Europe wants peace

[Saint Frankenstein]

Helping another fight against an aggressive invasion that wants to being them under a dictatorship is not nonsense.

That's the propaganda take, not reality. They've lost and they couldn't win, anyway. Most of that money we've sent them has been "lost" (stolen by criminals). This is a shameful debacle.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's the propaganda take, not reality. They've lost and they couldn't win, anyway. Most of that money we've sent them has been "lost" (stolen by criminals). This is a shameful debacle.

If they've lost why are they still fighting? The propaganda has been consistently from Putin and his lies.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because they are currently at war. I think that disqualifies them from joining Nato until this war is over, unless Nato wants to declare war Russia.

When this war is over I believe Ukraine will join Nato very quickly. And perhaps the EU.

I wonder if the expression "currently at war" is exactly equivalent to both "declaring war" and having war declared upon you and having to defend yourself?"

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If they've lost why are they still fighting? The propaganda has been consistently from Putin and his lies.

Because they're basically forcing anyone that is able to, to fight and we keep sending them arms.

Also, sick psychopath Lindsey Graham has admitted that our real interest in Ukraine is their vast mineral wealth, among other resources:

I have no idea why anyone believes the government about anything anymore, but especially about wars. I guess we didn't learn a thing from the 2000s.

 

[Pogo]

That's not our problem. You want to fight for Ukraine, get on a plane and go. All this animosity towards Russia is totally irrelevant to anyone who hasn't gotten over the Cold War by now. I don't care about Russia and neither does anyone my age or younger, really. We're not going to waste our lives on this nonsense. We have our own problems that our governments need to attend to.

No, it is not the cold war that has probably been over as long as you have been alive, and things were going along reasonably well until Putin decided that he deserved to rule over an area that had separated after the cold war and started a hot war.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, that would be good in the long term

However it needs to be made clear to Russia that Ukraine is in the west, which could be done by it either joining the EU or NATO

The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was what precipitated the war in the first place. This whole war could have been avoided if NATO made a clear and irrevocable pledge to never allow Ukraine to join NATO. Actually, @Saint Frankenstein is correct in that NATO should have been disbanded in 1990. By maintaining and expanding NATO, it was a clear, long-term, ongoing provocation against Russia.

You can't make anything "clear" to Russia, and you can't cow them or intimidate them either. They have ample resources, a robust armaments industry, and they grow enough food to feed themselves. And anything else they might need, they can get from China. Ukraine can't win a war of attrition, and no amount of aid from the West will ever be enough - unless NATO starts sending troops of their own, which could lead to nuclear war and the end of the world as we know it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, it is not the cold war that has probably been over as long as you have been alive, and things were going along reasonably well until Putin decided that he deserved to rule over an area that had separated after the cold war and started a hot war.

No, this tension between Putin and the West started way before that. Did you know that Putin wanted to join NATO and be friendly towards us but we rejected that? I was surprised when I found that out. Tsk tsk.

 

[fantome profane]

I wonder if the expression "currently at war" is exactly equivalent to both "declaring war" and having war declared upon you and having to defend yourself?"

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it makes any difference, unfortunately.

 

[Pogo]

No, this tension between Putin and the West started way before that. Did you know that Putin wanted to join NATO and be friendly towards us but we rejected that? I was surprised when I found that out. Tsk tsk.

Why did Russia not join NATO?


Despite what Russian propaganda might say, Russia never formally asked to enter NATO after the dissolution of the USSR. Putin back in 2000 reportedly asked NATO chief George Robertson when NATO would invite Russia to join, and was answered that Russia needed first to apply to join (which Russia never did).Feb 11, 2024

 

[Stevicus]

And there you have it -- exactly why we will always remain a fractious, warring planet killing our own kind with wanton abandon until we've finally done our world the great favour of extinguishing ourselves. Go visit "Pale Blue Dot" by Carl Sagan

The main reason why we have a fractious, warring planet is because an unfortunate human tendency to dehumanize others and turn them into one-dimensional comic book villains which has nothing to do with reality. Too much of the wartime rhetoric involves depicting the world like it's some kind of cartoon or fantasy story, when the reality is we're dealing with human beings, not mad dogs. It should be expected that every national government will pursue their own national interests, and knowing this, we can deal with them on a practical and rational basis that doesn't require war.

That's why we have a diplomatic structure. There are other avenues besides war. Because there's no hope for Russia to unconditionally surrender, as we'll all be glowing in the dark in the middle of a nuclear winter before that ever happens.

 

[Balthazzar]

The EU is an economic alliance, Nato is a defensive alliance, they are apples and kumquats.

Isn't Ukraine EU aspirations the reason for the invasion in the first place? That's how i understood it. The point is they need help. They know that if and when NATO gets involved that the NATO alliance will then be involved in the Conflict itself, which would equate to WW3. Some territories are considering existing NATO and I am fairly sure for that specific reason. WW3 is a very BIG DEAL, so ... time is a valuable commodity in this regard and sacrifices, as unfortunate as they may be, seem to be in play. I hate to view Ukraine as a type of sacrifice, and truth be told, the greater conflict could be expedited despite the efforts to extend the time frame and onset. The point I think some are making is that it's very likely coming anyway. The others seem to be buying time.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Europe wants peace.
These latest EU elections have showed it.

So this is a message to my friends from the United States:
do respect Europeans' desire of peace and may God enlighten you as well...and make you desire peace with Russia.
Thank you.

What makes you think America does not want peace? Russia should stop its invasion and declare a ceasefire then there will be peace.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why did Russia not join NATO?


Despite what Russian propaganda might say, Russia never formally asked to enter NATO after the dissolution of the USSR. Putin back in 2000 reportedly asked NATO chief George Robertson when NATO would invite Russia to join, and was answered that Russia needed first to apply to join (which Russia never did).Feb 11, 2024

Because the Bush admin reversed the policies that were friendlier towards Russia, such as withdrawing us from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and started supporting and arming the countries around Russia, it seems. That started it and the situation worsened throughout the 2000s and 2010s. So Dubya started a period of worsening relations with Russia that caused them to grow suspicious of us and for this distrust to get worse. No shock there. That admin seemed to exist only to make everything much worse.

Russia–NATO relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pogo]

Isn't Ukraine EU aspirations the reason for the invasion in the first place? That's how i understood it. The point is they need help. They know that if and when NATO gets involved that the NATO alliance will then be involved in the Conflict itself, which would equate to WW3. Some territories are considering existing NATO and I am fairly sure for that specific reason. WW3 is a very BIG DEAL, so ... time is a valuable commodity in this regard and sacrifices, as unfortunate as they may be, seem to be in play. I hate to view Ukraine as a type of sacrifice, and truth be told, the greater conflict could be expedited despite the efforts to extend the time frame and onset. The point I think some are making is that it's very likely coming anyway. The others seem to be buying time.

That is putins propaganda, Ukraine joining the EU is no threat to Putin and neither would joining NATO have been unless he chose to be belligerent, Heck his actions got Finland and Sweden to join just because of his belligerence in Ukraine, They were perfectly happy to be unaligned to either NATO or Russia until Putin invaded.

 

[Stevicus]

Isn't Ukraine EU aspirations the reason for the invasion in the first place? That's how i understood it. The point is they need help. They know that if and when NATO gets involved that the NATO alliance will then be involved in the Conflict itself, which would equate to WW3. Some territories are considering existing NATO and I am fairly sure for that specific reason. WW3 is a very BIG DEAL, so ... time is a valuable commodity in this regard and sacrifices, as unfortunate as they may be, seem to be in play. I hate to view Ukraine as a type of sacrifice, and truth be told, the greater conflict could be expedited despite the efforts to extend the time frame and onset. The point I think some are making is that it's very likely coming anyway. The others seem to be buying time.

I don't think anyone wants WW3. I think global war can be avoided if our government can ever learn to think practically and rationally about our national interests and our relationships with the rest of the world.

It's interesting to note that, after both WW1 and WW2, the leaders of the world got together to try to forge a lasting peace - because they didn't want to have to go through another major war again. And with the advent of nuclear weapons, the prospect of another global war was absolutely unthinkable, as it could lead to the end of all life on the planet.

But nations will still try to pursue their national interests just the same, and to try to do that while avoiding all-out warfare is a tricky game to play.

 

[Balthazzar]

I don't think anyone wants WW3. I think global war can be avoided if our government can ever learn to think practically and rationally about our national interests and our relationships with the rest of the world.

It's interesting to note that, after both WW1 and WW2, the leaders of the world got together to try to forge a lasting peace - because they didn't want to have to go through another major war again. And with the advent of nuclear weapons, the prospect of another global war was absolutely unthinkable, as it could lead to the end of all life on the planet.

But nations will still try to pursue their national interests just the same, and to try to do that while avoiding all-out warfare is a tricky game to play.

I would be on board with your first statement, but negotiating win wins without compromising national security is a tricky thing. One is always looking for the better deal and upper hand, so negotiations are very delicate in nature. Conflicts are already in play, as are ongoing discussions as well as strategic moves across the entire platform and very likely every territory on earth. The power plays, world dominance and control efforts aren't going anywhere, but I certainly understand the need for better negotiated terms in effort to increase peaceful relations and ally base.

 

[Shaul]

Europe wants peace.
These latest EU elections have showed it.

So this is a message to my friends from the United States:
do respect Europeans' desire of peace and may God enlighten you as well...and make you desire peace with Russia.
Thank you.

Both the Russian and Ukrainian sides of the current war are Europeans. In addition Europe has a looooooooong history of warfare and not peace. Stating that "Europe wants peace" is dubious, at the least, and quite likely wrong.

 

[Stevicus]

I would be on board with your first statement, but negotiating win wins without compromising national security is a tricky thing. One is always looking for the better deal and upper hand, so negotiations are very delicate in nature. Conflicts are already in play, as are ongoing discussions as well as strategic moves across the entire platform and very likely every territory on earth. The power plays, world dominance and control efforts aren't going anywhere, but I certainly understand the need for better negotiated terms in effort to increase peaceful relations and ally base.

One thing I would observe about the conflicts and enmities we see today have a historical background and root which even pre-date the Cold War, although most of what's going on currently is the direct result of ill-conceived and short-sighted policies and actions during the Cold War, as well as since the Cold War. Iran, North Korea, China/Taiwan, Iraq, Afghanistan - and we're pretty much operating all over the world at this point.

I remember an argument put forth by President Reagan, when he said that during the few years after WW2 when the U.S. had a monopoly on atomic weapons, we could have used that advantage to conquer the entire world. But we didn't do that, so in his mind, that proved that the U.S. was a good, kind, and benevolent nation, dedicated only to freedom and democracy. Guys like Patton and MacArthur wanted to do precisely that, but were removed from their positions because they were seen as insubordinate and dangerous.

I've known some people among a certain sub-set of Americans who believed that it was a lost opportunity to dispense with the Communist threat once and for all. For my part, I began to wonder if the Communist threat had not been exaggerated. After all, if they were really viewed as such a grave and mortal threat, why didn't they stop them when they had the chance? They could have saved us 40 years of Cold War, and all these current conflicts caused by loose ends from the Cold War. Maybe they really weren't that much of a threat after all - or maybe our government needed there to be a threat in order to carry out their own geopolitical agenda.

When it comes to world dominance and control, history is shown us a number of would-be conquerors who made some bold advances and extended their empires far and wide. Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan had vast empires and a long reach. But, all gone now. I guess some people might see America and its government as a kind of "empire," but it's more like an "invisible empire." The way I see it, if we want to have an empire, then we should do it right. If we can't do that, then we have to make a deal to coexist with other empires.

 

[Balthazzar]

One thing I would observe about the conflicts and enmities we see today have a historical background and root which even pre-date the Cold War, although most of what's going on currently is the direct result of ill-conceived and short-sighted policies and actions during the Cold War, as well as since the Cold War. Iran, North Korea, China/Taiwan, Iraq, Afghanistan - and we're pretty much operating all over the world at this point.

I remember an argument put forth by President Reagan, when he said that during the few years after WW2 when the U.S. had a monopoly on atomic weapons, we could have used that advantage to conquer the entire world. But we didn't do that, so in his mind, that proved that the U.S. was a good, kind, and benevolent nation, dedicated only to freedom and democracy. Guys like Patton and MacArthur wanted to do precisely that, but were removed from their positions because they were seen as insubordinate and dangerous.

I've known some people among a certain sub-set of Americans who believed that it was a lost opportunity to dispense with the Communist threat once and for all. For my part, I began to wonder if the Communist threat had not been exaggerated. After all, if they were really viewed as such a grave and mortal threat, why didn't they stop them when they had the chance? They could have saved us 40 years of Cold War, and all these current conflicts caused by loose ends from the Cold War. Maybe they really weren't that much of a threat after all - or maybe our government needed there to be a threat in order to carry out their own geopolitical agenda.

When it comes to world dominance and control, history is shown us a number of would-be conquerors who made some bold advances and extended their empires far and wide. Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan had vast empires and a long reach. But, all gone now. I guess some people might see America and its government as a kind of "empire," but it's more like an "invisible empire." The way I see it, if we want to have an empire, then we should do it right. If we can't do that, then we have to make a deal to coexist with other empires.

The decisions made cold war era and our decisive choice to not utilize a bombs to conquer, despite the "threat" I'm sure played a very well played role in human history as well as international cooperation. You question the threat of communism; I question the threat of democracy. Geopolitical strategy aside, do you think that avoiding alliances with other territories to be something to be pursued, as opposed to the former? If not for geopolitical purposes, what other reason would there be to create such alliances or to pursue peaceful relations? I ask because you seemed to suggest that geopolitical moves are something bad.

 

[Estro Felino]

If you want war to stop, you can go fight for Ukraine.
Kill enuf Russians to that Putin gives up, & they return
to their own land.

I would fight for Putin, not for the Sorosian government of Kiev.

Like a valkyrie, I would die in the battlefield, for Russia, the third Rome.