Ukraine updates
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
- Status
So they will never stop fighting?
They refuse all peace talks and refuse to negotiate?
They are 100% against peace?
That's a hell of a stance for them to take.
So what is the minimum they need to stop fighting?
You already know they won't accept a neutrality promise from Ukraine, they've turned it down before.
Territory?
Control of Ukraine?
Tribute?
Or do you just think Russians are crazed, bloodthirsty orks who love war for its own sake?
Surely you think they have some kind of end game in mind?
Or is it that you're willing to fight to the last Russian to see NATO dismantled?
Your next two posts seem to argue that Putin will never accept anything where NATO stays intact and that China must force the dismantling of NATO for peace.
"Innocence" has nothing to do with it.
You need to get off your weird, cartoon view of international relations.
Putin did invade.
What you think of the morality of the country he invaded has little to do with it.
LOL!
Holy shit.
You wouldn't know objective if it bit you in the ass.
You can't even formulate a coherent argument about the war and Russia's aims.
Again, your weird compulsive need to have some kind of primary colour morality (just so you can reject it and claim that you are being cynical and objective in your harsh realpolitic understanding) is irrelevant to the issue of international relations and stability. You do need to address actual actions and behavior on the ground even if you want to pretend everyone is equally evil at all times and you are so above the free in how much you hate Russia and Ukraine.
Withdrawing means admitting defeat. That wont happen without a ceasefire and talks and compromise in some way shape or form that makes Putin look good.
That is the kind of argument that I am seeing here from you and others. Hence why I mentioned that.
That speaks to your lack of self awareness. As I have mentioned several times, I dont have dog in this fight. I neither care about the Russians nor about the Ukrainians. But, it is very much true that NATO was the primary cause for war. I am just objective in calling that. You and the others on the other hand, argue that I am some sort of a Putin supporter despite me saying that I am not. So just admit that you are fundamentally biased in your opinions about this.
And I have. I have talked at length about how the last 30 years of NATO actions have led up to this moment. On the other hand, while you run your mouth about addressing actual actions and behaviours on the ground and staying objective, you consistently display the opposite and use 2 primary reasonings for the war a) Apparently "unprovoked" Russian Aggression (s) leading to distrust between the west and Russia b) Russian ambitions to recreate some version of the USSR. In doing that you have automatically chosen to take moral high ground that does not exist.
Last edited:
It's a tricky bit of language and is there to kind of let everybody get what they want. The general structure of that language, especially the " oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others’ security" exists in the current security accords around Europe that Russia is a signatory to, and that language has always been incorporated into the "NATO is a threat so it can't have more people" language.
What is interesting in the China formulation is that it does NOT include the language that a country is allowed to choose its own security arrangements and alliances (with the understanding it shouldn't set up an arrangement specifically to be a threat to someone else).
That language isn't ANYWHERE in the document, which is kind of an interesting tell.
I don't think kreal is being delusional arguing that " prevent bloc confrontation " can be used to argue this is a discussion about dismantling NATO. That and the "cold war" reference feel like clear nods in that direction. Of course, it is kept all vague enough that it doesn't have to be interpreted that way depending on how negotiations go. (Kreal, since he is ideologically committed to the idea that NATO is Evil, will see not pursuing it to that conclusion is bad, but IR negotiations are complicated.)
On one level, this is just the same line that everyone has agreed to for the last 50 years or more - "we should all work together to not have a world war break out".
Like I said - it's all kind of vague and anodyne and safe as a general "can't we all just get along" principle.
The real meat would be in what commitment are made to support those goals.
No.
That would ruin his "NATO is Evil and everyone knows it" narrative and that isn't allowed.
"The Minsk Conundrum" was a real thing and a good example of what happens when you rush the cease fire because you're desperate for one and don't nail down details and interpretations.
Yes, because your brother is evil and you're just a corrupt renter in that house anyway and don't deserve to have a country.
There are no good guys, Pete.
No good guys.
This is why it is written the way it is, so that people can read into it what they want.
So either you are saying NATO was right to prepare defenses because they knew Putin wouldn't abide by the cease fire and would invade later or you are saying Putin is so easily manipulated by NATO that they have been ahead of him at every stage and it is just a matter of time before NATO is destroyed.
Interesting theory.
Wait.
Have you not ever been to the US?
There is a huge problem with White Supremacy and Neo-Nazi ideals in multiple levels of law enforcement and the military.
Did you mean to say NATO is destroyed in that last sentence?
Neither. I am saying NATO knew that this would lead to an invasion and purposefully did not do anything about it, so they can have their proxy war. They pushed this to go to war.
Russia's crimes against the Ukrainian residents of Bucha have come to light on the Anniversary of the Liberation of this city from Putin's aggressive war in Ukraine:
A year after Russia’s crimes in Bucha came to light, Ukraine marches toward justice for its civilians
www.theglobeandmail.com
Sad that we have some on this Board who are defending this Putin for his actions in Ukraine!!
A year after Russia’s crimes in Bucha came to light, Ukraine marches toward justice for its civilians
A year after Russia’s crimes in Bucha came to light, Ukraine marches toward justice for its civilians
Ukraine’s Prosecutor-General, Andrii Kostin, says he has evidence of 9,000 Russian war crimes committed in Bucha and the surrounding area, including 37 children killed during Russia’s 33-day occupation of the region
www.theglobeandmail.com
Sad that we have some on this Board who are defending this Putin for his actions in Ukraine!!
What happens when Russia tries to take on the US in a conventional war
How US Military SMOKED Russian Mercenaries...
Kreal, for your enjoyment and pleasure, just sit back, grab a Bud Light, and some popcorn, and enjoy
How US Military SMOKED Russian Mercenaries...
Kreal, for your enjoyment and pleasure, just sit back, grab a Bud Light, and some popcorn, and enjoy
To my knowledge the last war the U.S. fought that could
pass as a conventional war is Bush's Iraq invasion in
2003. Compared with Ukrainian soldiers fighting Putin
Bush's oil mercenaries were like sissies. I can't see how
the U.S. military could possibly find any birdbrained heroes
to volunteer fighting alongside Zelensky's men.
pass as a conventional war is Bush's Iraq invasion in
2003. Compared with Ukrainian soldiers fighting Putin
Bush's oil mercenaries were like sissies. I can't see how
the U.S. military could possibly find any birdbrained heroes
to volunteer fighting alongside Zelensky's men.
- Status
Similar threads
