Do you want the Ukrainian War to end today?

[Estro Felino]

By handing victory to Putin.
That's like saying that Hitler brought peace to France
when the latter surrendered. It's not really "peace"
when a people are conquered & oppressed.

So it's about winning only?

 

[Revoltingest]

So it's about winning only?

Think of winning as an important goal.
It needn't be the only one, despite
what Italians might think.

 

[Estro Felino]

Think of winning as an important goal.
It needn't be the only one, despite
what Italians might think.

The entire international law jurisprudence revolves around the art of compromise, represented by treaties.
In compromise there are neither winners nor losers, but there is negotiation and bargaining.

 

[Stevicus]

The United States, nevertheless, waged autonomous wars that had nothing to do with the NATO. Like the Vietnam War, for example.
I still struggle to understand what that war was for.

France was our ally in WW2 and remained our ally afterwards. At first, the U.S. seemingly wanted to help its French allies keep its overseas territories, although there was also fear that the communists might take over not just Vietnam, but all of Southeast Asia. That was the infamous "Domino Theory" which fell totally flat. The belief back then was that, if we don't stop the communists in Vietnam, then the next thing we'll have is Vietnamese troops pouring ashore in California in a massive invasion of the U.S. This is usually how it goes. It was the same rhetoric with Iraq, that if we didn't stop the Iraqis, then they'll be a threat to U.S. security, which suggests a belief that they'll be invading U.S. soil. It's even the same with this current conflict in Ukraine, where people are saying "Well, if we don't stop Putin's invasion, then he'll keep on invading other countries." Another variation on the failed and ill-conceived "Domino Theory." With just a theory and not one shred of evidence, one can start a global panic.

 

[Estro Felino]

France was our ally in WW2 and remained our ally afterwards. At first, the U.S. seemingly wanted to help its French allies keep its overseas territories,

Don't you think it's a little bit...incoherent?
That is...the US prevents Germany from conquering Europe...but helps France conquer South-East Asia?
I point out the Nazis did need to be stopped...
but at the same time the Vietnamese deserved independence...as all nations do.

although there was also fear that the communists might take over not just Vietnam, but all of Southeast Asia. That was the infamous "Domino Theory" which fell totally flat.

No wonder JFK was against it. That's why they eliminated him.

The belief back then was that, if we don't stop the communists in Vietnam, then the next thing we'll have is Vietnamese troops pouring ashore in California in a massive invasion of the U.S.

It's shocking that someone fell for that...

 

[Stevicus]

Don't you think it's a little bit...incoherent?
That is...the US prevents Germany from conquering Europe...but helps France conquer South-East Asia?
I point out the Nazis did need to be stopped...
but at the same time the Vietnamese deserved independence...as all nations do.

Once the Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed in 1928, then any future aggressive invasions or conquests were considered in violation of the treaty. Any pre-existing territorial acquisitions were ostensibly "grandfathered" in (regardless of how they were obtained), which is why the U.S. still recognized French rule over Indochina. It sounds like they decided to change the rules of the game when their side was already winning 49-0.

No wonder JFK was against it. That's why they eliminated him.

Possibly.

It's shocking that someone fell for that...

I've seen people fall for that kind of stuff all my life. Not just with the Domino Theory, but also in Central America, after the Sandinistas took power in Nicaragua. The capitalists kept going on and on about how the communists would take over the rest of Central America, then Mexico, then the United States. Talk like that is what drummed up support for the Contras. It also inspired the plot for the movie "Red Dawn" - a fictional scenario yet many seemed to believe "This could really happen!"

It amazes me how many people claim to be against war, yet still manage to fall for and encourage the standard warmongering rhetoric, which is typically false and/or exaggerated.

 

[Revoltingest]

The entire international law jurisprudence revolves around the art of compromise, represented by treaties.
In compromise there are neither winners nor losers, but there is negotiation and bargaining.

Whenever Russia invades a neighbor,
should the neighbor's territory always
be divided up between the two?

 

[Yazata]

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

Apart from Antarctica and Australia, I think that the peace prize probably belongs to North America.

 

[Heyo]

Apart from Antarctica and Australia, I think that the peace prize probably belongs to North America.

You think the fact that the wars you have started or participated in weren't in your neighbourhood absolves you? The US was since '45 and still is the biggest threat to peace in the world.

 

[John53]

You think the fact that the wars you have started or participated in weren't in your neighbourhood absolves you? The US was since '45 and still is the biggest threat to peace in the world.

I've heard this before and yet when they do nothing the cry goes up "why didn't America help". I don't envy their position, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[Soandso]

Apart from Antarctica and Australia, I think that the peace prize probably belongs to North America.

You can't be serious. In recent history alone we've had wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, the Taliban, al qaeda, isis, and we are still at war with North Korea although that's mostly cold right now. We send and sell arms all over the world, and we are directly responsible for perpetuating that bloodshed that those weapons deal out. That's just recent history. One doesn't have to go much further back than that to find a continuous string of wars America has either started or involved itself in

 

[Estro Felino]

Apart from Antarctica and Australia, I think that the peace prize probably belongs to North America.

I said Europe is the most peaceful and the most pacifist.

 

[Estro Felino]

I've heard this before and yet when they do nothing the cry goes up "why didn't America help". I don't envy their position, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

What a coincidence...they go to "help" in countries hyper-filled with oil...and don't go to "help" in countries with no resources.

 

[John53]

What a coincidence...they go to "help" in countries hyper-filled with oil...and don't go to "help" in countries with no resources.

And Italy tags along to get some of the oil?

You'll find a list of post 1946 if you scroll down a little.

List of wars involving Italy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Estro Felino]

And Italy tags along to get some of the oil?

You'll find a list of post 1946 if you scroll down a little.

List of wars involving Italy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First of all...I remind you that since the end of WW2 we have been a (former) occupied country.
So...yes...we co-founded the NATO... but we didn't have much choice.


All those operations are against the article 11 of our Constitution.
The fact that there is a Constitution, it doesn't mean it's always respected.

They were not wars waged by my country. My country just sent some soldiers here and there for peace-keeping operations.
That's not what participating in a war is.
They were voluntaries.

 

[John53]

First of all...I remind you that since the end of WW2 we have been a (former) occupied country.
So...yes...we co-founded the NATO... but we didn't have much choice.


All those operations are against the article 11 of our Constitution.
The fact that there is a Constitution, it doesn't mean it's always respected.

They were not wars waged by my country. My country just sent some soldiers here and there for peace-keeping operations.
That's not what participating in a war is.
They were voluntaries.

You live in a fantasy world of make believe. When faced with facts or evidence you double down on the fantasy.

 

[Estro Felino]

You live in a fantasy world of make believe. When faced with facts or evidence you double down on the fantasy.

You live in a fantasy world of make believe. When faced with facts or evidence you double down on the fantasy.

I would like you to answer these questions.
who undid the two Nordstream pipelines in 2022?
what was V. Nuland and her entourage doing in Ukraine in 2014, before the Maidan revolution?

Thank you in advance for answering.

 

[Copernicus]

You haven't answered my question about Nuland yet.
What was Nuland doing in Ukraine in 2014?

You could look that up yourself. She was Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the time, and the US was taken by surprise at the spontaneous Euromaidan uprising. She was there to assess the situation and attempt to broker peace between the protesters and the Yanukovych government. Those efforts failed, but she naively used an insecure line to communicate her assessment of the situation in late January of 2014. She made some very angry comments about the EU that were golden for Russian propagandists, who had tapped the conversation, and they used those remarks to embarrass her and the US government. She gave candid comments on who she thought might be the next Ukrainian leader if Yanukovych's government failed, which it looked like it was going to do at the time. After all, Yanukovych had been dislodged from an attempted power grab in 2004, so there was every reason to believe that the Euromaidan revolt would lead to a similar result. He was never very popular. In fact, he did end up fleeing. None of that had anything to do with US policy or interference. The protesters themselves had rejected her efforts to broker a deal. That is in the public record. It is discussed in the award-winning Winter on Fire documentary film, which you have obviously never seen and probably will never care to watch. However, I recommend it highly to anyone who is interested in what happened in 2014 to provoke and invasion of Ukraine by Putin. When Putin's ally was sent packing, that was the trigger for his invasion. Nuland's leaked phone call was just part of the campaign to obfuscate the facts and blame everything on the West rather than anger at Putin's deal with Yanukovych to move Ukraine back into Russia's orbit. The film itself is roughly 90 minutes long, and it is very graphic. It was nominated for an Academy Award for best documentary but did not win the competition.

 

[John53]

At least I always answer the questions people ask me. Out of respect.

That is simply not true. You don't answer my questions regularly.

I bet you won't answer a couple of inconvenient questions.
Like:
who undid the two Nordstream pipelines in 2022?

No idea but Russian ships were detected in the area with their satellite trackers turned off. It is likely it was Russia if you want my opinion.

what was V. Nuland and her entourage doing in Ukraine in 2014, before the Maidan revolution?

I have no idea who or what V. Nuland is, I would need further information.

Thank you in advance for answering.
But I am pretty sure you won't address the questions...and will say "Don't know, won't tell".

I won't make up fantasy make believe answers.

 

[Estro Felino]

You could look that up yourself. She was Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the time,

wow... an "assistant secretary of state for European affairs" who says " beeep the EU".
A refined chic lady who serves the European interests.
Terrific.

and the US was taken by surprise at the spontaneous Euromaidan uprising.

...but there are those who say that some despicable characters behind the scenes financed Euromaidan.
Whom shall I believe?
To some people who says "beeeeep the EU"?

She was there to assess the situation and attempt to broker peace between the protesters and the Yanukovych government. Those efforts failed, but she naively used an insecure line to communicate her assessment of the situation in late January of 2014. She made some very angry comments about the EU that were golden for Russian propagandists, who had tapped the conversation, and they used those remarks to embarrass her and the US government.

The Obama administration was already a source of embarrassment for the entire West. Those remarks were not even the cherry on the cake.

She gave candid comments on who she thought might be the next Ukrainian leader if Yanukovych's government failed, which it looked like it was going to do at the time.

Why did she say that?
I thought the EU and the US were on the same team.

After all, Yanukovych had been dislodged from an attempted power grab in 2004, so there was every reason to believe that the Euromaidan revolt would lead to a similar result. He was never very popular. In fact, he did end up fleeing. None of that had anything to do with US policy or interference.

I am sorry, but the US does interfere. Anywhere and at any time.

The protesters themselves had rejected her efforts to broker a deal. That is in the public record. It is discussed in the award-winning Winter on Fire documentary film, which you have obviously never seen and probably will never care to watch.

I bet Soros is an ally of hers.
It wouldn't surprise me at all.