|
|
| |||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 GM |
||||||||||
|
??? |
||||||||||
|
Nope I can’t convince you….you’re free to believe trump cares about America and Americans ic you like. |
||||||||||
|
NATO / Warsaw Not counting Libya, what country has NATO ever attacked? What nation have they invaded? |
||||||||||
|
dmaestro 19-May-24, 12:25 |
But then Trump understands marketing and branding. Too many here learn nothing and choose marketing and branding fantasies. That is why I say America’s sins have caught up with her and she deserves to fail. Best to prepare to preserve the light but lose faith in the USA. |
||||||||||
|
dm also fails to understand that the projection of military power does not enamor the US to the rest of the world. Not too many people like a bully. But he can put it down to marketing and branding. And speaking of branding, isn't that what has brought the Biden crime family millions of dollars, some of it from our allies in Russia and China. That is what the House Committee on Oversight has discovered. That is why Biden has been subpoenaed by that committee. He probably won't show though, and he probably will get away with it. Branding? LET'S GO BRANDON!!! |
||||||||||
|
dmaestro 19-May-24, 12:40 |
|
||||||||||
|
<While the USA was claiming victory with hubris this was all obvious. We will be lucky to defend what we have.> Regrettably, I have to agree with your assessment. We are due for one big comeuppance. <Appeasement like in 1938 doesn’t work.> No, it doesn't. But what we are doing in Ukraine obviously isn't working either. Why not give diplomacy a chance? |
||||||||||
|
GM Um…. Ask Putin |
||||||||||
|
zorro |
||||||||||
|
Your Source is Corrupt Unlike Trump, who said he believes Putin over US intelligence agencies, I tend to believe Boris and Zelensky over the corrupt war criminal. sg.news.yahoo.com Robert Kennedy Jr. repeats the same lie, but that is the dead brain worm talking. www.independent.co.uk |
||||||||||
|
Negotiating With Terrorists “In the present circumstances, any attempts to pressure Ukraine into negotiating a compromise peace with Russia would have disastrous consequences for the future of international security. Unless Russia is decisively defeated, there is almost no chance of the Kremlin honoring any commitments made during negotiations.” Why is Russia at war with Ukraine? “The Russo-Ukrainian War is an ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, which began in February 2014. Following Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity, Russia occupied and annexed Crimea from Ukraine and supported pro-Russian separatists fighting the Ukrainian military in the Donbas war.” “The only war party is in Moscow,” Landsbergis added. “This is the party that attacked Georgia in 2008; this is the party that attacked Ukraine in 2014, and is currently waging a war against Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is our obligation to those who value freedom to fight this party and win this war,” he said. |
||||||||||
|
Peace in Our Time Quote from Quora We don’t know what a peace deal in the spring would’ve looked like but we can speculate. We know from Putins demands that the territory they wanted was the Donbas plus a couple other oblasts that side of the Dnipro. The Donbas by that point, especially the two cities were largely separatist due to population movements but Kharkiv, Sumy, Kherson, etc these were not and as such it’s likely that any peace deal would’ve involved surrendering the citizens of those places to a living hell that we can’t even imagine. That’s a peace deal that’s simply not tenable. If Boris did stop a “peace” deal as outlined then I say well done. Peace cannot be on Putin’s terms. It has to involve liberating the people of Ukraine from Russia. |
||||||||||
|
dmaestro 19-May-24, 14:54 |
|
||||||||||
|
GMF 4:46 & 5:50 Apologies for my impatience, and thank you for acknowledging that Russia is the invading force, not Ukraine. If that point is taken forward into the rest of the discussion, then that makes discussion of the rights or wrongs more realistic. Yet you failed to include large areas of Luhansk, Donets Zaporizhzhia and Kerson Oblasts as currently occupied by Russia. You consistently understate Russian aggression, and excuse it even when acknowledged. [< I never claimed that Russia was already in control of those two oblasts, only that it was in control of a large expanse of Ukrainian territory within those two oblasts.> I believe that you used the word "most."] Yes, I did say 'most' originally. That was incorrect in geographic terms but true in terms of population centres. <I called no party a warmonger.> I quote from your post 18 May 17:50 = " the two of them should have been left alone to continue their ongoing negotiations instead of the warmongers Boris Johnson and the Americans intervening" You HAVE called Boris Johnson and the Americans 'warmongers'. Yet neither of them has directly taken one Russian life in this war, nor destroyed one Russian building. Even Zelensky, the President of a country fighting for its continued existence, has done little damage to Russia, and most of that aimed at disrupting military logistics. Compare to Vladimir's actions in the Ukraine! You HAVE used the war 'warmonger', but towards the wrong party. <You are, of course, free to speculate as you wish, but you don't KNOW what Russia wanted.> You use this argument often. It's true in the philosophical sense that all knowledge is contingent, not certain; but you yourself seem willing to present your 'speculations' as if they are more persuasive than mine. Of course, you are free to do that. But most of us accept as fact rather than speculation that there are stars that we have never seen for ourselves, and that Napoleon existed, etc. The argument is about what is the more reasonable belief, not which is absolutely certain. So if you want to dismiss the opinions of others as ''speculation', then it is proper for you to present cogent reasons why your 'speculations' are more likely to be accurate. In that regard, and considering points you have dismissed as 'speculation', I suggest that had Putin offered terms that were acceptable to Ukraine, Ukraine would have accepted them. I have difficulty believing that Ukraine would deliberately reject terms and walk away from negotiations on acceptable terms, purely to provoke a powerful neighbour into attacking them. On the basis of Russia's actions in 2014, Zelensky would have been aware of the risk of a military response, so he knew that even a 'break-even' deal would have been wise. But he risked a massive military response instead. That can ONLY indicate that what Putin was demanding was so much worse than 'break-even' that it was worth that risk. Yet YOU 'speculate' that there would or could have been a satisfactory outcome if negotiations had continued. On what basis do you make that claim? And in doing so, what would you have considered a 'satisfactory' outcome, and on the basis of what evidence? Yes, let's put some of your 'speculations' under the microscope! Or we could do away with speculations on both sides, and deal only with actual events. The actual events are that Ukraine did NOT join NATO, did NOT have any Western military hardware on its soil, did NOT have any alliances with Western nations, and had NOT taken any action, military or economic, specifically aimed to harm the interests of the Russian Federation. Just as factual is that Russia attacked and occupied Ukrainian territory in 2014 and provided direct military assistance to rebels in Luhansk and Donets. So will we allow 'speculation' based on hard evidence and reason? Then Russia is in the wrong. Or will be stick to historical fact? In which case, Russia is in the wrong. I have no hatred towards Russia or Russians. It is my sincere wish that every Russian conscript will return home healthy and whole. There is only one man who currently can achieve that, and he has made it plain that he will not. His priorities lie elsewhere. |
||||||||||
|
dmaestro 19-May-24, 15:12 |
The decline we see was obvious as a concern even back in 1995. The end of the Cold War was a Pyrrhic victory we see in retrospect as the country just splintered. |
||||||||||
|
DM 15:12 I disagree. I see it as a victory that was thrown away through hubris, and an opportunity for good that was corrupted by self-interest. America came away smug and self-satisfied, thinking only that the world was now their oyster. In fact, the world was now their oyster farm, for them to care for. America thought to enjoy the fruits, when they should have concentrated on tending the orchard. They saw only short-term benefit instead of the chance for long-term peace. There were some positive movements. For example, at one time Russia was invited to join NATO to form a latter-day 'Concert of Europe' such as had brought peace after the Napoleonic Wars and endured in one form or another for a century. But the bigger vision was lost in the fog of short-term bickering. |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
GMF 14:55 American corporations in particular saw it as a chance to pick up the lion's share of Russian industry and resources in a fire sale environment. Putin, as Yeltsin's 'advisor', managed to set things up for his own benefit first. Russians themselves tended to divide between 'Slavophile' and 'Westernisers' as they have ever since Peter the Great, and the shadow of an American takeover was cunningly used by Putin and his allies to swing the day towards Slavophile. How workable it would have been to include Russia into NATO is also a big question. So long as America was involved, it's doubtful that the 'Concert of Europe' vision could have been achieved anyway. But perhaps an explicitly European pact might have replaced NATO, but would the rest of Europe have accepted that within the short time available before Rusia had to decide one way or the other? My guess is that we might have to wait another twenty years, when America's influence is much reduced and China represents a growing threat to the Russian Far East. Remember that until 1860 the entire Primorsky Krai was Chinese territory, and its annexation by Russia is still considered part of the 'century of humiliation' by China. |
||||||||||
|
Russia NATO Overture en.wikipedia.org. en.wikipedia.org |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
