Anti-NATO protests in Europe
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
what if it would not?
If you allow me to take your bicycle to avoid a fight, why would I not come next year to take your car and your wife? Why would I stop when you already proved that you are a coward? Once a bitch always a bitch
A ceasefire deal does not have to allow Putin to seize Ukraine's land.
I think it would benefit Zelensky more than Putin. Ukraine's army needs time
to regroup and NATO members also has to replenish their arsenals. Also
remember EU can keep up with the sanctions to weaken Russia's economy
after the war.
I noticed that Ukraine doesn't publish their numbers. I can understand it from a strategic pov but nonetheless I'd like to know. I get so many different 'estimates" that I don't know which is reasonably accurate.
Any suggestions on numbers or where to look?
As for teh Russian casualties. That is no measure of success simply because Putin, and Russia historically, places zero value on their citizens lives. Russian commanders have always referred to their soldiers as meat.
I've heard it said that Russia doesn't have citizens, it has a population. Putin will just keep sending meat until he runs out of ways to get them there. He'll even send them after he runs out of ammo.
What I have read is its about the same give or take a few. Obviously each side will overestimate the other, and underestimate their own, so not sure what to trust.
I'll explain it to you as if you were 5yo:
if I take your bicycle and you stop fighting for it - it is my bicycle now. Full stop.
I'll explain it to you like I do to someone with common sense.
Someone took your bicycle and I stopped you from fighting him
when the thief had just taken a good beating and you were about
to take back your bicycle then yes I did in a way allow that person
to take away your bicycle.
In a different scenario someone beat you up, took your bicycle
and then went on to seize your wallet and other belongings. He
was stopped and had to be content with stealing just one item
from you. You, having been saved from losing everything, could
now go back home. You can still recover your bicycle after you
recuperate.
On Wednesday the Chinese foreign ministry hit back, charging that Washington is "adding fuel to the fire" of the conflict by its "continuous supply" of weapons to the battlefield. Spokesman Wang Wenbin was asked directly about Kirby and Blinken's comments from the day prior.
"The US side claims that China's stance isn’t impartial. But is it impartial to continuously supply weapons to the battlefield? Is it impartial to constantly escalate the conflict? Is it impartial to allow the effects of the crisis to spill over globally?" Wang said.
"We advise the American side to rethink its own stance on the Ukraine issue, turn away from the erroneous path of adding fuel to the fire, and stop shifting the blame to China," he added. The spokesman further insisted Beijing has "no selfish motives on the Ukraine issue, has not stood idly by... or sought profit for itself," but that "what China has done boils down to one thing, that is, to promote peace talks."
He went on to assert that contrary to popular assumptions in the West, the global community stands by China on the side of diplomatically pursuing peace. According to a transcript:
To the surprise of many, Ukraine's President Zelensky on Tuesday invited China to start talks on a path forward based on offering a "Ukraine formula" for peace negotiations. It's unclear what Beijing's response will be, but it was widely seen as an unexpected and positive overture. It has also become clear that whatever peace talks might come to fruition involving China mediation, the US is not going to lead, but will likely be sidelined - despite the closeness to Kiev.
"The US side claims that China's stance isn’t impartial. But is it impartial to continuously supply weapons to the battlefield? Is it impartial to constantly escalate the conflict? Is it impartial to allow the effects of the crisis to spill over globally?" Wang said.
"We advise the American side to rethink its own stance on the Ukraine issue, turn away from the erroneous path of adding fuel to the fire, and stop shifting the blame to China," he added. The spokesman further insisted Beijing has "no selfish motives on the Ukraine issue, has not stood idly by... or sought profit for itself," but that "what China has done boils down to one thing, that is, to promote peace talks."
He went on to assert that contrary to popular assumptions in the West, the global community stands by China on the side of diplomatically pursuing peace. According to a transcript:
Wang spelled out that "We will continue to stand firm on the side of peace and dialogue and on the right side of history and work together with the rest of the world to play a constructive part in facilitating a political settlement of the Ukraine issue."
To the surprise of many, Ukraine's President Zelensky on Tuesday invited China to start talks on a path forward based on offering a "Ukraine formula" for peace negotiations. It's unclear what Beijing's response will be, but it was widely seen as an unexpected and positive overture. It has also become clear that whatever peace talks might come to fruition involving China mediation, the US is not going to lead, but will likely be sidelined - despite the closeness to Kiev.
"just one item" was annexed in 2014. It's called Crimea peninsula. Russia is way past that now.
Dan celebrating aggressive autocrats getting along while complaining about human rights. What a surprise.
"Nazi" just means "Enemy of Russia" in that rhetoric, though.
When Russia calls for regime change in Ukraine, it is because the Ukrainian government disagrees with Russia and is therefore a Nazi government.
Don't mistake it having anything to do with white nationalism or actual followers of some neo-Nazi tradition.
Like the rest of Europe, Ukraine has those elements, but that isn't what Russia is talking about here.
You have to remember that the people most calling for a cease fire now called for a cease fire earlier as well.
As soon as Russia had gained territory but weren't able to overthrow the regime, they started calling for a ceasefire to lock in the gains Russia made.
It's like tax cuts for the rich and the GOP - no matter what the situation on the ground is, the solution is the same.
Ceasefire is different from a treaty.
Ceasefire doesn't end the war. It puts things on pause for a bit.
Sometimes it has some "the war can end with these future next steps".
Any actual treaty or longer term solution will require security guarantees, and Russia has been quite clear it doesn't want those if they leave Ukraine the ability to make independent decisions.
Negotiations do not require a ceasefire. That's nonsense.
You may end up negotiating a ceasefire while other negotiations go on, but there is no rule that says "we can't negotiate until we have a ceasefire" unless one of the sides refuses to negotiate until there is a ceasefire.
I don't think that's true.
His position is "It is primarily due to NATO".
Ukraine wanting closer ties to the EU isn't something he talks about as a reason, because Ukraine has no independent agency and can't make decisions like "we should be more friendly to the EU" in his mind.
Now, in reality, Ukraine being more friendly with the EU and distancing itself from Russia is one of the reasons Russia invaded, but I don't think krealtron has actually leaned into that as part of his justification.
