courage. The cost of failed diplomacy is already hundreds of thousands of lives lost and hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of property destroyed.
There are many reasons why diplomacy failed and why it has not been revived.

To begin with, blinded by messianic delusions of Russia’s and his own historical mission, Russian President Vladimir Putin prized a dramatic show of Russian might over tedious diplomacy to halt Ukraine’s geopolitical reorientation towards the West. He was convinced the war would be short. He had nothing but disdain for Ukraine’s leaders. He thought Russian-speaking Ukrainians would greet his forces as liberators. He discounted the West’s resolve. And he grossly exaggerated his own military’s capabilities. He once boasted that he could take Kyiv in two weeks. His imagined blitzkrieg has now entered its third year. He bears the moral responsibility for launching a devastating, unnecessary war.

Washington, for its part, erroneously thought that it could deter Putin by exposing his plans through the calibrated disclosure of sensitive intelligence and rallying the West to threaten “crippling” sanctions should he invade. But it steadfastly refused to discuss the one issue that might have changed his calculations and given diplomacy a chance: Ukraine’s membership in NATO. It was a matter of principle, Washington declared. It would not compromise NATO’s “Open Door” policy — the “right” of any democratic European country to seek membership — or renege on NATO’s pledge that Ukraine would eventually join, even though it, and its NATO allies, had no intention of allowing Ukraine to join anytime soon.

As the carnage enters its third year, no end is in sight. The West and Ukraine lack a credible strategy going forward. Sanctions have not crippled Russia — its economy grew last year and is forecast to do so again this year. Russia has restructured and reoriented its trade to reduce its dependence on the West as a partner and on the dollar as a means of exchange.
In these circumstances, doubling down on sanctions, as Ukraine’s boosters advocate, will hardly bring Russia to its knees. Similarly, arming Ukraine with more sophisticated weapons (F-16s, long-range ATACMS missiles) will not prove decisive in overcoming Russia’s well-fortified defensive positions. As the past year has shown, drone warfare has advantaged defensive over offensive operations.
Meanwhile, Putin exudes optimism — his economy has withstood Western sanctions; his military thwarted Ukraine’s counteroffensive last year; and the West appears to be in disarray. Russian forces are on the offensive all along the front, and Russia has stepped up its aerial assault on cities and infrastructure in the rear.
For all its effort, however, Russia has made little progress, and the losses have been staggering, adding steadily to the 300,000 to 350,000 casualties it has already suffered. Should Congress finally pass the $60-billion supplemental the administration has requested, as now appears likely, the flow of arms to Ukraine should be able to thwart any decisive Russian advances in the months ahead.

With the war at an impasse, and the costs relentlessly mounting, the time would appear ripe for a diplomatic initiative. But diplomacy remains out of favor. No one is yet prepared to write off the sunk costs to move toward a settlement. No one wants to believe their soldiers died in vain. Indeed, each side has raised the stakes: The Kremlin claims the “special military operation” against Ukraine has morphed into an historic war against the West. Many Western leaders warn of a coming war with Russia if it is not stopped in Ukraine. And Ukrainian leaders maintain that anything short of total victory spells catastrophe.
And so the war continues — until one side, more likely the Ukrainians, or both are exhausted or conclude that it cannot make further gains through military action. When negotiations begin, two items will be at the top of the agenda: security guarantees to reduce the threat of renewed fighting and the disposition of the territory that Russia has seized, the very two issues that were on the table in the months before Russia invaded in February 2022.
To be sure, the details of the actual settlement will differ from those that could have been negotiated in the run-up to the war. Ukraine, for example, stands to lose more territory than it would have in 2022, when Russia occupied only Crimea and part of the Donbas. But will the differences be so great as to justify the huge losses suffered for any party to the conflict? The question answers itself.

Thomas Graham, a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, served as the senior director for Russia on the National Security Council staff during the George W. Bush administration.
 
source
Code:
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4594809-what-ukraine-has-given-to-america/

Opinion>National Security

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

What Ukraine has given to America​

by David A. Super, opinion contributor - 04/15/24 12:30 PM ET


GettyImages-2113284645.jpg

Members of the 3rd Iron Tank Brigade take part in a military training as the Russia-Ukraine war continues, in the regions near the frontline in Kharkiv, Ukraine. (Photo by Adri Salido/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Some opponents of American aid for Ukraine have complained about the cost. House Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested restructuring the bipartisan Senate aid package as loans. Missing from these arguments is an appreciation of all that Ukraine has done and is doing for the United States.
Most obviously, Ukraine is providing priceless insight into the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. weapons and military doctrines. America has not fought a sustained conventional war in six decades. Our experience crushing an outmatched Grenada or Iraq, or our extended counter-insurgency efforts in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, can teach us little about how to battle an enemy with a large military and modern weapons. We study, we plan and we simulate, but we cannot know. Every year, we spend tens of billions of dollars on weapons systems that we hope will prove effective with little direct evidence.

Wars invariably embarrass the best military planners. In World War II, advances in tanks and paratroopers proved France’s investment in the Maginot Line worthless. Similarly, aircraft carriers demonstrated that many nations’ investments in battleships were largely pointless. Argentina’s Exocet missiles proved NATO naval doctrine dangerously obsolete when they sunk two British ships during the Falklands War.
Ukrainians are discovering first-hand how sound our investments have been — and the results have been mixed. HIMARS rockets, Javelin anti-tank missiles and Bradley fighting vehicles have all performed admirably. Indeed, our systems’ superior accuracy has proven more than sufficient to offset Russia’s numerical advantage, driven primarily by inferior Soviet-era systems. Our de-mining systems, on the other hand, have failed badly. The Abrams tanks that President Joe Biden agonized over for so long before providing have had little impact so far.
Patriot air defense systems have worked up to a point, but Russia has shown they may be exhausted and rendered ineffectual with cheap but destructive drones. After months in which Patriots shot down the great majority of Russian missiles and drones, the Ukrainians started running low on missiles, so that now civilians in Kharkiv and other cities are again facing a reign of terror while Ukrainian power plants are destroyed. We were not ready for an environment in which defenses can be depleted by offensive weapons of only a fraction of the cost. The Ukrainians’ hard-won experience alerts us to the need for a more sustainable approach.
Ukraine has shown that virtually all drones are vulnerable to enemy radio jamming. Their ingenious solution has been to use many different kinds of drones at each part of the front so that no one jamming strategy will protect Russian forces. This is a valuable lesson for the U.S., which tends to emphasize standardization and a few large defense procurement contracts.
Russia recently has proven that glide bombs provide a cheaper, more powerful and harder to defend alternative to cruise missiles. We now have time to design countermeasures before our own forces ever face something similar.
American officials repeatedly urged Ukrainians to concentrate their armored vehicles in powerful columns to slash into enemy lines like those of WWII. Whenever Ukrainians tried this, Russian drones immediately spotted the columns, fed the coordinates to Russian artillery and destroyed many of the tanks before they could get started. Even when armored columns approached enemy lines, they had to wait for time-consuming de-mining work, making them sitting ducks. This should limit U.S. doctrine’s future reliance on massed armored columns and, in the process, save countless American lives.

An even bigger gift from Ukrainians to our country is allowing us to stop Russian aggression without jeopardizing our servicemembers’ lives. Russian President Vladimir Putin has invaded and occupied several other countries, each time more blatantly violating Russia’s treaty obligations. He has shown that his peace commitments are worthless. Putin, senior government officials and state TV have continually declared determination to seize lands they claim are historically Russian, including those of several NATO members.
The GOP House’s abandonment of Ukrainians has signaled a weakness that only emboldens Putin and other aggressive autocrats. The cost of stopping aggression will be much higher in Taiwan, higher still if Iran invades its neighbors or Putin starts “reclaiming” more of Europe. And the risk of a tragic miscalculation will rise exponentially when we are facing Russia or China directly, rather than merely arming Ukrainians by spending money in U.S. factories.
When Germany remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936 in violation of the Versailles Treaty, Hitler had ordered his army to withdraw peacefully if Britain or France mobilized their forces. Showing such weakness when it was virtually costless emboldened Hitler. When those nations finally responded a few years later, the cost was more than a million of their people, and tens of millions elsewhere.

We should not repeat that blunder. Although Britain and France in the mid-1930s were foolish and cowardly, they at least faced the considerable might of Nazi Germany. Today, naysayers want us to concede to Russia, which increasingly depends on Soviet-era tanks and artillery and whose economy is smaller than that of the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. The United Kingdom was far more heavily outmatched in the Battle of Britain but prevailed handily.
But the Ukrainians’ greatest gift to Americans has been the example of their commitment to democracy. Too often we take our freedoms for granted, forgetting our forebears’ sacrifices to make our lives possible. We become so embroiled in our squabbles that we forget how many people remain under the boots of authoritarians. If Ukrainians can rekindle Americans’ passion for democracy and freedom, we will owe them a debt we can never repay.
David A. Super is a professor of law at Georgetown Law. He also served for several years as the general counsel for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

source
Code:
https://thehill.com/opinion/4591043-norways-announcement-is-a-reminder-that-defense-spending-is-a-nato-success-story/

Opinion

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Norway’s announcement is a reminder that defense spending is a NATO success story​

by Daniel Kochis, opinion contributor - 04/13/24 2:00 PM ET


norway_defense-2064209645.jpg

(LtoR) Finnish Defence Minister Antti Hakkanen, his Norwegian counterpart Bjorn Arild Gram and their Swedish counterpart Pal Jonson pose and shake hands ahead of a demonstration of border crossing by Swedish and Finnish troops as part of the NATO Nordic Response 24 military exercise on March 9, 2024 on the Finnish side of the Kivilompolo border crossing between Finland and Norway, located above the Arctic Circle. Nordic Response 24 is part of the larger NATO exercise Steadfast Defender. The exercise involves air, sea, and land forces, with over 100 fighter jets, 50 ships, and over 20,000 troops practicing defensive manoeuvres in cold and harsh weather conditions. (Photo by Jonathan NACKSTRAND / AFP) (Photo by JONATHAN NACKSTRAND/AFP via Getty Images)

Last week, the government of Norway presented a new long-term defense plan, which if adopted, will double the size of the country’s defense budget in just over a decade.
The Norwegian plan comes on the heels of an announcement in March that the nation will spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense in 2024, attaining the NATO benchmark two years earlier than expected.

The latest proposal calls for a further ramping up of spending, climbing to reach 2.7 percent by 2030. Much of that funding will be routed towards buying systems from American firms including Lockheed Martin’s F-35 joint strike fighter and Boeing’s P-8 maritime patrol aircraft.
The update from Oslo is illustrative that on NATO defense spending, by and large, the good news keeps on coming.
This year, two-thirds of NATO members, that is 21 of 32 nations, are expected to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. Nearly every member already meets the second NATO benchmark to spend 20 percent of defense budgets on new equipment acquisitions.
As NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently noted, 2023 was the ninth consecutive year that NATO members (excluding the U.S.) increased defense spending overall.
Even Germany, long the poster child of underinvestment, now spends 2 percent of GDP on defense.
If more widely known, this alliance success story would go a long way to dispelling the staid notion that NATO allies aren’t stepping up in the face of Russian aggression.

To fully appreciate the turnaround, consider the perilous condition dwindling defense investment had left the alliance a decade ago.
In 2014, the year Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his initial invasion of Ukraine, a measly three NATO members (Greece, the United Kingdom and the U.S.) spent 2 percent of GDP on defense. Only seven could say they were reaching the second benchmark to put 20 percent of that funding into new equipment.
Back then, despite these benchmarks having been initially agreed eight years earlier, very few allies were willing to walk the walk when it came to allocating national resources towards building hard power.

Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea began to change the calculus for some allies, but not nearly enough. When it came to exchanging currency for capability, most countries remained stuck in the doldrums, while others began implementing increases, but at snail’s pace.
The shock of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, combined with the barbarism of Russian forces, has for now, dispelled the fog of wishful thinking and domestic political calculation which previously held defense investment back.
This is especially true for members bordering Russia. They have channeled the shiver which Putin’s imperialism sent down their collective spines into concrete action that is pushing the NATO conversation on spending beyond 2 percent.

Every member state which shares a land border with Russia has either announced plans or has already implemented defense budgets well above 2 percent of GDP, with Poland leading the way at 4 percent.
Certainly, this is not to say no work remains to be done. Restaffing depleted ranks in Europe’s armed forces and rebuilding their capabilities and stockpiles will take time. Furthermore, a small number of allies, especially those for whom the Russian threat feels farther away, have yet to fulfill their spending commitments. This needs to change.
Look no further than our neighbor to the north. Canada, which only spends 1.4 percent of GDP on defense, announced plans to boost defense spending earlier this week, but will only reach 1.76 percent by 2030. The opposition Conservatives harshly criticized the government’s plans as inadequate. Considering they may well take over next year, the possibility of Ottawa revisiting 2 percent seems likely.

There is a sense that on defense spending, NATO members have perhaps crossed the Rubicon for good. While the bridge hasn’t been detonated (there is still some possibility of retreat), Putin’s appetite I believe, will keep allies on the new bank.
The turnaround in defense investment is an ongoing NATO success story. Here in the U.S., it deserves to be told.
Daniel Kochis is a Senior Fellow in the Center on Europe and Eurasia at the Hudson Institute.

Code:
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4590389-biden-to-meet-with-iraqi-pm-amid-tension-over-troops-renewed-isis-threats/

Biden to meet with Iraqi PM amid tension over troops, renewed ISIS threats​

by Brad Dress - 04/15/24 6:00 AM ET

President Biden will meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani at the White House on Monday with the future of American troops in Iraq in flux, and as the Islamic extremist group ISIS has reemerged amid mounting tensions in the Middle East.
At the meeting, al-Sudani and Biden will focus on private sector and business investment in Iraq, a priority for Baghdad, and other more cooperative areas such as energy security, according to a senior State Department official.


But an important part of the discussions will be on the future of the American presence in Iraq, where about 2,500 U.S. troops are stationed. The U.S. and Iraq are engaged in ongoing talks on whether those troops are still needed to counter ISIS.
“It is not the primary focus of the visit,” the State Department official said in a call with reporters, referring to the troops. “But it is almost certainly going to come up.”
Biden’s meeting with al-Sudani will be closely watched as the leaders are meeting during an extremely tense time in the Middle East that has strained U.S.-Iraq relations.
Israel is waging a war against Palestinian militant group Hamas in Gaza, where more than 33,000 people have died in more than six months of war. The conflict has sparked regional escalation between U.S. forces and Israel and Iranian-backed proxies.
The Houthi rebels in Yemen are still regularly launching strikes on merchant ships in the Red Sea, where they are battling U.S. forces defending the commercial route.
Iraq was also a battleground in the regional conflict until a couple months ago, when the last Iranian-backed proxy groups in Iraq and Syria launched an attack on a U.S. base. Those Iran-backed militia groups have paused attacks since deadly U.S. retaliatory strikes in February.


Still, al-Sudani and Iraqi officials expressed anger at both Iran and the U.S. for using Iraq as a battleground in the proxy war.
At the heart of the ongoing discussions between Washington and Baghdad on the future of American troops are whether the Iraqi security forces trained by American troops are capable now of fending off the threat from ISIS.
The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to dismantle the regime of Saddam Hussein and returned in 2014 at the invitation of Iraq to defeat ISIS, a continuing mission.

ISIS remains largely defeated after losing key swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2017.
However, the Afghanistan branch of the widely condemned extremist group, ISIS-K, has since reemerged, attacking and killing dozens of people in both Iran and Russia this year. ISIS-K was also responsible for the bombing at the Kabul airport in 2021 that killed 13 American service members during the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Al-Sudani said in an opinion piece in Foreign Affairs magazine that stakeholders in the ongoing meetings have agreed to withdraw the international coalition in a gradual manner, with a road map toward that end still under discussion.


He said the U.S. and Iraq need a “new phase of partnership, based on cooperation that goes beyond just security and military affairs” because the ISIS threat is diminished.
“Little by little, as security and stability are restored, the need for weapons outside the control of the state and its institutions will disappear. We are working concertedly toward that end,” he wrote, instead calling for greater U.S.-Iraq cooperation on diplomacy, economy, education and technology, among other areas.
Al-Sudani also cited the violence in his country involving American forces and Iranian-backed groups, and argued the “decision to make war and peace must be an exclusive matter for the state, and no other party can claim this right.”


“We approach every country on equal terms, so that Iraq does not become an arena for any outside actor to settle scores,” he wrote. “Iraq must be dealt with on the basis of sovereignty and mutual respect, not as a proxy for other conflicts.”
The State Department official said the “ability of the Iraqis to make their own decisions and to build their sovereignty and to respect that is something that is very important.”
The official also stressed that discussions are ongoing about the future of American troops, but after 10 years, they “see an opportunity” to “transition to a stronger bilateral relationship and partnership.”


“Whether that ends up as adjusting our forces there,” the official said, “all of that is being discussed.”
Another issue likely to come up is a hostage held by an Iran-backed militia in Iraq. Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) sent a letter to Biden ahead of the meeting with al-Sudani expressing concern about the Iraqi government’s close ties with Iran-backed militias, including Kataib Hezbollah, according to Politico.
Waltz pressed Biden to “condition the meeting” with al-Sudani on the Iraqi leader pushing Kataib Hezbollah to release a kidnapped U.S.-based doctoral student, Elizabeth Tsurkov, who is a Russian-Israeli citizen. She has been held since March 2023 after being detained on a visit to Baghdad.
 
Top