Not as as Putin, who now needs to recruit in Cuba,
where poor people will do anything or money.
**** Putin. **** Russia. Let them eat swift defeat.
-
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?
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
where poor people will do anything or money.
**** Putin. **** Russia. Let them eat swift defeat.
Very sweet words, I see.
If I could, I would kneel before the élites overseas that fund and foment this war.
Thanks to this war, European Nationalists are gaining millions of votes across Europe because the narrative about the warlike and intransigent NATO works like a charm.
The European élites are really walking on thin ice, because they are terrified of losing.
As you're doing with Putin? Making him the victim?
I'm eloquent at times.
I thought you already did kneel in Putin's direction.
OK.Thanks to this war, European Nationalists are gaining millions of votes across Europe because the narrative about the warlike and intransigent NATO works like a charm.
The European élites are really walking on thin ice, because they are terrified of losing.
No...he is not the victim here.As you're doing with Putin? Making him the victim?
He implemented the military invasion of a country...and not through a Blitzkrieg...two years or nearly have passed.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Yes, this is indeed the only civilized approach.
American presidents like Thomas Jefferson and especially Dwight Eisenhower had warned against the necessity of keeping a large military force as well as the increasing power and influence of the military-industrial complex.
John F.Kennedy refused to send troops to south Vietnam. After his tragic assassination, his cautious policy was reversed and his successor Lydon Johnson authorised military offensives in Vietnam in which lead to eventual defeat in 1975 along with the loss of over 58000 American soldiers. This was however highly profitable for the military-industrial complex due to the large amount of funds allocated to the defense budget over a period of time.
England should take back all English speaking nations by that argument.Yep, poor old Putin! He's such a good and strong leader that he's easily manipulated into invading another country by the Evil Western Hegemony to make him look bad...
oh, yes, he has acted civil on a few occasions...publicly...but then off-camera he's had dozens if not more killed and imprisioned...he's just a Russian mob kingpin...
again, just like Hitler...trying to unite the Master Race of Mother Russia by annexing territory in the interest of protecting the purity of his nation...because it's a well-accepted international principle of law that if the people of a territory speak the same language as the people of a large nation, the large nation gets to absorb that territory...
He also denies that Ukrainian is a separate language, so really all of Ukraine should be Russian...
That will start WW III (or not if Boris is leading the invasion).
Heyo
Veteran Member
Because war is bad, this war has to be fought until Russia is back behind the original borders. And the international community has to support Ukraine in their efforts.I would like to know why Russia can't keep those 4 regions annexed.
It is sad to have the war but giving in to Putin is an incentive for future warmongers. China comes to mind and Taiwan.
Russia and the world has to learn that starting a war will never end in any gains.
I think that we need to be realistic.
Do you agree that Ukraine needs to join the EU as soon as possible, right?
By this way, Ukraine will have to comply with all the EU regulations involving diplomacy, freedom of speech, freedom of press...
they will have to get out of the Middle Ages, basically.
Once in the EU, Russia will have to come to terms with the EU, since it's basically surrounded by EU countries.
If the price of peace is those four regions, well...let's give them to Russia.
So it's Russia who will have to pay for their reconstruction. Not Brussels.
After all, a warlike approach to the matter is not conductive for the image Brussels' institutions have been preserving.
But does anyone ever really learn these lessons?
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I do speak for the EU, yes. I know the EU's stance.
Have you seen people from the EU say otherwise?
Actually, Ursula von der Leyen speaks for the EU, and her opinions on the Russian invasion of Ukraine differ considerably from yours.
It's the European Council who decides, made up of all the member states' governments.
Technocracy is just an instrument.
Last edited:
He escalated the war.
John F. Kennedy and the escalation of the Vietnam War
Under U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy, the number of U.S. advisers to the South Vietnamese military rose from 1,500 to 15,000. From Vietnam Perspective (1985), a documentary by Encyclopædia Britannica Educational Corporation.
How the Vietnam War Ratcheted Up Under 5 US Presidents | HISTORY
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all deepened U.S. involvement in the decades‑long conflict.
www.history.com
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
It's the European Council who decides, made up of all the member states government.
Technocracy is just an instrument.
Ursula von der Leyen as president of the EU actually speaks for the EU, not the European Council or the member states or you. It is always the president who performs that function. You are just a citizen of one of its member states, but you can certainly have opinions about what you think EU policy ought to be.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
It's Poroshenko who prevented them from speaking Russian.
Are you denying historical facts, by chance?
Technically, Poroshenko signed a law declaring Ukrainian the "state" language of Ukraine just before he left office. The law itself does not prevent anyone from speaking Russian. The current president of Ukraine is himself a native speaker of Russian who struggles to speak coherent Ukrainian. What the law does is it makes Ukrainian the "state language" of Ukraine and requires all citizens to learn it. Further, it requires all government actions to be in the Ukrainian language. So it is a burden on a great many Ukrainians, many of whom do not know Ukrainian. In my opinion, it is a bad law and should never have been passed. I also oppose the conservative movement in the US to declare English the official language. English is the de facto official language in the US, but not the legally prescribed "state language" for the entire country. Many official government documents are issued in multilingual formats, including election ballots. Nevertheless, I have more standing to oppose such a law in the US than in Ukraine. What the Verkhovna Rada passes into law is their business, not mine.
See:
THE LAW OF UKRAINE On ensuring the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the state language
That said, what does this have to do with Putin's invasion? The Ukrainian government has a perfect right to determine its own laws, and this law did not threaten Russia in any way. Russia does not represent the interests of non-citizens in Crimea or any other Ukrainian territory, nor does it have the right to impose its own laws in Ukrainian territories. The language law may have been a pretext for the invasion, but it certainly was not a justifiable or credible one. Ukrainians make up the largest ethnic minority in Russia, but that does not give Ukraine the right to invade Russian territory and make up its own laws for Russian citizens, no matter how many ethnic Ukrainians in Russia might prefer Ukraine making laws for them.
The EU is changing.
It's an absolute change that a German politician could become president of the Commission.
Some elitist banker, some merciless technocrat from some Tax Haven could have been elected instead.
I can assure you that this Commission has a more human approach.
Of course it has to do with the invasion.
If Italy imposed Germans living in South Tyrol to learn Italian...that would cause rebellions, and Austria would probably invade Italy, as a consequence.
And she would be right.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
You can assure me of anything you want, but I see no reason to credit your opinion. Ursula von der Leyen was elected by the European Parliament to the office of EU presidency. You weren't even considered for the position. In November of 2022, she announced that she was establishing an International Criminal Tribunal for the Russian Federation. The EU Parliament then created the International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine with 472 votes in favor, 19 against and 33 abstentions this last January. Despite your assurances, that is actual EU policy. And that body is the one that issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. It doesn't look like your solution to the invasion of Ukraine was taken into consideration. You should write them a letter of protest.
Really? That is what you think would happen? I think cooler heads would prevail, although there might be a lot of shouting back and forth. Especially in German, with maybe some Romansch sprinkled in. Austria would get mustard up its nose, but I don't see their troops invading Italy. Why haven't the Slovenians invaded to occupy Trieste? Get a grip.
Last edited:
ajay0
Well-Known Member
He escalated the war.
John F. Kennedy and the escalation of the Vietnam War
Under U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy, the number of U.S. advisers to the South Vietnamese military rose from 1,500 to 15,000. From Vietnam Perspective (1985), a documentary by Encyclopædia Britannica Educational Corporation.www.britannica.com
How the Vietnam War Ratcheted Up Under 5 US Presidents | HISTORY
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all deepened U.S. involvement in the decades‑long conflict.
He increased the advisors but was against the military intervention considering the earlier defeat of U.S forces in Korea as well as high casualties, and probably did not want to repeat the same prudently. As a former naval officer, he possibly assessed and understood the military situation correctly and found it not palatable.