Is the US involved and are they supporting the Indians?
That's how you determine the answer here.
Ukraine updates
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
- Status
That's how you determine the answer here.
My position then was anti-American foreign policy. My position today is anti-American foreign policy. The only consistent position is mine and for the right reasons. Reasons have been expanded on many times.
The US will never be involved in India, as the Indians, have a very intelligent foreign policy where they stay friendly with everybody but dont let anyone interfere. Which is exactly the kind of foreign policy Ukraine should have adopted. But alas.
Cool.
What replaces it?
Or do you honestly think there will be no alliances in a Post-NATO world?
It's 1991, the wall has fallen.
You dismantle NATO - what does Europe do for its security arrangements?
How is the non-NATO arrangement less of a threat to Russia?
Or, It's 2023 and you have a magic wand - NATO disbands.
What does Europe do for its security arrangements?
What alliances form and why?
You just said that NATO could choose not to accept new countries.
Russia could also have chosen to not invade. (And any number of other actions to convince countries that there was no need to join NATO.)
Russia could withdraw immediately and begin talks.
You have repeatedly said this is unreasonable.
Russia could declare a unilateral ceasefire and begin talks.
You have repeatedly said this is unreasonable.
Russia wants a specific geopolitical situation and intends to keep acting militarily until it gets it. (War is just a continuation of politics by other means.)
Until Russia decides that acting militarily isn't going to get it what it wants, it will act militarily.
Since you keep saying "give them what they want so they will stop acting militarily" people say you support the war.
After all, your argument is that Russia will use military force whenever it feels that is the best way to get what it wants and it is right and proper for it to do so.
Yes, your position that this has nothing to do with being anti-war and everything to do with wanting to bring down NATO has been made clear.
Yes, your position that military power in order to control and influence other countries is appropriate and the privilege of those countries who have sufficient military power.
Interfering in this through support for the weaker party is inappropriate and wrong.
It is far better for every country to stockpile weapons to a much higher degree and be prepared to wage war individually on multiple fronts.
The world will be much more peaceful if it is more military spending and more aggressive armies constantly ready for violence.
Or the world will be much more peaceful if more countries understand they are vassal states that Great Powers can and should have direct control over (punishable by military force if they resist).
Resistance must be crushed quickly and certainly - enforced by ethnic cleansing and the execution of the rebels "pour encourager les autres".
Last edited:
now imagine that Pakistan is 5 times bigger and stronger and has a history of annexing neighbours territory or entire countries. Not that easy to have a "very intelligent foreign policy" all of a sudden, eh?
And when Russia refuses to accept any of this, what is your view on what should happen?
The only one of these things Russia is ok with is the second.
Russia has expressed repeatedly that they don't want to accept any of the rest.
So how are you going to convince Russia to accept this limitation on their desires?
Remember that you also are opposed to military support for Ukraine so Russia can accept these limitations you want them to accept out of the goodness of their hearts, or they can take the rest of Ukraine and not have to settle for any of this.
Russia doesn't give back the Donbas.
Russia keeps Crimea.
Ukraine isn't military neutral, it is part of Russia or Ukraine is a member of CSTO and hosts Russian troops to act as a buffer state against NATO.
That's a much better deal for Russia, so how are you going to convince them to give that up?
Putin cannot give back Donbas and stay in power. Simple as that. If Russia loses Donbas Putin loses his throne and likely his life or at least freedom. So there goes that brilliant idea.
well, I see that modern medicine cannot help here. Best of luck on your anti-NATO quest.
Don't forget to pay your Canadian taxes which hopefully will help killing Russian occupants
You are making a circular never ending argument with "What if Russia does not...".
That is why it is a negotiation not a give Russia what it wants initiative. How a negotiation turns out is still up in the air, but it needs to be the primary focus. No one said it was going to be easy.
The other alternative is protracted war, millions of people dead, the country decimated for decades. And what is your end game anyway? What do you foresee will happen if the war continues? It just brings you closer and closer to WW 3 nuclear holocaust.
It is also in Russia's best interests to end the war given the amount of losses they have suffered.
Absolute worst case (not that I agree with this, but WORST CASE), give Donbas and Crimea to Russia. End the war. And make Ukraine "western oriented" but not part of NATO (like Mexico). The war ending needs to be the focus. SO.FUCKING.WHAT if Ukraine loses areas that are already pro-Russian anyway? The average Ukrainian can move on and rebuild instead of having their lives uppended for decades. It is not the first time war has resulted in territorial changes.
Last edited:
Trump has no idea what happened. He just wants to take a shot a Biden and suggest that he's corrupt and dishonourable, while at the same time sucking Putin's dick, Trump's favourite yummy treat.
Trump is senile and has the IQ of a turnip.
Because if war fatigue hasn't set in, no one respects the negotiated solution.
You should know this - you have railed against how Minsk was a set up before, if I recall.
If Russia isn't tired of fighting and still thinks it can get a better deal by fighting, it will keep fighting.
It isn't fighting for shits and giggles.
It invaded because it thought it could get stuff it wanted by invading.
It keeps fighting because it thinks it can get what it wants by fighting.
Until it no longer believes that, it isn't going to stop.
This is why the negotiations haven't gone anywhere so far. No one has offered something that the two sides think is the best they are going to get instead of fighting.
I know you have a "perfectly reasonable solution" in your head that seems obvious to you.
Until Russia and Ukraine agree with you, that's not going to happen.
(And the final negotiated settlement may look nothing like what you want it to be since when they do finally decide they don't want to fight anymore, they may not agree on what their best possible deal is.)
The invasion was the justification Ukraine needs to join NATO.
Russia already provided that justification.
NATO may not accept them due to facts on the ground, but invasion is kind of a big escalation and it already happened.
Last edited:
That doesn't count for.... reasons.
It's not like it was a signed, negotiated document or anything... Oh wait.
To be fair, the actual argument made by Russia is that since the government was overthrown in a coup, the agreement Russia made with the former government about security guarantees and respecting Ukrainian sovereignty was no longer valid or binding since that government and that version of Ukraine no longer exists.
That's true, it was in a signed, negotiated document and everything ... Oh wait.
Well, that's ok. It isn't like anyone would ever argue that an agreement made to a country that no longer exists isn't binding or anything.
I dont disagree with this. But we need to be pushing for it rather than sitting on our asses and funding a war is what I am trying to say.
- Status
