The warmongers at the European Union

[Nimos]

You're basically saying I am 100% right. Thank you, dear.
Because, by choosing the way of diplomacy, Denmark could save a significant amount of Jews.
Because, by granting Denmark autonomy, Nazis let Danes alone and Danes could move all these Jews to Sweden,

Imagine if Danes hadn't surrendered. The Nazis would have taken over in Copenhagen and basically deported all Jews to Auschwitz.

The Germans did still hunt Jews in Denmark that didn't change anything.

But when the power difference between two countries is so huge, there is no reason to sacrifice your population. But Ukraine is a huge country, obviously not as big as Russia, but still able to muster a huge army, but they need help from others.

We did react to the Russian invasion.
But a war cannot last 100 years. It cannot last for eternity.
At some point a ceasefire is needed to see if there is the pathway to diplomatic means.

We have evolved from the animal stage...so let's repudiate war, which is an animalistic method.

Yes, and there are several ways this can happen, one of them is to simply give in to Putin.

Another way is to cause enough damage to Russia that the Russian people get tired of it. And I'm not saying that a diplomatic solution can't be the solution, but you can't simply let Putin get away with taking a huge chunk of Ukraine.

And I agree that we have to evolve and therefore we have to defend those who at least try, Putin, is not trying he is warmongering. So if anything, you should make an argument for getting rid of people like him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At some point a ceasefire is needed to see if there is the pathway to diplomatic means.

Peskov just made another war speech.
He literally said that "freezing the conflict" is unacceptable to Russia.
He said that the only thing that is acceptable to Russia is that ALL GOALS AND TARGETS are accomplished.


So much for this "compromise" you keep asking for....
So just as I said, the only "compromise" Russia will accept is that everybody bows to what Russia wants. They themselves will not move an inch.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

We don't really know this. This is just an unfounded assumption by Western leaders and pundits. I don't even believe it would be physically possible for Putin to do what you're projecting he would do. For most of the past century, Russia and China have been hobbled and on the defensive, while it's the West doing "whatever it feels like," and there's no one to stand up for anyone. Viewed another way, there may be countries and regions of the world which believe that they've been oppressed by the West, so they might see China and Russia as liberators within that context.

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

Why would we imagine that?

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.

I look at it differently. For one thing, I don't consider geopolitics as analogous to a schoolyard where there are bullies picking on weaklings. There are usually more complicated reasons for war, and to oversimplify it like that creates a distorted perception.

I would also point out that a large part of the problem at hand is the way the world is structured, where most of the nations of the world are smaller and could easily fall prey to the larger powers. My view is that all of the tiny nations of the world should be consolidated with the major powers into 3 or 4 regional power blocs. That way, there would be no possibility of big countries "bullying" the smaller ones, because there wouldn't be any smaller countries. (Ideally, all countries should merge into a single global nation, but I don't think humanity is ready for that yet.)

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.

I wouldn't say that the U.S. was ever pacifistic. I would say our position was neutral when it came to conflicts between European countries. Some people call that "isolationist," although I don't think tells the whole story. We were anything but isolationist when it came to our forays into East Asia and Latin America. We clearly weren't pacifists either.

I agree that Hitler probably would have attacked Russia no matter what. But the US, UK, and other countries also saw Russia and international communism as a threat. Of course, there are plenty of hypothetical "what if" scenarios which can be rather interesting.

I'm not saying that the wars initially started over oil, but the lack of resources faced by Germany and Japan had been an ongoing problem for their burgeoning industries. France and Britain had similar issues, but they had global empires which gave them the resources they needed. America was also a cornucopia of resources which allowed our industries to flourish, but other countries were in a bind that they had to find a way out of, lest they fall within the ranks of "second rate powers."

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****.

Then we might still end up in a standoff. Ultimately, I see it as something Russia and Ukraine will have to settle between themselves. The West might try to mediate a settlement, but I don't think the US or EU have any right to dictate the terms. It's between Russia and Ukraine, as it always has been. Of course, the West has clearly taken sides and has been sending military aid to Ukraine while imposing harsh sanctions on Russia.

I can't read Putin's mind, so I can't say what he actually wants, and I'm not sure how you can. My impression is that, as long as he's seen by his people as the defender of Russia against the decadent Western powers, then he will continue to have strong support. They have a long history of enduring hardships. They can grow their own food, they have resources, heavy industries. They're not going to fold up and give in as easily as the West might want them to. This would even be the case if Putin is somehow no longer in power.

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.

But we're not "just doing nothing." The problems with all of these conflicts are due to the political and diplomatic failures which precede them. My view is that we should recognize where the mistakes were made and find ways of rectifying them and avoid repeating them. All we can really do now is talk to each other and try to work out some kind of treaty.

In the end, we have to comes to terms with what we are physically capable of doing in the real world, as opposed to what we would like to do in an ideal world. We "should" do lots of things to make the world a better place, and we "shouldn't allow" a lot of things as well. But "should" is in the realm of fantasyland. The question is more a matter of capability and resources.

 

[Estro Felino]

Peskov just made another war speech.
He literally said that "freezing the conflict" is unacceptable to Russia.
He said that the only thing that is acceptable to Russia is that ALL GOALS AND TARGETS are accomplished.


So much for this "compromise" you keep asking for....
So just as I said, the only "compromise" Russia will accept is that everybody bows to what Russia wants. They themselves will not move an inch.

After Boris Johnson forbade the peace talks with Russia.
That was a consequence.

Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal

Russia was “ready to end the war if we took neutrality,” Ukraine’s former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, “let’s just fight.”

europeanconservative.com

Do you think I lack long term memory?
Non sono una rincoglionita...I still remember everything.

 

[Nimos]

We don't really know this. This is just an unfounded assumption by Western leaders and pundits. I don't even believe it would be physically possible for Putin to do what you're projecting he would do. For most of the past century, Russia and China have been hobbled and on the defensive, while it's the West doing "whatever it feels like," and there's no one to stand up for anyone. Viewed another way, there may be countries and regions of the world which believe that they've been oppressed by the West, so they might see China and Russia as liberators within that context.

I agree that the West has been in conflicts for which we shouldn't.

These are the wars/conflicts that Russia have been in the last 20 years or so.

1991–1993	Georgian Civil War
1992	War of Transnistria
1992	East Prigorodny Conflict
1992–1993	War in Abkhazia
1992–1997	Civil war in Tajikistan
1994–1996	First Chechen War
1999	War of Dagestan
1999–2009	Second Chechen War
2008	Russo-Georgian War
2007	War in Ingushetia
2009	Insurgency in the North Caucasus

That doesn't include their involvement and support in Syria, Mali, and Burkina Faso.

So to say that they don't do stuff is false, we just don't hear a lot about them here in the West.

Why would we imagine that?

Because they have also been part of Russia at some point and if no one cares, why should we bother about him doing that?

I look at it differently. For one thing, I don't consider geopolitics as analogous to a schoolyard where there are bullies picking on weaklings. There are usually more complicated reasons for war, and to oversimplify it like that creates a distorted perception.

I would also point out that a large part of the problem at hand is the way the world is structured, where most of the nations of the world are smaller and could easily fall prey to the larger powers. My view is that all of the tiny nations of the world should be consolidated with the major powers into 3 or 4 regional power blocs. That way, there would be no possibility of big countries "bullying" the smaller ones, because there wouldn't be any smaller countries. (Ideally, all countries should merge into a single global nation, but I don't think humanity is ready for that yet.)

There could possibly be solutions to solving it, but that requires some time without conflicts and for Putin to start a war is definitely not helping. Call it "Bullying" or not, what I mean is that larger influential countries, including the US can dominate minor countries, whether that is through trade or military etc. I don't know what else to call it with one word.

I wouldn't say that the U.S. was ever pacifistic. I would say our position was neutral when it came to conflicts between European countries. Some people call that "isolationist," although I don't think tells the whole story. We were anything but isolationist when it came to our forays into East Asia and Latin America. We clearly weren't pacifists either.

That is what I mean by being pacifists, there weren't alliances like NATO etc. at that point, at least not in the sense that we know them after WW2. Maybe it would be more correct to say that they weren't the "big brother" of the world as they have been ever since.

I agree that Hitler probably would have attacked Russia no matter what. But the US, UK, and other countries also saw Russia and international communism as a threat. Of course, there are plenty of hypothetical "what if" scenarios which can be rather interesting.

Agree, also a lot of people weren't too happy about the Jews either, it wasn't only the Germans. But again, things were different back then.

I'm not saying that the wars initially started over oil, but the lack of resources faced by Germany and Japan had been an ongoing problem for their burgeoning industries.

The issue was that when Germany lost WW1, they got ruined by France and the UK, which caused them to have a very rough time Hitler wanted to change that and in many ways he did, which is also why a lot of Germans supported him eventually, obviously not everything he did. But things in Germany didn't go well at the time.

Then we might still end up in a standoff. Ultimately, I see it as something Russia and Ukraine will have to settle between themselves.

But in order to do that, Ukraine needs to be in a position to do so, that is why Russia is most likely attacking like crazy now because they want to claim as much land as they can before Trump takes office.

The West might try to mediate a settlement, but I don't think the US or EU have any right to dictate the terms. It's between Russia and Ukraine, as it always has been. Of course, the West has clearly taken sides and has been sending military aid to Ukraine while imposing harsh sanctions on Russia.

I agree, it is about Ukraine setting the terms and they want Russian troops out of their country and then they can negotiate. But Putin has no interest in that.

I can't read Putin's mind, so I can't say what he actually wants, and I'm not sure how you can. My impression is that, as long as he's seen by his people as the defender of Russia against the decadent Western powers, then he will continue to have strong support. They have a long history of enduring hardships. They can grow their own food, they have resources, heavy industries. They're not going to fold up and give in as easily as the West might want them to. This would even be the case if Putin is somehow no longer in power.

Agree, but also it doesn't make sense to give in to his lies, that somehow this is our doing, even if he can only sell it to the Russian people. Somehow he has managed to make it sound like this is our fault and the West and NATO attacking Russia. And remember Putin only recruits from outside the cities amongst people that he can easily sacrifice.

But we're not "just doing nothing." The problems with all of these conflicts are due to the political and diplomatic failures which precede them. My view is that we should recognize where the mistakes were made and find ways of rectifying them and avoid repeating them.

But there was a solution, they made a deal and Russia broke it. So now what? Just make a new one and then he can break that again?

Im not saying it is optimal, but what is the point of making agreements etc with such a person? if he is just breaking them whenever he feels like it and then it has no consequence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They only have themselves and their behavior to thank for that title..

No .. that is the western perspective.
That is human nature .. there have been many, many wars throughout history,
and we become polarized due to political reasons amongst others.

..rather than just going on about how one party is so evil, it would be better to be objective
and examine what is really going on.
..but you probably don't care, like most people. Russia invaded Ukraine, and that's all
they need to know .. because they think that NATO is a 'safe bet'.
A dangerous, irresponsible reaction.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I could understand Russia if NATO was building up a huge amount of troops at their border, but we are not. I don't understand why you would buy into that excuse.


Of course, it shouldn't because Putin shouldn't have attacked.

No, it shouldn't .. and both the West and Russia are determined to "win" .. never mind the
consequences.

We can't always have what we want .. and what we want is subject to change.
..and that is obvious, as people vote depending on many factors..

..but politics is a dirty business .. people are not always asked, and often misled.

The bottom line, is that countries act in what they perceive is in their interests.


All the rhetoric on why they say they are acting as they do is just 'lip-stick',
intended to justify themselves.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But there was a solution, they made a deal and Russia broke it..

I don't agree .. but let's say that everything you say is correct..
Let's say that the West "wins" this war, and Russia is defeated.

..so we presume that there will shortly after be elections in Ukraine.
What if they then vote for a pro-Russian candidate?
What does the West do then?

 

[Nimos]

The bottom line, is that countries act in what they perceive is in their interests.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that certain interests are not acceptable, like for instance invading a country based on a lie.

The US did the same with Iraq and whether or not you liked Saddam Hussein, it was still wrong and something like that should have been opposed.

 

[Nimos]

I don't agree .. but let's say that everything you say is correct..
Let's say that the West "wins" this war, and Russia is defeated.

..so we presume that there will shortly after be elections in Ukraine.
What if they then vote for a pro-Russian candidate?
What does the West do then?

If the voting is fair and without cheating then nothing will happen.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If the voting is fair and without cheating then nothing will happen.

Ha! ..so you say.
What I'm really doing is pointing out the absurdity of the situation.

i.e. the West can call Russia's bluff risking nuclear war over a nation who could
change their mind anyway

None of what we see is for Ukrainians in reality .. it's all hypocrisy.

 

[Wirey]

Ha! ..so you say.
What I'm really doing is pointing out the absurdity of the situation.

i.e. the West can call Russia's bluff risking nuclear war over a nation who could
change their mind anyway

None of what we see is for Ukrainians in reality .. it's all hypocrisy.

Yes! I see! I'm going to punch someone in my office, because they might decide to harm me! Brilliant! Does the UN know you're available?

 

[Stevicus]

I agree that the West has been in conflicts for which we shouldn't.

These are the wars/conflicts that Russia have been in the last 20 years or so.

1991–1993	Georgian Civil War
1992	War of Transnistria
1992	East Prigorodny Conflict
1992–1993	War in Abkhazia
1992–1997	Civil war in Tajikistan
1994–1996	First Chechen War
1999	War of Dagestan
1999–2009	Second Chechen War
2008	Russo-Georgian War
2007	War in Ingushetia
2009	Insurgency in the North Caucasus

That doesn't include their involvement and support in Syria, Mali, and Burkina Faso.

So to say that they don't do stuff is false, we just don't hear a lot about them here in the West.

All of the wars here on this list can be said to be the result of loose ends and past wreckage coming out of the hasty and precipitous breakup of the USSR. There were bound to be problems largely because of how it was done. I'm not saying that Russia is blameless in all of this, but these were small, local, mostly internal conflicts which had no real effect on the rest of the world.

If we're making lists, we can look at US military actions during the same time frame (Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia):

Again, a key difference is that Russian military actions were mostly confined to their own border regions or internal to the former Soviet Union. In contrast, the US is literally all over the planet, far away from our borders and home territory.

Because they have also been part of Russia at some point and if no one cares, why should we bother about him doing that?

Poland may have been part of the Russian Empire over a century ago (which was the result of Russia being on the winning side in the Napoleonic Wars), but France and Germany were never part of Russia.

I can't imagine Russia attacking any of those countries today, so that's why I asked.

There could possibly be solutions to solving it, but that requires some time without conflicts and for Putin to start a war is definitely not helping. Call it "Bullying" or not, what I mean is that larger influential countries, including the US can dominate minor countries, whether that is through trade or military etc. I don't know what else to call it with one word.

In geopolitics, the word "hegemony" is sometimes used in lieu of "bullying." It seems to come down to the same thing. "Sphere of influence" is another phrase one might find.

The thing that I can't help but notice is that the Western countries are sitting pretty through all of this, not shedding a single drop of blood or having a single bomb dropped on their territory. It's Ukraine and Russia which are getting bombed and losing tens of thousands of their people. They're the ones paying the price. They're the ones who are suffering. In the end, regardless of who wins, they both lose. If I thought they would listen, I would implore both sides to come together and make peace, for the sake of humanity, if nothing else.

I would implore my own government to make peace and to conduct its foreign affairs responsibly and honorably, but I really don't expect that to happen either.

That is what I mean by being pacifists, there weren't alliances like NATO etc. at that point, at least not in the sense that we know them after WW2. Maybe it would be more correct to say that they weren't the "big brother" of the world as they have been ever since.

We weren't big enough yet to be "big brother," although we had slowly grown into that role. Early on, the U.S. tried to stay out of European affairs, largely because it wasn't seen as beneficial to our interests and could also lead to internal discord at home. Even European alliances were shaky at best. We didn't want any part of their internecine rivalries and aristocratic intrigue. But ultimately, we got dragged into it just the same, and NATO was one of the results of that.

Some people might even argue that Europe needs some kind of "big brother" to watch over them. I'm not one of them, but at least during the World Wars and the Cold War, the US was called upon to be some kind of liberator and protector - the kinds of things "big brothers" would do. That also appears to be the expectation in this conflict, as we're again being called upon to play the role of "big brother."

Agree, also a lot of people weren't too happy about the Jews either, it wasn't only the Germans. But again, things were different back then.

Exactly, which is why I think a lot of these comparisons to Hitler, Germany, and WW2 are somewhat out of place in a discussion about the current conflict. But I'm kind of a history buff, so I'm easily drawn into discussions about WW2.

The issue was that when Germany lost WW1, they got ruined by France and the UK, which caused them to have a very rough time Hitler wanted to change that and in many ways he did, which is also why a lot of Germans supported him eventually, obviously not everything he did. But things in Germany didn't go well at the time.

Yes, and to be sure, I think that the Allies made a huge mistake in not going along with the idea of "peace without annexations or indemnities," which is what the newly-formed Provisional Government called for after overthrowing the Tsar. By the West not agreeing to that, it ultimately weakened the prestige of the Kerensky regime, which was trying to lead a restless nation which was sick of the war and wanted out.

In a very real sense, the Western Allies' greed and desire to grab territory and booty from their enemies ended up causing the fall of one of their allies and ending any chance of a democratic government in Russia. Britain and France paved the way for the Bolshevik takeover (and cemented it when they sent troops to intervene in the Russian Civil War).

Moreover, the annexations and indemnities exacted upon Germany didn't make them feel very kindly either. The Treaty of Versailles was disliked by other countries too.

A lot of people speak of "appeasement," but when you really look at it, if the Allies had supported the notion of "peace without annexations or indemnities," then it could have prevented the rise of people like Hitler and Stalin later on. The Kerensky regime in Russia might have held on and prevented a Bolshevik takeover, and the Germans, without the shame of Versailles or the fears of the Red Menace to hobble them, might have evolved into the kind of liberal democratic society they are now. Neither the Russians nor the Germans would have any great cause to be angry or resentful towards the West, and we likely would have found their governments to be friendly and cooperative. We never would have heard of Hitler or Stalin. And there probably would be no Ukraine-Russia today, if the West had acted differently back in 1917.

So, whenever people try to claim that "the West didn't cause this" or didn't do anything wrong, they're only speaking in half truths. That doesn't get Germany or Russia or any other regime off the hook, but we also have to consider the causes and effects of how these things happen.

But in order to do that, Ukraine needs to be in a position to do so, that is why Russia is most likely attacking like crazy now because they want to claim as much land as they can before Trump takes office.

That's a distinct possibility.

I agree, it is about Ukraine setting the terms and they want Russian troops out of their country and then they can negotiate. But Putin has no interest in that.

They might not be able to get everything they want, at least not right away. Although, creating some kind of buffer or demilitarized zone might make sense, although I'm not sure what that would look like. At this point, Putin can't really pull back and give up land he's already taken. He's shed a lot of Russian blood in this endeavor, and if he pulls out now, it might be viewed unfavorably within his own government, military, and population at large.

Agree, but also it doesn't make sense to give in to his lies, that somehow this is our doing, even if he can only sell it to the Russian people. Somehow he has managed to make it sound like this is our fault and the West and NATO attacking Russia. And remember Putin only recruits from outside the cities amongst people that he can easily sacrifice.

The Russians have had a point of view which is often counter to the West. I studied both sides in the Cold War, and I realized that it's never quite so black-and-white as the propagandists make it out to be. That's not to say that they don't lie, so no one has to give in to lies, no matter where they come from. I think the best way of countering the lies is to at least be able to face the harsh truths about ourselves, our countries, and the world we live in.

I don't think it's a matter of whose fault it is. I think that individuals and governments can be evaluated on their own actions, so if we're talking about the decision made by the Russian government to invade Ukraine, then that is indeed Putin's fault. But it doesn't really begin and end there. The question for the West to decide is how to respond to that.

But there was a solution, they made a deal and Russia broke it. So now what? Just make a new one and then he can break that again?

Im not saying it is optimal, but what is the point of making agreements etc with such a person? if he is just breaking them whenever he feels like it and then it has no consequence.

What other options are there? If we go on with the status quo and continue sending aid and equipment to Ukraine, then the fighting will continue, as will the stalemate and war of attrition. In a year, they'll be in the same position they are now, except more people will have died. I find it troubling to support a course of action which would produce no positive result and only result in further death and suffering.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

After Boris Johnson forbade the peace talks with Russia.
That was a consequence.

Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal

Russia was “ready to end the war if we took neutrality,” Ukraine’s former top negotiator confirmed, but Boris Johnson said, “let’s just fight.”

europeanconservative.com

Do you think I lack long term memory?
Non sono una rincoglionita...I still remember everything.

That "newspaper" has a very strange definition of the word "forced" and you a very strange definition of the word "forbade".

Did you also read the part where the Ukrainian source said it would have required altering the Ukrainian constitution AND that they didn't trust Russia to hold up its end of the deal and thus not invade again?

I guess not. You only read what you want to read. And unapologetically change the wording to make it sound different then it actually was. Just like that clickbait title.

Boris doesn't have the power to "force" Kiev into any decision.
That was ultimately Kiev's decision.

 

[Estro Felino]

That "newspaper" has a very strange definition of the word "forced" and you a very strange definition of the word "forbade".

In my opinion the platinum blonde baby was absolutely great, when he successfully implemented Brexit.
Evidently Britain's interests do not align with the geopolitical interest of Germany and Italy. So it's natural they left.

It strengthened the alliance between these two countries. Thank you, dear.

Did you also read the part where the Ukrainian source said it would have required altering the Ukrainian constitution AND that they didn't trust Russia to hold up its end of the deal and thus not invade again?

Yes. That was a pathetic excuse.
Paranoia and speculation.

I guess not. You only read what you want to read. And unapologetically change the wording to make it sound different then it actually was. Just like that clickbait title.

I answer all of your questions. You plead the fifth every five seconds.

Boris doesn't have the power to "force" Kiev into any decision.
That was ultimately Kiev's decision.

Yes. Kiev is a colony that obeys foreign powers.
Follow the money...who paid whom.

How many villas Zelensky owns. And how he became rich.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No .. that is the western perspective.
That is human nature .. there have been many, many wars throughout history,
and we become polarized due to political reasons amongst others.

..rather than just going on about how one party is so evil, it would be better to be objective
and examine what is really going on.
..but you probably don't care, like most people. Russia invaded Ukraine, and that's all
they need to know .. because they think that NATO is a 'safe bet'.
A dangerous, irresponsible reaction.

You might want to read up what kind of shennanigans the Kremlin does on a daily basis

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In my opinion the platinum blonde baby was absolutely great, when he successfully implemented Brexit.
Evidently Britain's interests do not align with the geopolitical interest of Germany and Italy. So it's natural they left.

It strengthened the alliance between these two countries. Thank you, dear.


Yes. That was a pathetic excuse.
Paranoia and speculation.

I answer all of your questions. You plead the fifth every five seconds.

Yes. Kiev is a colony that obeys foreign powers.
Follow the money...who paid whom.

How many villas Zelensky owns. And how he became rich.

None of this addresses anything in the post you are replying to.

 

[Nimos]

All of the wars here on this list can be said to be the result of loose ends and past wreckage coming out of the hasty and precipitous breakup of the USSR. There were bound to be problems largely because of how it was done. I'm not saying that Russia is blameless in all of this, but these were small, local, mostly internal conflicts which had no real effect on the rest of the world.

If we're making lists, we can look at US military actions during the same time frame (Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia):

Again, a key difference is that Russian military actions were mostly confined to their own border regions or internal to the former Soviet Union. In contrast, the US is literally all over the planet, far away from our borders and home territory.

It might not have an interest for us, but clearly has for Russia and if that is the case they as the US seem to have no issues getting involved.

Also, Russia isn't a huge naval nation due to how it is located which makes it a lot more difficult of it to be as dominating as the US is. Also being able to create bases requires that you have a diplomatic agreement with someone, and Russia might not have been able to or interested in this either.

It is not simply that the US does it and Russia isn't a lot of factors have to align for it to be possible.

Poland may have been part of the Russian Empire over a century ago (which was the result of Russia being on the winning side in the Napoleonic Wars), but France and Germany were never part of Russia.

I can't imagine Russia attacking any of those countries today, so that's why I asked.

Whether one can imagine it or not, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. And if such a thing does, we have to know how to react. And if we have no particularly big issue with him attacking Ukraine, then why would we if he attacked Poland?

Obviously because of Nato, but still I don't think we ought to live in a world where if you are not part of a military alliance then you are basically up for the grabs because no one cares. And I think that goes beyond politics, it is more a question of humanism in a moral sense, obviously, it has no bearing as such, except it expresses the type of world we want to aim for as a whole and not simply one decided by a few individuals, that can cause wars with just a swipe of the pen.

The thing that I can't help but notice is that the Western countries are sitting pretty through all of this, not shedding a single drop of blood or having a single bomb dropped on their territory.

Because we are not technically at war with Russia, but we fully understand the threat of having a maniac starting to attack Ukraine. And we obviously have a political interest in that not happening, but also a humanitarian interest in it. In the same way that we also provide aid to poor countries, if there were no humanism involved in it, we wouldn't give them anything, close out borders and just throw everyone out who tried to get in here.

Some people might even argue that Europe needs some kind of "big brother" to watch over them. I'm not one of them, but at least during the World Wars and the Cold War, the US was called upon to be some kind of liberator and protector - the kinds of things "big brothers" would do. That also appears to be the expectation in this conflict, as we're again being called upon to play the role of "big brother."

It's difficult to say, in the period around WW1 and WW2, I think it was just a matter of time before wars would break out, not necessarily WWs, but wars, there are a lot of countries here bordering each other which had different interests etc.

But I don't think the US could have done anything about it anyway, only after WW2 and the strong alliances became a reality and everyone was tired of war, something like that could be done.

Obviously after WW2 and one could even argue during the end of it, it didn't take long for Russia and the US to get into a conflict.

Exactly, which is why I think a lot of these comparisons to Hitler, Germany, and WW2 are somewhat out of place in a discussion about the current conflict. But I'm kind of a history buff, so I'm easily drawn into discussions about WW2.

Agree, it obviously spans over a longer period. However, Putin does use the argument that the Ukrainians are Nazis as one of the arguments, which obviously plays on the fear from WW2.

So, whenever people try to claim that "the West didn't cause this" or didn't do anything wrong, they're only speaking in half truths. That doesn't get Germany or Russia or any other regime off the hook, but we also have to consider the causes and effects of how these things happen.

Yes and no, I think this is the same as referencing WW2, things were different back then, and they made decisions based on whatever was going on at the time. But there have been lots of leaders since then and things happening to correct things. And whether that is the West's fault, or whether one could argue that Russia might also move on and give up the silly idea of them owning former countries and having a right to a security border around them.

And also maybe if the Russian leaders hadn't been so freaking corrupt and treated people and their neighbours better they might have been in a better position and the world would have been different. So you can point fingers at many things, that might have been done better in the past than it was. But that still doesn't change that what Putin does now, is not and should not be acceptable.

Sure the US/West have done bad things, but never with the intention of occupying countries in the style that Russia is doing.

They might not be able to get everything they want, at least not right away. Although, creating some kind of buffer or demilitarized zone might make sense, although I'm not sure what that would look like. At this point, Putin can't really pull back and give up land he's already taken. He's shed a lot of Russian blood in this endeavor, and if he pulls out now, it might be viewed unfavorably within his own government, military, and population at large.

He has no interest in it, things are going as he wants them to, the US is stumbling and showing its weakness, and the EU is not particularly prepared for such a conflict, and even a lot of EU countries are very poorly supporting Ukraine. And there is a good chance, that Trump will try to use all his foolishness in an attempt to create a peace that will make Putin come out on top as victorious and make the West look weak. And then the West has to pay for rebuilding Ukraine and probably we also end up having to give Russia money to rebuild the occupied territories because they won't do it.

The Russians have had a point of view which is often counter to the West. I studied both sides in the Cold War, and I realized that it's never quite so black-and-white as the propagandists make it out to be. That's not to say that they don't lie, so no one has to give in to lies, no matter where they come from. I think the best way of countering the lies is to at least be able to face the harsh truths about ourselves, our countries, and the world we live in.

Everyone lies in these things and getting the exact truth is probably difficult. But this was an era where the US and Russia were battling for both political influence and also as superpowers and who could make the biggest and badest atomic weapons.

I don't think it's a matter of whose fault it is. I think that individuals and governments can be evaluated on their own actions, so if we're talking about the decision made by the Russian government to invade Ukraine, then that is indeed Putin's fault. But it doesn't really begin and end there. The question for the West to decide is how to respond to that.

Agree and obviously I can only give my personal opinion and that is to not allow people like him to get away with things like this. And then we can talk about how to move the world forward as one race, it's not like we don't have enough problems to deal with already. We don't need to also have to deal with warmongering maniacs.

What other options are there? If we go on with the status quo and continue sending aid and equipment to Ukraine, then the fighting will continue, as will the stalemate and war of attrition. In a year, they'll be in the same position they are now, except more people will have died. I find it troubling to support a course of action which would produce no positive result and only result in further death and suffering.

The alternative is to support Ukraine.

Why would we expect Putin to live up to any agreement when he has demonstrated that he doesn't care? So making a new one is pointless.

If Russia is losing 1500-1800 soldiers a day, and lots of equipment and military stuff inside Russia, clearly that is not sustainable forever and Putin has nothing to show for it to the Russian people, then eventually they might be tired of it.

And yes it sucks big time, but again I think it should be mainly up to the Ukrainian people to decide, they are after all the ones fighting and dying protecting their country. I don't even think the majority of Russians even know what they are fighting for.

 

[stvdv]

I don't think he's "so fantastic", but neither is Biden or Trump, in my view.

Take a step back and think .. who presents the greatest threat to the world, a nation with
around 800 military bases all over the world, or a nation with bases only in their own nation?

Would it be acceptable for Russia to form an alliance with say Mexico, and put their bases there?
Of course not!

Similarly, it is not acceptable for Russia to have Nato bases in what was formerly Greater Russia.
How dare Putin challenge NATO?
..so nothing to do with "evil Russia" or democracy .. just simple common sense .. survival.

That's a fact

And don't forget that US + NATO promised Russia to not move NATO closer to Russian borders.

US + NATO didn't keep their promises

That alone is enough for me to say:
US + NATO are wrong here

US should keep their given promise
A child understands that Putin's reaction is understandable.

But maybe Trump understands this
And he might make a proper deal agreeable to all,

Ukraine can not join NATO, unless Russia is allowed to join also, which would be best

 

[Stevicus]

It might not have an interest for us, but clearly has for Russia and if that is the case they as the US seem to have no issues getting involved.

Also, Russia isn't a huge naval nation due to how it is located which makes it a lot more difficult of it to be as dominating as the US is. Also being able to create bases requires that you have a diplomatic agreement with someone, and Russia might not have been able to or interested in this either.

It is not simply that the US does it and Russia isn't a lot of factors have to align for it to be possible.

True, although if the West is attempting to advance a "holier than thou" position, then they're making a comparison which should be thoroughly examined.

Can you discern the difference in the following statements?

"We don't like what country X is doing because it could negatively impact upon our national interests."

"We don't like what country X is doing because we judge it as immoral."

The first statement expresses an amoral point of view similar to capitalism, where decisions are made based solely on making money and profit, without regard for moral principles.

The second statement implies that one has the qualifications and moral standing to judge what is moral or immoral.

Whether one can imagine it or not, doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. And if such a thing does, we have to know how to react. And if we have no particularly big issue with him attacking Ukraine, then why would we if he attacked Poland?

Obviously because of Nato, but still I don't think we ought to live in a world where if you are not part of a military alliance then you are basically up for the grabs because no one cares. And I think that goes beyond politics, it is more a question of humanism in a moral sense, obviously, it has no bearing as such, except it expresses the type of world we want to aim for as a whole and not simply one decided by a few individuals, that can cause wars with just a swipe of the pen.

I remember attending a lecture by G. Gordon Liddy, who was running the lecture circuit in the early 1980s and made a stop at my college. I thought his perception of the world was somewhat interesting, if not a bit unsettling. He opened by saying that the world is not like Palm Springs or Beverly Hills where everything is nice and there's law and order. He said that the world was more like the South Bronx, a crime-ridden, gang-infested area which is unsafe for people to walk through. He described the world as "the big fish eat the little fish," as it's ultimately a matter of the survival of the fittest. The only way to survive, in his view, was to be a big fish - strong and tough, with a large defense budget and the most modern, technologically-advanced, and best trained fighting force on the planet. And lots of nuclear missiles - can't forget about those.

If nothing else, his view about the kind of world we live in gives some insight into how people in the FBI, CIA, NSA, military, and other national security related agencies think and perceive the world around them. I only brought it up because of the part above where you used the phrase "I don't think we ought to live in a world where..." Regarding the kind of world we live in, this is what we're stuck with - and try as we might, humans haven't been very successful at changing this aspect of our nature.

That said, I don't think that countries are necessarily "up for grabs," as that can be complicated too. But such things can and do happen, as they have throughout history. There is some historical truth to the notion that "the big fish eat the little fish," but the larger, more severe wars happen when the big fish choose to fight each other. NATO might be seen as a "big fish," and countries which align with NATO can be protected by being part of a "big fish."

I agree with you in the sense that it shouldn't be like this. Humanity should strive for higher ideals and higher principles. We can do better than this, but we have chosen the wrong path. People who advocate for capitalism constantly say that "Socialism doesn't work because human nature." Maybe they're right. Maybe it's just in our nature to prey on each other, and there's no way of ever changing that. More is the pity.

Because we are not technically at war with Russia, but we fully understand the threat of having a maniac starting to attack Ukraine. And we obviously have a political interest in that not happening, but also a humanitarian interest in it. In the same way that we also provide aid to poor countries, if there were no humanism involved in it, we wouldn't give them anything, close out borders and just throw everyone out who tried to get in here.

That seems to be the approach Trump is planning to take. Trump and his crowd have ostensibly embraced the America First position which focuses on issues of concern to America. For quite a long time, I have discerned certain underlying attitudes among Americans who seem to believe that our relationships and alliances in the world have become more of an encumbrance which is becoming too heavy to bear. I can sense a certain weariness from Americans who have been on an endless war footing since WW2, all through the Cold War, which seamlessly transitioned to the War on Terror, which is now transitioning back to Cold War 2, The Sequel.

It's not that people don't care or that they're not humanitarians (well, some may not be), but my goodness, it sure does get tiresome over the years. Americans who serve in the military have friends and family who care about them and wouldn't want to see them placed in harm's way unnecessarily or without any reasonable cause. Moreover, when it seems that we're pushing closer to the brink of nuclear destruction, that raises the stakes even higher.

It's difficult to say, in the period around WW1 and WW2, I think it was just a matter of time before wars would break out, not necessarily WWs, but wars, there are a lot of countries here bordering each other which had different interests etc.

But I don't think the US could have done anything about it anyway, only after WW2 and the strong alliances became a reality and everyone was tired of war, something like that could be done.

Obviously after WW2 and one could even argue during the end of it, it didn't take long for Russia and the US to get into a conflict.

The US was already in a conflict with what they saw as "international communism," which goes back to 1917 (or even earlier). We decided that we didn't like them right off the bat, before they even did anything and without even giving them the slightest benefit of the doubt. Obviously, our relationship changed because of our alliance in WW2, and some might have thought that it could lead to a more cooperative and friendly post-war relationship.

One issue which seemed a major sticky point between them was what to do about Germany. They had disagreements over that, but the main thing was that, being that they had been invaded and lost 20 million people in the conflict, they were determined to take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that it wouldn't happen again. The US, France, and Britain also didn't want it to happen again, but they took a different approach, which eventually led to the formation of NATO. What followed was a 40-year standoff in the middle of Europe, along with various hot wars in far flung areas of the world, and a troubling build up of nuclear arms which could have led to the end of all life on the planet.