The NATO

[LuisDantas]

I am with humanity, that is why I want resolution of the conflict and not continuation of the war.
What is NATO trying for? Subjugation of Russia through destruction of Ukraine?

It seems to me that the goal is to dissuade Putin from further military adventurism.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think Putin has problems with democracies. He has been nice to us, but no one likes to be cornered.

In which sense is he cornered, other than by his own ambition and willingness to deploy military power that he never needed to?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think I have repeated it a thousand times.
Through negotiations. There are tens (if not hundreds) of standardized procedures of negotiation between two belligerent parties. That's why the United Nations were founded.
There are so many lawyers specialized in diplomacy, peace talks. In these procedures.
As far as I know, Putin wants to negotiate.
Does the other party want to negotiate?

What leads you to conclude that he wants to negotiate?

His unilateral invasion of Ukraine back in 2014?

His deployment of the military uninvited in Ukraine this year?

His threats?

His sham referendums for anexation of border territories?

That is blackmailing with bloodletting. Uncalled and unprovoked.

I honestly don't understand why you expect that to be considered willingness to negotiate. I assure you that I do not.

 

[LuisDantas]

The movers and shakers in this conflict are Putin and NATO. Ukraine does not count.

I would beg to differ. Very much.

 

[Estro Felino]

And yet you say that Putin is right?

While complaining of double standards, no less?

Really?

He is right about giving Crimea independence. About nationalizing the Russian raw materials.

If the United States sign a treaty where they promise they will never try to take the Russian raw materials away from the Russian people, (and I mean they will have to reprimand those insatiable banking dynasties)....
I can change my mind.
Quid pro quo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He is right about giving Crimea independence. About nationalizing the Russian raw materials.

If the United States sign a treaty where they promise they will never try to take the Russian raw materials away from the Russian people, (and I mean they will have to reprimand those insatiable banking dynasties)....
I can change my mind.
Quid pro quo.

Crimea is not independent. What world do you live in? I am serious. What is your evidence for that?

 

[Estro Felino]

Crimea is not independent. What world do you live in? I am serious. What is your evidence for that?

It is an independent republic of the Russian Federation. If you want, I can explain you the juridical difference between republic and oblast (or krai, okrugs, which are similar to oblasts).

 

[LuisDantas]

He is right about giving Crimea independence. About nationalizing the Russian raw materials.

Based on what?

Also, what sort of independence is he promoting again? How does it require Russian troops on the grounds?

If the United States sign a treaty where they promise they will never try to take the Russian raw materials away from the Russian people, (and I mean they will have to reprimand those insatiable banking dynasties)....
I can change my mind.
Quid pro quo.

Such presumption. You do not deserve any response.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is an independent republic of the Russian Federation. If you want, I can explain you the juridical difference between republic and oblast (or krai, okrugs, which are similar to oblasts).

That is Putin's line. Why should anyone support it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is an independent republic of the Russian Federation. If you want, I can explain you the juridical difference between republic and oblast (or krai, okrugs, which are similar to oblasts).

But it is not an independent nation. You are playing with words.
They have limited self-rule. That is not the same as independent.

 

[LuisDantas]

Also, Putin himself is on record stating that Ukraine is not owed recognition as a separate nation.

I just don't know how much more of an admission of imperalistic intent anyone would want.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Also, Putin himself is on record stating that Ukraine is not owed recognition as a separate nation.

I just don't know how much more of an admission of imperalistic intent anyone would want.

The core problem is that Russia is not a nation state. It is still an empire and acts as such. But some people don't get that.
And yes, there are other problems, but that is for this the main one.

 

[Estro Felino]

That is Putin's line. Why should anyone support it?

I exclusively side with the leaders who oppose the financial and banking dynasties.
I can say it over and over again.
I am very serious. I am a populist and a socialist.

 

[LuisDantas]

I exclusively side with the leaders who oppose the financial and banking dynasties.
I can say it over and over again.
I am very serious. I am a populist and a socialist.

And you express that by supporting imperalistic, predatory military actions that you somehow have come to believe oppose dynasties of dubious existence?

If you say so.

 

[metis]

I am a populist and a socialist.

But Putin is a fascist, not a socialist.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I exclusively side with the leaders who oppose the financial and banking dynasties..

China and Russia don't oppose usurious banking.
They just want to harness it for themselves. imo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I exclusively side with the leaders who oppose the financial and banking dynasties.
I can say it over and over again.
I am very serious. I am a populist and a socialist.

No, you are a populist, nationalist and socialist.
I am a centrist, believer in compromises and cosmopolitan more than just a populist and socialist.

I get it, you hate capitalism so the enemy of your enemy is your friend. But he is not your friend as such.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. For example, I would like to understand why the US sided with KSA against Yemen.
That is, they sided with the invader and not with the invaded.

Can't help you there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It seems to me that the goal is to dissuade Putin from further military adventurism.

And how does NATO achieves that? By arming Ukraine? What, if Russia goes nuclear in war?

In which sense is he cornered, other than by his own ambition and willingness to deploy military power that he never needed to?

NATO also did not need to enlist CIS countries in their rank.

 

[LuisDantas]

And how does NATO achieves that? By arming Ukraine?

In this case, yes.

It is easy to say that it would be better to negotiate. But what would that entail in practice? What else could possibly work and hasn't been tried already?

What, if Russia goes nuclear in war?

That would obviously be terrible. I fail to see how it would be NATO's fault, though.

NATO also did not need to enlist CIS countries in their rank.

A perhaps stronger argument can be made that it has no good reason to avoid it and, in fact, may indeed have a moral obligation to ease them into membership if they are willing.

NATO is, after all, a defensive alliance - and one of the main among very few effective challenges to Russian imperialism and militarism.