• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you want the Ukrainian War to end today?

Do you want the war to end today?

  • Yes, I want the war to end today, no matter who wins it

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • No, I want the war to end when Russia is defeated.

    Votes: 21 60.0%
  • No, I want the war to end when Ukraine is defeated

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • No, I want the war to continue and evolve into a world war.

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Total voters
    35

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There are always a few in the class who are exceptionally slow. But on a global scale we have fewer and fewer wars over time and, yes, some of that is because people have learned. And for the slow ones, I guess we'll have to repeat the lesson.

Well, the lesson most people learn is that there are some countries with military forces much larger than theirs, so if they want to get along in the world, they have to play by the rules of the most militarily powerful. The World Wars serve as a recent reminder of what can happen when those rules are flouted. So, that lesson pretty much stuck, along with the lesson taught by atomic weaponry.

Still, if people see a chance, they might take it. If they see weakness among the most militarily powerful, then they might see it as an opportunity to change the rules. And if we're not strong enough to teach the lesson anymore, then we've got problems.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Well, the lesson most people learn is that there are some countries with military forces much larger than theirs, so if they want to get along in the world, they have to play by the rules of the most militarily powerful. The World Wars serve as a recent reminder of what can happen when those rules are flouted. So, that lesson pretty much stuck, along with the lesson taught by atomic weaponry.
Because the Americans were on the winning side. :)
So they have good memories, of those years.
The years of victory, after WW2.

I think that they can hardly understand what it means to be on the losing side.
It means that the mere notion of war is seen as something horrific, barbaric, primitive that one would want to erase from the human dimension.
Not because you lost, but because it was something both destructive and self-destructive.

 

Yazata

Active Member
Why can't USA and Russia be allies?

a) incompatibility between Capitalism and Socialism?
b) geopolitical rivalry?
c) antipathy?

Thanks :)

In 1990 when communism imploded, I had great hopes that the US and Russia could become allies. But that wasn't to be, largely because too many of the leaders on both sides remained old-style cold warriors.

Frankly, I place most of the blame for that on the US and the West. During the Cold War, NATO's reason for being was to protect western Europe from the Warsaw Pact. Then in 1990, the Warsaw Pact disbanded. But NATO was determined to continue on, despite having became an alliance without a purpose. There was lots of talk about defending Europe from external threats, but the only halfway plausible conventional military threat was Russia. So if only out of habit, NATO remained an anti-Russian alliance.

And that in turn played into the hands of the old style cold warriors in the Kremlin. NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact countries of eastern Europe. It even swallowed the former Soviet Baltic republics. Those moves were naturally seen as hostile in Moscow. But for 25 years, Russia tolerated it.

Then in 2014, Russia's enemies started moving into Ukraine. Due to deep historical and ethnic ties, this was totally intolerable to Russia. Western deep state agents helped engineer a coup in Kyiv that overthrew a popularly elected pro-Russian president. Anti-Russian elements were place in power by mob action in the streets. So Russian hard liners replied by a bloodless annexation of Crimea.

Then for years, the Russians were quite explicit that any NATO expansion into Ukraine would mean war. It was never a secret. But the US and Europe believed that it was just bluster and refused to back off, and in 2022 the Ukraine War started and continues today as kind of a World War I style stalemated war of attrition, as hundreds of thousands of young men are killed and maimed and the world lurches ever closer to nuclear war.

Yet even today, many politicians in both the US and Europe still demand that Ukraine fight until Russia is "defeated". But what would a Russian defeat look like? Regime change in Moscow? That would most likely result in even more hardline nationalists taking power. Destruction of the Russian military or even breakup of Russia? But does much smaller Ukraine, even serving as expendable proxies for the US, really have the ability to achieve that? And how would turning the Russian landmass into a power vacuum serve any but Chinese interests?

Finally, does anyone really believe that Russia will let itself be defeated without resorting to nuclear weapons?
 
Last edited:

JIMMY12345

Active Member
I have decided to start this thread to understand American users' stance here. :)
Also because I talk to Europeans all the time, and they are very clear expressing their stance about the prosecution of this horrific war.
Most of them are against it. They hope for the end of this war, that the both parties stop fighting and strike a peace agreement.

But Americans tend to have a very ambiguous stance, that doesn't make you understand what they really want.

I want them to be as clear as possible.

My stance: I want the war to end today, no matter who wins. Even if Russia has to give in, it doesn't matter. I want them to strike a peace treaty with the Ukrainians, today. No more soldiers need to die.

What about you, guys? :)
Say your stance and be as outspoken and as clear as possible. Liberate yourselves.
Fenrico makes a good point. Putin should just withdraw to original pre-war location. If a peace and Russia does a land grab of some of Ukraine the USA and West should not recognise it as taken under duress. Would you award your car to someone who highjacked it?

its amazing the women like Liz Truss and Nikki Halley come out fighting and make the guys who do not want to give Ukraine arms look like wimps and sidekicks.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Well, the lesson most people learn is that there are some countries with military forces much larger than theirs, so if they want to get along in the world, they have to play by the rules of the most militarily powerful. The World Wars serve as a recent reminder of what can happen when those rules are flouted. So, that lesson pretty much stuck, along with the lesson taught by atomic weaponry.

Still, if people see a chance, they might take it. If they see weakness among the most militarily powerful, then they might see it as an opportunity to change the rules. And if we're not strong enough to teach the lesson anymore, then we've got problems.
It isn't only power (any more). Wars to annex territory are not only banned by the UN but have simply become uneconomical and they get even more so through economic measures (sanctions and embargoes). No military power is needed for that, only economic power and coordination.
War, today, is a financial disaster for any nation that starts one.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It isn't only power (any more). Wars to annex territory are not only banned by the UN but have simply become uneconomical and they get even more so through economic measures (sanctions and embargoes). No military power is needed for that, only economic power and coordination.
War, today, is a financial disaster for any nation that starts one.

The same ban on aggressive war to annex territory was imposed by the League of Nations (and agreed to in the Kellogg-Briand Treaty), but that didn't work because there was no force to back it up.
 

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
And that in turn played into the hands of the old style cold warriors in the Kremlin. NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact countries of eastern Europe. It even swallowed the former Soviet Baltic republics. Those moves were naturally seen as hostile in Moscow. But for 25 years, Russia tolerated it.
Wow that was so amazing of Muscovy to tolerate that independent countries were free to make their own decisions and not rubberstamp the decisions of the Kremlin.

So amazing.
Then in 2014, Russia's enemies started moving into Ukraine. Due to deep historical and ethnic ties, this was totally intolerable to Russia. Western deep state agents helped engineer a coup in Kyiv that overthrew a popularly elected pro-Russian president. Anti-Russian elements were place in power by mob action in the streets. So Russian hard liners replied by a bloodless annexation of Crimea.
What a load of bs

No one except Muscovy moved into Ukraine.
The democratically elected Parliament of Ukraine voted to further align towards Free Europe.
The Muscovite puppet in the Presidential Palace of Kyiv didn't want to sign this democratic decision.
In turn protests erupted throughout Ukraine.
The Muscovite Puppet in turn had special forces shoot at protesters.
At the same time Muscovy moved its own covert troops in Ukraine.
They tried to take the entirety of the so called "Novorussia", so pretty much everything on the left bank of the Dniepr.
They failed.
Most spectacularly in the south when a ragtag militia known as Azov repelled the Muscovite special forces and drove them back to occupied Crimea.
This would lead to over decade of butthurt by the Muscovites.
Thankfully the Army of Ukraine managed to keep the Muscovite forces in check for the next years.

Only after most of the situation had stabilised did British, Canadian and US military instructors arrive in Ukraine.
In the coming years in the face of Muscovite aggression the badly equipped and trained Ukrainian post-Soviet Army became more and more modern.

**mod edit**


Then for years, the Russians were quite explicit that any NATO expansion into Ukraine would mean war. It was never a secret. But the US and Europe believed that it was just bluster and refused to back off, and in 2022 the Ukraine War started and continues today as kind of a World War I style stalemated war of attrition, as hundreds of thousands of young men are killed and maimed and the world lurches ever closer to nuclear war.
And just for the record: Between 2014 and 2022 Ukraine did not get one step closer to join NATO.

How are your 3 Days to Kyiv going Muscovite?

Yet even today, many politicians in both the US and Europe still demand that Ukraine fight until Russia is "defeated". But what would a Russian defeat look like? Regime change in Moscow? That would most likely result in even more hardline nationalists taking power. Destruction of the Russian military or even breakup of Russia? But does much smaller Ukraine, even serving as expendable proxies for the US, really have the ability to achieve that? And how would turning the Russian landmass into a power vacuum serve any but Chinese interests?
And more Muscovite misinformation.
Ukraine fights on its own volition.
Even if Muscovy would manage to conquer the entire country the Ukrainians would fight on.
They have repeatedly said so.

They do not want to live under the boot of the Kremlin Vatnik.


Break up of Muscovy?
Heaven forbid the Muscovite colonial empire would collapse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
In 1990 when communism imploded, I had great hopes that the US and Russia could become allies. But that wasn't to be, largely because too many of the leaders on both sides remained old-style cold warriors.
Only in the United States.
Americans don't know what happened in Europe after the Fall of the Berlin Wall.
There was a before and an after.
The European Union was born.
A new Europe was born.

After that date, there was no Cold War any more and in fact Russians and Western Europeans have always been in good terms, until 2014, when Ukraine was colonized by the US Deep State.
So it's the Deep State that came here to break our peace and concord.
;)

Frankly, I place most of the blame for that on the US and the West.
I need to point that out,...I am sorry.
I put the blame on the US Deep State, exclusively.

During the Cold War, NATO's reason for being was to protect western Europe from the Warsaw Pact. Then in 1990, the Warsaw Pact disbanded. But NATO was determined to continue on, despite having became an alliance without a purpose. There was lots of talk about defending Europe from external threats, but the only halfway plausible conventional military threat was Russia. So if only out of habit, NATO remained an anti-Russian alliance.

To us Europeans NATO is a defensive alliance against other forces that want to destroy Europe. Like terrorism.
And that in turn played into the hands of the old style cold warriors in the Kremlin. NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact countries of eastern Europe. It even swallowed the former Soviet Baltic republics. Those moves were naturally seen as hostile in Moscow. But for 25 years, Russia tolerated it.
Russia tolerated it thanks to us Europeans.
We have been in good terms with Russia...and in fact the several pipelines were built...among others the 2 Nordstreams.
Then in 2014, Russia's enemies started moving into Ukraine.
Exactly. The Deep State.
Due to deep historical and ethnic ties, this was totally intolerable to Russia. Western deep state agents helped engineer a coup in Kyiv that overthrew a popularly elected pro-Russian president. Anti-Russian elements were place in power by mob action in the streets. So Russian hard liners replied by a bloodless annexation of Crimea.
Exactly.
Yet even today, many politicians in both the US and Europe still demand that Ukraine fight until Russia is "defeated".
I am sorry...no.
We Europeans want Ukrainians to stop dying.


 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
No one except Muscovy moved into Ukraine.
The democratically elected Parliament of Ukraine voted to further align towards Free Europe.
The Muscovite puppet in the Presidential Palace of Kyiv didn't want to sign this democratic decision.
In turn protests erupted throughout Ukraine.
The Muscovite Puppet in turn had special forces shoot at protesters.
At the same time Muscovy moved its own covert troops in Ukraine.
They tried to take the entirety of the so called "Novorussia", so pretty much everything on the left bank of the Dniepr.
They failed.
Most spectacularly in the south when a ragtag militia known as Azov repelled the Muscovite special forces and drove them back to occupied Crimea.
This would lead to over decade of butthurt by the Muscovites.
Thankfully the Army of Ukraine managed to keep the Muscovite forces in check for the next years.
Since you are so informed, can you explain me what Victoria Nuland was doing in Ukraine, in 2014?
Can you explain me this video?
Thank you.
And also why she said that thing about the EU....that refined, chic lady.

Ukraine fights on its own volition.
Zelenskyy fights on his own volition.
The soldiers are forced to fight.
That is why they massively desert and flee to Germany.
To escape that regime.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The same ban on aggressive war to annex territory was imposed by the League of Nations (and agreed to in the Kellogg-Briand Treaty), but that didn't work because there was no force to back it up.
I think that the 80 years of peace in Europe demonstrate that it's something doable.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I think that the 80 years of peace in Europe demonstrate that it's something doable.

80 years of peace ummm ok if you forget Northern Island, Greece, Cyprus, Croatia, Hungry, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Czechoslovakia to name just a few
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
80 years of peace ummm ok if you forget Northern Island, Greece, Cyprus, Croatia, Hungry, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Czechoslovakia to name just a few

This list is unsubstantiated.
And partially incorrect.
I am sorry. There have been no wars in Hungary, Czech Republic, Greece in the last 80 years.

As for Yugoslavia...I am pretty sure....it was always something masterminded overseas. Not in Europe. Transcript: Clinton justifies U.S. involvement in Kosovo - May 13, 1999
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Because the Americans were on the winning side. :)
So they have good memories, of those years.
The years of victory, after WW2.

I think that they can hardly understand what it means to be on the losing side.
It means that the mere notion of war is seen as something horrific, barbaric, primitive that one would want to erase from the human dimension.
Not because you lost, but because it was something both destructive and self-destructive.

Americans tend to view war as something that happens long ago and/or far away. The last time America had a war fought on its soil was the Civil War.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Probably why it's called the Greek Civil War :shrug:
But it was a war to achieve democracy after a world war.

:)
Come on...acknowledge...Europe, the most warlike continent in the world has become the most peaceful and pacifist continent in the world.

Just check out what's going on in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia...etc...
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
But it was a war to achieve democracy after a world war.

:)
Come on...acknowledge...Europe, the most warlike continent in the world has become the most peaceful and pacifist continent in the world.

Just check out what's going on in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia...etc...

Antarctica and Australia would beat Europe easy so I can't acknowledge that. I'd even rank North America before Europe if it's wars conducted on the actual continent. BTW, The Middle East isn't a continent.

How about you acknowledge your claim of no war in Europe for 80 years is wrong.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Antarctica and Australia would beat Europe easy so I can't acknowledge that. I'd even rank North America before Europe if it's wars conducted on the actual continent. BTW, The Middle East isn't a continent.

How about you acknowledge your claim of no war in Europe for 80 years is wrong.
Honestly, I am not supposed to convince you.
You are entitled to your opinion...
but I am an European...I speak 5 European languages, and I know the history of my continent.
So does God.
God knows the truth.
;)
 
Top