The warmongers at the European Union

[TagliatelliMonster]

A referendum shall let them free to decide whether they want to be in the Russian Federation or in Ukraine.

Putin doesn't allow free and fair referendums.
He only allows illegal referendums under threat of intimidating soldiers carrying weapons.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're wrong because in 2001 Putin went to Germany and told the Bundestag: the Cold War is over. In perfect German.

Newsflash: Putin lies.

He is really a gentleman and he is one of the most moderate politicians in Russia.

Euh... no. Moderate politicians in Russia are banished, jailed or killed. By order of Putin.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sounds like you are confusing them with the Kremlin oligarchs and Putin.

Have you read the article 11 of our constitution?
The EU cannot spit on the constitution of a founding member...so they should stop acting like kindergarten kids wanting to play war.
And grow up.

 

[Estro Felino]

Putin doesn't allow free and fair referendums.

A referendum implemented by the UN. Third party.

 

[Estro Felino]

Newsflash: Putin lies.

No, he doesn't. He is totally frank.
That is why he was invited to Villa Madama, when he came to Rome in 2019. A privileged reserved to few in Italian diplomacy.

Look. What our PM said back then.

 

[Nimos]

It's not so absurd if you look at the chain of events leading up to the psychopath's rise to power. That said, I don't really see it as a matter of "who started it." That's what children say when they get into a fight, but when it comes to wars between nations, the question of "who started it" and the underlying causes can be rather complicated and murky.

In the case of conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the underlying causes likely go a long way back into history. The US and NATO have very little to do with the history between the Russians and Ukrainians one way or the other, but if the US and NATO choose to involve themselves in a conflict between those two countries, then that's definitely on the US and NATO. They are certainly the cause of their own involvement, as they do so by choice, out of convenience and not necessity.

I don't believe it's about fairness or helping people.

Politics is murky and everyone knows that.

But still, that doesn't justify one country attacking another unless provoked, such as housing terrorists etc. The Western countries getting involved I think is very much justified, if we didn't Russia, China etc. could do whatever they felt like, because no one would stand up for anyone. Nothing would stop Putin from just grabbing Eastern countries one after another.

Should we react if we imagine that he was attacking Poland, Germany or France? or should we just look on?

It shouldn't be necessary for every country that wants to avoid getting attacked or bullied to be part of NATO, that should be a last line of defence.

So I think it is about fairness and helping people, to not allow big countries to bully/attack smaller ones and to help people not only to defend against it but also to be allowed to decide the type of country they want to live in, small or big.

Im not saying that politically that might be other more important causes for it, but even politicians are humans and also have a sense of justice.

Ironically, the two major Allied powers who were instrumental in the Allies' victory did say that, in a manner of speaking. Both the US and USSR did not oppose the Axis from the outset. In fact, the USSR even enabled and aided and abetted Germany in the invasion of Poland and took a piece of that country for themselves. The US did not intervene, although FDR started sending supplies to Britain. If Japan had never attacked us and Germany never declared war on us, we might not have gotten involved at all. And if Germany never attacked the USSR, then they may not have ever gone to war with each other.

Both Germany and Japan shared one thing in common: They were both starved for oil and needed it very badly. You ask what kind of world we live in, it's an industrial world where oil is its lifeblood. Nobody can do whatever they feel like unless they have the oil.

Because at the time the US was a pacifistic country. But Hitler would have attacked Russia no matter what, he hated them and what they stood for as much as the Jews. Imagine if the UK and US hadn't helped Russia, then they would have lost as well. And I agree, had Japan not attacked the US, they might not have been involved or at least not as fast.

Both Japan and Germany needed oil for their war machine, and when Japan attacked China and the UK the US stopped trading oil with them.
But none of these wars was initially started because of this.

There have been wars in Europe over centuries in which some leaders might come to the bargaining table, and land might change hands or other terms imposed. Sometimes, you just have to sit down and make a deal. I think Zelensky is thinking along those lines anyway. With Trump coming back into the White House, the US position on the situation may be in flux. Other European leaders may want to weigh in before Trump enters office.

He might be, because he is being forced to do it because they are not part of Nato, which seems to be the only way for countries to avoid being exploited or attacked.

But EU, Ukraine and the US shouldn't bargain with Russia before they have redrawn all troops from Ukraine, but Putin doesn't want this, he wants to take as much of Ukraine as possible so he can gain a claim on those parts when such meeting takes place and then he will at least have gotten some of what he wanted and the west are the losers.

And this has nothing to do with security because the areas he has taken wouldn't prevent the US from putting up bases close to Moskow anyway, so it's complete bull****.

If a country chooses to go to war with another country, we don't necessarily have to "allow them," assuming that we're in a position of authority where we can give them permission to do so. But it's more a practical matter of whether we're big enough to stop them, whether we're willing to take on the risk, how far we're willing to go, and whether it's really worth it.

But there also is a cost of just doing nothing, if we didn't do anything, he would continue to invade Ukraine. That is why we shouldn't allow it at all.

 

[Nimos]

We all lost territories after WW2.
Even your country.
So ... enough with this whining, and let's move on. For the sake of peace.

But that didn't answer the question, you say you want peace. Yet seem to have no issue with bigger countries bullying/attacking smaller ones and then they just have to give in to them. How is that to support peace, you should be furious at Russia and what they did, if you are in support of peace, because they started an unjustified war?

Yet, you seem to argue for taking their side in this or at least having no issue with Ukraine just having to accept losing a part of their country and just causally accept the 1000s of people Putin has murdered as a result of it.

 

[Estro Felino]

But that didn't answer the question, you say you want peace. Yet seem to have no issue with bigger countries bullying/attacking smaller ones and then they just have to give in to them. How is that to support peace, you should be furious at Russia and what they did, if you are in support of peace, because they started an unjustified war?

This from a person whose country made peace with the Nazis for the sake of peace...
well...that doesn't sound that coherent.
So many Danes' lives were saved. The king saved his own people's lives.

I am not likening WW2 to this war. I am just saying that sometimes compromise is necessary for the sake of peace and for the sake of the sacredness of human life. If the two parties had accepted a ceasefire of 6 months and used these 6 months to find a compromise...there would be peace, now.

Yet, you seem to argue for taking their side in this or at least having no issue with Ukraine just having to accept losing a part of their country and just causally accept the 1000s of people Putin has murdered as a result of it.

Wanting to win at any cost is what kindergarten kids do.
I am an adult.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you read the article 11 of our constitution?
The EU cannot spit on the constitution of a founding member...so they should stop acting like kindergarten kids wanting to play war.
And grow up.

Defending yourself against an aggressor who invades your land, or helping an ally to do so, is not "playing war".
It's being dragged into one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A referendum implemented by the UN. Third party.

Good luck with that in territory occupied by Putin and his cohorts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, he doesn't. He is totally frank.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wanting to win at any cost is what kindergarten kids do.

The millions who gave their lives defending their country against the Nazi invasions, disagree.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What a blinkered reply..

"it is not difficult to recognise obvious liars" ..
No, it isn't .. and that is not limited to Putin or Russians.

Says much as to his character though - as does his tendency for eliminating any he regards as foes, where political or otherwise, and often done by his underlings of course. Any who followed his progress politically must know that he abandoned democracy over his own particular aims - deluded as they might be.

"He messed that up when he decided to attack Ukraine" ..
What people want us to believe, is that it was unprovoked .. and merely a "land grab".
That is completely false. The West arrogantly seem to think they are the only ones that matter.
They are the only ones with democratic govt. .. that Capitalism is the only truth etc. etc.
What I see, is NATO expanding eastwards .. with Russia being considered "the enemy" BEFORE
they invaded Ukraine. We were intentionally led to believe that Putin wants to conquer Europe.
NO ! It's the arrogance of the West, that is used to "getting its way", and employing military force
to ensure it. That's idiotic. We didn't attack Russia in the Cold War, but now it seems that
Biden & Starmer thinks "who cares if there is a nuclear war?" escalating and provoking Russia
through misguided ideology.

No, the choice of the Ukrainians to do as they will. He didn't attack any of the other countries that left the USSR - but maybe he will in the future if not stopped over Ukraine. NATO is not the one expanding, it is Russia and its nature that is contracting, and for good reasons - it hasn't got a lot to offer, unlike much of the West. Who said anything about Putin wanting to conquer Europe? I never got any of that but merely that he couldn't entertain yet another area close to Russia becoming more Western-like - because they preferred such. With of course the notion that somehow Ukraine 'belonged' to Russia - via an historical perspective.

"He uses weapons from other countries"
Oh boy! .. and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Missiles that have to be programmed by US/UK/France are NOT "other countries"??

This was more as to his not recognising his earlier mistake - in attacking Ukraine - and as to how he has to turn to other countries to maintain his attack more than actually taking over Ukraine as a whole - which seems to have been his first objective. Where would an attacked nation turn if not to those with whom they might share values?

Supporter of Putin? Perhaps you are the blinkered one.

 

[Estro Felino]

Defending yourself against an aggressor who invades your land, or helping an ally to do so, is not "playing war".
It's being dragged into one.

But nobody invaded my land.
As a third party, war cannot be promoted as means to solve a territorial dispute.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But nobody invaded my land.

Defending yourself against an aggressor who invades your land, or helping an ally to do so

As a third party, war cannot be promoted as means to solve a territorial dispute.

Nobody here is "promoting" war.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..they became their own country and therefore can do what they want..

Of course, we can all do "what we want" .. but we have to accept the consequences.
They became "their own country", with assurances that they would remain a neutral country,
and not join NATO.

But Ukraine is not going to win without aid from Western countries, how is that biased or wrong?

Right .. the Zelensky regime is "in bed with" the West .. good luck on that.
Good luck for the whole of the human race, when two major nuclear powers cross
each other.

That would be the best, but Putin is never going to accept an agreement where he doesn't get a chunk of Ukraine. So should we allow that?

Well, perhaps the West should have thought about that, before forcing Russia to wage a war against
the expansion of NATO. As I say (and so does Trump), this war should never have happened.
The West has been duped with false rhetoric.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, perhaps the West should have thought about that, before forcing Russia to wage a war against
the expansion of NATO.

Sentences like that never cease to bewilder me.

How people can say it with a straight face, is beyond me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Defending yourself against an aggressor who invades your land, or helping an ally to do so, is not "playing war".
It's being dragged into one.

The blame game .. the Israeli "fight against terror" started on Oct 7, and completely cancels
out anything that happened before it . etc. etc.

The West's fight against Russia started when Russia invaded Ukraine .. bla bla.

No .. it's all political .. if a country the West favours attacks another, we see different rhetoric.
Since the Berlin wall fell, along with the Warsaw pact, the West sees itself as superior, and
wants to consolidate its power, and prevent the Russian federation from re-establishing
itself and its "communist", authoritarian doctrine.

The US is authoritarian also, but has two parties whose policies are not REALLY made by Trump or BIden,
just as Putin does not really make all Russian policy.
It's a conflict of ideologies, that hides behind "democracy and fairness".

 

[Wirey]

What hypocrisy .. but the Palestinians don't.

I was talking about Russia. The Palestinians elected Hamas, and determined their nation, as is their right.

 

[muhammad_isa]

NATO is not the one expanding, it is Russia and its nature that is contracting, and for good reasons - it hasn't got a lot to offer, unlike much of the West.

Ah, now you show your true colours.
The West's superiority other others.

I think they did to an extent after WWII, but no empire in history rises without falling.
That is a product of human nature .. part of the test of our existence.

Supporter of Putin? Perhaps you are the blinkered one.

I do not support Russian Federation .. I support the UK, my own nation.
That does not include supporting suicidal policies of any Western govt.