German politician says: Ukraine will not win this war

[ImmortalFlame]

The Soviet Union (and thus the Cold War, which for decades was the justification for the supposed necessity of NATO) has no longer existed since 1991. There is no reason to see Russia as a renamed Soviet Union.

Good thing I also don't do that, then, but instead judge the country by what it has been engaging in for the last few decades.

First Chechen War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Second Chechen War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russo-Georgian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

War in Donbas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russo-Ukrainian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Never have, never will.

So you acknowledge that post 155 was a waste of everyone's time. Good.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

A list of wars with Russia's involvement is only moderately suitable for the defence of NATO, if I may only point to Guantánamo and the Kosovo war as examples.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

So you acknowledge that post 155 was a waste of everyone's time. Good.

Pointing out that the world public (again, NOT you, personally!), which is discussing in this thread in extracts about how evil and mean Russia is, is acting duplicitously is certainly not a waste of time, but a necessary corrective. It's a bit of a shame that you feel personally attacked. Unfortunately, that does waste time - mine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A list of wars with Russia's involvement is only moderately suitable for the defence of NATO,

A list of wars that were a direct result of Russian political and military expansionism on smaller neighbouring states show a pretty strong case for a defensive treaty between smaller states for defence against Russian military and political expansionism.

This is like saying that the existence and regularity of bear attacks is "only moderately suitable" for the defence of using bear spray.

if I may only point to Guantánamo and the Kosovo war as examples.

Which have nothing to do with whether or not a defensive treaty is a reasonable response to Russian military expansionism. Especially considering the current subject of this thread is an example of Russia invading its neighbour.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Pointing out that the world public (again, NOT you, personally!), which is discussing in this thread in extracts about how evil and mean Russia is, is acting duplicitously is certainly not a waste of time,

Except they aren't, and it's false to assume so.

"America do bad" is not a reasonable response to "This Russian invasion is bad". It's a pointless distraction at best and outright dishonesty at worst.

but a necessary corrective. It's a bit of a shame that you feel personally attacked. Unfortunately, that does waste time - mine.

It's a bit of a shame that you can't formulate arguments about the actual subject, rather than engaging in whataboutism and falsely attributing things to people - then immediately walking them back when called out.

In future, argue the point. Don't imply people hold positions they don't or engage in finger-pointing.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

Especially considering the current subject of this thread is an example of Russia invading its neighbour.

In your post, to which I replied, you explicitly emphasised ‘America’ (~ the USA) as a helpful friend, even as an ‘ally’ of Ukraine. (There is no alliance between Ukraine and the USA, at least not one that is binding under international law). It therefore makes sense to address the motives of the USA and its own belligerent ambitions.

Did you realise that Putin said in the early days of the war that he didn't understand the problem, after all NATO did the same thing in 1999? Cause and effect, my friend.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

Don't imply people hold positions they don't or engage in finger-pointing.

‘I specifically don't mean you!’
‘Stop pointing your finger at me!’



Do me a favour and let's end this dialogue. It is completely pointless.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In your post, to which I replied, you explicitly emphasised ‘America’ (~ the USA) as a helpful friend, even as an ‘ally’ of Ukraine. (There is no alliance between Ukraine and the USA, at least not one that is binding under international law).

America is currently sending arms to Ukraine to help fend off a military invasion. That's a pretty obvious display of ally-ship. And a cursory look at Ukraine's history shows that America clearly has a vested interest in maintaining Ukraine as a Western-friendly ally, especially considering both its position and relation to Russia.

It therefore makes sense to address the motives of the USA and its own belligerent ambitions.

I have no issue with addressing the motives of the USA. What I dislike is when the motives of the USA are constantly questioned while the motives of Russia and/or Ukraine are ignored, as if trying to cast negative reflective light on America while explicitly downplaying the bad actions of Russia.

Did you realise that Putin said in the early days of the war that he didn't understand the problem, after all NATO did the same thing in 1999? Cause and effect, my friend.

NATO invaded a country and annexed it after meddling with its political structure for decades?

I dunno. Maybe I just happen to think that Putin is a liar, what with all the lies he tells, and maybe I think this is a pretty weak is excuse to use to justify invading a nation and killings its people en masse. Just me. But, hey, I'm one of those annoying "anti-imperialist" guys.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

‘I specifically don't mean you!’

Yeah, you did. You just backed off it because I called you out.

Do me a favour and let's end this dialogue. It is completely pointless.

Nope. I'm going to bring it up a few more times as a demonstration of your unwillingness to engage with the actual point I made and your incredibly overly simplistic anti-American bias.

 

[Nakosis]

This is the video:

And a month earlier, the Italian Minister of Defense said: Nobody has ever thought Ukraine could defeat Russia.

It's a good way to keep Russia busy while the US messes around in the Middle East.
The money given to Ukraine really goes back to the arms supplier so generally win-win for the US.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

NATO invaded a country and annexed it after meddling with its political structure for decades?

NATO, under the de facto leadership of the USA, waged a war of aggression in Kosovo in 1999 in violation of international law. Putin is absolutely right when he points this out. Nevertheless, NATO now presumes to criticise this and portray itself as ‘the good guys’. Ridiculous bigotry.

Yeah, you did.

Nonsense.

You just backed off it because I called you out.

You slander me despite repeated requests to stop. That is an infamous impertinence and very different from "calling me out".

Nope.

Your choice. I reported your repeated defamations and I added you to my Ignore list. You have now made it sufficiently clear that you hate Russia so much that you even want to pick a fight with me. I'm not going to pick a fight with you.

overly simplistic anti-American bias

You know nothing about me and you don't want to know anything about me. That's fine and it's no longer my problem. Slander someone else. This discussion is over.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

NATO, under the de facto leadership of the USA, waged a war of aggression in Kosovo in 1999 in violation of international law.

Gee, I wonder if there was anything going on in Kosovo that lead to the 1999 war? Like the oppression of anyone? Or failures of peace talks?

Kosovo War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nope. Kosovo was just a "war of aggression" that happened for no reason whatsoever. Not, as the phrase you used earlier, "cause and effect".

Putin is absolutely right when he points this out.

The use of this sentence alone demonstrates a fundamental flaw in your reasoning ability.

Nevertheless, NATO now presumes to criticise this and portray itself as ‘the good guys’. Ridiculous bigotry.

"These guys did a bad thing once, so how dare they position themselves in another instance as not doing a bad thing!"

Great logic. How about you explain why a country voluntarily deciding to join a military pact against another country that has consistently tried to invade, annex and oppress them is a bad thing.

Nonsense.

You did, though. It's pretty clear.

You slander me despite repeated requests to stop.

It's not slander, it's what you did. We can all read it.

That is an infamous impertinence and very different from "calling me out".

Impertinent? Like attributing a position to someone that they don't have? I guess you think that's a perfectly respectable thing to do.

Your choice. I reported your repeated defamations and I added you to my Ignore list. You have now made it sufficiently clear that you hate Russia so much that you even want to pick a fight with me. I'm not going to pick a fight with you.

Hilarious. Who responded to whom first, grasshopper? Seems it's pretty obvious who "picked a fight".

You know nothing about me and you don't want to know anything about me. That's fine and it's no longer my problem. Slander someone else. This discussion is over.

Yet another person without the courage to defend their claims bites the dust.

Enjoy excusing Russian imperialism.

 

[Stevicus]

The only country that would need to fear a defensive alliance, is the country that wants to have the freedom to attack without having to worry about retaliation.

Suppose all inhabitants of the street I live in make a defensive alliance saying "if someone breaks into the house of any one of us, then all other members will immediately come to that person's aid". Suppose even that I don't get along with anyone in my street.

Do you think this pact would bother me in the slightest? That it would worry me in the slightest?
Why would it, unless I actually plan on breaking into one or more of their homes?

This supposed fear it has of NATO, is actually extremely telling concerning what kind of regime we are dealing with.
And that tell shows us in fact also EXACTLY why NATO is so important.
Because in the east, we clearly DO have a superpower nation that does NOT have good intentions. That DOES want to be free to invade and attack countries without consequence.

If it didn't have this desire, then it would have nothing to fear of an alliance like NATO.

Article 5 is the infamous article that, when invoked, scrambles (in principle) all member states to take military action.
It is clearly noted that article 5 ONLY applies in case of a member being attacked.

It is entirely meaningless if a member state is the one that does the attack, or suffers a retaliation of an act of aggression of itself.

So what is there to fear of NATO, unless one actually attacks a member state first?

What you're failing to consider is that, very often, nations can and do start wars while setting up the circumstances in such a way as to make it look like the other side started it. Not that I'm saying that's the case here, but I think your argument basically amounts to nothing more than "Trust me, bro. You have nothing to fear." I believe it's somewhat naive to expect other countries to accept such promises on blind faith.

Now we have people saying "let's avoid direct confrontation and let Putin just have Ukraine". If it weren't for the western support (by request of Ukraine), Kiev would have fallen already and Ukraine as a country would already be part of Russia. Or a Belarus 2.0 at best.

But as history has shown us.... even as schoolyard bullies show us... appeasing a bully, thinking he'll stop by letting him have your lunch money once, is never a good idea. In fact, it only signals them that you are a coward and won't stand in their way the next time either. So they will just march on. As Hitler did. And as Putin would. He is already eyeing Moldavia. His operatives are already there, stirring things up just like they did in eastern Ukraine leading up to 2014.

History shows us a lot of things. It's also showed us that even "bullies" are human beings with the ability to reason and change. They are not like dogs who attack if they sense fear or weakness, which is an unfortunate perception held by too many Westerners. If nothing else, we might take heed from the ancient war proverb, "Know your enemy." To perceive an enemy in such a one-dimensional, simplistic manner like that seems counterproductive.

"Appeasement" probably started more at Locarno and continued on, not necessarily because they were cowards, but more because they were broke. I don't think Hitler would have seen them as cowards either, but he probably didn't believe that Britain or France cared so much about Czechoslovakia or Poland to declare war over it. But he, too, didn't know his enemy very well.

Still, a large part of the reason the war went on as long as it did was because the Western Allies really didn't do anything at the start. They declared war, and then just sat around waiting for the Germans to attack. And then France buckled so quickly. That was the real disaster, not appeasement. They had the Germans outnumbered and outgunned, yet they collapsed so fast. Britain held out against the German onslaught, but they were kind of stuck at that point, since they were in no position to do anything about what the Germans had already done and were continuing to do. But then, Hitler chose to invade the USSR and declare war on the USA, so that was another case where he failed to know his enemy and made some real boneheaded decisions.

Stalin has been viewed by many as a "bully," so in the case of the Eastern Front, it might be thought of as "bully vs. bully."

 

[Estro Felino]

NATO, under the de facto leadership of the USA, waged a war of aggression in Kosovo in 1999 in violation of international law. Putin is absolutely right when he points this out. Nevertheless, NATO now presumes to criticise this and portray itself as ‘the good guys’. Ridiculous bigotry.

Putin actually said this: let's acknowledge that Kosovo deserved independence from Serbia, and I accept the UN resolution.
But Donbas too deserves independence from Kiev.

But the banking sewer that lives on both shores of the Atlantic believes in double standards.
So...whatever the NATO does is sacred.
Whatever Russia does is illegal, because Russia is nothing, whereas NATO is God.

They need to be cured.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a good way to keep Russia busy while the US messes around in the Middle East.
The money given to Ukraine really goes back to the arms supplier so generally win-win for the US.

Indeed.
Europe is manure...so who cares if Europeans suffer because of this war.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why is it, do you think, that all these former soviet countries are so desperate to become NATO members?

Politics .. they will do what appears to be in their interests .. just like "the west".
There ARE no elections in the middle of a war .. so it becomes Zelensky against Russia.
..or should I say the west against Russia.

Nobody was ever "invited" into NATO. They request it themselves. Because they fear Russia's intentions.
And Russia keeps confirming they are very justified in that fear.

I'm not saying that I support the Russian regime .. I don't.
..but neither do I support the US regime .. I'm the "piggy in the middle", like Ukrainians.


I have to say, I'm not thinking that the Trump regime will be an improvement .. on the contrary.
Something is wrong with both Russian and US political systems .. we are all heading for disaster.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Here's an important question for you: WHY does Russia fear NATO expansion?

Is it because NATO has exhibited signs or tendencies indicating military aggression towards Russia? Something that they have never done.

It's simple .. the cold war .. the collapse of the USSR.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please explain to me why we should allow a violent, belligerent nation to use the threat of military force to dictate the geopolitical relations and policy of its smaller, weaker neighbours, against the democratic will of its populace and the respect for its sovereignty, and why engaging with appeasement (which is what ACTUALLY lead directly to WW2) is a good policy in this case.

Who's "we" ? The international community?
Why is it that the international community is ignored when it comes to matters of Israel's actions,
but not of Russia's?

..and that is the problem .. the international community see all that is happening, and are losing
faith in the US as an honest broker for peace.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I respect you as a person. You are totally guiltless. It's not your fault.
But I am glad you were shocked so you, as a Belgian, can have an idea of how many EU citizens, such as Germans, French, Italians, Spanish, Hungarians feel disgust towards the EU institutions and how they managed to destroy the European dream.
Tell that to your fellow Belgians.

You are making zero sense.

Every country would take action, militaristically or otherwise, against armed militias seizing villages / towns / government buildings.