German politician says: Ukraine will not win this war

[TagliatelliMonster]

Like Germany...right?
When Scholz firmly says: we are not at war with Russia...
it clearly opens the eyes of the sewer rats that want a world war between us and Russia.

Dream on, baby.

Try reading what I actually wrote.

 

[Estro Felino]

Try reading what I actually wrote.

I did.
It's you who don't want to see reality, because it would be too devastating too you.

I asked you : "what did the Italian Minister of Defense mean, when he said that only fools thought Ukraine could defeat Russia?"
You didn't answer. I am still waiting, dear,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did.

Clearly you didn't. My comment wasn't about Russia. It was about how Italy stands on the side of NATO and Ukraine.
I don't see Italy sending any weapons or money to Russia, or siding with Russia in any way when it comes to this conflict.
But I do see them being a NATO member, voting for NATO support of Ukraine and sending help to Ukraine themselves.

Italy in support of Ukraine – Ministero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale

www.esteri.it

Italy condemns in the strongest possible terms Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, which is a blatant violation of international law and humanitarian principles.
Italy highlights its unwavering support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, full sovereignty and independence within its internationally recognized borders and its proactive engagement within the Euro-Atlantic community efforts to support Ukraine.
Italy also fully supports Ukraine’s European path and actively contributed to the granting of EU candidate status to Kyiv.
In coordination with partners, we strongly condemned Russia’s sham referenda and annexation of the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia and shall never recognize such illegal acts. The Russian Ambassador in Rome was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on October 3rd 2022 to convey these messages.

...

Italy continues to urge Russia to put immediately an end to its escalatory measures, including the irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, and stresses that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia will be met with severe consequences.

Italy is in favor of a just peace under Kyiv’s full ownership. Italy appreciates President Zelensky’s formula for peace and supports the plan in principle

...

Italy will continue to exert pressure on Russia by engaging in the multilateral sphere to ensure Russia’s isolation in light of its wanton disregard for the values, principles and norms of the international order, and to pursue its accountability for the gross violations it has committed and continues to perpetrate.

And it just goes on and on.

It's you who don't want to see reality, because it would be too devastating too you.

Read above. Who's the one who doesn't want to see reality?

I asked you : "what did the Italian Minister of Defense mean, when he said that only fools thought Ukraine could defeat Russia?"
You didn't answer. I am still waiting, dear,

I'm guessing he meant to convey his opinion that he thinks Ukraine can't win.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So in general, yes, I will definitely take the overall morals of the western system over "the others" any day of the week.

And so do most humans..

Errr, no. If that was the case, why is it that so many nations wish to participate in BRICS?

This is why so many people try to flee from those "other" countries to migrate into "western" countries and not so much the other way round.

I don't think so. The G7 countries have a financial monopoly, and refugees naturally migrate
towards such nations.
If the world order changes, they will naturally migrate towards other civilized nations.

eg. most refugees would not migrate to Syria/Iraq/Lebanon etc. .. their economies have been destroyed by the west

As an example, I always find it so ironic how certain people in the west criticize and get off on their leaders / governments while delusionally claiming how they do a better job in countries like Russia..

That wouldn't include me .. nor the majority in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

So, yes, absolutely.... I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL claiming the moral high ground of western culture in general as compared to countries like Russia, China, Iran, etc. No problem at all.

A few decades ago, I would have agreed with you .. but unfortunately, your political system
has been hijacked by Zionists.

Every escalation of this conflict, comes from the Russian side. They started the trouble in Crimea. They started the trouble in Donbas. They invaded the country. And now, they are even deploying North Korean troops at the frontlines also. And off course, with threats of nuclear strikes at every step..

The only dialogue going on that I can see, is by peace activists. The notion that we can't talk
to "terrorists" or the "enemy" is not helpful.

On the one hand, we have a govt. who hands out weapons of mass destruction to Israel, but
on the other hand sends a peace envoy.
..but when it comes to Russia, we see no peace envoy .. why?

Yes, it's time to stop this..

Good .. then you would agree that dialogue is the way forward.
Russia clearly thinks so. They have demonstrated that in the form of BRICS.

"It will continue till all goals are achieved". Russia can stop it easily, in 5 minutes. Stop fighting and withdraw. Easy.

Errr, no. Why does the US appear to believe that diplomacy can solve the war in the middle-east,
but not in Ukraine?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nobody is arguing that. You, on the other hand, seem to pivot your entire analysis on the opposite assumption: that the very fact that "the west" is involved at all is bad..

No .. if you read my previous posts, I have always agreed with the consensus of the west
defending Ukraine as a good thing.
..but I am beginning to realize that it is not as simple as that. The global situation is continually
escalating towards a WWIII scenario.
The so-called global south is aligning against the west while we speak.

It is not a case of being intimidated .. it is a case of global security .. the UN has failed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No .. if you read my previous posts, I have always agreed with the consensus of the west
defending Ukraine as a good thing.
..but I am beginning to realize that it is not as simple as that. The global situation is continually
escalating towards a WWIII scenario.
The so-called global south is aligning against the west while we speak.

It is not a case of being intimidated .. it is a case of global security .. the UN has failed.

The question is: do you think it's failing in this instance because of the actions it has taken, or because of the actions Russia is taking?

If you believe helping Ukraine resisting invasion in this instance is the right thing to do, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to turn this into a "the west" vs "not the west" issue. We area capable of accepting that America is capable of both good and evil, and we can acknowledge the problems of the broader geopolitical climate without deliberately obscuring Russia's actions on the geopolitical front, or behaving in such a way as to downplay, excuse or diminish their imperialism.

What's threatening global security in this case is Russia militarily invading its neighbour in an effort to exert imperialistic control over eastern Europe. That is is the threat in this specific case, and in this specific case the USA, NATO and the UN are in opposition to that threat.

 

[Stevicus]

No, that's just your black and white assumption about me.

I'm just talking about the present war in Ukraine.

Your position rests on the view that Russia's position is unreasonable and aggressive because they object to the idea of Ukraine joining NATO. You seem to be saying that Russia's fears of NATO are unfounded and interpret it as Russia having aggressive designs on the West.

Ironically, it is your own assumption

You have presented a very rigid and black-and-white view regarding this whole thing, presenting the West as heroic defenders of freedom and Russia as the "evil empire." My position is based on the notion that there are two sides to every story, a more neutral and objective stance which can hardly be dismissed as black-and-white.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your position rests on the view that Russia's position is unreasonable and aggressive because they object to the idea of Ukraine joining NATO. You seem to be saying that Russia's fears of NATO are unfounded and interpret it as Russia having aggressive designs on the West.

What in the world can a country invading its neighbour and annexing their territory possibly indicate other than them having "aggressive designs on the West"? What warped logic could possibly lead anyone to any other conclusion?

You have presented a very rigid and black-and-white view regarding this whole thing, presenting the West as heroic defenders of freedom

Unfair characterisation. You know full well that this is an inaccurate summation of their position and an oversimplification of it. You should retract this.

and Russia as the "evil empire."

Also an oversimplification, you should retract this.

Believe it or not, people are capable of nuance, and just because you feel nuance means you can't judge a spade as a spade, some people don't agree. It's perfectly possible for a person to hold the position that "Helping Ukraine defend itself against an invasion is a good thing" without holding the position "Russia evil America heroic". You should be embarrassed that you are unwilling to accept this nuance and instead must cast opposing views in such simplistic terms.

My position is based on the notion that there are two sides to every story, a more neutral and objective stance which can hardly be dismissed as black-and-white.

It's perfectly possible to consider two sides to a story and still come to the conclusion that one side is more morally justified than the other. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool. And anyone who confuses obstinate neutrality and relativistic waffle with objectivity is doubly a fool.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Errr, no. If that was the case, why is it that so many nations wish to participate in BRICS?

Sorry, I wasn't aware that BRICS membership was decided by honest, open, transparent referendum of the civilian population.
Ow, right, it isn't... it's a political decision instead.
Not that it matters much because it doesn't address what I was actually talking about - which had nothing to do with BRICS.

I don't think so. The G7 countries have a financial monopoly, and refugees naturally migrate
towards such nations.

Uhu, and the prosperity citizens of western nations has nothing to do with the freedom they enjoy for education, business opportunity, trade, worker rights, etc right?

That wouldn't include me .. nor the majority in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Yeah, I'm sure the majority of women in Afghanistan think life under the Taliban is wonderful. And I'm sure they are free to express otherwise if they don't think so. Or express any thought they may have, for that matter.

A few decades ago, I would have agreed with you .. but unfortunately, your political system
has been hijacked by Zionists.

Ow yes, let's go the conspiracy route. Yes, yes... the Belgian government is "hijacked by zionists". Sure.

The only dialogue going on that I can see, is by peace activists. The notion that we can't talk
to "terrorists" or the "enemy" is not helpful.

Russia is constantly called upon to talk about peace.
And Russia's response is always the same: "we can talk about a 'just' peace where the goals of our 'special military operation' are achieved".

It's like Hitler saying "sure, we can talk about peace if that peace involves all jews being killed and all of europe being under our command".

Talks require 2 parties being willing to talk. What Russia offers is nothing but "unconditional surrender and give us everything we want/demand".
Kiev declines. I would also.

On the one hand, we have a govt. who hands out weapons of mass destruction to Israel, but
on the other hand sends a peace envoy.
..but when it comes to Russia, we see no peace envoy .. why?

Because Russia, as just explained, is not interested in serious peace talks.
And last time direct peace talks were tried, Russia attempted to poison the Ukrainian delegation as well as the Russian oligarch present at Kiev's request as a mediator.


This is the problem people are so reluctant to recognize. Putin has blown up quite a lot of bridges. The Kremlin continues to spew war rhetoric and nuclear threats and shows NO signs of good faith or goodwill AT ALL. Au contraire. There's no point in talking to someone who doesn't want to listen.
Next to that, they have shown themselves to be extremely untrustworthy also. Almost everything that comes from Putin's mouth are pure lies. He says one thing and does the opposite. Constantly. And this has been the case concerning the Ukraine topic since 2014.

Good .. then you would agree that dialogue is the way forward.

Sure. But as said, a dialogue needs 2 sides of good faith.
Russia is not such. Just yesterday again, Peskov once again reiterated that they are "willing to talk about a 'just' peace". And with "just", what he means is that "all goals of the 'special military operation' must be achieved". So their idea of a "just peace" is the unconditional surrender of Ukraine, recognition of shame referendums, handing over stolen territory and basically letting them get away with all their war crimes etc, no questions asked.

It should not come as a surprise that such is seen as unacceptable by Ukraine.

Russia clearly thinks so.

No, they don't. Clearly, they don't.

They have demonstrated that in the form of BRICS.

I don't see what BRICS has to do with this.

Errr, no.

Err, yes.

Why does the US appear to believe that diplomacy can solve the war in the middle-east,
but not in Ukraine?

You'ld have to ask the US.

I'ld love it if diplomacy would succeed in the Ukraine conflict.
Sadly though, I don't think it will. Not at this point anyway. Putin and his cohorts in the Kremlin don't give me the impression that they truly wish to solve this in a reasonable way.

They don't give me the impression that they are going to settle for anything less then their war goals.
Putin seems hellbend on further confrontation and more fighting, regardless of any talks or diplomacy efforts or what-have-you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your position rests on the view that Russia's position is unreasonable and aggressive because they object to the idea of Ukraine joining NATO. You seem to be saying that Russia's fears of NATO are unfounded and interpret it as Russia having aggressive designs on the West.



You have presented a very rigid and black-and-white view regarding this whole thing, presenting the West as heroic defenders of freedom and Russia as the "evil empire." My position is based on the notion that there are two sides to every story, a more neutral and objective stance which can hardly be dismissed as black-and-white.

I'ld reply once again saying pretty much the same thing I said previously and correcting the same mistakes you are making as you previously made....

But I think @ImmortalFlame already did a fantastic job and expressed it far more eloquently then I could.

So thanks and kudos @ImmortalFlame

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm guessing he meant to convey his opinion that he thinks Ukraine can't win.

He's the Minister of DEFENSE.

If the minister of defense thinks Ukraine can't win, neither do Italian citizens.

So why should Italians support this endless war if it's a lost cause?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you believe helping Ukraine resisting invasion in this instance is the right thing to do, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to turn this into a "the west" vs "not the west" issue. We area capable of accepting that America is capable of both good and evil, and we can acknowledge the problems of the broader geopolitical climate without deliberately obscuring Russia's actions on the geopolitical front, or behaving in such a way as to downplay, excuse or diminish their imperialism.

Nope .. it becomes the same thing as trying to isolate Gaza from Lebanon, and asserting they
are separate conflicts .. that is merely political rhetoric.

What's threatening global security in this case is Russia militarily invading its neighbour in an effort to exert imperialistic control over eastern Europe. That is is the threat in this specific case..

Clearly, the global south does not think so .. they seek a diplomatic solution to BOTH major
conflicts in the world that are seriously getting out of hand.

..I hear from Tony Blinken, that they don't know whether Hamas will participate in peace talks..
..I would say, it is more a question whether the US is interested in de-escalating both conflicts.
They are the ones who supply the vast majority of weapons of mass destruction. (1000's of 900 kg bombs )

Meanwhile, the slaughter continues..

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't see what BRICS has to do with this..

You don't see what a major political alliance against the west has to do with anything?
Hmm .. I think you are making a mistake .. it is highly significant.
The UN that was set up after WWII is failing .. and not looking like it will even survive
in the future.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope .. it becomes the same thing as trying to isolate Gaza from Lebanon, and asserting they
are separate conflicts .. that is merely political rhetoric.

This is just open false conflation and has absolutely no relation to anything I've said. Respond to my arguments, not to an imaginary argument.

Clearly, the global south does not think so .. they seek a diplomatic solution to BOTH major
conflicts in the world that are seriously getting out of hand.

This is an overly broad generalisation, and a denial of the reality of the long history of negotiation between Ukraine and Russia, which has consistently ended at the point where Russia determines it should end. A diplomatic end is ideal, but there isn't any hope of a diplomatic solution if one of the actors coming to the table isn't willing to negotiate in good faith and is instead just buying time to further their invasion.

..I hear from Tony Blinken, that they don't know whether Hamas will participate in peace talks..
..I would say, it is more a question whether the US is interested in de-escalating both conflicts.
They are the ones who supply the vast majority of weapons of mass destruction. (1000's of 900 kg bombs )

Meanwhile, the slaughter continues..

Once again, this is false conflation. The two situations, and America's choice of actions in each, are completely different.

Let's simplify this: at what point do you believe it is wrong to support the military defence of an allied sovereign territory against an imperialist aggressor, and to what extent to believe imperialist states should be appeased to prevent bloodshed?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You don't see what a major political alliance against the west has to do with anything?
Hmm .. I think you are making a mistake .. it is highly significant.
The UN that was set up after WWII is failing .. and not looking like it will even survive
in the future.

So, to make it clear, the existence of BRICS is a clear demonstration of Russia's reasonableness, trustworthiness and ability to negotiate on the geopolitical stage.

Meanwhile, the existence of the UN and NATO is... a failure?

What even is your argument?

 

[Stevicus]

What in the world can a country invading its neighbour and annexing their territory possibly indicate other than them having "aggressive designs on the West"? What warped logic could possibly lead anyone to any other conclusion?

You don't want to know. But I'm not going to answer these questions when they're phrased in this way. Loaded questions based on faulty premises do not deserve an answer.

Unfair characterisation. You know full well that this is an inaccurate summation of their position and an oversimplification of it. You should retract this.

I just call it as I see it. For the most part, I see a lot of canned, hackneyed phrases which I've heard over and over and over during the course of my life, even going back to the Cold War. Do you honestly believe I can't see it and recognize it for what it is?

Also an oversimplification, you should retract this.

Believe it or not, people are capable of nuance, and just because you feel nuance means you can't judge a spade as a spade, some people don't agree. It's perfectly possible for a person to hold the position that "Helping Ukraine defend itself against an invasion is a good thing" without holding the position "Russia evil America heroic". You should be embarrassed that you are unwilling to accept this nuance and instead must cast opposing views in such simplistic terms.

Your opinion is duly noted and will be given all the consideration it deserves.

It's perfectly possible to consider two sides to a story and still come to the conclusion that one side is more morally justified than the other. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Thank you for your ideas.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You don't want to know. But I'm not going to answer these questions when they're phrased in this way. Loaded questions based on faulty premises do not deserve an answer.

They're obviously rhetorical. I'm expressing disbelief at your position.

I just call it as I see it.

No, you don't. You refuse to call it or see it. It's what I call "obstinate neutrality"; an unwillingness to openly express a position favouring either side in any meaningful way, usually out of a misguided sense that expressing any opinion one way or another indicates some sort of internal bias. It's not a meaningful, nuanced position. It's the opposite.

For the most part, I see a lot of canned, hackneyed phrases which I've heard over and over and over during the course of my life, even going back to the Cold War. Do you honestly believe I can't see it and recognize it for what it is?

I believe you accused someone of holding positions they don't hold, and you should retract your statements. I don't care what you claim to see, because I think you're not an objective person.

Your opinion is duly noted and will be given all the consideration it deserves.

Are you going to retract your false statements?

Thank you for your ideas.

Stop pretending to have nuance and try having some actual nuance. Respond meaningfully to what I wrote.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Once again, this is false conflation. The two situations, and America's choice of actions in each, are completely different.

Yes, they are not identical .. but what they do have in common is "western interest", obviously.

Let's simplify this: at what point do you believe it is wrong to support the military defence of an allied sovereign territory against an imperialist aggressor..

It would depend on the situation..
Unfortunately, I believe that the US has lost credibility in the international community,
as they seem to continually meddle in middle-eastern affairs that are "in their interests".
..so much so, that we now see Israel/US destroying cities of non-Israelis on an escalating scale.

A case for "self-defence" can be made in the Israel-Hamas war, but as we all know, the Israeli
regime intend to "reshape the middle east" with its western backers.

Do you really think that that is acceptable to the vast majority of population in the world?
I'm sure it isn't .. but the US is paralysed .. its political institutions compromised.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Meanwhile, the existence of the UN and NATO is... a failure?

Well, Trump accelerated the demise of the UN .. his attitude towards it was dismissive overall,
as it was towards climate-change.

It is increasingly looking likely that Trump will be the next President once more for many
reasons, which suits Israel/Zionists just fine.

..and Trump does not have a great love of NATO either.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, they are not identical .. but what they do have in common is "western interest", obviously.

Right. But having that in common isn't what determines their moral worth or intent. You wouldn't say the action of shooting a starving child and feeding a starving child are morally equivalent, even if both actions have "making sure there are no starving children" in common. Actions that serve western interests can still be good or bad depending on individual circumstances.

It would depend on the situation..
Unfortunately, I believe that the US has lost credibility in the international community,
as they seem to continually meddle in middle-eastern affairs that are "in their interests".
..so much so, that we now see Israel/US destroying cities of non-Israelis on an escalating scale.

I think this is fair, but I would still argue it's not the subject or the field in which to make this point, as it serves to partially - if unintentionally - to justify or excuse the actions of Russia. Like the analogy I used before, it's all well and good - perhaps even noble - to argue in favour of police reform and against police corruption, but if you choose to make this argument in the context of police stepping in to protect a woman against her rapist you might be considered to not be acting with the best moral judgement.

A case for "self-defence" can be made in the Israel-Hamas war, but as we all know, the Israeli
regime intend to "reshape the middle east" with its western backers.

Again, comparing situation A to situation B will not serve you here. Ukraine defending itself against a military aggressor is exactly what is happening in this case. The fact that Israel use it as a euphemistic cover for their actions doesn't mean that Ukraine is.

Do you really think that that is acceptable to the vast majority of population in the world?
I'm sure it isn't .. but the US is paralysed .. its political institutions compromised.

I think the US has significant hegemonic power, and am in favour of it using that power for actions I deem to be worthy and good, and I believe defending Ukraine against an imperialist aggressor is worthy and good. This doesn't mean I approve of the US having this power, nor does it mean I approve when they use that power in ways I don't deem worthy and good.

I think the vast majority of the population of the world understand this.